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