[Lingtyp] Cases of loss of goal markers

Sat Jan 12 16:25:54 UTC 2019

> For some formally and ontologically revealing case studies and comparisons
> of relevance, see:
>
>
> Cablitz, G. 2008. When "what" is "where": a linguistic analysis of
> landscape terms, place names and body part terms in Marquesan (Oceanic,
> French Polynesia). Language Sciences 30, 200-226.
>
>
> Huber, J. 2018. Natural locations and the distinction between 'what' and
> 'where' concepts: evidence from differential locative marking in Makalero.
> Linguistics 56.3, 477-512.
>
>
> Huber, J. 2014. Landscape in East Timor Papuan. Language Sciences 41,
> 175-196.
>
>
> Rybka, K. 2016. How are nouns categorized as denoting "what" and "where"?
> Language Sciences 45, 28-43.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Niclas B
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Från: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> för Prof. Dr.
> Thomas Stolz <stolz at uni-bremen.de>
> Skickat: den 12 januari 2019 16:02
> Till: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Ämne: Re: [Lingtyp] Cases of loss of goal markers
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> there is also our book on zero-marking of spatial relations in which we
> survey cross-linguistic data from 112 languages which show that Place and
> Goal are frequently affected by zero-marking - be it obligatorily or
> optionally. More often than not  zero-marking of spatial relations occurs
> with place names whereas common nouns lag behind (somewhat). Our study is
> synchronic but it can be taken for granted that some of the instances of
> zero-marking are diachronic innovations.
>
> The reference is
>
> Stolz, Thomas & Lestrade, Sander & Stolz, Christel. 2014. The
> crosslingustics of zero-marking of spatial relations (= STTYP 15). Berlin,
> Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-05-006276-1
>
> A follow-up study to our 2017 paper in Folia Linguistica will be available
> shortly:
>
> Stolz, Thomas & Levkovych, Nataliya. 2019. Toponomastics meets linguistic
> typology: glimpses of Special Toponymic Grammar from Aromanian and sundry
> languages. Onomastica Uralica 11, 43-61.
>
> We intend to continue our research in this area. Thus, comments are always
> welcome.
>
> All the best. Thomas Stolz
>
> Prof. Dr. Thomas Stolz
> University of Bremen
> FB10: Linguistics
> Universitäts-Boulevard 13
> D-28 359 Bremen
> Germany
>
> stolz at uni-bremen.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Nachricht von Martin Haspelmath
> <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>> ---------
>   Datum: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 13:29:03 +0100
>     Von: Martin Haspelmath
> <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>>
> Betreff: Re: [Lingtyp] Cases of loss of goal markers
>      An:
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>
> The omission of spatial goal (and location) markers with place names and
> other nouns used typically in spatial function is very widespread in the
> world's languages.
>
> Until recently, there was no term for this phenomenon, but I now call it
> "differential place marking" (inspired especially by Stolz et al.'s 2017
> paper mentioned by Grev Corbett, and by Jonathan Schlossberg's 2017 ALT
> talk on "local nouns" and the differential marking of place).
>
> In my forthcoming paper "Differential place marking and differential
> object marking" (to appear in LTU/STUF; available on Academia.edu), I
> highlight the similarities with other kinds of differential marking:
>
> It seems that in many (or most) languages that allow unflagged spatial
> goals (and/or locations), these occur especially or exclusively with
> "typical place nouns", most notably place names. The reason is nicely
> expressed by Karatsareas & Georgakopoulos in their 2016 paper (cited by
> Ponrawee Prasertsom):
>
> "The omission of [the goal preposition] "se" therefore seems to be the
> preferred option in motion event utterances in which the Ground-encoding
> expressions display high degrees of informativity, and also possibly
> redundancy" (p. 326)
>
>
>
> On 12.01.19 11:53, Vladimir Panov wrote:
> Dear Ponrawee,
>
> actually, not only in Asia Minor, but also in colloquial standard Modern
> Greek goal and location markers are often dropped, e.g.
>
> ime athina / pao athina
> cop.1sg athens / go-1sg athens
> 'I am in Athens' / 'I am going to Athens'
>
> Concerning Viktor Friedman's comment on Macedonian, it makes sense to test
> if it might be a Balkan areal feature.
>
> Vladimir
>
> пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 20:53, Ponrawee Prasertsom
> <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com<mailto:ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>>:
> Dear all,
>
> I am looking for languages where goal markers (case affixes, prepositions,
> etc. corresponding to English to) developed into zero, i.e. are lost. That
> is, from something like I go to school to I go school. Does anyone know of
> such cases?
>
> Currently, I am aware of only one such case: goal preposition loss on Asia
> Minor Greek (Karatsareas and Georgakopoulos 2016), which reconstructs
> history from variation among dialects (se > se/∅ > ∅).
>
> Ideally, I would like cases with attested historical data, but
> reconstruction or any other relevant data such as ongoing change etc. is
> also welcome.
>
> Reference:
>
> Karatsareas, Petros and Thanasis Georgakopoulos. 2016. From syntagmatic to
> paradigmatic spatial zeroes: The loss of the preposition se in inner Asia
> Minor Greek. STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 69(2), 309-340.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> --
> Ponrawee Prasertsom
>
> Graduate Student
> Department of Linguistics
> Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
> Bangkok, Thailand
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Ende der Nachricht von Martin Haspelmath
> <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>> -----
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> Prof. Dr. Thomas Stolz
> Linguistik / Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
> Fachbereich 10, Universität Bremen
> Universitäts-Boulevard 13
> 28359 Bremen
> Tel.: +49-421-218 68300
> Email: stolz at uni-bremen.de<mailto:stolz at uni-bremen.de>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>