<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
Syriac (Northwest Semitic, Aramaic) has an agentive nominal pattern distinct from the participle: qātolā for the basic verbal stem, and participle + -ānā (f. -ānitā) for all other verbal stems: <i>pāroqā</i> ‘redeemer’, <i>manhrānā</i> ‘enlightener’ (from the
causative stem of 'to light’). The suffix is a nominal derivational morpheme in other languages but not necessarily an agentive one.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Na’ama</div>
<div><br>
<div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">_______________________________<br>
Na'ama Pat-El<br>
Department of Middle Eastern Studies<br>
The University of Texas at Austin<br>
204 W 21st St., F9400<br>
Austin, TX 78712-0527<br>
<br>
<a href="http://utexas.academia.edu/NaamaPatEl">http://utexas.academia.edu/NaamaPatEl</a></span>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Jan 6, 2016, at 8:58 , <<a href="mailto:giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it">giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it</a>> <<a href="mailto:giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it">giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<br>
As a follow-up to professor Simone's message, I may add that the augmentative suffix -one is also used as an agent nominaliser:<br>
<br>
mangiare 'to eat' > mangione 'hearty eater'<br>
scroccare 'to scrounge' > scroccone 'scrounger, moocher'<br>
bere 'to drink' > beone 'boozer'<br>
<br>
The augmentative meaning is reflected in the fact that all of the above mean not only that an agent does something, but that it does so excessively. You find the same also in Spanish, Portuguese and Modern Greek. Incidentally, this use of an augmentative suffix
has been claimed to be a feature of the languages of the Mediterranean (see N. Grandi, Development and Spread of Augmentative Suffixes in the Mediterranean Area, in P. Ramat / T. Stolz (eds.), Mediterranean Languages, Bochum, Dr. Brockmeyer University Press,
171-190).<br>
The Romance forms come from Latin -(i)o (long 'o'). You can read the history of its grammaticalisation in the above mentioned paper.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Giorgio F. A.<br>
<br>
--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Dr. Giorgio Francesco Arcodia<br>
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca<br>
Dipartimento di Scienze Umane per la Formazione<br>
Edificio U6 - stanza 4101<br>
Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1<br>
20126 Milano<br>
<br>
Tel.: (+39) 02 6448 4946<br>
Fax: (+39) 02 6448 4863<br>
E-mail:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it">giorgio.arcodia@unimib.it</a><br>
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:30:32 +0100<br>
"Raffaele Simone" <<a href="mailto:rsimone@os.uniroma3.it">rsimone@os.uniroma3.it</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Eitan,<br>
in addition to the ones mentioned by Giorgio Arcodia, Italian has a typical suffix indicating not only an agent, but particularly an agent specializing in poor or mean activities. It is the suffix –ino, with a verb-basis.<br>
Examples:<br>
1.. spazz-ino “street-sweeper” (spazzare ‘sweep’) 2.. imbianch-ino “wall painter” (imbiancare ‘paint [a wall] in white’) 3.. portant-ino “stretcher porter” (portare ‘take, bring’) 4.. traffich-ino “shady dealer” (trafficare ‘deal’ [here, in a derogatory
sense]).<br>
etc. The suffix is not exclusive for agents, but also works as a general purpose diminutive. One may suppose that the relative “insignificance” of the job justifies a diminutive to express it. If agentive, –ino is not productive in current Italian.<br>
Best,<br>
Raffaele<br>
=================<br>
Università Roma Tre<br>
via Ostiense 236<br>
I-00146 Roma<br>
=================<br>
Attività e pubblicazioni // Activity and publications<br>
<a href="http://uniroma3.academia.edu/RaffaeleSimone">http://uniroma3.academia.edu/RaffaeleSimone</a><br>
@raffaelesimone<br>
Volumi recenti//Recent books: a. Nuovi fondamenti di linguistica, McGraw-Hill Italia, Milano 2014<br>
b. (con//with Francesca Masini, eds.) Word Classes. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014<br>
hn Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014<br>
c. Come la democrazia fallisce, Garzanti, Milano 2015.<br>
From: Eitan Grossman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 11:07 AM<br>
To: LINGTYP Subject: [Lingtyp] agent nominalization<br>
Dear all,<br>
I am writing to ask a question about 'agent'* nominalizations across languages. I am interested in agent nominalizers that do or don't have known diachronic sources, in the attempt to understand which diachronic pathways are attested (and hopefully, their relative
frequency/rarity). For example, some languages have:<br>
(a) bound morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly identifiable, whether lexical (Japanese -nin or -sya 'person; Khwe and Meskwaki are similar, or Japanese -te 'hand') or grammatical (Serbo-Croatian -l(o) from an original instrumental meaning, perhaps similarly
for Afroasiatic m-).<br>
(b) bound morphemes whose diachronic source may be mysterious or reconstructible as such to the proto-language (Quechuan -q?, Malay-Indonesian peng-/pe-?).<br>
(c) free morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly identifiable (Ponoapean olen ''man of')<br>
(d) more complex constructions involving the reduction of modifier clauses of some sort (Coptic ref- < ultimately from 'person who verbs')<br>
(e) rarer morphosyntactic alternations, like reduplication of the initial syllable (Hadze, Serer), vowel length (Akan), vowel raising (+breathiness) (Nuer) (f) no such nominalizer mentioned, or explicitly mentioned that there is no dedicated agent noun construction.
In some languages, ad hoc formation via relatives is the only (Tlapanec), main, or a supplementary strategy (e.g., Indonesian relativizer yang).<br>
(g) zero conversion<br>
There is nice paper by Luschuetzky & Rainer in STUF 2011, but it deals almost exclusively with affixes and only rarely mentions diachronic information.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">From a very preliminary survey of grammars, it looks like the origin of agent nominalizers is often pretty obscure, and the shortest and most bound morphemes look to be very old, quite expectedly. Identifiable lexical sources seem to
converge around 'person, thing' or body parts. Reduction of complex constructions to an affix seems to be rare but attested.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
</blockquote>
So, here's the question: in your languages, is the diachronic source of agent nominalizers identifiable? I'd be grateful for any information you might be willing to share!<br>
Best,<br>
Eitan<br>
*Disclaimer: even though this is a common term, most languages I've seen don't single out the semantic role of agent, and this is often noted in theoretical discussions. Also, such nominalizations don't have to be derivational or even 'morphological.'<br>
Eitan Grossman Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences<br>
Hebrew University of Jerusalem<br>
Tel: +972 2 588 3809<br>
Fax: +972 2 588 1224<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>