accusative + analytical DO markers
Sergey Lyosov
sergelyosov at INBOX.RU
Sun May 26 19:41:51 UTC 2013
Yes, a mí non me pesa is the same as "a mi no me importa," "a mi me da igual," etc.
Sergey
Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 15:52 UTC от Jon Aske <jaske at SALEMSTATE.EDU>:
>I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if I'm way off, but I can tell you that this A is not a so-called "personal A" (the A used with human direct objects), but an
indirect object A. ME and MI are indirect object pronouns (the first one is the weak clitic form and the second one the strong form). PESAR is not a transitive verb, but an intransitive one, which here takes on an indirect object. It's the same construction
as for GUSTAR "to please" = "like". A more literal translation would be something like "It does not weigh on me". -J
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Discussion List for ALT [LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] on behalf of Paolo Ramat [paoram at UNIPV.IT]
>Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:55 AM
>To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Subject: Re: accusative + analytical DO markers
>
>Dear Typologists,
>May 26 Sergey has written: 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. He’s right
>
>a mí non me pesa (Cantar de Mio Cid, v. 1480)
>to me.pron neg me.cl grieve.prs.3sg i.e. ‘It does not grieve me’ has a perfect pendant in Mod. It. a me non mi pesa . However I wonder whether pesar(e) is really a transit. verb with an object (what could be the object in this sentence?) . I think that
>From: Eitan Grossman
>Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:55 PM
>To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Subject: Re: accusative + analytical DO markers
>
>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/b014ef7e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list