[Lingtyp] agent nominalization

Wed Jan 6 15:08:19 UTC 2016

Italian -one nouns are not properly agentive. What they properly describe is 
a (relatively) permanent property. The -ino ones, on the other hand, 
describe someone who X-es as a job, as a work, independently from his/her 
qualities.
Best,
RS

=================
Università Roma Tre
via Ostiense 236
I-00146 Roma
=================
Attività e pubblicazioni // Activity and publications
http://uniroma3.academia.edu/RaffaeleSimone
@raffaelesimone
Volumi recenti//Recent books: a. Nuovi fondamenti di linguistica, 
McGraw-Hill Italia, Milano 2014
b. (con//with Francesca Masini, eds.) Word Classes. John Benjamins, 
Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014
hn Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014
c. Come la democrazia fallisce, Garzanti, Milano 2015.
-----Messaggio originale----- 
From: giorgio.arcodia at unimib.it
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 3:58 PM
To: Raffaele Simone ; Eitan Grossman ; LINGTYP
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] agent nominalization

As a follow-up to professor Simone's message, I may add
that the augmentative suffix -one is also used as an agent
nominaliser:

mangiare 'to eat' > mangione 'hearty eater'
scroccare 'to scrounge' > scroccone 'scrounger, moocher'
bere 'to drink' > beone 'boozer'

The augmentative meaning is reflected in the fact that all
of the above mean not only that an agent does something,
but that it does so excessively. You find the same also in
Spanish, Portuguese and Modern Greek. Incidentally, this
use of an augmentative suffix has been claimed to be a
feature of the languages of the Mediterranean (see N.
Grandi, Development and Spread of Augmentative Suffixes in
the Mediterranean Area, in P. Ramat / T. Stolz (eds.),
Mediterranean Languages, Bochum, Dr. Brockmeyer University
Press, 171-190).
The Romance forms come from Latin -(i)o (long 'o'). You
can read the history of its grammaticalisation in the
above mentioned paper.

Best,

Giorgio F. A.

-- 
Dr. Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
Dipartimento di Scienze Umane per la Formazione
Edificio U6 - stanza 4101
Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1
20126 Milano

Tel.: (+39) 02 6448 4946
Fax: (+39) 02 6448 4863
E-mail: giorgio.arcodia at unimib.it
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:30:32 +0100
"Raffaele Simone" <rsimone at os.uniroma3.it> wrote:
> Dear Eitan,
>
> in addition to the ones mentioned by Giorgio Arcodia, Italian has a 
> typical suffix indicating not only an agent, but particularly an agent 
> specializing in poor or mean activities. It is the suffix –ino, with a 
> verb-basis.
> Examples:
>  1.. spazz-ino “street-sweeper” (spazzare ‘sweep’) 2.. imbianch-ino “wall 
> painter” (imbiancare ‘paint [a wall] in white’) 3.. portant-ino “stretcher 
> porter” (portare ‘take, bring’) 4.. traffich-ino “shady dealer” 
> (trafficare ‘deal’ [here, in a derogatory sense]).
> etc. The suffix is not exclusive for agents, but also works as a general 
> purpose diminutive. One may suppose that the relative “insignificance” of 
> the job justifies a diminutive to express it. If agentive, –ino is not 
> productive in current Italian.
>    Best,
>
>    Raffaele
>
> =================
> Università Roma Tre
> via Ostiense 236
> I-00146 Roma
> =================
> Attività e pubblicazioni // Activity and publications
> http://uniroma3.academia.edu/RaffaeleSimone
> @raffaelesimone
> Volumi recenti//Recent books: a. Nuovi fondamenti di linguistica, 
> McGraw-Hill Italia, Milano 2014
> b. (con//with Francesca Masini, eds.) Word Classes. John Benjamins, 
> Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014
> hn Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 2014
> c. Come la democrazia fallisce, Garzanti, Milano 2015.
>
>From: Eitan Grossman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 11:07 AM
> To: LINGTYP Subject: [Lingtyp] agent nominalization
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> I am writing to ask a question about 'agent'* nominalizations across 
> languages. I am interested in agent nominalizers that do or don't have 
> known diachronic sources, in the attempt to understand which diachronic 
> pathways are attested (and hopefully, their relative frequency/rarity). 
> For example, some languages have:
>
> (a) bound morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly identifiable, 
> whether lexical (Japanese -nin or -sya 'person; Khwe and Meskwaki are 
> similar, or Japanese -te 'hand') or grammatical (Serbo-Croatian -l(o) from 
> an original instrumental meaning, perhaps similarly for Afroasiatic m-).
>
> (b) bound morphemes whose diachronic source may be mysterious or 
> reconstructible as such to the proto-language (Quechuan -q?, 
> Malay-Indonesian peng-/pe-?).
>
> (c) free morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly identifiable 
> (Ponoapean olen ''man of')
>
> (d) more complex constructions involving the reduction of modifier clauses 
> of some sort (Coptic ref- < ultimately from 'person who verbs')
>
> (e) rarer morphosyntactic alternations, like reduplication of the initial 
> syllable (Hadze, Serer), vowel length (Akan), vowel raising (+breathiness) 
> (Nuer)
> (f) no such nominalizer mentioned, or explicitly mentioned that there is 
> no dedicated agent noun construction. In some languages, ad hoc formation 
> via relatives is the only (Tlapanec), main, or a supplementary strategy 
> (e.g., Indonesian relativizer yang).
>
> (g) zero conversion
>
>
> There is nice paper by Luschuetzky & Rainer in STUF 2011, but it deals 
> almost exclusively with affixes and only rarely mentions diachronic 
> information.
>
>
>>From a very preliminary survey of grammars, it looks like the origin of 
>>agent nominalizers is often pretty obscure, and the shortest and most 
>>bound morphemes look to be very old, quite expectedly. Identifiable 
>>lexical sources seem to converge around 'person, thing' or body parts. 
>>Reduction of complex constructions to an affix seems to be rare but 
>>attested.
>
>
> So, here's the question: in your languages, is the diachronic source of 
> agent nominalizers identifiable? I'd be grateful for any information you 
> might be willing to share!
>
>
> Best,
>
> Eitan
>
>
> *Disclaimer: even though this is a common term, most languages I've seen 
> don't single out the semantic role of agent, and this is often noted in 
> theoretical discussions. Also, such nominalizations don't have to be 
> derivational or even 'morphological.'
>
>
>
>
>
> Eitan Grossman Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language 
> Sciences
>
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem
> Tel: +972 2 588 3809
>Fax: +972 2 588 1224
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp