Fwd: Re: Case marking in some Dravidian languages
Clancy Clements
clements at INDIANA.EDU
Wed Jul 24 15:47:29 UTC 2002
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 Gail,
Thanks very much for your email message. It turns out that there may be
something analogous in Malayalam, at least in what I've been able to find.
Here are the postpositions in Mayalam and what they mark:
Acc Dat Ben || Cause
Instru Comitative
0 -kka -kka
(vendi) || -konDa -konDa -ooTa (literary Mal.)
-ye -ooTa ||
-yuTe kuuTe (spoken Mal.)
||
-yu mayi (spoken Mal.)
The difference between Dative marking with -kka (vendi) or -ooTa is that
with the former (in 1a) there is no implicature that the child is the
'middle man' who will then deliver the book to the actual intended
receiver, although it can be that way if such language to that end is added
to the context. With (2a), there is an implicature (it's not 100% clear
whether it's a logical entailment or more of a conversational implicature)
that the child will deliver the book to the intended receiver.
(1a) oraal kuTTikka pusthakam koduthu.
man child-DAT book gave
'The man gave the book to the child.'
(1b) oraal kuTTiooTa pusthakam koduthu
man child-COMIT book gave
'The man gave the book to the child (for the child to deliver it to someone).'
Playing with the context somewhat, I"ve found sentences which allow one of
the suffixes but disallow the other. This makes (1b) look more like a
logical entailment. A favor or assistance, for example, cannot usually be
delivered by an intermediary. Thus, (2a) is fine, whereas (2b) is
unacceptable, according to my informant.
(2a) Manushayan kuTTikka oru sahaayam
cheithu koduthu.
man child-DAT one favor
did gave
'The man did the child a favor.'
(2b) *Manushayan kuTTiooTa oru sahaayam
cheithu koduthu.
man child-DAT one favor
did gave
The use of -ooTa in this way is reminiscent of how causative constructions
function in languages such as Kannada, Hindi, and other Indic
languages. However, Malayalam doesn't use -ooTa in its causative
construction, as shown by examples in (3), in which we find the CAUS affix
-ppii in both causative sentences and -konDa in the one marking the
'intermediary' in (3c).
(3a) Ram aahaaram kazhikkunu.
Ram food eat-is
'Ram is eating the food.'
(3b) Ram Siitaye aahaaram
kazhippiikkunnu.
Ram Siita-acc food eat-caus-is
'Ram is making Siita eat the food.'
(3c) Ram Siita-konDa Gitaye kazhippiikkunnu.
Ram Siita-inst Gita-acc eat-caus-is
'Ram is making Siita make Gita eat the food.'
It's not clear how the comitative suffix -ooTs came to mark the
intermediary in a transfer event. I gave a paper touching on this at SALA
this year, and Brian Joseph remarked that Dative -ooTa seems like a natural
extension of the comitative, which seems reasonable.
Returning to your data, the instrumental marker in Betta Kurumba seems have
its analog in the use of Malayalam -konDa, an instrumental marker. I
wonder if Betta Kurumba has anything analogous to what Malayalam has with
-ooTa.
Thanks again for the information. I hope this information is useful.
Clancy Clements
-----------
At 12:25 PM 7/23/2002 -0500, you 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 Dr. Clements,
>
>This is a second and delayed response to this message (enclosed below)
>about causatives you sent to Vyakaran. I'm working on Betta Kurumba, a
>minority Dravidian language spoken in an area overlapping the Kannada,
>Tamil, and Malayalam areas. This language has similar causative sentences
>to the ones you mention, except that it has a third form as well. The three
>forms are given below; the third contains an instrumental postposition. The
>first implies that Bomman was coerced into grinding the flour; the second
>implies that he had greater scope for volition (sort of assigned to do the
>task, agreed to do the task). In both these, the implication is that Bomman
>himself did the job. In the third, which has the instrumental, Bomman plays
>a role in getting the job done, but he does not necessarily do the job
>himself -- he could either have got someone else to do it or done it
>himself. I therefore see the use of the instrumental as a way of reducing
>the role of the causee.
>
>1) nawI bommIn-a ma:wI yari-si-s-IdI
> 1SG.NOM Bomman-ACC. flour grind-CAUS-PAST-SG.
> I made Bomman grind the flour.
>
>2) nawI bommIn-a ma:wI yar-pisi-s-IdI
> 1SG.NOM Bomman-ACC. flour grind-CAUS-PAST-SG.
> I got Bomman to grind the flour.
>
>3) nawI bommIn ipIli ma:wI yar-pisi-s-IdI
> 1SG.NOM Bomman INSTR flour grind-CAUS-PAST-SG.
> I got the flour ground through Bomman.
>
>There are other verbs with which all 3 forms are not possible, only 2 are
>possible -- either of (1) or (2), plus (3) (the choice of (1) or (2)
>relates to a non-past tense marker actually). With those verbs, the issue
>of coercion vs. volition depends on context or the semantics of the verb.
>The 3rd form (containing the instrumental) is normally used to imply that
>the causer did not necessarily do the task himself. I wonder if that
>applies also to the sentence you have with the instrumental -- that your
>Kannada sentence implies that "I" was the instrument of getting the
>biscuits eaten, but did not necessarily eat them myself ... not sure if it
>works.
>
>Gail Coelho
>
>>At 04:09 PM 12/27/01 -0500, J. Clancy Clements wrote:
>>>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
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, BH844, IU-B
1020 East Kirkwood Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47401 USA
Tel 812-855-8612
Fax 812-855-4526
Email clements at indiana.edu
*****************************************************************
More information about the Vyakaran
mailing list