<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000099" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">Dear Bernhard, dear Frans, dear Caspar,
dear others,<br>
MANY thanks for all the very helpful indications! Let me briefly
comment upon the given data:<br>
<br>
The fact that in Hungarian<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[t]here is agreement only with demonstratives,
not with attributive
<br>
adjectives, as with cases, and some sources say that the agreement of
<br>
demonstratives with postpositions is optional [Bernhard]<br>
</blockquote>
in fact supports my assumption that doubled prepositions in NPs are
only possible if both segments marked by pre/postpositions are overtly
or covertly referential in nature. The same seems to hold for those
cases Caspar has quoted, especially: <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">Piros-at
kettö-t vett Mari cipö-t.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">red-ACC two-ACC
bought Mary shoe-ACC</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">'Mary bought
two red shoes.'</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS"> </font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">Mari kettö
piros cipö-t vett.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">Mary two
red shoe-ACC bought </font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">'Mary bought
two red shoes.'</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial Unicode MS">In my interpretation, the first example
would (diachronically) read: 'Red (ones), two (*ones) - bought Mary
shoes' (ins't this a focus construction, by the way?). I havn't yet
checked all the references that Frans has mentioned, nevertheless they
seem to confirm that doubled pre/postpositions normally occur only if
the qualifying element has acquired referential properties (adnominal
> nominal). This assumption explains for instance the following pair
in Udi (East Caucasian) - confirmed by informants:<br>
<br>
(1) sa kol-l-a qosh k'ic'k'-ot'-un
qosh<br>
one bush-SA-GEN behind small-REF:OBL-GEN behind<br>
'Behind a small bush' (recte: Behind a bush, behind a small one')<br>
<br>
vs.<br>
<br>
(2) sa k'ic'k'e kol-l-a qosh [group inflection]<br>
one small bush-SA-GEN behind<br>
'Behind a small bush'<br>
<br>
(3) *sa k'ic'k'e qosh kolla qosh<br>
<br>
In (1) the qualifying segment k'ic'k'e 'small' is clearly marked for a
morpheme (-ot'-) that signals referentiality (here in the oblique
case). Consequently, the Udi referents in (1) stand in an appositional
relation. Personally, I strongly believe that the same holds for the
grammaticalization background of a number of patterns that involve
'case agreement', e.g. Latin amic-a bon-a etc., especially if the (case
marked) attribute (or: adnominal) can be used referentially, e.g.
bon-am video 'I see the good one'. Another good example is Classical
Arabic showing 'article agreement' + 'case agreement', e.g.
ar-ra(d)zhul-u l-kabi:r-u 'the tall man' (< *the man, the tall
one'). Here, the article added to kabi:r- clearly indicates that the
term has referential properties, at least from a diachronic
perspective. Nothing new - I guess....<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut fuer Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 Muenchen
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180-2486 (Sekr.)
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office)
Fax : ++49-(0)89-2180-5345
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de">W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ats.lmu.de./index.php">http://www.ats.lmu.de./index.php</a></pre>
</body>
</html>