Case marking in some Dravidian languages

[clements]

VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
          John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
          SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
          (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu

Dear Hal,
The Tamil examples are exactly of the type I was looking for.
Thank you very much.  Now, does anyone know about how this
works in Malayalam?  In my initial message, I quoted
Mohanan, who states that the dative and comitative markers
mark the Indirect Object grammatical relation as 
default markers.  What I wanted to know is whether they
are interchangeable, or whether, as in the Tamil examples
that Hal has given, there is a difference in meaning
in the use of one or the other suffix to mark the IO
relation.  

I'll make a summary of the responses.

Best wishes,

Clancy

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Harold F. Schiffman wrote:

> VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
> Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
>           John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
> Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
> Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
>           SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
>           (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
> Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
> 
> Clancy et al.
> 
> Jim Gair's message about SL Tamil jogged my memory on this.  One thing you
> with Indian Tamil, at least, is a difference between dative and locative:
> 
> avan-ukku solliTTeen 
> him-to    say-def.PNG
> 
> I told him flat out (and didn't mince words)
> 
> vs. 
> 
> avan-=kiTTe solliTTeen
> he-locative say-def-png
> 
> I told him (in a nice way)
> 
> 
> That is, the one with dative is more peremptory, while the one with kiTTe
> is more deferential, i.e. I told him in a nice way. 
> 
> I think the Kannada examples given are misinterpreting the -inda suffix as
> an ablative, when in fact it doubles (i.e. is homophonouswith)  as an
> instrumental in Kannada.  So in Tamil, too, you can get an instrumental
> contrasting with dative, e.g. with modals:
> 
> ongaL-aale idu seyya-muDiyum-aa?
> you-instr. this do-can-Q
> 
> Can you do this? (Is this at all possible for you? Can you bring yourself
> to do this? Are you psychologically prepared to do this?)
> 
> vs.
> 
> ongaL-ukku idu seyya-muDiyum-aa?
> you-dative this do-can-Q
> 
> Can you do this (are you physically capable of doing this?)
> 
> There is an on-line version of my Tamil Grammar that can be consulted at
> 
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/book/chapter2/node12.html
> 
> This is an earlier version of my 1991 Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil,
> published by CUP.  
> 
> Hal Schiffman
> 
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, James Gair wrote:
> 
> > >VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
> > >Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
> > >           John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
> > >Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
> > >Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
> > >           SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
> > >           (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
> > >Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
> > >
> > >Dear Clancy:
> > 
> > I was happy to hear from you, and hope that all is going well.
> > My guess would be that this results from the ability of thye
> > causative affix to form ditransitive verbs or causatives, depending
> > at least in part on the base verb. That happens in other South Asian
> > languages as well, especially where the (second) objectis an
> > experiencer in one reading. Though i would have to dig up examples,
> > one occurs to me.Thus Sinhala kanawaa is 'eat';kawanawaa (caus) is
> > feed', and the "feedee" is in the dative . I am reasonably sure that,
> > though a further 9double) causative is morphologically possible
> > (kawawanawaa (> /kawoonawaa/ optionally, the single causative form
> > could also be used as a "true"causative with the causee in the usual
> > form (in Sinhala one of several postpositions, among them lawaa). In
> > that case, it is of course also possible to have both the causee and
> > the one fed (experiencer). One test here would be (1) whether the
> > second Kannada example is also expandable in this way with the
> > relevant change of meaning, and (2) whether the base verb is also
> > possible with an unexpressed direct object (compare English 'he made
> > me eat' vs. 'he fed me', and this doesn't seem so exotic). In
> > principle, if something like this is to go through, if there is no
> > overt experiencer,  as in the second Kannada example, the sense that
> > some unspecified individual, or more likely set of them,  is fed by
> > the causee should be possible, as allowed by the possibility of null
> > pronouns, including indefinites, in these languages.. Here I have to
> > resort to something like 'he made me do the feeding of the biscuits'
> > in English
> > 
> > Note that Sridhar, in his Kannada grammar in the Routledge series,
> > deals with this in descriptive/semantic terms (pp. 218-19, sec
> > 2.1.3.1.3.2), pointing out that the difference is experiencer
> > (taking the dative) vs. agentivity of causee (instrumental). That is,
> > I think, consistent with my off the cuff syntactic analysis above
> > which occurred to me before consulting Sridhar. Also, it seems
> > consistent in spirit with Gail Coelho's remarks.
> > 
> > This is, of course,connected with the fascinating  and complex  area
> > of South Asian causatives and associated processes.  However, your
> > original question involved comitatives, and that is not necessarily
> > closely connected.
> > >Mohanan did not give any examples in the source referred to. I
> > >haven'thad atha time or opportunity to get to wider sources, but in
> > >Sri lankan Tamil, at any rate, to tell someone to do something with
> > >collu 'tell' takes the "tellee" in either the accusative or
> > >referential case (-iTTa;=  postposition (k)iTTe in mainland
> > >dialects,and variously named... it can be seen as a case affix in
> > >SLT.):
> > 
> > 
> > avaraye cappiTac colluñko 'him(Dat) to-eat tell'
> > avariTTay cappiTac colluñko 'him(Ref) to-eat tell'
> > 'Tell him to eat'
> >   (Gair, Suseendirarajah and Karunatilaka, An Introduction to Spoken
> > [Sri Lankan Jaffna] Tamil, p.72)
> > 
> > I am not aware of any difference in meaning, but there may be one
> > thath I missed.
> > This may or may not be relevant to your query, but some of the
> > Dravidian specialists may come up wity more and better. I'll have a
> > further look when I get a chance,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >Hello,
> > >I have a question regarding case marking in Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, and
> > >Marathi.  I'm interested in cases of case marking of DATIVE and COMITATIVE or
> > >DATIVE and INSTRUMENTAL with the same suffix.
> > >
> > >First, K.P. Mohanan (in his description of Malayalam in the _Intern.
> > >Encyclopedia of Linguistics_, p. 373) states that indirect objects are
> > >marked by either the dative or the comitative suffix.  That is, the
> > >comitative suffix can mark the comitative relation, but also the dative
> > >relation.
> > >
> > >In Kannada, one finds the dative relation marked by the dative or the
> > >instrumental suffix, as in the examples below.
> > >
> > >Avanu-0 nana-ge bisket-annu tin-is-id-anu
> > >3SG-NOM 1SG-DAT biscuit-ACC eat-CAUS-PAST-3SG-MASC
> > >'He fed me the biscuit.'
> > >
> > >Avanu-0 nana-inda bisket-annu tin-is-id-anu
> > >3SG-NOM 1SG-INST biscuit-ACC eat-CAUS-PAST-3SG-MASC
> > >'He had me eat a biscuit.'
> > >
> > >This is the type of marking I'm interested in.
> > >
> > >
> > >My questions are:
> > >1) Regarding Malayalam, is there a difference in meaning (e.g. logical or
> > >conversational implicatures) between marking an indirect object with a
> > >dative or comitative marker?  If so, how would one describe the difference?
> > >
> > >2) Does Tamil have this type of marking, where the indirect object is
> > >marked by a dative suffix or by an instrumental or comitative suffix?  If
> > >so, are there differences in meaning expressing by using one or the other
> > >marker?  If so, how would one describe them?
> > >
> > >3) Does Telegu also have this type of marking??
> > >
> > >Any information on these questions would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > >Thanks very much,
> > >
> > >
> > >Clancy Clements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                 *********************************************
> > >                 J. Clancy Clements
> > >                 Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese
> > >                 Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics
> > >                 Director of Undergraduate Studies
> > >                 Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, BH844, IU-B
> > >                 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue
> > >                 Bloomington, IN 47405
> > >                 Tel 812-855-8612; Fax 812-855-4526
> > >                 http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html
> > >                 *********************************************
> > 
> > 
> > --
> 
> 
> 

----
J. Clancy Clements
Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese
Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics
Director of Undergraduate Studies