accusative + analytical DO markers

Sergey Lyosov sergelyosov at INBOX.RU
Mon May 27 16:25:43 UTC 2013


Dear Anvita,
Thinking about your example:
u        Tong-bi     ara=pho
3sg     tree-acc    obj=cut
'He cut the tree' (fell to the ground)

Is  ara= a true Dir. Obj. Marker in the strictest sence of the word? Is it not a trivial resumptive pronoun, in the way of the Latin American Spanish " lo golpeó a usted"?
  
          Sergey
Воскресенье, 26 мая 2013, 22:49 +05:30 от Anvita Abbi <anvitaabbi at gmail.com>:
>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= cl 2= 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
>>>>>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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
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
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/20130527/c54591a7/attachment.htm>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list