accusative + analytical DO markers

Sun May 26 19:04:21 UTC 2013

Yes, Eitan, we can also speak of two ways to flag the ACC as you suggest, which would create only partial redundance, since an analytical DOM seem to be never a straightforward semantic equivalent to the ACC case affix, so the introduction of a DOM creates new possibilities for the form-meaning interplay. 
  Sergey

Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 16:55 +03:00 от Eitan Grossman <eitan.grossman at mail.huji.ac.il>:
>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.  11 1-129.
>
>
>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
>>>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.
>>>> 
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>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/fb331140/attachment.htm>