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