DOCSLIB.ORG

Inalienability Split in Possessive Nps and the Origin of the Two Cases with Genitive Function in Budugh

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inalienability Split in Possessive Nps and the Origin of the Two Cases with Genitive Function in Budugh Inalienability split in possessive NPs and the origin of the two cases with genitive function in Budugh Gilles Authier* 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Setting the problem Budugh, an East Caucasian language of the Lezgic branch spoken in a single village in Azerbaijan, is notable for exhibiting two different genitive forms (‘inlocative’ –a and ‘adlocative’ –u) whose distribution is determined by the (in)alienability of the possessum. In the following example, the inlocative (ending –a: or –e) is used twice, both in verb-dependent (locative) function and in noun-dependent (possessor / genitive marking) function with an inalienable possessum (a bodypart), while the adlocative (ending –u) marks the possessor as another genitive case in an alienable possessive relation: (1) ızga-n-u lem-ild-a: yiq’iy-e alq’ol-i other-SUBST-AD donkey-OBL-IN back.OBL-IN sit.IPF-PRS ‘He sits on the back of someone else’s donkey.’ (from fieldnotes, as are all Budugh examples here1) This uncommon situation is the result of a recent reshaping of the case system, as is shown by comparison with the most closely related language, Kryz (Kryz dialects and Budugh make up the Southern branch of Lezgic), and it should be linked with the phenomenon of differential recipient marking, a peculiarity found in most languages of this family. 1.2. Genitive splits Probably the majority of languages display a distinction (hereafter called “genitive split”) between two or more adnominal possessive constructions, whose application is determined by parameters such as the type of the possessum, the type of the possessor and the type of relation existing between the two (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003; Lander 2009). However, such oppositions are only very rarely conveyed by means of a contrast between different genitive cases. Rather, these splits usually involve variations in locus: distinct possessive * Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Courriel : [email protected] 1 The Budugh data were all generously provided by Adigoezel Hajiev. Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 178 Gilles Authier constructions are employed, such that the use of genitive case in one contrasts with the use of head-marking or the total absence of marking in another. Most frequently, a genitive morpheme or adposition is associated with the possessor (dependent-marking) and/or a possessive marker is found on the possessum (head-marking). According to Haspelmath (2006), this situation may be explained in terms of iconicity or frequency-related rules of economy in grammar. A common split triggering morphosyntactic differences in possessive NPs is between different kinds of possessors. The use of a genitive marker may be restricted to certain classes of nominals (those higher on the ‘animacy scale’), while topicality features account for such splits as found, for instance, in English (preposed Saxon genitive vs postposed adpositional genitive, cf. Deane, 1987) or in Azeri, where only possessors referring to accessible, specific referents take the genitive suffix: (2) a. it-in baş-ı dog-GEN head-POS3 ‘the head of the dog’ b. it baş-ı dog head-POS3 ‘a dog’s head’ The present paper will not deal with this – also rare – type of split, but will instead focus on the parameter known as the inalienable/alienable distinction (Chappell & McGregor 1995), involving the type of possessum and the type of possessive relation. The overall distinction between inalienable and alienable possession is rare in Eurasia, and commonly associated with remote, “exotic” languages of the Pacific area or the Americas, where it should be viewed against the wider background of systems of nominal classification in general. Binary possessive classification is usually called “alienable/inalienable” possession [...] partly because it is fairly common, especially in the Americas, for one of a binary set of possessive classes to be bound, i.e. obligatorily possessed. In fact, though, possessive classification is not a semantic or grammatical category but a purely lexical classification of nouns. [...] (Bickel & Nichols, 2005) Prototypical alienability contrasts (body parts, part-whole and kinship relation terms vs all others) can be expressed by differential marking on the possessum, because semantic features of the referent are responsible for the precise nuance of the possessive relation. But the most usual means of reflecting this split is a contrast between dependent-marking for alienable possession, that is, the use of a proper “genitive” case or adposition, and head-marking (possessive affixes on the possessee) or absence of marking for inalienable possession. Nevertheless, Nichols’ generalization: Most languages with head-marked possession have inalienable possession, and no language in my sample with exclusively dependent-marked possession has inalienable possession. (Nichols 1992:118). Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 179 meets with a few exceptions. It appears that alienability contrasts are not exclusively associated with head-marking possessive NP patterns or zero marking. At least five languages cited in the literature show an exclusively dependent-marking alienability contrast: Krongo (Nilo-Saharan), Old French, Spoken Faroese, Kuot (Papuan) and the East Caucasian language Khinalug (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003, and Lander 2009); Budugh should be added to this list. Budugh, an East Caucasian language distantly related to Khinalug, also shows the very rare type of inalienability split on possessive NPs in which alienable and inalienable possessors are marked by different cases: (3) a. *zo / za: q’ıl 1.AD 1.IN head ‘my head’ b. *za: / zo k’ant 1.IN 1.AD knife ‘my knife’ As will be seen below, both these adnominal cases also have predicate- dependent, originally spatial functions, which is why we label them inlocative (IN) and adlocative (AD) respectively. The morphological expression of this inalienability split may look straightforward, but the fact remains that such a device for this function is extremely rare cross-linguistically. The area where Khinalug is spoken happens to be separated from Budugh by just one valley (the Kryz-speaking area), but at the present stage of research these two instances of the phenomenon do not seem to share a common background, and we will not dwell upon what we see as a coincidence. And while the functional reason for the alienability split in Khinalug (a language with no close relatives within the East Caucasian family) is unknown, the history of case forms and functions in the Lezgic branch of East Caucasian, to which Budugh belongs, is now understood well enough to allow for a diachronic investigation.2 After describing the alienability split on Budugh possessive NPs in the following section, we will set it out against other types of possessor marking in NPs as they are found in related languages of the East Caucasian family, and introduce the notion of possessive classification as found in Kryz, the closest relative of Budugh. We will then explain the emergence of differential case marking on Budugh possessive NPs. The final section explains the emergence of the genitive split by relating it to the differential case marking of recipients (or ‘split-recipient’) as found in the majority of East Caucasian languages. 1.3. Binary genitive classification in Budugh: the alienability contrast Budugh NPs show a possessee-determined (alienability) split according to which a consistent class of nouns, characteristically comprising body parts, some part- 2 In literary Lezgian this concrete notion is usually assumed by the postposition ppattav ‘near’, which is itself the Adessive form of a noun originally meaning ‘flank’, cf. Haspelmath 1993. Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 180 Gilles Authier whole terms and some kinship terms, trigger the use of distinctive ‘inalienable’ case-marking when they appear in a possessive construction: the possessor is marked by different cases depending on whether or not the possessee belongs to this class. Note that the two cases involved in the Budugh system of possessive marking are syncretic: they express both nominal and predicate dependency. Hereafter these two cases are labelled with reference to their predicate-dependent, originally spatial function - IN for inlocative (marker –a), and AD for adlocative (marker –u) – but in NPs, possessors take the inlocative case when they depend on inalienable items (body-parts (4a) and other body-related types of possession (4b&c), including part-whole relationship (4d)): (4) a) za: xab za: q’ıl b) za: sa:s 1.IN hand 1.IN head 1.IN voice ‘my hand’ ‘my head’ ‘my voice’ c) za: gudž za: dard za: ya:s 1.IN strength 1.IN sorrow 1.IN funeral ‘my strength’ ‘my sorrow’ ‘my funeral’ d) dar-a: q’ala: tree-IN head.IN ‘at the top of the tree’ In contrast, possessors of items which are considered alienable bear adlocative case (5): (5) zo k’ant zo yurt 1.AD knife 1.AD country ‘my knife’ ‘my country’ yo uspor zo kıda 1PL.AD quarrel 1.AD work ‘our quarrel’ ‘my work’ Kin terms are evenly distributed across both types (6 vs 7), perhaps due to cultural biases (a wife can be repudiated, but not a husband, a father can exile his son, but not reversely): (6) za: ada za: furi 1.IN father 1.IN man ‘my father’ ‘my husband’ (7) zo ħedž zo dix 1.AD woman 1.AD son ‘my wife’ ‘my son’ But it should be mentioned that in many cases the choice between the two genitive forms seems arbitrary or at least lexically determined, which points to the fact that the grammaticalization of this split is probably a recent phenomenon: Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 181 (8) malla.dž-a: džib fu-ye tike mullah-IN pocket bread-IN piece ‘Mullah’s pocket’ ‘piece of bread’ but: (9) huv-o q:aye / vis-o xhad / xab-o t’il-imer mill-AD stone spring-AD water hand-AD finger-PL ‘millstone’ ‘spring water’ ‘the fingers of the hand’ 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Caucasian Languages
    The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication - TOJDAC April 2017 Special Edition COMPARISON OF VARIOUS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF PROXIMITY OF LANGUAGES: NORTH CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES Galeev Timur Ildarovich Kazan federal university (KFU), Kazan, Russia [email protected] Solovyev Valery Dmitrievich Kazan federal university (KFU), Kazan, Russia ABSTRACT A comparison of North Caucasian languages is performed in the article according to various measures of proximity constructed using grammatical, lexical and genetic databases. Statistical methods are applied to the study of correlations among these proximity measures, and also between them and both geographical proximity and genealogical kinship. A full correlation has been found among language kinship, geographic situation and genetic kinship of peoples. Also, a high correlation was found between each of them and lexical similarity. In general these correlations persist at different levels – starting at the whole set of studied languages until the level of the smallest groups of related languages. It is shown that a significant factor in the analysis of geographical situation is the existence of a common boundary between the regions of distribution of languages. Keywords: Various Quantitative Measures, geographical situation common boundary, Creativity, languages 1. INTRODUCTION The classification of languages by genetic kinship, developed in the last two centuries within the framework of historical linguistics applying the comparative historical method, offers a qualitative characteristic of language proximity by including them into macrofamilies, families, branches, groups, etc. Glottochronology provides a quantitative measure of proximity that, in particular, allows assessing the age of families and other language groups. Unfortunately, in many cases there is no consensus among experts about languages kinship; it must be said also that lexicostatistical data are controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Linguistic Knowledge Matters : the Use of the Partitive Case In
    B 111 OULU 2013 B 111 UNIVERSITY OF OULU P.O.B. 7500 FI-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS ACTA SERIES EDITORS HUMANIORAB Marianne Spoelman ASCIENTIAE RERUM NATURALIUM Marianne Spoelman Senior Assistant Jorma Arhippainen PRIOR LINGUISTIC BHUMANIORA KNOWLEDGE MATTERS University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen CTECHNICA THE USE OF THE PARTITIVE CASE IN FINNISH Docent Hannu Heusala LEARNER LANGUAGE DMEDICA Professor Olli Vuolteenaho ESCIENTIAE RERUM SOCIALIUM University Lecturer Hannu Heikkinen FSCRIPTA ACADEMICA Director Sinikka Eskelinen GOECONOMICA Professor Jari Juga EDITOR IN CHIEF Professor Olli Vuolteenaho PUBLICATIONS EDITOR Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, FINNISH LANGUAGE ISBN 978-952-62-0113-9 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-0114-6 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Print) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online) ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS B Humaniora 111 MARIANNE SPOELMAN PRIOR LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE MATTERS The use of the partitive case in Finnish learner language Academic dissertation to be presented with the assent of the Doctoral Training Committee of Human Sciences of the University of Oulu for public defence in Keckmaninsali (Auditorium HU106), Linnanmaa, on 24 May 2013, at 12 noon UNIVERSITY OF OULU, OULU 2013 Copyright © 2013 Acta Univ. Oul. B 111, 2013 Supervised by Docent Jarmo H. Jantunen Professor Helena Sulkala Reviewed by Professor Tuomas Huumo Associate Professor Scott Jarvis Opponent Associate Professor Scott Jarvis ISBN 978-952-62-0113-9 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-0114-6 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Printed) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online) Cover Design Raimo Ahonen JUVENES PRINT TAMPERE 2013 Spoelman, Marianne, Prior linguistic knowledge matters: The use of the partitive case in Finnish learner language University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Humanities, Finnish Language, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Contact-Induced Usages of Volitive Moods in East Caucasian Languages 1
    Nina Dobrushina State University Higher School of Economics Contact-induced usages of volitive moods 1 in East Caucasian languages 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to test a hypothesis of the influence of Azerbaijani on East Caucasian languages. It was noticed that most (if not all) Turkic languages widely use forms of imperatives and / or optatives for the main predicate of subordinate clauses of certain types, in particular purpose clauses and complement clauses of verbs of wish. I suppose that some East Caucasian languages had acquired these constructions under the influence of Azerbaijani. To support this hypothesis, I will consider the data of 13 East Caucasian languages and one Turkic language spoken in Dagestan. The structure of the article is as follows. Section 2 provides a preliminary discussion of Turkic Dagestanian contacts (2.1), justifies the choice of the languages in the sample (2.2), provides information on the contact situation for each of the languages (2.3), gives an overview of the imperative / optative forms in each language (2.4), argues that the subordinate usages of imperatives / optatives is a structural feature of Turkic languages (2.5), and introduces the constructions which will be diagnostic for the study (2.6). Languages which use volitional forms both in purpose clauses and in wish complement clauses are considered in Section 3, languages which have volitional forms only in purpose clauses are considered in Section 4, while Section 5 lists the languages which do not use volitional forms in subordinate clauses. Section 6 summarizes the discussion. 2.1. Turkic Dagestanian contacts According to the 2002 census, Turkic peoples constitute 20 percent of the population of Dagestan, while the speakers of East Caucasian languages are almost 75 %.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Semantics, Case and Relator Nouns in Evenki
    Spatial semantics, case and relator nouns in Evenki Lenore A. Grenoble University of Chicago Evenki, a Northwest Tungusic language, exhibits an extensive system of nominal cases, deictic terms, and relator nouns, used to signal complex spatial relations. The paper describes the use and distribution of the spatial cases which signal stative and dynamic relations, with special attention to their semantics within a framework using fundamental Gestalt concepts such as Figure and Ground, and how they are used in combination with deictics and nouns to signal specific spatial semantics. Possible paths of grammaticalization including case stacking, or Suffixaufnahme, are dis- cussed. Keywords: spatial cases, case morphology, relator noun, deixis, Suf- fixaufnahme, grammaticalization 1. Introduction Case morphology and relator nouns are extensively used in the marking of spa- tial relations in Evenki, a Tungusic language spoken in Siberia by an estimated 4802 people (All-Russian Census 2010). A close analysis of the use of spatial cases in Evenki provides strong evidence for the development of complex case morphemes from adpositions. Descriptions of Evenki generally claim the exist- ence of 11–15 cases, depending on the dialect. The standard language is based on the Poligus dialect of the Podkamennaya Tunguska subgroup, from the Southern dialect group, now moribund. Because it forms the basis of the stand- ard (or literary) language and as such has been relatively well-studied and is somewhat codified, it usually serves as the point of departure in linguistic de- scriptions of Evenki. However, the written language is to a large degree an artifi- cial construct which has never achieved usage in everyday conversation: it does not function as a norm which cuts across dialects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biabsolutive Construction in Lak and Tsez
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Lingua 150 (2014) 137--170 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez Annie Gagliardi a, Michael Goncalves a, Maria Polinsky a,*, Nina Radkevich b a Harvard University, USA b University of York, United Kingdom Received 12 November 2013; received in revised form 4 July 2014; accepted 8 July 2014 Available online Abstract In ergative constructions, the agent of a transitive verb is in the ergative case and the theme is in the absolutive case. By contrast, in biabsolutive constructions, both the agent and theme of a transitive verb appear in the absolutive case. This paper presents and analyzes the biabsolutive construction in two Nakh-Dagestanian languages, Lak and Tsez. Despite many surface similarities, the biabsolutive constructions in Lak and Tsez call for different syntactic analyses. We argue that the biabsolutive construction in Lak is an instance of restructuring in the presence of an aspectual head bearing a progressive (imperfective) feature. Tsez biabsolutive constructions, on the other hand, are biclausal; we argue that the theme and the lexical verb are contained in a PP complement selected by a light verb. Related languages may be classified as ‘‘Lak-type’’ or ‘‘Tsez-type’’ based on the behavior of their biabsolutives. The existence of two underlying structures for one surface pattern in Nakh-Dagestanian poses a learnability problem for a child acquiring a language with biabsolutive constructions. We outline a set of strategies used by a learner who must compare the available input data with a set of structural hypotheses. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevation As a Category of Grammar: Sanzhi Dargwa and Beyond Received May 11, 2018; Revised August 20, 2018
    Linguistic Typology 2019; 23(1): 59–106 Diana Forker Elevation as a category of grammar: Sanzhi Dargwa and beyond https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0001 Received May 11, 2018; revised August 20, 2018 Abstract: Nakh-Daghestanian languages have encountered growing interest from typologists and linguists from other subdiscplines, and more and more languages from the Nakh-Daghestanian language family are being studied. This paper provides a grammatical overview of the hitherto undescribed Sanzhi Dargwa language, followed by a detailed analysis of the grammaticalized expression of spatial elevation in Sanzhi. Spatial elevation, a topic that has not received substantial attention in Caucasian linguistics, manifests itself across different parts of speech in Sanzhi Dargwa and related languages. In Sanzhi, elevation is a deictic category in partial opposition with participant- oriented deixis/horizontally-oriented directional deixis. This paper treats the spatial uses of demonstratives, spatial preverbs and spatial cases that express elevation as well as the semantic extension of this spatial category into other, non-spatial domains. It further compares the Sanzhi data to other Caucasian and non-Caucasian languages and makes suggestions for investigating elevation as a subcategory within a broader category of topographical deixis. Keywords: Sanzhi Dargwa, Nakh-Daghestanian languages, elevation, deixis, demonstratives, spatial cases, spatial preverbs 1 Introduction Interest in Nakh-Daghestanian languages in typology and in other linguistic subdisciplines has grown rapidly in recent years, with an active community of linguists from Russia and other countries. The goal of the present paper is to pour more oil into this fire and perhaps to entice new generations of scholars to join the throng.
    [Show full text]
  • The Present and the Future Within the Lezgic Tense and Aspect Systems∗
    TIMUR MAISAK (Institute of Linguistics, Moscow) The Present and the Future within the Lezgic tense and ∗ aspect systems In this paper those finite verbal forms of the Lezgic languages are discussed whose main function is to express the present or the future time reference. As a rule, such forms are built on imperfective non-finite forms and include a present copula. The following source patterns which usually give rise to Presents and Futures in these languages are analysed in detail: the Infinitive Pattern (“Infinitive + Copula”), the Locative Pattern (“Imperfective Converb + Locative Copula”), the Imperfective Converb Pattern (“Imperfective Converb + Copula”), and the Participle Pattern (“Imperfective Participle + Copula”). Grammaticalization paths of these patterns show much in common, in particular the ‘present’ to ‘future’ semantic evolution. Introduction Tense and aspect systems of languages belonging to the Lezgic group of the Nakh-Daghestanian (East Caucasian) family share the following important features — some of which are certainly not restricted to this particular group, but can be viewed as defining the typological profile of the family as a whole: • most finite indicative verbal forms are analytical, at least historically, and have more or less transparent structure: although at the present stage they can be morphologically rather tight (and, strictly speaking, synthetic), their original periphrastic structure is very often quite evident; • such analytical forms are most often made of one of three independently existing non-finite forms (a participle, a converb, or an infinitive) and a copula (a defective stative verb meaning ‘be, exist’ or ‘be inside’); • non-finite forms (at least participles and converbs) are regularly marked for either perfective or imperfective aspect, and as a rule are derived from the corresponding verbal stems: this constitutes what may be called the “perfective” vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Azeri Morphology in Kryz (East Caucasian) Gilles Authier Gilles Authier 2010
    Azeri morphology in Kryz (East Caucasian) Gilles Authier Gilles Authier 2010. Azeri morphology in Kryz (East Caucasian). Turkic Languages 10, xx-xx. Abstract: The paper deals with the copying of morphemes and patterns from Turkic into the morphology of Kryz, an East Caucasian language of northern Azerbaijan. The copied morphemes in question are clitics found in the periphery of the verb system (expressing evidentiality, indefiniteness) and valency-changing morphology imported globally together with Azeri forms, as well as adjective-forming derivational suffixes. The copied structures are more diverse, and have left a mark on many areas of the morphology, in both verb and noun phrases. Gilles Authier, 50 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, 75003 Paris, France E-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction Most of the data presented here are taken from (Authier 2009), which is a complete description of one of the dialects of Kryz, a language belonging to the Lezgic branch of East Caucasian. In this paper we shall discuss some of the issues related to language contact which have left traces in the grammar of Kryz, namely the global and selective copying (for these terms see Johanson 2006a) of Turkic (Azeri) morphological features. There are some striking typological similarities between East Caucasian and Turkic languages, in contrast with other adjacent languages or language families such as North Caucasian, South Caucasian (Kartvelian) or Indo-European. For instance, the major strategies for subordinate clauses is left-branching, involving the use of non finite or low-focal elements as heads of subordinate clauses (participles in relative clauses, converbs in adverbial clauses, and masdars (nominalized verbs) in complement clauses); the unmarked word order is also rather similar (basically SOV, GN, AN) in Turkic and East Caucasian.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Tsezian Languages Bernard Comrie, Maria Polinsky, and Ramazan
    Tsezian Languages Bernard Comrie, Maria Polinsky, and Ramazan Rajabov Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany University of California, San Diego, USA Makhachkala, Russia 1. Sociolinguistic Situation1 The Tsezian (Tsezic, Didoic) languages form part of the Daghestanian branch of the Nakh-Daghestanian (East Caucasian) language family. They form one branch of an Avar-Andi-Tsez grouping within the family, the other branch of this grouping being Avar-Andi. Five Tsezian languages are conventionally recognized: Khwarshi (Avar x∑arßi, Khwarshi a¥’ilqo), Tsez (Avar, Tsez cez, also known by the Georgian name Dido), Hinuq (Avar, Hinuq hinuq), Bezhta (Avar beΩt’a, Bezhta beΩ¥’a. also known by the Georgian name Kapuch(i)), and Hunzib (Avar, Hunzib hunzib), although the Inkhokwari (Avar inxoq’∑ari, Khwarshi iqqo) dialect of Khwarshi and the Sagada (Avar sahada, Tsez so¥’o) dialect of Tsez are highly divergent. Tsez, Hinuq, Bezhta, and Hunzib are spoken primarily in the Tsunta district of western Daghestan, while Khwarshi is spoken primarily to the north in the adjacent Tsumada district, separated from the other Tsezian languages by high mountains. (See map 1.) In addition, speakers of Tsezian languages are also to be found as migrants to lowland Daghestan, occasionally in other parts of Russia and in Georgia. Estimates of the number of speakers are given by van den Berg (1995) as follows, for 1992: Tsez 14,000 (including 6,500 in the lowlands); Bezhta 7,000 (including 2,500 in the lowlands); Hunzib 2,000 (including 1,300 in the lowlands); Hinuq 500; Khwarshi 1,500 (including 600 in the lowlands).
    [Show full text]
  • Syntax of Hungarian. Nouns and Noun Phrases, Volume 2
    Comprehensive Grammar Resources Series editors: Henk van Riemsdijk, István Kenesei and Hans Broekhuis Syntax of Hungarian Nouns and Noun Phrases Volume 2 Edited by Gábor Alberti and Tibor Laczkó Syntax of Hungarian Nouns and Noun Phrases Volume II Comprehensive Grammar Resources With the rapid development of linguistic theory, the art of grammar writing has changed. Modern research on grammatical structures has tended to uncover many constructions, many in depth properties, many insights that are generally not found in the type of grammar books that are used in schools and in fields related to linguistics. The new factual and analytical body of knowledge that is being built up for many languages is, unfortunately, often buried in articles and books that concentrate on theoretical issues and are, therefore, not available in a systematized way. The Comprehensive Grammar Resources (CGR) series intends to make up for this lacuna by publishing extensive grammars that are solidly based on recent theoretical and empirical advances. They intend to present the facts as completely as possible and in a way that will “speak” to modern linguists but will also and increasingly become a new type of grammatical resource for the semi- and non- specialist. Such grammar works are, of necessity, quite voluminous. And compiling them is a huge task. Furthermore, no grammar can ever be complete. Instead new subdomains can always come under scientific scrutiny and lead to additional volumes. We therefore intend to build up these grammars incrementally, volume by volume. In view of the encyclopaedic nature of grammars, and in view of the size of the works, adequate search facilities must be provided in the form of good indices and extensive cross-referencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Adjective Attribution (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 2)
    Michael Rießler. 2016. Adjective attribution (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog © 2016, Michael Rießler Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-944675-65-7 (Digital) 978-3-944675-66-4 (Hardcover) 978-3-944675-49-7 (Softcover) 978-1-530889-34-1 (Softcover US) ISSN: 2363-5568 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Felix Kopecky, Sebastian Nordhoff, Michael Rießler Proofreading: Martin Haspelmath, Joshua Wilbur Fonts: Linux Libertine, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Language Science Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. За най-любимите ми Алма, Ива и Кристина Contents Preface This is a thoroughly revised version of my doctoral dissertation Typology and evolution of adjective attribution marking in the languages of northern Eurasia, which I defended at Leipzig University in January 2011 and published electroni- cally as riesler2011a I am indebted to my family members, friends, project collab- orators, data consultants, listeners, supporters, sources of inspiration, opponents and other people who assisted in completing my dissertation. I am very thankful to the series editors who accepted my manuscript for pub- lication with this prestigious open-access publisher, to the technical staff at Lan- guage Science Press, as well as to proofreaders and other individuals who have spent their valuable time producing of this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation in the Morphosyntactic Alignment of Uralic Causative
    0.1 NKhanty Mari Hungarian Udmurt Mansi Causer Erzya Causee Komi EKhanty TNenets Estonian Votic SSaami NSaami Livonian Finnish Selkup Inari Causative morpheme Kildin Kamass Nganasan Variation in the morphosyntacticSEst Veps alignment of Uralic causative constructions Jyri Lehtinen, Heini Arjava, Riho Grünthal (University of Helsinki) & Johanna Nichols (University of California, Berkeley) Syntax of the Uralic languages 3, Tartu, 18–19 June 2019 1 / 28 Causative alternation in Uralic ● Extension into the Uralic languages of the approach described in Nichols et al. (2004) – Lexical valence orientation: Transitivizing vs. detransitivizing (or causativizing vs. decausativizing) languages – In addition, phylogenetic models of Uralic language relationships – Phylogenies taking into account both valence orientation (grammar) and origin of relevant forms (etymology) 2 / 28 Causative alternation in Uralic ● 22 Uralic language varieties: – South Sámi, North Sámi, Inari Sámi, Kildin Sámi – Finnish, Veps, Votic, Estonian, Southern Estonian, Livonian – Erzya – Meadow Mari – Udmurt, Komi-Zyrian – Hungarian, Northern Mansi, Eastern Khanty, Northern Khanty – Tundra Nenets, Nganasan, Kamass, Selkup 3 / 28 Alternation in animate verbs ● For animate verbs, all surveyed languages are predominantly causativizing – e.g. ’eat’ / ’feed’: North Sámi borrat / borahit; Estonian sööma / söötma; Northern Mansi tēŋkwe / tittuŋkwe; Hungarian eszik / etet ● Little decaus., much caus.: North Sámi, S Estonian, Mari, Samoyed; much decaus., little caus.: Kildin Sámi, Livonian,
    [Show full text]