ordinal interrogative pronouns

[Frans Plank]

>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:46:12 +0100
>From: "D.N.S. Bhat" <dnsbhat at eva.mpg.de>
>Organization: MPI EVA
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Frans Plank <Frans.Plank at uni-konstanz.de>
>Subject: Re: ordinal interrogative pronouns
>
>Prof. Plank,
>
>The following message sent to Linguistlist was returned to me because it
>did not go from my Indian E-mail address but from the present one in
>Leipzig. I think you might be interested in the extended scope of the
>construction, and hence I am sending it to you.
>
>Most languages in India also appear to have ordinal interrogatives. In
>Kannada, for example, the ordinal suffix nee is attached to eSTu 'how
>much/many' for this purpose. Marathi has kiti 'how much/many' followed
>by the ordinal suffix wii. (sa:t 'seven': sa:t-wi: 'seventh')
>
>The construction actually has a wider use, as it can occur in other
>types of proforms as well, and these would also be equally problematic
>for English speakers. For example, Kannada has a set of demonstrative
>ordinals, corresponding to the interrogative ones, which are derived in
>the same fashion.
>Kannada aSTu 'that much/many' can form the basis of aSTa-nee 'that
>many-th' or 'of that ordinal' and iSTu 'this much/many' can form the
>basis for iSTanee 'this many-th' of 'of this ordinal. For example,
>aSTanee klaasu means 'the class of that ordinal' (such as 5th or 6th
>class).
>
>Similarly one can produce an indefinite ordinal, but in this case
>Kannada has the emphatic marker or alternative marker following the
>ordinal suffix. eSTa-ne:-du: 'of whatever ordinal' and eSTa-ne:-do: 'of
>some unknown ordinal'.
>
>D.N.S.Bhat
>Max Planck Institute for
> Evolutionary Anthropology
>Leipzig
>
>
>
>Frans Plank wrote:
>>
>> Ordinal Interrogatives
>>
>> When studying a new language, nobody would be surprised to encounter
>> (distinct or also syncretic) interrogative pronouns for persons (who?),
>> things (what?), places (where? whence? whereto? ...), times (when? since
>> when? until when? ...), manners/instruments/circumstances (how?),
>> reasons/causes (why?), purposes (what for?), quantities (how much/many? how
>> often?), qualities (which?), kinds (what kind of?), and maybe a few further
>> more or less salient ontological categories.
>>
>> But would you be surprised to be faced with ORDINAL interrogative pronouns?
>>
>> I would, though I know them from my native tongue--though it was only
>> yesterday that I was really made aware of them, when my colleague Susanne
>> Trissler gave a departmental seminar on their (minimalist) syntax.  They
>> look like this, ignoring much of the minimalist architecture:
>>
>> Das wie-viel-t-e Schnitzel frisst du jetzt schon?
>> the how-many-ORD-ACC.SG.NEUT.WEAK schnitzel are you devouring now?
>>         --      Das sechs-t-e / x-t-e / so-und-so-viel-t-e [Schnitzel]
>>                 the six-ORD-ACC.SG.NEUT.W / x-ORD-ACC.SG.NEUT.W /
>>                 so-and-so-many-ORD-ACC.SG.NEUT.W [schnitzel]
>>
>> Wie-viel-t-er bist du geworden?
>> how-many-ORD-NOM.SG.MASC.STRONG have you become
>> (in which position did you end up?)
>>         --      Fuenf-t-er / Letz(-)t-er
>>                 five-ORD-NOM.SG.MASC.S / last(-)ORD-NOM.SG.MASC.S
>>
>> Well, they look like they are formed from the manner interrogative pronoun
>> (wie) plus the prototypical multal quantifier (viel) plus the suffix -t
>> which derives ordinal from cardinal numerals.  (With nominal cardinals the
>> ordinalizing suffix would be -st:  hundert-st 'hundred-th', million-st
>> 'million-th', dutzend-st 'dozen-th'.)  It strikes me as eminently
>> reasonable to employ ordinal morphology for this purpose:  this is what the
>> corresponding answer expressions are also carrying.  What seems to me
>> rather more ingenious is to use the quantitative interrogative phrase 'how
>> many' as the base to which to add the ordinal suffix.  But then, what else
>> would be more appropriate than something quantitative?
>>
>> You might want to know that the superlative suffix on adjectives in German
>> is somewhat similar to the ordinal suffix, presumably not without semantic
>> reason:  -(e)st (aelt-est 'old-est', schoen-st 'beautifull-est').  The
>> superlative of the multal quantifier is suppletive, though:
>>
>>         viel    -       mehr    -       meist
>>         'much/many      more            most'
>>
>> Thus, if the ordinal interrogative were based on the superlative it would
>> be *wiemeist.
>> Also, ordinary adjectives in the superlative form do not seem to combine
>> with wie to form corresponding interrrogatives, no matter how sensible such
>> questions would be:
>>
>> *Eure wie-hoech-st-e Niederlage war das 0:9 gestern gegen die Kickers?
>> *your how-high-SUPER-NOM.SG.FEM.WEAK defeat was the 0:9 yesterday against
>> the Kickers?
>>         --      Die vier-t-hoech-st-e / *vier-t-e.
>>                 the four-ORD-high-SUPER-NOM.SG.FEM.WEAK /
>>                 *four-ORD -NOM.SG.FEM.WEAK
>>
>> For completeness, let me mention that there also is a corresponding
>> FRACTIONAL interrogative:
>>
>> Ein Wie-viel-tel vom Gulasch hast du schon gefressen?
>> a how-much-FRACT of the goulash have you already devoured?
>>         --      Die Haelf-te / Drei Fuenf-tel.
>>                 the half-FRACT / three five-FRACT
>>
>> It's straightforward fractional derivational morphology (-te, -tel, in turn
>> grammaticalized from TEIL 'part' a long time ago) that is being used for
>> this interrogatives, which is somewhat more nominal than the ordinal one,
>> though.
>>
>> Now, after a day of intensive investigation I can report, first, that
>> ordinal interrogatives are attested not only in German, but also in Dutch
>> (p.c. from my colleague next door, Sibrand van Coillie).
>>
>> They are pretty similar to their German counterparts, and who knows whether
>> they have not plainly been borrowed:
>>
>> de hoe-veel-ste schnitzel
>> the how-many-? schnitzel
>>
>> Perhaps just to be a little different, our neighbours are using the suffix
>> here which is generally used for forming the superlative:
>>
>> de oud-ste schnitzel
>> the old-SUPER schnitzel
>>
>> Their ordinal suffix has the allomorphs -de and -ste, and their
>> distribution differs from that in German, with -ste not employed on basic
>> numerals other than 'eight':
>>
>> de vijf-de / tien-de / ... schnitzel
>> the five-ORD / ten-ORD / ... schnitzel
>> de twentig-ste / hondred-ste / acht-ste schnitzel
>> the twenty-ORD / hundred-ORD / eight-ORD schnitzel
>>
>> Overall, then, the look of ordinal interrogatives is perhaps slightly more
>> superlative than ordinal, at least by comparison with German.
>>
>> Second, I can report that innumerable languages from all over the world
>> appear to be lacking  ordinal interrogatives.  The list is available on
>> request;  it's too long to append to this message.  Suffice it to say that
>> English is on it.  What is so easy to ask for Susanne, myself, and Sibrand
>> was not only found unspeakable, but almost unthinkable by many of my
>> foreign consultants.
>>
>> Before turning to books over the weekend for further investigation, I
>> wonder whether LINGTYPists are aware of yet further languages boasting this
>> category of interrogatives.  And perhaps real work has been done on them
>> too, however minimal, in which case I'd greatly appreciate references.
>>
>> frans.plank at uni-konstanz.de
>