accusative + analytical DO markers
Sergey Lyosov
sergelyosov at INBOX.RU
Sun May 26 16:07:16 UTC 2013
No-no, I believe the function of ET/OT in Hebrew (especially in Biblical Hebrew) is not the double marking I am looking for (analytical DOM + ACC case ending), et/ot is a host for bound accusative pronouns and thus an alternative to accusative pronouns hosted directly on the verb: ra'iti OTO = re'itiW "I saw him"
Sergey
Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 21:08 +09:00 от David Gil <gil at EVA.MPG.DE>:
>If you include pronouns in the scope of the query, then Hebrew also
has doubly-case-marked forms such as
>
>ot=i ACC=PREP.1SG
>ot=xa ACC=PREP.2SGM
>ot=ax ACC=PREP.2SGF
>etc.
>
>However, as suggested by the interlinear gloss "PREP", the
pronominal enclitics aren't really accusatives, but rather
non-nominative, or "prepositional" forms, which occur after other
prepositions as well, such as l- 'to', b- 'in' / 'instrumental' and
others, eg.
>
>l=i to=PREP.1SG
>l(e)=xa to=PREP.2SGM
>l=ax to=PREP.2SGF
>etc.
>
>This seems very similar to what José describes for Spanish, and not
quite what Sergey is looking for.
>
>David
>
>
>
>On 26/05/2013 19:58, "José M.
García-Miguel" wrote:
>>As Paolo says, DOM is a well-kown
feature of some Romance languages giving place to prepositional
marking of some Direct Objects.
>>But, I guess that the examples proposed by Paolo do not qualify
as "having both the accusative case and analytical direct object
markers (pre- or postpositions)", that Sergey was looking for.
Nouns do not vary for case, and I would not say that Maria is
accusative [case] in Ho visto a Maria.
>>However, personal independent pronouns and pronominal
clitics do vary for case: Spanish yo [Nominative] 'I'
vs mí [not-Nominative, prepositional case] 'me' vs me [1sg clitic], and in 3rd person clitics Accusative lo(s),
la(s) vs Dative le(s)
>>Thus , in Sp. Me ha visto a mi '(s)he
has seen me', the object is expressed by 1sg clitic me ,
the preposition a , and the non-Nominative mi
>>
>>A 3rd person accusative clitic is compatible with an a -marked Directo Object in the same clause (this is a
common pattern in some varieties of Spanish, mainly Buenos Aires
Sp., and less common in other varieties):
>>
>>La he visto a Maria
>>3.ACC.F have seen PREP Maria
>>'I have seen Maria'
>>
>>This example has "both the accusative case [in the clitic la ]
and an analytical direct object marker [preposition a ]",
but the accusative case is not in the name Maria.
>>
>>All best,
>>Jose M. Garcia-Miguel
>>University of Vigo
>>
>>El 26/05/2013 11:53, Paolo Ramat escribió:
>>>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.
>>>>
>>
>
>--
David Gil
Department of Linguistics
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
Telephone: 49-341-3550321 Fax: 49-341-3550119
Email: gil at eva.mpg.de
Webpage: http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130526/8884eeb1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list