[Lingtyp] "I hide my stone in my house"
misha.daniel at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 12:43:13 UTC 2018
I argue about this scale in a draft, in this form (I must admit I did not
yet know about Zaika's paper when I was writing). While the scale is ok,
strictly speaking the hierarchy should be formulated in a slightly
different way, I guess - if a language distinguishes between expression of
static location and directional (lative) - in other words, if two different
types of marking are used with any of the verbs on the scale in the first
place - then the two markers would cover contiguous areas on this scale.
Because if a marker covers the whole scale, it means that there is no
essive - lative distinction.
But this is only matter of wording, obviously,
сб, 13 окт. 2018 г. в 14:48, Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>:
> So it seems that there is an implicational scale of verb types:
> go/send > put > hide/bury > remain
> The higher a verb is on the scale, the more likely it is for a language to
> use allative marking, and the lower it is, the more likely it is that a
> language uses locative marking.
> Finnish and Estonian use allative all the way down this scale (but they
> have a locative marker for 'be'), and some languages may use allative for
> 'hide/bury' (maybe even German, though I find such examples barely
> acceptable). Other languages have variation for 'put' (including English,
> but not German), and still other languages have variation even for
> 'go/send' (not English).
> Zaika's (2016) paper is indeed very relevant – thanks for sharing it.
> Someone should study this pattern for more languages.
> P.S. For "allative/locative", different term pairs have been used in this
> discussion: "lative/essive" (Uralic/Caucasian tradition),
> "directive/locative" (Zaika), "dynamic goal/static location". I think all
> these mean the same (though I understand why Uralicists prefer "lative" and
> don't want to rename their "allative" to "ad-allative").
> On 11.10.18 23:20, Jane Simpson wrote:
> Some Australian languages show this distinction between location of
> object, event and subject, which Ken Hale drew attention to. Patrick
> McConvell and I discuss this with comparisons with Finnish:
> McConvell, Patrick, and Simpson, Jane. 2012. Fictive motion down under: The
> locative-allative case alternation in some Australian Indigenous languages.
> In *Shall we play the Festschrift game? Essays on the occasion of Lauri
> Carlson's 60th birthday*, eds. Diana Santos, Wanjiku N'gang'a and Krister
> Lindén, 159-180. Heidelberg: Springer.
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM Joo Ian <ian.joo at outlook.com> 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 (
>> 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
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Jane Simpson
> Private e-mail
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10
> D-07745 Jena
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp