Another Look At Multi-Verb Constructions In Khmer

Another look at multi-verb constructions in Khmer
Stephen Self GIAL

1 Introduction
Khmer makes routine, productive use of multi-verb concatenations every bit as complex as the better-known and better-studied examples from Thai (Diller 2006:160). In some cases, they may involve as many as ten discrete verb forms in a row, construed with the same or different subjects (1). a. kee hiən dɔl təwcoul mo:k bɔmphlaɲ ʔaoj chap ɔh junhoh they dare arrive go enter come destroy cause quick exhaust airplane jəːŋ we ‘They dared to arrive, enter, and quickly destroy all our airplanes.’

(1)

1

2

Another look at multi-verb constructions in Khmer

b. ruɲ tieɲ krɔveeŋ krɔvot viej vot rot riej ʔaoj roliej pii lɨɨ push pull try.hard tie.up hit lash spread scatter give melt from on.abovephaɛndɛj earth ‘Push [them], pull [them], jerk [them] back and forth, so [they] will disappear from the face of the earth.’ (Ehrman & Sos 1972:25) However, detailed treatments of the Khmer multi-verb behavior in the linguistic literature remain few. The two notable exceptions, Sak-Humphry (2005) and Supriya (1995),1 both analyze more constrained multi-verb structures than those in (1) from withinthe framework of Starosta’s (1988) Lexicase Dependency Grammar, which treats verbs that cannot take express subjects as necessarily non-finite. The kinds of multi-verb constructions in question seem, at first glance, to coincide well with the several general functions of serial verb constructions (hereafter: SVCs) outlined in Kroeger (2004:227-229).2 Multi-verb structures in Khmer may serve toindicate: instrument (2a),3 beneficiary (2b), goal of motion (2c), result of action (2d), purpose (2e), manner (2f), causation (2g), and permission (2h).
Though Haiman (2011) is by far the most recent critical treatment of Khmer grammar in the literature, his work is not enormously helpful on the subject of SVCs. His use of the term “serial verb” does not seem to coincide well with the notion known tothe discussions in such analyses as Baker (1989), Durie (1997), Foley & Olson (1985), and Kroeger (2004). Perhaps a lack of precision in the use of this terminology stems from a dubious attitude on his part as to the classifiability of such structures. Haiman (2011:280) writes tellingly: “In fact, the suspicion that all of the present taxonomy of AV [auxiliary verb], MV [main verb], and SV[serial verb] is an extended example of ethnocentric grammatical pedantry is a salutary one...” 2 Durie (1997) provides a similar breakdown of SVCs according to function, q.v. 3 As Schiller (1989:411) notes, canonical SVC languages like Thai and Sranan lack appropriate prepositional resources to handle instrumental constructions via any means other than SVCs. Khmer, on the other hand, represents “amixed system,” with prepositions that may serve to mark instruments but requiring multi-verb constructions for other types of “semantic case relations.” Thus, an alternative version of (2a) is expressed in (i).
1

(i)

Sokh kaːt sac nɯŋ kɒmbət Sokh cut meat with knife ‘Sokh cuts the meat with a knife.’ (Schiller 1989:411)

Introduction

3

(2)

a. Sokh jɔːk kɒmbət kaːt sac Sokh takeknife cut meat ‘Sokh cut the meat with a knife.’ b. kɲom tɨɲ siəwphəw ʔaoj biːl 1.sg buy book give Bill ‘I bought a book for Bill.’ (Spruiell 1988:252) c. kɲom caol baːl təw laːn 1.sg throw ball go car ‘I throw the ball at the car.’ (Spruiell 1988:252) d. kɲom viej ckaɛ slap 1.sg beat dog die ‘I struck the dog dead.’ (Mikami 1981:110) e. koət təw Waikiki roəm ciəmuəj jəːŋ 3.sg go Waikiki dance with1PL ‘He goes to Waikiki to dance with us.’ (Sak-Humphry 2005:181) f. (viə baːn mɔːk) lauːp sədap (nɨw kraːom phteəh) (3.sg pst come) sneak listen (be.at beneath house) ‘(He came and) listened secretly (from beneath the house).’ (Haiman 2011:217) g. kɲom baɲciːə mora ʔaoj mɤːl siəwphəw 1.sg order Mora give read book ‘I ordered Mora to read the book.’ (Meyer 1992:36) h. kɲom ʔaoj mora mɤːl siəwphəw...