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