accusative + analytical DO markers
Sergey Lyosov
sergelyosov at INBOX.RU
Sun May 26 11:19:09 UTC 2013
Dear Paolo,
yes, this is correct, but the noun of these Romance varieties lost its inflection for case long ago. It is clear that both Standard Spanish and South Italian developed their famous He visto a Maria/ Ho visto a Maria after the loss of cases.
You say:
The use of DOM is subject to certain constraints: the OBJ has to be [+human] or, at least, [+anim],[+definite] etc.
I believe the [+definite] constraint does not apply at least to Spanish.
With all best wishes,
Sergey
Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 11:53 +02:00 от Paolo Ramat <paoram at UNIPV.IT>:
>Dear All,
>DOM as obligatory marking of Direct Object (DO) is a well-known feature of
(South)Italian dialects and other Romance varieties (e.g. Catalan)
>I wouldn’t consider Ich gehe durch den Gang as an ex. of DO. As
Sergey rightly states, we have here a PP specifying the notion of
‘gehen’.
>But when you have Ho visto a Maria ‘I saw Mary’
instead of standard Italian Ho visto Maria, Catal . les monges no estimen a les
nenes ‘the nuns
don’t lik the girls’, a is a real DO marker
and the construction is Nomin./Accus. The use of DOM is subject to certain
constraints: the OBJ has to be [+human] or, at least, [+anim],[+definite]
etc.
>References: A. Ledgeway, From Latin to Romance , OUP 2012. Iemmolo, Giorgio (2009), La marcatura differenziale
dell’oggetto in siciliano antico. Arch.
Glottol. Ital. 94: 185- 225; Iemmolo, Giorgio and Gerson Klumpp (in preparation). Differential
Object Marking: theoretical and empirical issues . Special issue of Linguistics .
>
>All
best
>Paolo
>
>From: Sergey Lyosov
>Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:20 PM
>To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Subject: Re: accusative + analytical DO markers
>
>
>Dear
Ewa,
>thanks
a lot!
>Your
Polish example is as follows:
>
>- zaatakować ‘attack, assault’ + NPACC
>- napaść ‘attack, assault’ + preposition na with a NPACC (a grammaticalized
allative construction).
>The
cognate Russian verbs have the same government:
>atakovat'
‘attack, assault’ + NPACC
>napast' ‘attack, assault’ + preposition na with a NPACC
>
>Our
colleague Scott T. Shell suggests me (within this thread) a similar
example from
>German:
>
>Den
Mann habe
ich
gesehen.
>DEF.ACC
man AUX 1SG.NOM
saw
>'I say
the man.'
>
>Ich
gehe durch
den
Gang
>1SG.NOM
go through DEF.ACC
hallway
>'I go
through the hallway.'
> Yet neither
Polish/Russian na nor German durch
are Direct Object Markers pure and simple, they both retain their meanings as
lative/locative prepositions. What I am looking for is a “pure” and (under
certain conditions) obligatory Direct Object Marker (like `et in Hebrew) which
synchronically has no other (more concrete) meanings. I wonder if this kind of
DOM is at all compatible with ACC (which would amount to double marking of the
Direct Object).
>I will
address your Coptic example in the next email.
>
All best,
>
Sergey
>
>Суббота, 25 мая 2013, 16:37 UTC от "Zakrzewska, E.D."
<E.D.Zakrzewska at uva.nl>:
>>Dear
Sergey,
>>
>>A
good example is Polish, compare:
>>- zaatakować ‘attack, assault’ + NPACC
>>- napaść ‘attack, assault’ + preposition na with a NPACC (a grammaticalized
allative construction).
>>
>>Another
example may be Coptic (Afroasiatic, the final stage of Ancient Egyptian). In
Coptic there are two strategies to mark the direct object: head-marking and
dependent-marking. Head-marking involves the use of the so-called construct
or pronominal state allomorph of the verb to which a nominal, respectively
pronominal direct object is attached. When the verb appears in the absolute
state allomorph, dependent-marking
of the object by means of a preposition is required. Several prepositions can
occur in this function, of which n- (dedicated preposition) and e- (grammaticalization of the allative) are most important.
>>Basic
information about Coptic grammar can be found in Reintges
C.H., Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): a learner's grammar , Köln:
Köppe, 2004. I’m currently working on a comprehensive article on transitivity
in Coptic, to be published in the Proceedings of the 10th International
Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome and I can send you a copy soon.
>>
>>Best
regards,
>>Ewa
Zakrzewska
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Van: Discussion List for ALT [LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org] namens Sergey
Lyosov [sergelyosov at inbox.ru]
>>Verzonden: vrijdag 24 mei 2013
19:35
>>To: LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>Onderwerp: accusative + analytical DO markers
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>Do we know of languages that have both the accusative
case and analytical direct object markers (pre- or postpositions)?
>>Lots of thanks,
>>Sergey
>>Dr. Sergey Loesov
>>Oriental Institute
>>Russian State University for the
Humanities
>>6 Miusskaya pl. Moscow 125267, Russia.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130526/ef9a00fd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list