Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 94. kötet (1994-1995)

Kisebb közlemények - Sherwood, Peter: Ob-Ugrian ’consume’ 119

120 PETER SHERWOOD verb. This work treats mainly the passive forms of our verb in the framework of functional or case grammar, though some comparisons with the active forms are also made. The following points appear to be relevant to our discussion: 1. Our verb is very fréquent in both languages when suffixed for the passive and meaning 'eat'. In her corpus (which consists of every recorded Ob-Ugrian sentence containing a verb in the passive) it occurs with an Animate Agent more than 70 times and without an Animate Agent more than 30 times (Kulonen 1989. 76, 79, 90, 96). 2. Our verb is fairly common in both languages when suffixed for the passive and meaning 'burn, be burned/burnt'. In'her corpus it occurs mainly with a Force Agent (more than 20 occurrences, Kulonen 1989. 125, 129); she gives only four Vogul (and no Ostyák) sentences without a (Force) Agent, hinting, for one example at least, that it has been ellipted (Kulonen 1989. 118). 3. She implicitly ascribes primacy to the meaning 'eat' and claims that the meaning 'burn, be burned/burnt' is a "metaphoric function"; she also says that one of the (Force) Agents is "also used metaphorically", and that the "original [se. Vogul?] verb 'burn'" is paît- (Kulonen 1989. 126, 129; cf. also for pâlt- 99). From our point of view, the factual statements in 1. and 2. above reinforce the dictionary information. However, the claims in 3. can be challenged. First, it is not obvious that the meaning 'burn' is metaphorical; or, at least, ifit is, this is not a distinctively Ob-Ugrian metaphor and has no explanatory value. English 'consume', for example, has a semantic range similar to our verb; many languages hâve 'tongues' of flame as well as anatomical ones, etc. Secondly, it may well be that one of the (Force) Agents is "also used metaphorically" (nâj is both 'fire' and 'princess', cf. WW 324a), but such euphemistic/taboo usage is occasional, with many other ordinary words for 'fire' also being employed. The statement thus lacks any explanatory value. Thirdly, it is unlikely that there is a single "original" (Ob-Ugrian? Vogul?) verb for 'burn' (several Vogul and Ostyak verbs meaning only 'burn' are given below). In any case, Vogul pält- means 'make a fire, heat something, throw something in/on the fire' (WW 409a; the interprétation of this verb on WV IV: 266 should also be seen in this light, Kulonen 1989. 99). Without questioning the enormous usefulness of Kulonen's taxonomy and the overall value of the storehouse of information she provides in her book, it is fair to say that, at the micro-level of this particular verb, the discussion of its two main sensés is not satisfactory. And, as with the dictionaries, at least on sensé found in the dictionaries' illustrative sentences is not dealt with: 'ache, be in pain'. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 94. 1994-1995.