Can 'yod' be a light verb?

[samyorode]

In Mila 11a there are examples of 'yod' that seem to be light verb or aux constructions:

1. zhal chems kyi yi ge rgyus yod pa "[they] had knowledge of/knew (tib. rgyus yod) the written testament." From the Tibetan perspective: zhal chems kyi yi ge arg2 rgyus arg1 yod pa Vn "knowledge (arg1) of the testament (arg2) exists (Vn) [with the people] (obl, missing)".

2. zhal chems gsungs pa rgyus yod kyi mi bgres pa "the old people who had knowledge of the testament that was spoken." Tibetan: zhal chems (arg2) gsungs pa rgyus (arg1) yod (V) kyi mi bgres pa (obl, preceded with Gen. kyi and therefore missing la?) "knowledge (arg1) of the testament (arg2) exists (V) with the old people."

Usually 'yod' should be a 1 place verb (as existential verb: "something exists"), right? Or can 'yod' be a light verb requiring 2 arguments? Another example from rGyal rab gsal ba'i me long clarifies the missing obl from (1): tsan dan sbrul gyi snying po (arg2) nga la (obl.) rgyus (arg1) yod pas (Vn) "because I have knowledge of/know the tsan dan sbrul gyi snying po [wood]", literally: because knowledge of the ... wood exists with me.

This shows that there are two "senses" of 'yod': 1. yod "to exist" requiring 1 argument, and 2. yod as light verb or aux requiring 2 arguments. Is that a possible approach to the yod dilemma? Regarding the last example from rGyal rab gsal ba'i me long one could also argue that 'yod' is still a 1 place existential verb with 2 obl with the first ... snying po missing the la marker?!

[heacu]

Since all three examples given above have a potential arg2 without case marking, I'd suggest not opting for the obl analysis unless there is really strong evidence for a missing la. I think your light verb analysis is preferable. So yod has two senses.

[heacu]

See https://tibetan-nlp.github.io/lim-annodoc/#special-cases

[heacu]

If we are considering these light verb constructions, then it now follows that we need a new relation arg1:lvc to label nouns like rgyus.