[Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case system (Proto-Uralic)

[Cat Butz]

Hi Jussi,

Another mildly interesting fact might be that in Polish (and possibly in 
other Slavic languages?), the accusative and genitive

1. share a lot of functions, and can in many cases be used 
interchangeably, to the point where they give off more of a "weak object 
case" vs. "strong object case" kind of vibe rather than what I'd 
associate with the labels "accusative" and "genitive" a lot of the time

2. are syncretic in the paradigms of many nouns (possibly exclusively 
animate masculine nouns)

To my knowledge, Finnish also shares the areal feature where objects are 
marked with the accusative in positive assertions, but with the genitive 
in negative assertions, right? So anyway, there you have some 
"accusative-cum-genitive" stuff.

Warmest,
---
Cat Butz (she)
HHU Düsseldorf
General Linguistics


Am 29/07/2025 21:17, schrieb Jussi Ylikoski via Lingtyp:
> Dear Peter,
> 
> Thank you for the Georgian data – this is something I didn't know
> and looks very interesting indeed. In the absence of other replies, I
> presume that paradigms like these are not that common, though.
> 
> The distribution of the Georgian plural form in -_ta_ also makes me
> more precise in describing Proto-Uralic: I must add that although the
> cases without plural forms are usually labeled singular forms, no one
> has claimed that a locative plural, for example, was zero-marked just
> like the nominative singular – most plural forms simply do not
> exist. Of course, one could imagine that the locative would simply be
> a number-neutral locative case then, but this is usually not claimed
> either.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jussi
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Frá: Peter Arkadiev <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru>
> Sent: mánudagur, 28. júlí 2025 23:42
> Til: Jussi Ylikoski; Linguistic Typology
> Efni: Re: [Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case
> system (Proto-Uralic)
> 
> + lingtyp@
> 
> Dear Jussi,
> 
> this is not an exact parallel, but still appears to be close: in Old
> Georgian (as well as in the learned register of modern Georgian, with
> some adjustments) the case paradigm has the following form (e.g.
> Schanidse, Akaki. 1982. Altgeorgisches Elementarbuch. Teil I.
> Grammatik der Altgeorgischen Sprache. Aus dem Georgischen von Heinz
> Fähnrich. Tbilissi: Tbilisis universit’et’is gamomcemloba, S.
> 36):
>                       Sg           Pl
> Nominative     -i             -n-i
> Ergative          -man       -ta
> Dative             -s(a)        -ta
> Genitive          -is(a)       -ta
> Aditive            -isa          -ta
> Instrumental   -it(a)        -ta
> Adverbial        -(a)d        -ta
> Vocative         -o             -n-o
> 
> Thus a single undifferentiated form for most of the plural cases.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> ----------------
> Кому: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> (lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org);
> Тема: [Lingtyp] Typological plausibility of a reconstructed case
> system (Proto-Uralic);
> 28.07.2025, 21:40, "Jussi Ylikoski via Lingtyp"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> I am looking for an attested real-life analogue to the noun
>> inflection paradigm conventionally reconstructed for Proto-Uralic.
>> 
>> Although the exact number of Proto-Uralic cases varies, one of the
>> most commonly accepted truths about the reconstructed case system is
>> that although the nouns were inflected in 6–8 cases in singular,
>> there were only two forms in plural – the nominative plural in
>> *-_t_ and the accusative-cum-genitive plural in *-_j_ (comprising
>> the functions of the accusative and genitive singular):
>> 
>> Singular Plural
>> 
>> Nominative   *-Ø      *-t
>> 
>> Accusative   *-m      *-j
>> 
>> Genitive     *-n      *-j
>> 
>> Locative     *-nA     –
>> 
>> Ablative     *-tA     –
>> 
>> Lative       *-ŋ      –
>> 
>> ----------------------------
>> 
>> ?Translative *-ksi    –
>> 
>> ?Caritive    *-ktAk   –
>> 
>> There might also have been a dual number in Proto-Uralic, although
>> such forms can hardly be reconstructed, but my main question today
>> is about the naturalness or plausibility of a case system seen
>> above: Do you know any real-life case paradigms that would make the
>> above reconstruction typologically plausible? I am especially
>> interested about the plausibility of the accusative-genitive plural
>> *-_j_ within a case system like this.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jussi ,
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> --
> Peter Arkadiev, PhD Habil.
> https://peterarkadiev.github.io/
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp