<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Hi Eitan,<br>
I have a handout on (agentive) verb-noun compounds in (contemporary
as well as ancient) European languages, e.g. Engl. 'cutthroat',
Span. 'matasanos' ('doctor/quack'), etc. (the talk was given in 2009
at the University of Erfurt):<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~mu65qev/hopdf/vn-erfurt.pdf">http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~mu65qev/hopdf/vn-erfurt.pdf</a><br>
<br>
In Section 3 there's some speculation about historical developments.
In Ancient Greek, the pattern may have resulted from the reanalysis
of AN-compounds, e.g. ortho(A)-krair(N) '(cattle with) straight
extremities/horns' --> ortho(V)-krair(N)-
'stretch-extremities/horns, horn-stretcher'.<br>
<br>
Ancient Greek apparently allowed both orders, VN and NV:
anthro:po-phag-os / phag-anthro:p-os 'man-eater, cannibal' (cf. also
phil-o-soph-os etc. for the VN-pattern). Latin and Old English
prefered NV-order: e.g. agr-i-col-a 'field-cultivate/farmer',
arm-i-ger 'weapon-carrier'; OE mere-far-a 'sea-traveller', loc-bor-e
'curl-bearer' (the status of the final vowel is disputed).
VN-compounds were originally used with a negative connotation, which
they still have today when used for human referents, even in Romance
languages, as far as I can tell (cf. mata-sanos). Most English
examples denote animals or plants, and many of them have dropped out
of use, being replaced by synthetic compounds (e.g. break-bones
--> bone-break-er [a bird species]). The first attested example
from OE is clawe-cunte 'grab-vulva', according to the literature.
The VN-pattern seems to be widespread in Slavic languages as well.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.01.2016 um 11:07 schrieb Eitan
Grossman:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAA00bNkDMX8pnk2MmJUqeqGskiOD0U28Qq2H2wefkSJDQ5X=7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
<br>
</div>
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>
<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>
</div>
(b) bound morphemes whose diachronic source may be mysterious
or reconstructible as such to the proto-language (Quechuan
-q?, Malay-Indonesian peng-/pe-?).<br>
</div>
<div>(c) free morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly
identifiable (Ponoapean olen ''man of')<br>
</div>
<div>(d) more complex constructions involving the reduction of
modifier clauses of some sort (Coptic ref- < ultimately
from 'person who verbs')<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>(e) rarer morphosyntactic alternations, like
reduplication of the initial syllable (Hadze, Serer),
vowel length (Akan), vowel raising (+breathiness) (Nuer) <br>
</div>
<div>(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>
</div>
<div>(g) zero conversion<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is nice paper by Luschuetzky & Rainer in STUF
2011, but it deals almost exclusively with affixes and
only rarely mentions diachronic information.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>From a <u>very</u> 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. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div><b>So, here's the question: in your languages, is the
diachronic source of agent nominalizers identifiable? </b>
I'd be grateful for any information you might be willing
to share!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,<br>
</div>
<div>Eitan<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>*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 clear="all">
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Prof. Volker Gast
English and American Studies
Ernst-Abbe-PLatz 8
D-07743 Jena
Fon: ++49 3641 9-44546
Fax: ++49 3641 9-44542</pre>
</body>
</html>