<div dir="ltr">Dear Ilja,<div><br></div><div style>Coptic has a case-marking split for lexical NPs and bound person markers for the nominative: only lexical NPs (and only postverbal ones) can bear nominative marking. Nominative marking in this language seems to be associated with high-accessibility lexical NPs, in the sense articulated by Mira Ariel. </div><div style><br></div><div style>Giorgio Iemmolo and I have been working on this for a while, and we think that it has to do with a mismatch between grammatical roles (A/S) and expected information structural properties - one would expect that A/S would be highly accessible, and lexical NPs tend to code low accessibility referents. Unexpected mismatches tend to be overtly coded.</div><div style><br></div><div style>The latest version of our work on this, but not the final version, can be found here: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/6001487/Case_in_Coptic_whats_coded">https://www.academia.edu/6001487/Case_in_Coptic_whats_coded</a></div><div style><br></div><div style>Best,</div><div style>Eitan</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Eitan Grossman<div>Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences<br></div><div>Hebrew University of Jerusalem</div><div>Tel: +972 2 588 3809</div><div>Fax: +972 2 588 1224</div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:15 PM, <a href="mailto:ilja.serzants@uni-konstanz.de">ilja.serzants@uni-konstanz.de</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ilja.serzants@uni-konstanz.de" target="_blank">ilja.serzants@uni-konstanz.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I am interested in splits between nouns and pronouns as regards
case-marking of A, S, P (in Lazard's terms). <br>
<br>
While various (morpho)syntactic splits between nouns and pronouns
are well-known, I am looking for discussions in the literature about
why the morphological form of the pronouns in the
nominative/absolutive or ergative case is often so different (in
terms of its phonological realization) <br>
<br>
(1) from other cases of the pronominal paradigm, cf. Latin NOM <i>ego
</i>'I' <i>vs. </i>ACC <i>me, </i>DAT<i> mihi, </i>GEN<i> mei </i>(the
oblique cases have at least the first<i> m- </i>in common) and <br>
<br>
(2) from the same cases in the paradigm of nouns, cf.<i> Latin </i><i>ego
</i>'I.NOM'<i> </i>vs. <i>lup-us 'wolf-</i><a href="http://NOM.SG" target="_blank">NOM.SG</a><i>' </i>(in
Latin nouns must have a non-zero nominative affix whereas pronouns
always employ suppletion here). <br>
<br>
It seems that Indo-European lgs. are by far not the only ones that
have this sort of "morphological splits". <br>
<br>
I would primarily appreciate references to functional accounts (both
language-specific and cross-linguistic) but any diachronic
references (to the exclusion of Proto-Indo-European) would also be
of great help.<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Ilja Ser
<span lang="DE">ž</span>
ant<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Ilja A. Seržant, postdoc
University of Konstanz
Department of Linguistics
Zukunftskolleg, Box 216
D-78457 KONSTANZ
URL: <a href="http://www.uni-konstanz.de/serzants/" target="_blank">http://www.uni-konstanz.de/serzants/</a>
Tel.: <a href="tel:%2B49%20753%20188%205672" value="+497531885672" target="_blank">+49 753 188 5672</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>