accusative + analytical DO markers

Sun May 26 17:19:14 UTC 2013

Present Great Andamanese has overt case marking such as accusative as well
as object marking in the form of proclitics attached to the verbs. In fact
there are several types of object clitics, depending upon the nature of the
object. Thus,

u        Tong-bi     ara=pho
3sg     tree-acc    obj=cut
'He cut the tree' (fell to the ground)

u      com-bi      ut=pho
3sg   betel-acc  obj=cut
'He cut the betel nut (from its branch)' (separated from the source)

u     com-bi      ara=pho
3sg. betel-acc  obj= cut
'He cut the betel nut.' (cut it into pieces)
*
*
*p**H**e**ÿ**i-bi             ik=t**E**r=****lo-k-e*
box-acc           obj= cl2=send-fa-imp
‘Send the box.’
Anvita

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Sergey Lyosov <sergelyosov at inbox.ru> wrote:

> 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<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><https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aE.D.Zakrzewska@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<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org>]
> namens Sergey Lyosov [sergelyosov at inbox.ru<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov@inbox.ru>
> ]
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 24 mei 2013 19:35
> *To:* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@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 <https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3agil@eva.mpg.de>
> Webpage:  http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/
>
>
>

-- 
Prof. Anvita Abbi
Centre for Linguistics
School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi 110067
www.andamanese.net
President: Linguistic Society of India
URL: http://www.jnu.ac.in/FacultyStaff/ShowProfile.asp?SendUserName=anvita
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130526/38354c8b/attachment.htm>