<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16945" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>Dear all, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3> Although the discussion on
Wolfgang's comment about <EM>mit</EM> has already been summarized twice, I'd
like to adduce some observations. Unlike some of the participants in this forum,
I 'd suggest <EM>mit</EM> and the corresponding tools in this use are indeed
topic markers rather than adpositions (cf., if I may, Section 2.4.2.5, on this
very matter, in <EM>Adpositions</EM>, to be published by Oxford University Press
in the beginning of 2010). Let us look again at some of the examples
mentioned:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Job. 12:2 אָמְנָם כִּי אַתֶּם־עָם וְעִמָּכֶם תָּמוּת
חָכְמָה׃<BR>> LXX: εἶτα ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἄνθρωποι ἦ μεθ' ὑμῶν τελευτήσει
σοφία<BR>> Vulgate: ergo vos estis soli homines et vobiscum morietur
sapientia<BR>> Luther: Ja, ihr seid die Leute, mit euch wird die Weisheit
sterben!<BR>> King James: No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall
die with you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>What do we notice? In none of the examples
given so far does the word equivalent to <EM>mit</EM> have a comitative
meaning. Furthermore, <EM>'imakhem</EM>, μεθ' ὑμῶν , <EM>vobiscum</EM>,
<EM>mit euch</EM> all follow a coordinator-marked or a pause-marked (comma
in the written form) part of the sentence. Similarly, <EM>v ego lice</EM>,
<EM>avec</EM>, <EM>con</EM>, etc. are either at the beginning or at the end of
the sentence where they appear. These are characteristics of topic-markers.
True, problems are raised by such word-orders as that found in <EM>Uns verliess
<STRONG>mit Paul</STRONG> ein guter Freund</EM>, or Icelandic <EM>Við höfum
<STRONG>með Evu</STRONG> misst sanna vinkonu</EM>, in both of which the position
of the <EM>mit-/</EM> <EM>með </EM>-marked NP is not, it seems, that
of a topic. But should'nt we stop shying away from intonation studies? It is
worth examining carefully, with informants, whether the NP introduced by
<EM>mit</EM> or <EM>með </EM>in these examples has the same intonational
contour as ordinary adverbial complements, like comitative ones? Thus, as a
(provisory) conclusion, I would say that we should test the hypothesis that
<EM>mit</EM> and corresponding words in the other languages mentioned are
topic-markers. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>Best </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=3> Claude</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>