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. Nominal possessive marking in East Caucasian As in Budugh, possessive NPs elsewhere in East Caucasian are overwhelmingly dependent-marking: that is, possession is always marked on the possessor, either by a dedicated genitive case ending or by an ‘attributive’ marker (also found on adjectival or verbal attributes to nouns) whose form is determined by the gender and number, and sometimes the case, of the head noun (possessee).

2.1. Genitive marking in non-Lezgic branches of East Caucasian It is well known that genitive markers may simultaneously express other categories, such as the number and gender of the possessor in Latin and Greek, but this is not really the case in East Caucasian, where nominal inflection is concatenative and rarely shows fusional processes. The number and gender of the noun in the genitive case are expressed (if at all) by separate (“oblique”) morphemes which precede the genitive marker. Thus in Avar:

(10) a. vas / ču boy(NOM)(M) horse(NOM)(N)

b. vas-al / ču-yal boy-PL.NOM horse-PL.NOM

c. vas-ass-ul bet’er / ču-yał-ul bet’er boy-M-GEN head horse-N-GEN head

d. vas-az-ul but’rul / ču-yaz-ul but’rul boy-PL.OBL-GEN head.PL horse-PL.OBL-GEN head.PL

In many Andic languages, such as Bagvalal (Kibrik & al. 2001: 140), more topical pronominal, singular masculine, and plural human possessors (plus some toponyms) show concord with the possessee (11a), while possessors of other kinds employ the genitive case (11b):

(11) a. ehun-dar-alu-b misa blacksmith-PL-OBL.HPL-NONH house ‘the blacksmiths’ house’

b. xwan-e:-ł: un-abi horse-OBL.PL-GEN head-PL ‘the horses’ heads’

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 182 Gilles Authier

In languages of the Tsezic branch the choice of genitive marker depends on the case of the possessee (nominative or oblique). For instance, in Khwarshi (Tsezic, Khalilova 2009) the first type of genitive is found with a possessee in the nominative (17a) while the second type (‘oblique genitive’) occurs when the possessee is in any other case (17b):

(12) a. hada žik’o-s eⁿs b-ıt’-x-in b-eč-ın. one.OBL man-GEN1 ox(NOM)(N) N-divide-CAUS-PFCV N-be-UWPST ‘One man’s ox was stolen.’

b. y-uq’ˤq’ˤu y-ek’l-un čamassek’-lo hast’ina-ma-li. F-big F-fall-UWPST date-GEN2 trough.OBL-IN-LAT ‘The elder (sister) fell into the trough of dates.’

2.2. Genitive marking in sub-branches of Lezgic The Lezgic branch of East Caucasian comprises around a dozen languages, some of which are among the best known in the whole family. Possessive NPs in Lezgic are rather diverse, and reflect the accepted genetic classification into Western, Eastern, and Southern branches (we do not consider the ‘outsiders’ Udi and Archi in the present discussion). In Lezgic as in other branches of East Caucasian, the genitive case form is usually built on an ‘oblique base’ identical with the form used for the ergative case (the ergative marker itself showing considerable allomorphy in all languages), except in Kryz and Budugh, which form the Southern branch.

2.2.1. Case-sensitive attributive marking in Western Lezgic : In the Western Lezgic Languages Rutul and Tsakhur, nouns in their attributive function agree with head nouns in a less straightforward way than in Tsezic, and include possessor nouns in the more general category of “attributive”. Tsakhur, for instance, has three attributive markers: it adds -n, –na, or -ni according to the gender and obliqueness of the head (see Kibrik et al. 1997, and Kibrik 2003). (Southern) Rutul (our own field data) adds –(I)d to the attributive element if the head is a nominative singular or plural in the Neuter (fourth gender) or a nominative plural of any gender, and –(I)dI if the head is a nominative singular Male, Female, or Animate (third gender, including some inanimates like ‘village’) or an oblique in any gender and number:

(13) a. yi-id naqˤ’ 1-ATTR1 dream(N)(NOM) ‘my dream’

b. yi-di muqˤw 1-ATTR2 village(A)(NOM) ‘my village’

c. yedüš-id muqˤw-bu 1PL.OBL-ATTR1 village-PL.NOM ‘our villages’

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 183

d. yi-di neqˤ’ıkla: 1-ATTR2 dream.SUBEL ‘from my dream’

e. yedüš-di muqˤw-ma: 1PL.OBL-ATTR2 village-PL.OBL.IN ‘in our villages’

This is of course comparable to the Tsezic system illustrated above for Khwarshi.

2.2.2. Simple genitive split in Eastern Lezgic : Like many languages of the world which display various genitive marking strategies, Eastern Lezgic (Lezgian, Agul, and Tabassaran) distinguishes between pronominal and non-pronominal possessors, in that the former make use of suppletive or more highly grammaticalized forms. For instance, in Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993) all nouns and 3rd person pronouns form their genitive by adding the morpheme –n to the form of the ergative-oblique stem, whereas the genitive forms of personal pronouns are not derived from either the nominative or the ergative, and show a simpler phonological structure (I believe they in fact represent the original bare stems):

‘bear’ 3SG reflexive pronoun 1SG 2SG NOM sev vič zun vun ERG sev-re vič-i za (vu)na GEN sev-re-n vič-i-n zivi

Such instances of allomorphy are very common crosslinguistically, and are certainly motivated by semantic-pragmatic considerations, which may develop into complex morphosemantic classifications.

2.3. Possessive classification of nouns in Kryz

The Southern branch of the Lezgic group, which includes Budugh and Kryz, constitutes a notable exception to some of the most pervasive features of genitive marking in East Caucasian. First of all, unlike most of its relatives, which use the ergative form as an oblique base on which all other cases (including the genitive or attributive) are formed by means of additional morphemes, Kryz uses the oblique base as a genitive case form and, except on nouns denoting higher animates, derives the ergative form with an invariant additional marker. In addition, as shown in detail in Authier (2009), the Kryz genitive case shows a very high degree of allomorphy, reflecting the oblique stems of other languages, and even encodes identifiable semantic classes. The genitive-marking morphemes of Kryz (alongside apophony and zero) are: -a, -i, and -d, -n, -l, -r, -rd, -dži (before the last two a high vowel is inserted when necessary).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 184 Gilles Authier

Figure 1 :Animacy and genitive allomorphy in Kryz, from (Authier 2009) proper mass names, objects, SAP, ‘son’, ‘man’, nouns, -ar animals places body others intensifiers ‘dog’ kinship –bi plurals, parts plurals sheep N O -n/Ø/-b -Ø /-y -Ø M G -d/- - E -a (e) -Ø -l, r, i -dž(i) rd/-l... Ø N I -Ø -a -a +a N E R ø/-n/-r +r G

One of the numerous genitive markers of Kryz (–a) also characterizes one of the two genitive case-markers found in Budugh (–a or -e), namely that expressing inalienable possession. On Kryz words which take other genitive markers, this –a ending marks the Inlocative case. The –a marker is an instance of syncretism: -a marks the genitive case on lower animates which can hardly be conceived of as agents. It should rather be described as a genitive-locative case marker on nouns denoting inanimate, massive (non countable) referents.3 Although many languages (e.g. the ancient Indo-European languages) show instances of allomorphy in genitive case marking, these seldom reflect animacy hierachies as such: they are usually a feature of complex paradigms in which animacy does not account for most of the irregularities. Non-binary specifically possessive semantic classification as found in Kryz is rare, and certainly rarer than binary oppositions as found in Khinalug or Budugh to mark an alienability contrast, which is, again, fairly common outside Eurasia.

3. Differential recipient-marking

The importance of the alienability distinction in the division of labour between inlocative and adlocative marking on possessors in Budugh finds its explanation

3 An ergative-inessive complementary distribution is found in related languages, both in the Lezgic branch, e.g. Tsakhur (see Kibrik 1997), and in other branches of East Caucasian, e.g. Tsez (Comrie 2009). In Tsakhur and Tsez, as in Kryz, nominals ranking highest in the hierarchy of animacy and topicality features are never found with inessive function, but use the same morpheme to mark their role as agents of transitive verbs. The use of this marker as a genitive case in Kryz and Budugh thus probably results not from the reinterpretation of an adverbial function, but instead from the reinterpretation of a split agent-marking system of nominal classification as a split possessor-marking system.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 185 in another morphosyntactic feature typical of most East Caucasian languages: possessors dependent on transfer predicates are marked contrastively for permanent vs non-permanent possession, using a dedicated dative case for the former, and a spatial case, also found with other functions, for the latter. The semantic shift from a lative case to a recipient marking function is a very common path of grammaticalization. Less straightforward is the question of how non-permanent vs permanent transfer came to be expressed by the contrast between the adlocative and the ‘normal’ dative. But the origin of this phenomenon does not need to occupy us here, and we merely require a precise description of it in some of the languages concerned.

3.1. Spatial Cases and split-recipient in East Caucasian and Lezgic Alekseev (1997) has proposed a convincing reconstruction of the spatial cases which applies to various branches of the East Caucasian languages, and especially for the Lezgic branch. Proto-Lezgic seems to have had a system of up to eight ‘localisation’ markers. The number of spatial localisation markers was reduced to five in Kryz’s most conservative dialect in this respect (inlocative –a(ʕ); sublocative -ky; apudlocative -xw; adlocative -v; superlocative -ğ). Budugh, like the two less conservative dialects of Kryz, has lost one more marker (SUPER, replaced by a postposition) and uses the remaining ones (IN: -a:; SUB: -k; APUD: -ux; AD: -o/u) with mostly syntactic value, the concrete localisations being expressed by postpositions. The following table gives the dative and localisation markers found in both Kryz and Budugh as well as their counterparts in Archi and Agul (two conservative languages in terms of case marking), along with the etyma reconstructed for Proto-Lezgic:

Proto-Lezgic Archi Agul KryzBudugh DAT *-s -s -s -s/z -z IN *-(a)ʔ -a -(a)ʔ -a(ʕ) -a(:) POST/APUD *-q(w) -q -q -xw -u/ox SUB *-kł’ -kł’ -kk -k -k AD *-ł:w -ł:u -w -v/u -u/o

East Caucasian spatial cases generally tend to encroach on the functional domain of core argument marking. In the context of transfer predicates, Daghestanian recipients are typically marked for permanent versus non-permanent possession, with a dative case used for the former and a syncretic spatial case used for the latter. Concerning the core languages of the Lezgic branch at least, the ‘split-recipient’ phenomenon involving two cases marking different recipients (-s for permanent recipients, -ł:w for non-permanent recipients) can be reconstructed for the proto-language. But the dative marker, used for the permanent recipient throughout the branch, is clearly an old grammatical case, found in at least one other branch of the family

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 186 Gilles Authier

(namely Dargic), whereas the governed use of adlocative to mark non-permanent recipient with the same transfer verbs is a comparatively recent grammaticalization. We now address this issue as manifested in the dialect of Lezgian (Eastern branch) spoken near the Budugh and Kryz speaking areas, and in Kryz, genetically the closest relative of Budugh. Reflexes of the adlocative (marker –v/u < -ł:w) with its spatial meaning of ‘location near/at’ are also found in all Lezgic languages except Udi (an outlier within the Lezgic branch), and in only a part of the domain has it undergone a metaphorical extension outside the spatial domain to mark higher animates in the role of non-permanent possessors in the valence frame of transfer predicates. The adlocative case has thus extended its functional value to non-permanent recipient marking in two branches of core Lezgic: Eastern and Southern. In the more archaic Archi and the Western branch (Tsakhur and Rutul), however, it has only spatial or comitative meaning. ‘Split-recipient’, ‘split recipient’ or ‘differential recipient-marking’ is a feature shared by most East Caucasian languages. According to Daniel & al. (2009):

the high elaboration of space semantics in these languages accounts for the grammaticalisation of this phenomenon. Goal-distinctions are numerous enough to afford to use one of them for a special semantic type of recipient, and ‘give’-verbs in the languages of the East Caucasian family distinguish between two types of transfer by breaking down the Recipient role into two case-marking strategies which are called dative and lative, respectively, where other languages make lexical distinctions (‘give’ vs. ‘lend’). Dative vs. lative Recipients contrast ‘give forever, offer’ vs. ‘give for a while, lend to someone, hand’ types of situations, respectively [...]

3.2. Differential recipient-marking in the Lezgian dialect of Azerbaijan

In the Lezgian dialect of Azerbaijan as investigated by Babaliyeva (2007), the adlocative case is used as a spatial essive or lative case (we call this syncretism ‘locative’) with verbs showing the historically related preverb -(a)g(w)- and with the locational copula gwa ‘be close’, which share with the adlocative marker an origin in the morpheme g(v) < *łłw ‘near, close, with’:

(14) ima-n q:ačğan.di-v agat-na 3-and cauldron-AD approach-AOR ‘He came close to the cauldron.’

(15) dana-ar.i-v gva: danarqhan calf-PL-AD be.at.PART calf_breeder ‘A keeper of calves who was tending the calves.’

In addition, the Lezgian adlocative denotes a non-permanent recipient depending on verbs like vigun ‘give (not permanently)’ or vaxk:un < *va-x-gun ‘give back’, (both show the preverb va-, etymologically related to the adessive case marker):

(16) k:ul viga-na in p:up:a ruš.a-v broom give-AOR this woman.ERG girl-AD ‘This woman gave the broom to the girl.’

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 187

(17) dokument-ar vaxk:a-na yesi.di-v document-PL give.back-AOR owner-AD ‘He gave back the documents to their owner.’

In contrast, the beneficiary of permanent transfer verbs like gun ‘give (permanently, without the characteristic preverb)’ is expressed by the dative case in -z:

(18) va-z ada q:izil-ar p:ara ga-na 2-DAT 3.ERG gold-PL much give-AOR ‘He gave you too many gold coins.’

3.3. Differential recipient-marking in Kryz As in the Lezgian of Azerbaijan, the Kryz Adlocative case is used for locative adjuncts correlating with the preverb va- (19) as well as for temporary recipients (20):

(19) sus-ur idž siy.i-v va-r-e bride-ERG self.F(GEN) mouth-AD PV-push-PRS ‘The bride draws (her veil) in front of her mouth.’

(20) div.ul-ir šuša q:ari-v / q:ari-z vuts’-re demon-ERG bottle woman-AD woman-DAT give-PRS ‘The demon lends / gives the bottle to the woman’.

The same verb vuyidž ‘give’ denotes both permanent transfer of possession with the dative marking in -z and non-permanent transfer of possession with the adlocative case in –v.

4. Three different cases with dative-like semantics in Budugh

It is not surprising that Budugh, spoken in Azerbaijan in close contact with Kryz and Lezgian, shares with them the morphosemantic split between different kinds of recipients, although this is probably an areal rather than an inherited feature. Its special interest for our topic here is that it seems to represent the most probable explanation for the emergence of the later split involving the possessive construction. Let us first examine how the recipient domain is split up in this language. Budugh has two forms (ending in –a and –u) for any noun denoting a potential possessor, whose distribution is determined by the (in)alienability of the possessum. Both of these contrasting genitive-like cases also have non- adnominal, constituent-marking functions. In these clause-level functions, they encroach upon the functional domain of the proper dative marker –z inherited from Proto-Lezgic, which we have just observed marking permanent recipients in Kryz and Lezgian. Budugh is thus richly endowed with no fewer than three cases marking indirect objects, including two types of recipients: the dative case in –z, the inlocative in –a, and the adlocative in –u/o, all inherited from Proto-Lezgic.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 188 Gilles Authier

4.1. Dative proper (-z) in Budugh The old Lezgic dative ending in –z serves in Budugh for permanent recipients with verbs of giving, as well as for causees of causative verbs derived from simple transitives, or for experiencers in predicates of perception:

(21) a. vın zaz k’ant yıva-dži 2.NOM 1.DAT knife give-PERF ‘You gave me (dative) the knife (as a present, permanently)’.

This dative marker is never used on a nominal which itself depends on another nominal. Note that it can be moved to preverbal focus position:

(21) b. vın k’ant zaz yıva-dži 2.NOM knife 1.DAT give-PERF ‘You gave the knife (as a present, permanently) to ME (dative)’.

4.2. Adlocative (-u/o) in Budugh The Budugh adlocative case has not completely lost its spatial value, either essive or lative:

(22) k’ul-džo halma šey-ri da-d house-AD such thing-PL NEG-NPL ‘In the house no such things exist.’

(23) furi k’ul-džo čağar-da man.NOM house-AD go.IPF-WHEN ‘When the man was nearing the house...’

But with animates, a postposition bada ‘near’ governing the inlocative has to be used in the valence frames of position and movement verbs:

(24) riž *furo / fura bada čoğor-a:vi girl(A) man.AD man.IN near A.go.IPF-PROG ‘The girl is getting married’

On higher animates, the adlocative also marks arguments as temporary recipients, as in Kryz and Lezgian, but unlike the dative-marked forms, the adlocative- marked forms are apparently rarely placed in focus position to the left of the verb:

(25) ? q:unši-džir ʕadžğan Ma:lla:-džu yuts’u-ri neighbour cauldron mullah-AD give-PRS ‘The neighbour lends the cauldron to Mullah.’

Rather, the recipient occurs to the left of the theme argument (the thing given), especially if the former, and the giver-argument are pronouns (as a rule pronouns in Budugh cluster together to various degrees):

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 189

(26) vın zo k’ant yıva-dži 2.NOM 1.AD knife give-PERF ‘You gave (for a while) the knife to me (adlocative)’.

4.3. Inlocative (-a) in Budugh and dialects of Kryz The inlocative is found in all core Lezgic languages plus Archi with its original spatial meaning (location inside a loose, open space), but it is restricted to non- animate referents in this function. On nouns with animate referents and personal pronouns, it tends to mark the role of agent (ergative), with considerable variation across languages and even dialects. In Budugh, the inlocative is employed more commonly than the corresponding forms in Kryz as a verb-dependent case, either retaining its original meaning as a spatial locative (essive/lative) case, with verbs of position or movement:

(27) kačal-džir fu-yer ʕadžğan-dža ʕats’a-dži bald-ERG bread-PL cauldron-IN pour-PERF ‘The bald man put the bread into the cauldron’. or employed metaphorically/idiomatically with dative-like function:

(28) za: ina:m ʕoğo-dži 1.IN trust(A) A.bring-PERF ‘He [brought trust to me =] trusted me’.

But note that in Budugh, only the dative case can be used to signal permanent recipients, whereas non-permanent recipients are indicated by the adlocative case. Unlike in other East Caucasian languages, this contrast in the marking of possession at the predicate level has been partially extended to the NP level. Here the inlocative case has come to signal intrinsically permanent or inalienable possession, and the adlocative case non-permanent or alienable possession.

4.4. Alienability contrast from differential recipient-marking

Languages very commonly use the same case to encode adnominal possessors and core syntactic cases. For instance, one of the two genitive cases in Khinalug (the one used on inalienable possessors) is also the ergative case which marks agents of transitive verbs. With some knowledge of colloquial French (la voiture à mon père instead of la voiture de mon père), it comes as no surprise that possessors can be marked in the same way as recipients; on the other hand, often the genitive case found in possessive NPs also appears at the clause level, as in Azeri and some Daghestanian languages such as Avar:

(29) ebel-ał-ul tso vas-gi v-ugo mother-F-GEN a son-also M-COP ‘Mother also has a son’

An intermediate stage in the functional extension of this basically locative case into a general genitive marker can be observed in the Jek dialect of Kryz. In Jek,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 190 Gilles Authier the originally inlocative form ending in -a is used as a genitive not only on personal pronouns but also on other (third person) pronouns and some high- ranking nominals:

(30) a-n-a / ug-a / ma:lla:-dža hayag 3-H-GEN refl.M-GEN mullah-GEN cauldron ‘his / the mullah’s cauldron’.

The more archaic dialect of Alik retains an older paradigm for genitive endings, according to which their inflection is determined by the gender-number of the possessor:

(31) a-n / a-dž / ma:lla:-dži / ug hayag 3-H.GEN 3-NONH.GEN mullah-GEN REFL.M(GEN) cauldron ‘his cauldron (of Mullah // of the demon)’.

In Budugh, the use of the inlocative marker to mark possessors was further extended both in the NP domain (as a genitive marker) and in the domain of verbal valences (as a dative-like governed case). The other crucial stage for the replacement of the original polymorphic genitive case by two syncretic, originally spatial cases in Budugh seems to be a matter of word order and information structure. In non-focal position, the Budugh adlocative case marker –o/u bears on a temporary recipient or possessor in a NP. Thanks to constituency shift it may be dependent either on a verb of giving or on the noun denoting the alienable referents.

(32) a. vın zo [k’ant yıva-dži] 2.NOM 1.AD knife give-PERF ‘You gave (for a while) the knife to me (adlocative)’.

b. vın [zo k’ant] yıva-dži 2.NOM 1.AD knife give-PERF ‘You gave my knife’ (?)

Consequently, in non-focal position, the Budugh adlocative case marker -o/u marks a nominal as a temporary recipient or possessor, dependent on a verb of giving or on a noun denoting an alienable referent respectively. In non-transfer contexts, it naturally came to be used with alienable items as a genitive case:

(33) zın [zo k’ant] eq’i-ra:vi 1.NOM 1.AD knife sharpen-PROG ‘I am sharpening my (adlocative) knife’.

Following this syntactic-semantic restructuring, when the adlocative case came to be used as an alienable genitive, the inlocative case filled the gap left by the disappearance of genitive markers to mark the other type of possession, that is, inalienable possession. Though differential recipient-marking is common in East Caucasian, only in Budugh does a clause-level case appear to have become NP- internal, allowing for the expression of a contrast not only in the semantics of the transfer but between permanent and transitory possession in NPs.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 191

CONCLUSION Budugh displays a very rare instance of the existence of two distinct cases marking alienable vs inalienable possession. The origin of this split should be sought in the system of differential recipient marking, which is shared by a large number of East Caucasian languages. In Budugh, the original dedicated genitive case forms found in the closely related language Kryz have disappeared4 and possessors are now consistently marked identically to recipients thanks to a trivial dative-genitive syncretism. The rich set of genitive case markers found in Kryz collapsed to give a binary system in Budugh, and this new system of genitive cases came to dovetail with the case system for marking two types of recipients, because the adlocative, marking non- permanent possessors, was reinterpreted in terms of constituency and reassigned to an NP-internal level. The grammaticalization of Locative or Goal into Possessor is given as trivial in Heine and Kuteva (2002), and genitive-dative syncretism is also very common. But an alienability split marked exclusively by distinct and non-asymmetric genitive cases is not frequent, and nor is a situation in which only two out of no fewer than fifteen cases straddle so many syntactic domains (spatial adjuncts, verbal valence, and noun modification). Two genitive-dative cases now function synchronically to mark a prototypical alienability contrast (body parts, part-whole and kinship relation terms vs all others). The spatial contrast in vs ad is simultaneously preserved on verbal arguments and reinterpreted in terms of the ‘sphère personnelle’ (Bally, 1926) when used in nominal dependencies. As a result of what can be called an instance of ‘internalization’ of one of the semantic varieties of possessors (the non- permanent variety), the two originally spatial cases now straddle the divide between the two syntactic domains of NP and predicate.

REFERENCES Alekseev M., 1997, Reconstruction of the Proto-East Caucasian locative morphemes, in H. van den Berg (ed.), Studies in Caucasian Linguistics, CNWS, Leiden. Authier G., 2009, Grammaire kryz, langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialecte d’Alik, Leuwen, Peeters. Babaliyeva A., 2007, Le dialecte lezgi de Yargun. Mémoire de Master, Paris, EPHE. Bally Ch., 1926, L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes, in F. Frankhauser & J. Jud (eds), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, Aarau. Bickel, B., & Nichols, J., 2005, Possessive classification, in M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures, OUP.

4 This disappearance may be due to excessive allomorphy, which makes sense as agentivity / nominal class marking (ergative allomorphy is well represented in other East Caucasian languages, including Lezgic), but less so when it comes to distinguishing different types of possession.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 192 Gilles Authier

Chappell H. & McGregor W. (eds.), 1995, The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie B., 2009, Some non-locative functions of spatial cases in Tsez, ms. Daniel M., Khalilova Z. & Molochieva Z., 2010, Ditransitive Constructions in East Caucasian: A family overview, in A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, Berlin, Mouton DeGruyter. Deane P., 1987, English possessives, topicality and the Silverstein Hierarchy, BLS 13. Haspelmath M., 1993, A Grammar of Lezgian, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath M., 2006, Explaining alienability contrasts in adnominal possession: economy vs. iconicity, handout, Syntax of the World’s Languages 2 Lancaster. Heine B. & Kuteva T., 2002, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, Cambridge, UK. Khalilova Z., 2009, A Grammar of Khwarshi, PhD Leipzig. Kibrik A. E., Kodzasov S. V. & Olovjannikova I. P., 1972, Fragmenty grammatiki xinalugskogo jazyka, Moskva. Kibrik A. E., 2003, Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world, in F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/N.Y., Mouton de Gruyter, p. 37-112. Kibrik A. E. (ed.), 2001, Bagvalinskij jazyk, Moskva, Nasledije. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2003, Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe, in F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/N.Y., Mouton de Gruyter, p. 621-722. Lander Y., 2009, Varieties of genitive, in Malchukov & Spencer (eds), Handbook of case, OUP. Nichols J., 1988, On Alienable and Inalienable Possession, in W. Shipley (ed.), In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, p. 557-609. Nichols J., 1992, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Plank F. (ed.), 2003, Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, Berlin/N.Y., Mouton de Gruyter.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access