[Lingtyp] addressing the daughter as Mummy

[Faruk Akkuş]

Dear Sergey,

As Alan noted, this usage is attested in Arabic and Turkish; in fact,
different Arabic varieties make use of this usage in different ways, some
of which I list below.

Holes (1986, attached below) discusses a version which is used for
solidarity reference.
Mohammad (2014, also attached) looks at terms of endearment in Levantine
Arabic, which he calls "God-wishes".
My work
<https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/4/121/files/2020/09/glossa_mutable.pdf>
with Virginia Hill, which is to appear in *Glossa*, investigates this
construction in my variety of Arabic, Sason Arabic, in which the referents
of both the speaker and the addressee are expressed.

I also had a presentation
<https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/4/121/files/2020/09/WAFL12.pdf>
on the Turkish usage in WAFL 12. Leaving the technicalities aside, there I
showed that it is used in the context of an "affection"
relationship between the speaker and the addressee. I also mention Virginia
Hill's work on Romanian here.

For Zazaki, at least in my variety spoken in a few villages of Bitlis,
southeastern Turkey, it is similar to what Geoffrey Haig said about Kurdish
in a previous post, in that there needs to be a gender match.

Best wishes,
Faruk




Alan Rumsey <Alan.Rumsey at anu.edu.au>, 9 Eyl 2020 Çar, 09:36 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:

> Sorry for the delay in my uptake of this thread, which hadn’t come to my
> attention till today. The so-called ‘address inversion’ is indeed an
> interesting phenomenon, which is very widespread, as shown by the postings
> so far, and by the discussion in Braun 1988, which attests to its existence
> in Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian,
> Norwegian, Persian, Romanian, Russian, Tok Pisin, and Turkish. I have
> written about it in the Papuan language Ku Waru in a forthcoming
> publication that can be find online here
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/99udauo9zz82ilj/Rumsey%20%20-%20EE%20%26%20Centering%20of%20subjectivity%20-%20Feb%202019.pdf?dl=0>
> (pp. 13-16). One of the points I make there is that the term “address
> inversion” is actually a
>
> misnomer, since, in great majority of attested practices of this kind,
> there is actually not a full inversion. That is, while the senior party
> uses the term for the junior one that the latter uses for him or her, the
> junior party does not change his or her usage in the opposite direction.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200909/51cad1c8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Holes 1986 Communicative Function and Pronominal Variation in Bahraini Arabic.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3283771 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200909/51cad1c8/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVI (2012) Khamis-Dakwar Froud.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1454616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200909/51cad1c8/attachment-0001.pdf>