C.R. Selvakumar selvakum at VALLUVAR.UWATERLOO.CA
Wed Jul 8 20:41:25 UTC 1998


*Your posting did reach the list, and did reach me, but as I have a job =
*which costs me five hours a day travelling, I'm often in a hurry when I =
*read the discussions of the list. So, apologize if I failed to answer =
*you. Your suggestion of passiveII sounds good. Maybe it depends on the =
*kind of verb you use, but as to the occurrence of the characteristic, =
*this makes no difference. Thus, looking at your sentence PassiveII, I'm =
*inclined to say that IO to SU is possible in Tamil, and the same will =
*probably be true for Kannada.

     Thanks so much for clarifying. No, there is absolutely no need to
     apologize. I'm truly sorry my words elicited such a response.
     I was just curious to know whether there was something
     patently wrong in my examples or understanding.

*As you can read in my answer-posting to Eliot Stern, I also started to =
*doubt the IO to SU `business' in Sanskrit. In that language it looks as =
*if IO to SU is not possible at all, except for one exception (at least). =
*This makes the following statement untrue:
*> *Languages which do not allow movement/raising of IO to SU are IE =
*Hindi, =3D
*> German, Dutch and non-IE Tamil, Kannada.
*Now it should be
*Languages which do not allow movement/raising of IO to SU are IE Hindi, =
*German, Dutch?, and Sanskrit. Languages which do so are non-IE Tamil, =
*Kannada?, and Japanese. So far, the only exception to IE is English.
*Everybody happy now?

     I'm. Thanks :-)

*Sandra van der Geer
*Leiden, NL
*info at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list