The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

48
(13) Internal argument-taking hitpa’el verbs: hit’anyen be- ([was] ‘interested in’),
hitkaša be- ([had] ‘difficulties with’), hitbayeš be- ([was] ‘ashamed of’), histapek be-
([was] ‘satisfied with’), hitxaret al (‘regretted’), hit’abel al (‘mourned’), hit’akeš al
(‘insisted on’), hištatef be- (‘took part in’), hitmaked/hitrakez be- (‘focused on’),
hit’asek be- ([was] ‘engaged in’), hitbayet al (‘locked on’).
The set of PP-verbs exemplified above (7)-(13) is difficult to define. In my
investigation of the properties of PP-verbs (see (14) below), I have examined their
behavior with regard to criteria such as membership in the aspectual categories,
checking both the classical four-ways classification into states, activities,
achievements and accomplishments (Vendler 1967, Dowty 1979), and the two-way
classification into states and events (Hinrichs 1985); the ability to undergo
passivization; the number and the nature of the related nominalizations; the nature of
the external theta-role regarding causality (i.e. Agent/Cause vs. Experiencer/Theme),
and regarding the [human] feature (i.e. Agent/Experiencer vs. Cause/Theme); the
ability of the verb to appear in additional verbal templates, inspired by Doron (2003).
Although the attempt to define the set of the PP-verbs on the basis of these
criteria does not result in a clear picture, it does show some rather clear tendencies,
some of which are presented in (14). The full list of PP-verbs and their behavior
regarding each of the criteria appears in Appendix B (Tables 1, 2).
(14) Some of the findings
a. 70% of the PP-verbs are isolated roots (appear in one verbal template only).
b. 20% have Passive (e.g. tamax/nitmax (‘supported’); bagad/nivgad
(‘betrayed’)).
c. 78% have a single nominal (e.g. bagad - bgida (‘betrayed’ – ‘betrayal’);
ba’at- be’ita (‘kicked’ – ‘a kick’)).
d. 11% have no nominal at all (e.g. samax (‘relied’)).
e. 50% have no event nominal (e.g. be’ita (‘a kick’), xašad (‘suspicion’)).
It is important to note, that for a list of randomly picked 30 Accusative
assigning verbs (Appendix B, Table 3), none of the above tendencies are attested.