accusative + analytical DO markers

Mon May 27 18:48:41 UTC 2013

In Pieter Muysken's (2008) *Functional Categories*, he shows an interesting
situation in Quechua: borrowed appositions (< Spanish) co-occur with
inherited case-markers, e.g., *hasta X-kama* 'until X-until.' I think
Dikker point out similar things for Media Lengua, like Sp. *en* + inherited
locative marker -*pi*. So, basically double-marking.

Based on this, one might think that a possible situation that Sergey is
looking for might involve a native flag together with a borrowed one.
Again, looking at Quechuan, this time Ulcumayo (as described by Sanchez in
Lingua 2011 [I think]), there's an example with Sp. origin *a* together
with inherited accusative -*ta*:

Algo gati-pu-n a un niñuta.

Dog follow-DIR-3SG to a boy-ACC

‘The dog follows a boy’

And in Lamas Kechwa, there are more examples, although the details differ.

While I don't know of any such example that's become an established
borrowing in the speech of monolinguals, this does perhaps show how such
double flag strategies can get into a language.

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Sergey Lyosov <sergelyosov at inbox.ru> wrote:

>
> 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= cl2=send-fa-imp
> ‘Send the box.’
> Anvita
>
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Sergey Lyosov <sergelyosov at inbox.ru<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov@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<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3agil@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<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov@INBOX.RU>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:20 PM
> *To:* LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@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><https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aE.D.Zakrzewska@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<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org>]
> namens Sergey Lyosov [sergelyosov at inbox.ru<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3asergelyosov@inbox.ru>
> ]
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 24 mei 2013 19:35
> *To:* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org<https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3aLINGTYP@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 <https://e.mail.ru/sentmsg?mailto=mailto%3agil@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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20130527/1ed7bf52/attachment.htm>