Detail #94: Onwards with definite and indefinite verbs

In November 2012 I posted this rather short idea:

Verbs come in two main forms, sometimes differentiated by suppletion, mostly by some simple but not entirely predictable morphology. (Probably such that dialects differ greatly in which affix which verb takes).

Indefinite verbs are more coarse-grained as well dividing semantic space generally into fewer slices, and may be less permissive in whether they accept direct objects at all.

Definite verbs, however, do not permit topicalization of objects, except through passivization. Passivization of a definite verb does not demote the subject to oblique, but both the subject and object of the finite active verb behave as independent subjects of the finite passive verb. Passives do not have congruence.


Other unrelated idea:
Have a few verbs require the object to be the topic.

This idea, I feel, could be used as a kernel for a larger set of ideas. It might also be interesting to see how I'd take a small idea such as that given in the quoted post and expand it into a fuller idea. We find a set of features proposed in the post: topics, two-subject passives, and since it's specifically mentioned that passives do not have congruence, we can assume active verbs do have it. Indefinite verbs seem more likely in general to be intransitive, and somehow, having them have just generally less clear aspect - less telic, less punctual, less perfect, less past and so on could make sense. More 'impressionistic', if we're to be somewhat poetic about it.

So, i.e.
þef - to be shopping, to be buying stuff, to be selling, to be engaged in commerce, to haggle
enðif - to buy
abenðifþif - to repeatedly buy
tuŋaðif - to buy or sell at loss
ćukþif - to sell ("buy out")
kxeṃþef - to sell inferior wares or to conduct unethical business practices
irtuvif - to be very stingy in selling
irteðif - to be very stingy in buying

The prefixes can be grouped into sets, one somewhat arbitrary division given below:

directional prefixes
object type prefixes
object type + reflexive beneficiary?
object type + external beneficiary?
object type + version
time structure prefixes
other transitivity-affecting prefixes

Let's not get too big a system - huge tables of prefixes make no one happy.