[Lingtyp] "I hide my stone in my house"

[Michael Daniel]

Dear Ian,

in my experience, not only Uralic but various other unrelated languages
hesitate between lative (directional) and essive (static) semantics of the
form to be used with verbs such as 'hide', 'put', 'sit'. In my Russian at
least, with different degrees of admissibility and non-standard-ness, all
three verbs and some other take either where or where-to arguments. Many
East Caucasian languages take the essive (static) marking with many if not
most of the verbs with similar semantics as their only option, although the
exact lexical range differs. Both Russian and East Caucasian of course only
take the essive (static location) marking with locative copulas and similar
verbs, while taking only lative (directional) marking with core verbs of
motion (Goal with verbs such as 'go' or 'run').

I have a small draft that discusses the phenomenon in East Caucasian in
relative detail, although the main topic of it is something else. I can
share it with you if you need more information.

Sincerely,

Michael Daniel

чт, 11 окт. 2018 г. в 15:59, Florian Siegl <florian.siegl at gmx.net>:

> Well, the reflexive Finnish example is to some degree ambiguous, because
> the illative marked goal could also be governed by the reflexive -u
> derivation, a pattern which is almost default in standard Finnish; e.g.,
> osallistu-a kokoukse-en <participate-inf meeting-ill> ‘to participate in a
> meeting’. The transitive case is ok, but the intransitive allows at least
> two interpretations.
>
> The fact that Finnish can mark states as movement is usually mentioned
> with jäädä ‘to stay’ so transitive piilottaa ‘to hide’ + illative is
> somehow already motivated language internally:
>
> Hän  on  Lontoo-ssa.
> 3sg be.3sg London-iness
> ‘S/he is in London.’ (inessive case)
>
> Hän  jää Lontoo-seen
> 3sg stay.3sg London-ill
> ‘S/he stays in London.’ (illative)
>
> And a side note, there is multifunctional case. In Dolgan (Turkic,
> Northern Siberia) one would get dative case in both instances:
>
> min  hurug-u  d'ahaak  ih-iger  kistee-bit-im
> 1sg letter-acc box inside-px3.dat hide-pst.res.1sg
> ‘I hid the letter in(to) a box.’
>
> taba  talak-tar  is-ter-i-ger  kiste-m-mit,
> reindeer bush-pl inside-pl-px3-dat hide-refl-pst.res.3sg
> ‘The reindeer hid itself in(side) the twigs of a bush...’ (from a popular
> fairytale)
>
> The problem is that Dolgan (and some other Siberian Turkic languages) use
> the dative case to encode both goal (whither) and location (where)…
>
> Best,
>
> Florian Siegl
> On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 14:24 +0300, Denys T. wrote:
>
> Hi Ian & Sebastian,
>
> at least, in Finnish it would be the same Illative case for both. Here’s a
> random example from the internet:
>
> (1) Piilouduin vessa-an
> hide.oneself.pst.1sg toilet-ill
> ‘I’ve hidden in the toilet’ (vauva.fi)
>
> Best,
> Denys
>
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 14:19, Sebastian Nordhoff <
> sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> this might even become clearer with transitive and intransitive 'hide'.
> What about
>
> (1) My sister hides in the garden
> (2) I hide my sister in the garden
>
> How would this work in Finnish-style languages? (Obviously, reflexives
> can complicate the picture)
>
> Best
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> On 10/11/2018 01:00 PM, Joo Ian wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am interested in the following hypothesis:
>
> In most of the world's languages, the PP "in my house" in sentence (1) and
> (2) are the same.
>
> (1) My stone is in my house.
> (2) I hide my stone in my house.
>
> For example, in German:
>
> (1) Mein Stein ist "in meinem Haus".
> (2) Ich verstecke meinen Stein "in meinem Haus".
>
> Although there are few languages where the PP of (1) and (2) are not
> identical, such as Finnish:
>
> (1) Kiveni on "talossani". (Locative)
> (2) Piilotan kiveni "talooni". (Illative)
>
> But cases like Finnish are far fewer than English-like cases, I think.
>
> I think this is interesting because the PP of (1) and that of (2) are
> semantically different: the PP in (1) is a location whereas that in PP is
> the endpoint of a placement event. If I can show that the two PPs are
> morphologically identical in most of the world's languages, then I can
> suggest that placement event profiles a static location as its endpoint and
> not a dynamic goal, like Rohde has argued in her dissertation (
> https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/18015)
>
> Although I find this issue interesting, I would like to know if others
> find it so as well. What do you think? (Also, I would appreciate if anyone
> can let me know any other Finnish-like cases)
>
> From Hong Kong,
> Ian Joo
> http://ianjoo.academia.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lingtyp mailing list
>
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181011/f182d381/attachment.htm>