accusative + analytical DO markers
Wolfgang Schulze
W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE
Sun May 26 12:36:27 UTC 2013
Dear Sergey,
in Old Armenian, the accusative plural was marked for morphological case
(-s). The preposition z- was normally added to definite nouns in DO
function, e.g.
NOM.PL osker-k` 'bones'
ACC.PL osker-s [-def]
z-osker-s [+def]
However, I guess that is not exactly what you are looking form, because
the two accusatives are both marked for -s. I guess you think of a model
of DO-markers such as ACC1 osker-s / ACC2 *z-osker (imitating this
pattern with the help of construed data). Nevertheless, the Old Armenian
plural conforms to this pattern at least partially.
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
> 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 mongesno 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, Giorgioand Gerson Klumpp (in preparation).
> /Differential Object Marking: theoretical and empirical issues/.
> Special issue of /Linguistics/.
> All best
> Paolo
> *From:* Sergey Lyosov <sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov at INBOX.RU>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:20 PM
> *To:* LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> <sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP 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.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
*Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze *
----------------------------------------------------------
Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
Dept. II / F 13
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Ludwigstraße 25
D-80539 München
Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary)
0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office)
Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345
Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
<mailto:W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de
<mailto:Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de>
Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html
Personal homepage: http://www.schulzewolfgang.de
----------------------------------------------------------
Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte
Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw.
diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend
den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren
sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder
etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in
Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen
Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails
ausgeschlossen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130526/deceae43/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list