[Lingtyp] case suffix is "homonymous" with personal pronoun form

[Christian Lehmann]

Many thanks to all of you who bothered to help me out. Just in case you 
should still be interested in this kind of diachronic relation, evidence 
for it may be found in Cabecar (Chibchan). I had posted the relevant 
facts, with examples, on 19/09/2021 under the subject 'instant 
resumption', and summarized the discussion on 20/09/2021. Recalling the 
relevant facts:

The language uses the medial demonstrative (i.e. the least marked one, 
distinct from the third person pronoun, but the default in second 
mentions) as an instant resumptive. (Remember that this has nothing to 
do with determination.)
The language has no declension for case, although some postpositions are 
enclitic and highly grammaticalized.

Let N be a noun phrase, then:
[N postposition] is a postpositional phrase.
[resumptive postposition] is a postpositional phrase.
[N resumptive postposition] is a postpositional phrase.

Instead of N, these constructions may contain a clause S. Then the 
following combinations produce a complex clause:
1) [[S1 postposition] S2 ]
2) [S1 resumptive postposition S2 ]
In #1, S1 is clearly a subordinate clause.
In #2, the main boundary may be immediately in front of S2. Then S1 is 
still a subordinate clause whose postposition uses the resumptive as a 
host, as before.
Or else, the main boundary may immediately follow S1. Then this is a 
paratactic construction whose S2 is introduced by a coordinative 
conjunction constituted by the postpositional phrase [resumptive 
postposition] (like English /therefore/, /thereby/ etc).
Since the resumptive is almost always optional, it may be missing, under 
certain conditions, even under this last analysis. I.o.w., the bare 
postposition may function as an introductory coordinative conjunction as 
if it were preceded by the pronoun.

In clausal negation, the negator can take these positions (inter alia):
[N Neg postposition]
[N Neg resumptive postposition]
The order
[N  resumptive Neg postposition]
is not possible.

Generalizations:
The resumptive is becoming a preferred host for postpositions; the 
latter become clitic on the resumptive.
The complex [resumptive postposition] has the same function as the bare 
postposition.
Under certain conditions, a bare postposition may be used as if it were 
governing an invisible pronoun.
I.o.w., the current development by which a postpositional phrase becomes 
a postposition may not be the first time that this is happening in the 
diachrony.

In the Karnic languages, the situation appears to be slightly different 
because the host to the case suffixes is not  a resumptive 
demonstrative, but instead a (postnominal) determiner. Otherwise, I 
submit that the diachrony of the facts that you mention is very similar 
to the above. You will be able to read the full account of the Cabecar 
facts, garnished with data, in:
González Campos, Guillermo & Lehmann, Christian 2027, /The Cabecar 
language./ Berlin: de Gruyter Brill (Trends in Linguistics; 
Documentation, 49).
(The file will be submitted for publication in a few weeks, but I have 
no hypothesis on how long its publication may take.)
-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20260331/6eec7533/attachment.htm>