accusative + analytical DO markers

[Eitan Grossman]

It's interesting that the terminology used seems to determine the way that
languages look to us. So if we take the view that 'accusative case' and
'analytic direct object markers' are really different, then one can say
that Spanish has a case distinction in pronouns as well as an 'analytic
direct object marker.'

But since clitics and affixes are often hard to tell apart, as are
adpositions and case markers, one might just say that some varieties
of Spanish have both differential indexing (*la *vs. nothing) and
differential flagging (*a *vs. nothing). This would give a different
grouping, since the person indexes ('pronominal clitics') wouldn't be an
instance of 'case-marked pronouns,' but the accusative marker (*a*) *would *be
a flag.

There are some examples already in Old Spanish of both indexing and
flagging in the same clause, taken from an article by Dufter & Stark 2008*,
e.g.,


*a mí non me pesa* (Cantar de Mio Cid, v. 1480)

to me.pron neg me.cl grieve.prs.3sg

‘It does not grieve me.’

**

*a Él le plaziendo, muriera* (Rimado de Palacio, 1378-1406)

to God him.cl like.ger die.fut.3sg

‘If He (God) likes it, he will die.’

There are also plenty of examples of this sort of thing in Semitic
languages (e.g., Ge'ez, different varieties of Aramaic), where it's often
called 'prolepsis.' But I'm sure that Sergey knows a lot more about this
than I do.

So I think that in order to focus the question, one might ask: are there
cases in which P is simultaneously marked by two distinct flags?


*Dufter, A. & Stark, E., 2008. ‘Double indirect object marking in Spanish
and Italian,’ in Seoane, E. & López-Couso, María José (eds.). Theoretical
and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John
Benjamins. 111-129.



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Sergey Lyosov <sergelyosov at inbox.ru> wrote:

> 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<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov@INBOX.RU>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:20 PM
> *To:* LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@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.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Eitan Grossman
Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972 2 588 1885
Fax: +972 2 588 0265
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130526/18d01def/attachment.htm>