accusative + analytical DO markers

Sergey Lyosov sergelyosov at INBOX.RU
Sun May 26 19:36:52 UTC 2013


Dear Wolfgang,
this is the first hit I see! I bet the state of affairs you describe was by its very nature non-stable and transitory. (I am a little bit familiar with Literary Eastern Armenian only, and as far as I remember the language agglutinates markers of plural and case in this slot.) Could you give me references to the pertinent literature on Old Armenian?
  With all best wishes,
  Sergey

Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 14:36 +02:00 от Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>:
>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 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.
>>>> 
>>
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 ///  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/20130526/572861f4/attachment.htm>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list