§1. For pragmatic purpose,
verbs in Tibetan may be classified into (a) copular-or-auxiliary and (b) main
verbs. (a) With copular verb, I am thinking of mainly yin pa (sein or
“to be”) and its various forms (particularly in modern Tibetan) and
(arguably) yod pa (dasein or “to be there”). §2.
The distinction between copular and auxiliary verbs does not lie in
the nature of the verbs but in their function in
a sentence. Note the difference: “He is a shoe-maker.”
“He is making shoes.” §3. I personally find useful to
speak of verbs such as gcod pa (“to cut”), na ba (“to
be sick”), ’gro ba (“to go”), and so on, as main verbs. §4.
One of greatest challenges in learning Tibetan seems to be to be able to
clearly distinguish between these four categories of verbs and to determine
their relationship and usage. Thus, the topic of the four-category of Tibetan
main verbs is a “hard nut to crack” and a “difficult issue” (dka’ ba’i
gnas/gnad or dka’ gnas/gnad). A
nuanced understanding of this category of verbs and their usage seems
utterly important. §5. Transitive (bya byed tha dad pa) are main
verbs that require a direct or accusative object. The direct object in Tibetan
is usually not required to to be marked with an accusative marker. E.g. za
ma bza’ ba “to eat food” or skar ma mthong ba “to see
stars.” However, compare verbs such as ’gro ba, e.g. shar
phyogs su ’gro. In fact this is one of the few examples of the use of main
verbs with an accusative particle. Some artificial Tibetan translation
from the Sanskrit may have accusative particles where they are
actually not necessary. This, however, is not natural to Tibetan language. In
German accusative is clearly marked, e.g. “Ich habe ihn gesehen.”
In English it is often or less conspicuous, e.g. “I saw him.”
This is because him can also be an indirect or dative object,
e.g. “I gave him a book.” §6. Intransitive (bya byed
tha mi dad pa) verbs are main verbs that do not require a direct or
accusative object, e.g. ’chi ba “to die” or skye
ba “to be born.” These ought to be clearly distinguished from gsod
pa “to kill” and skyed pa “to generate/produce.” §7.
Transitivity of a verb is said to determine the ergativity of the subject. We
shall have to see if this rule holds. §8. Transitive verbs are more
complex in their graphic/character representations. Compare bsgrubs (transitive)
and grub (intransitive). §9. Knowing the classification of main verbs
into autonomous and heteronomous is crucial.
Autonomous and heteronomous verbs are aptly
called rang dbang can gyi bya tshig and gzhan dbang
can gyi bya tshig, respectively, by sKal-bzang-’gyur-med (Rab
gsal me long, pp. 365, 368). Those main verbs in Tibetan, be they
transitive or intransitive, that express volitional actions are
called autonomous verbs, and hence can be described as “verbs of
volitional actions” (Handlungsverben). Those main verbs in Tibetan, be
they transitive or intransitive, that express
(non-volitional) occurrence are called heteronomous verbs,
and hence can be described as “verbs of happenings” (Geschehensverben). §10.
Tibetan grammarians do not necessarily consider autonomous and heteronomous
verbs to be contradictory insofar as a causal relationship is possible
between the latter and the former. If one “kills” a person, he or she would
“die.” If one “looks,” one may “see” (mthong). If one “goes,” one will “arrive.”
§11. Only autonomous verbs have imperative forms, e.g. song zhig “Go!”
It makes no sense to give orders to persons who have no autonomy to act.
Both autonomous and heteronomous verbs can be construed in the optative.
One can wish that something be done or takes place. E.g. ma na bar gyur
cig “May [you] not be sick!” §11. The relationships
between transitive, intransitive, autonomous, and heteronomous is
important. §12. All transitive verbs are
autonomous verbs except verbs of perception. For example, mthong
ba “to see” is a transitive verb because it requires a direct or
accusative object, but it is heteronomous because a person has
no autonomy over whether he or she sees something or not. He/she may
“look” (lta) but may not “see” (mthong), or, he/she may “see”
something even without “looking” at it. §13. All intransitive verbs
are heteronomous verbs except verbs of movement. For
example, ’gro ba “to go” is intransitive because it requires
no direct object, but it is autonomous because a person
has autonomy over the act of going. According to
Tibetan grammarians, the object of going is the goer himself or herself,
and so it is intransitive. §14. Most (if not all) those verbs that
function as modal verbs seem to be intransitive-cum-heteronomous verbs. §15.
In modern Tibetan heteronomous verbs can never be construed from a personal
standpoint/perspective. An event or occurrence over which one has
no autonomy can never be personal or subjective, even when one experiences
it oneself directly. It is only and always impersonal and objective,
e.g. na ba “to be sick.”
No comments:
Post a Comment