adverbial phrases

[Daniel]

It's hard to tell. Is "be.PAST act.PAST" a sequence that marks past tense (periphrastic tense), or is that a sequence of two separate predicates (complementation/subordination)?

[mallu]

It's hard to tell. Is "be.PAST act.PAST" a sequence that marks past tense (periphrastic tense), or is that a sequence of two separate predicates (complementation/subordination)?

This exactly is my question,could this be considered as a serial verb construction or is this involves subordination

*One problem in considering this as serial verb is that the first verb donot show change in tense with the second one

for example
avan.        rajaavu     aayi                                      abhinayichchu
He             king       adv particle/copula  Past        act(play the role of) Past 

He played the role of the king
avan         rajaavu      aayi                                  abhinayikkum
he             king        adv. particle/copla.Past         act(play the role of) future
The tense marking in the verbs are different,then it is not a serial verb construction?Isn't it

[Daniel]

"Serial verb construction" is inconsistently defined in the literature. Sometimes it requires equivalent marking, other times not.

Why is this any different from the English progressive? Start by asking that.

[mallu]

"Serial verb construction" is inconsistently defined in the literature. Sometimes it requires equivalent marking, other times not.

Why is this any different from the English progressive? Start by asking that.

I dont see any reason for such a comparison.Can you tell me how such a comparison be made? None of the verbs can be an auxiliary like  English"is"as both the verb could be used as a regular verb in isolation.

[Daniel]

It looks to me like the verb 'be' might be an auxiliary as in English progressive or passive constructions.

[mallu]

Dear djr
Let me have a closer look into it before posting my next comment.By the way any reading suggestion?

[Daniel]

Hmm... I can't think of anything specific, but this topic has been discussed a lot.

In English, 'be' is considered an auxiliary verb with a main verb also in the same clause. But a verb like 'want' is considered to take a clausal complement:

'I am singing' = one clause
'I want [to sing]' = one clause embedded inside another

(I think this is an interesting question and there may be reasons to question that, but I believe it's a popular perspective.)