Cross-Categorial Spatial Case in the Finnic Nonfinite System: Focus On

1 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic 2 nonfinite system: Focus on the absentive TAM 3 semantics and pragmatics of the Estonian 4 1 5 inessive m-formative nonfinites 6 ANNE TAMM 7 8 9 10 11 12 Abstract 13 14 Several languages have verbal tense, aspect and mood (TAM) and nonfinite- 15 ness markers that originate from spatial cases and adpositions. However, the 16 evidence for the gradual loss of the original transparent and systematic cor- 17 respondences is scarce. Due to the lack of analysis of rich and transparent 18 verbal case systems in modern languages, the essence of the relationships be- 19 tween TAM and locative meanings is still a matter of debate, as in case of the 20 progressive and the absentive. The Finnic dialect continuum provides unique 21 data for clarifying the unresolved issues. Finnic parades an elaborate system 22 of nonfinites with the properties of nominals and verbs. The nonfinites combine 23 with a rich case system whose spatial meaning is bleached to different extent 24 in the combinations. I coin a new term for the case phenomenon — cross- 25 categorial case — and I analyze the Finnic rich cross-categorial case para- 26 digms to provide evidence about the functioning of a transparent system of 27 spatial forms and TAM meanings. A corpus study of the Estonian inessive 28 nonfinites (the mas-construction) exemplifies how the correspondences in 29 space and time as well as social cognition interact in the progressive and the 30 absentive. 31 32 33 1. Introduction 34 35 1.1. The topics and the language focus 36 37 Case is normally discussed as a phenomenon of nominal marking, typically, 38 the marking of dependent nouns according to the relationship the noun has to 39 its head. The question I address is the following: How are the spatial and tense, 40 aspect, and mood (TAM) meanings related if they are expressed by case? What 41 are the characteristics of the cases that appear on verbs or as parts of nonfinite 42 verbs and of those that instantiate TAM categories?

Linguistics 49–4 (2011), 835–944 0024–3949/11/0049–835 DOI 10.1515/LING.2011.025 © Walter de Gruyter

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 835–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 835) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 836 A. Tamm

1 My study targets transparent as well as opaque combinations of nonfinites and 2 TAM marking, and proposes the term cross-categorial case to cover the phe- 3 nomena of case semantics that enters TAM semantics. I will discuss evidence 4 that the spatial case and TAM meanings are related regularly in languages with 5 cross-categorial case, and that further TAM extensions are also motivated. This 6 article examines systematic case in atypical environments, on verbs and as 7 parts of forms that have nominal and verbal properties. The latter are referred 8 to as nonfinites, because it seems to be the best term for verbs that lack the 9 prototypical finite verb properties without being nouns either. The new data is 10 collected from several sociolinguistic and diachronic varieties of Finnic lan- 2 11 guages, typically other than the well-documented Finnish. The analysis of the 12 Finnic dialect continuum with its rich cross-categorial case system combined 13 with an elaborate system of nonfinites will be conducted to offer insights into 14 many unclear issues: the meaning of case, nonfiniteness, nominalization, spa- 15 tial case in nonfinite forms and TAM, the development of categories in actual 16 social situations of language use, and the relationship between spatial and 17 TAM meanings, especially between the absentive and the progressive. 18 19 20 1.2. The open questions 21 22 This section sketches the introduction to the questions and the basic data: case 23 forms that do not mark dependent nouns (Section 1.2.1), what the categories 24 that combine with case markers are (Section 1.2.2), what the role of case in the 25 development of infinitives is (Section 1.2.3), how the spatial and the TAM 26 meanings are related (Section 1.2.4), how the progressive and the absentive are 27 related as categories, and what the role of syntax in this relationship is (Section 28 1.2.5), the uniqueness of the Finnic inessive infinitive forms that combine the 29 progressive and absentive meanings (Section 1.2.6), the unresolved issues of 30 defining the absentive category (Section 1.2.7), and the puzzle of the sudden 31 appearance of the absentive category in Estonian (Section 1.2.8). 32 33 1.2.1. Case forms that do not mark dependent nouns. Case is among the 34 most theory-dependent and theoretically crucial terms in several linguistic 35 theories. The explanations of the central phenomena such as grammatical rela- 36 tions and the visibility of nouns depend on an understanding of what is meant 37 by case in generative theory forming. Across theories, “[t]he notion of case 38 employed in theories of syntax is an abstract notion which is used to character- 39 ize the interaction between verbal lexical semantics, grammatical relations and 40 word order” (Butt 2006: 11). In research where case is not the cornerstone of 41 linguistic structural explanation, it is typically regarded as an inflectional phe- 42 nomenon of marking nominal arguments. More specifically, Blake defines case

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 836–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 836) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 837–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 837) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 837

1 as an inflectional system of marking dependent nouns, the phenomenon of hav- 2 ing a case system, and the phenomenon of marking dependent nouns. He notes 3 (Blake 2001: 1) that “typically, case marks the relationship of a noun to a verb 4 at the clause level or of a noun to a preposition, postposition or another noun at 5 the phrase level” and mentions (Blake 2001: 180) a system of nominal case in 6 the verbal tense-aspect system of Kalaw Lagaw Ya. Ergative and accusative 7 in the verbal domain mark completivity, dative-allative incompletivity, comita- 8 tive marks habituality, ablative yesterday past, and locative immediate past. 9 Unfortunately, the provided linguistic examples do not clarify the exact nature 10 of the functional categories. 11 Unusual TAM marking by nominal case is attested in many languages (Nor- 12 dlinger and Sadler 2004). Recent research has drawn attention to “verbal” or 13 “versatile” case that appears in the verbal paradigm (Aikhenvald 2008, Butt 14 2006, Spencer 2009). Spencer (2009) discusses instances of the phenomenon 15 as “case marking on verbs” (1). 16 (1) Quechua 17 Rima-y-ta xalayu-ru-n. 18 speak-inf-acc begin-prf-3s 19 ‘He began to speak.’ 20 (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer [2009: 189]) 21 22 According to the author’s description, the nonfinite verb form is marked with 23 the accusative and it functions as the object of the verb ‘begin’ in Quechua. 24 However, no specific semantic constraints are discussed, and the form does not 25 seem to be part of a case paradigm-like system comprising several infinitival 26 case forms. In addition, this example adds another dimension ridden with 27 puzzles — infinitives combining with cases. More information about the lan- 28 guage structure is necessary to pin down the relationship between the morpho- 29 logical infinitival and case parts of the verb form. 30 The semantic regularities of cases appearing on words belonging to different 31 categories are primarily discussed by Aikhenvald (2008) in recent literature, 32 who coins a term for these instances, versatile case (Aikhenvald 2008: 565). 33 Versatile cases can express temporal, causal, and other relationships between 34 clauses, or aspectual and modal meanings within a clause. Versatile case com- 35 prises case on various verb forms and falls in three types on the basis of its 36 distributional characteristics: appearing on verb roots, on fully or partially in- 37 flected verbs, or on nonfinite verbs. Aikhenvald describes versatile caseas 38 “chameleon morphemes”; these morphemes can mark different categories and 39 have related but also different meanings. As one instance from her rich typo- 40 logical sample, Aikhenvald provides examples of case on nouns and verbs in 41 Manambu, where the objective-locative case marks a core or oblique argument 42 as in (2). The locative case appears on the verb as well, as on wukemar ‘forget’,

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 838 A. Tamm

1 adding completivity to the event structure; locative case on a verb triggers the 2 aspectual completive interpretation of ‘completely forget’. 3 (2) Manambu 4 Wun [de-ke-m] wukemar-e-m 5 I he-lk-obj/loc forget-lk-obj/loc 6 ‘I completely forgot him.’ 7 (Aikhenvald 2008: 587) 8 9 The example from Manambu is different from Spencer’s example of Quechua, 10 since there is no formative indicating nonfiniteness in Manambu; in addition, 11 the Manambu locative-objective marker appears on two constituents in one 12 sentence. The Manambu case expresses TAM categories; in the Quechua ex- 13 ample it is not clear if the accusative marks aspectual inchoativity on the verb 14 or simply the object. The marker interpreted as an infinitive marker could be a 15 nominalizer in this isolated example. Without testing the degree of nominaliza- 16 tion, it is not possible to establish the status of the case in this example. 17 Aikhenvald generalizes that core cases tend to express aspectual and modal 18 meanings, while oblique cases tend to be used as clause-linkers. The question 19 that has not been adequately addressed by in-depth studies of particular lan- 20 guages is whether there is any more regularity in the semantics and pragmatics 21 of these forms other than noticed by Aikhenvald. For instance, the Estonian 22 inessive and abessive cases are oblique, but the inessive expresses the progres- 23 sive aspect, and the abessive expresses negation. The tendencies observed by 24 Aikhenvald are a puzzle that requires an explanation. In addition to the oblique- 25 core divide, there are additional factors that vary in the examples and that 26 would deserve more attention. For instance, the regularities could also be mo- 27 tivated by case semantics, the finiteness status of the verb form, and the degree 28 of opacity of the meaning of cases in the combinations. Various obstacles have 29 prevented insight into the TAM and verbal case of rare or dead languages; 30 typically, only rather limited case systems have been described. Aikhenvald 31 has concentrated on Ket and Manambu, which do not allow the examination of 32 diachronic development that would help us to predict further grammaticaliza- 33 tion or explain the variation in use. Only some languages studied by Aikhen- 34 vald have rich case systems, therefore, her generalizations could be comple- 35 mented by an in-depth study of a language that is rich in case, where diachronic 36 processes and dialectal variation can be checked, and where the case attaches 37 to a variety of forms, verb stems as well as several types of nonfinites. 38 One problem of a large-scale typological study concerns establishing the 39 exact meaning of the case marker in the verbal domain. How transparent is it? 40 If the case in the verbal domain is opaque, is the TAM category expressed by 41 case identical to the prototypical TAM categories in languages where the TAM 42 categories are not based on case, and if not, what are the differences caused by?

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 838–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 838) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 839–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 839) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 839

1 These questions cannot be answered on the basis of the large survey and with- 2 out in-depth study of linguistic variation, testing, and native-speakers’ intu- 3 itions about the relatedness of the case meanings across categories. 4 While there are several previous approaches that have discussed case and 5 verbs in a variety of languages and across several theoretical frameworks, the 6 Finnic data are worth studying more since they are non-Indo-European lan- 7 guages but still reasonably documented. There are informants available to test 8 the volatile pragmatic and semantic meanings that are hidden for the research- 9 ers of the rare (Australian, Siberian) or dead (Latin) languages that display 10 similar phenomena. Moreover, some Finnic languages are active in cyberspace 11 and variation in the use can be documented on the basis of unregulated text 12 created by native speakers. 13 14 1.2.2. What are the categories that combine with case markers? How much 15 is case marking an indicator of the nominal category? The case system of nom- 16 inalizations is exemplified in Comrie and Thompson (1985: 354), who discuss 17 case in terms of an opposition between nominalizations and other noun phrases. 18 The authors argue that in Turkish and Finnish, action nominals do not have a 19 fully nominal character, because they stand in a restricted number of cases. The 20 Turkish verbal noun in -mak may stand in any case except the genitive. Comrie 21 and Thompson (1985: 354) discuss nouns derived from verbs in Finnish and 22 argue against their classification as verbs (“second infinitives”). These non 23 finites appear only in the inessive and instructive cases.Comrie and Thompson 24 (1985: 354 –355) take these intermediate forms to represent an intermediate 25 historical stage in the verbalization of nominal forms. They argue that “[t]he 26 basic meaning of the inessive is to indicate ‘place in which’, for example talo 27 ‘house’, talo-ssa ‘in (the) house’. The inessive of the second infinitive indi- 28 cates an action simultaneous with that of the main verb” (Comrie and Thomp- 29 son 1985: 354), see Example (3a). The instructive expresses “adverbials of 30 manner or means (e.g. omin avuin ‘by one’s own abilities’), and the instructive 31 of the second infinitive also indicates the manner in which the action of the 32 main verb is carried out” (Comrie and Thompson 1985: 354), see Example 33 (3b). 34 35 (3) Finnish 36 a. Meidän kirjoittae-ssa-mme hän luki kirja-a. 37 our.gen writing-ine-1pl.px s/ he read.pst.3s book-ptv 38 ‘While we were writing (during our writing) he was reading a 39 book.’ 40 (Comrie and Thompson 1985: 354) 41 b. Pullo lensi suhiste-n halki ilma-n. 42 bottle[nom] fly.pst.3s whistling-instr through air-gen

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 840 A. Tamm

1 ‘The bottle flew whistling through the air.’ 2 (Comrie and Thompson 1985: 354) 3 4 Case serves for Comrie and Thompson (1985: 354 –355) as further evidence 5 that there are intermediate forms between noun and verb (non-nouns). Case 6 patterns with nominal properties. 7 Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993: 34) illustrates further case puzzles for distin- 8 guishing between verbal nouns and infinitives on the example of Uralic lan- 9 guages, Finnish and Selkup. The Selkup infinitive consists of the verbal stem 10 and a suffix that is identical to the translative case in nouns. Finnish or Hungar- 11 ian infinitives may have nominal possessive-like inflections indicating agree- 12 ment. In contrast to verbal nouns, they do not decline and do not combine with 13 postpositions in the same way. Finnish verbal nouns have the full paradigms of 14 case and number, combine freely with pre- and postpositions, while the Finn- 15 ish infinitives that contain case formants do not show these properties. This is 16 the reason for Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993: 35) to classify these infinitives as 17 distinct from (verbal) nouns. Other differences are not regarded as important 18 for defining the nature of the infinitives, but there are still some more of them. 19 Finnish verbal nouns combine with adjectives; the Finnish infinitives do not; 20 the object of the verbal nouns takes the genitive, the object of infinitives ap- 21 pears in one of the cases allowed for the object of finite verbs. Koptjevskaja- 22 Tamm points out that some of the nonfinites combine with their notional sub- 23 jects, as in Pekan herätessä ‘when/while/after Pekka was waking up’. For her, 24 these forms are verbs despite the case formants contained by them. 25 While we can look at these forms from the point of view of nouniness or 26 verbiness, we could also change the research question on the basis of the ex- 27 amples from the rare languages discussed by Adelaar and Muysken (2004), 28 Aikhenvald (2008), Blake (2001), and Spencer. If a phonologically identical 29 morpheme attaches to nouns and verbs, and does not clearly indicate the nom- 30 inal and verbal category, then the more interesting research question might be 31 “what makes attaching to more categories possible, what are the properties of 32 the categories that the case attaches to?” and “what is the semantic and struc- 3 33 tural link between the two occurrences of case?”. 34 If case is the phenomenon where scholars diverge in their opinions about 35 the category of what case attaches to or is a part of, does it perhaps mean that 36 case is the last nominal property that is retained in the process of a noun devel- 37 oping into a verb? Is there a type of case markers that have broader meaning? 38 Is there a common element in nouns as well as verbs that makes combining 39 with case possible? Is the element that enables the combinations of verbs and 40 case semantic or syntactic? The development of a case into a TAM marker 41 evolves in stages, so it seems wise to adopt a diachronic approach to some 42 extent.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 840–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 840) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 841–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 841) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 841

1 1.2.3. What is the role of case in the development of infinitives? As an in- 2 stance of a typical infinitive on the verbal side, Comrie and Thompson (1985) 3 discuss the infinitive in -ti (or -t’) in Slavic languages. Slavic languages have 4 historical records where the development of the infinitives can be traced. This 5 infinitive derives from the locative case of a verbal noun but is at present se- 6 mantically completely opaque. The infinitive has been completely integrated 7 into the verbal paradigm. It has virtually all properties of the typically verbal 8 categories, and none of the typically nominal categories. 9 The meaning of the case in the Slavic infinitives is bleached, but an infinitive 10 is not semantically contentless at all stages of development. The modal mean- 11 ings of infinitives are shown to be shaped by their origin as allative construc- 12 tions during the stages of their evolution (Haspelmath 1989). In Haspelmath’s 13 (1989: 289) account, allative expressions develop first into a purposive, as in 14 Mary went to take photos of Sabina. Purposivity is the first step of grammati- 15 calization in the development of infinitives. The desemanticization path sug- 16 gested for infinitives in Haspelmath (1989: 298) contains the following stages: 17 1) benefactive/allative/causal, 2) purposive, 3) irrealis-directive, 4) irrealis- 18 potential, 5) realis-non-factive, and 6) realis-factive. 19 This path suggests that infinitives are not likely to pop up in the middle of 20 the semantic development at the very start of their path of desemanticization, 21 or to skip some of the stages. However, Wälchli (2000) describes the Estonian 22 vat-infinitive as a late innovation in the language, where it has been introduced 23 from South Estonian. If its novelty is correct, then the infinitive has started off 24 right in the middle of the path. Despite its novelty as an infinitive, the Estonian 25 vat-infinitive occupies the semantic space described for stages 5 and 6 instead 26 of stage 1 (cf. Tamm [2009] on the semantics of the form). This infinitive is 27 based on a partitive-marked verb form. This fact raises the question about a 28 possible wider range of infinitival meanings, which could emerge in a richer 29 system of cross-categorial case. Although the basic idea that an infinitive 30 encodes its case-related meanings should be retained in a study of cross- 31 categorial case, a richer case system would allow for more fine-grained predic- 32 tions of the factor of the richness of the case system for other infinitivesystems. 33 34 1.2.4. How are the spatial and the TAM meanings related? Earlier research 35 has established the coexistence of spatial and temporal meaning in locatives. 36 There have been several proposals about explaining the connectedness of loca- 37 tive expressions and the progressive. Progressives are often developed from 38 locatives in the world’s languages (Bybee et al. 1994: 129–135, 140 –141; 39 Comrie 1976). Progressive aspect is a continuous aspect that expresses pro- 40 cesses (Comrie 1976: 36). Earlier research has established that the relationship 41 between spatial and temporal meaning is well attested and motivated, as the 42 following quote illustrates.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 842 A. Tamm

1 The intriguing question about [progressive constructions] concerns the apparent shift 2 from locative to temporal meaning, and whether it involves an inferential leap or a 3 metaphorical shift. Our examination of the meaning suggests that no great step is in- 4 volved in a progressive becoming aspectual. Rather, the temporal meaning is present from the beginning, since to be located spatially in an activity is to be located tempo- 5 rally in this activity. The change that occurs is the gradual loss of the locative meaning. 6 (Bybee et al. 1994: 137) 7 8 The quote points out the crucial type of data that is required for answering the 9 question about the relatedness of the spatial and temporal meanings, namely, 10 the data that would demonstrate the shift under way at this very moment. Such 11 data would help us tease apart the universal and the specific factors in instanti- 12 ating the spatiotemporal shift: what is the form that carries the shift in mean- 13 ing, the case or the spatially located activity? 14 A related disputed issue that accompanies language change such as the 15 emergence of the progressive is the involvement of several linguistic levels in 16 a change. The morphological form may remain unchanged (e.g., the form of a 17 spatial case or adposition), but the meaning changes, for instance, from space 18 to aspect. Is the underlying syntax of the sentence changed? There is a function 19 change, but are there more structural changes that are visible upon testing 20 only? And, connecting to the discussion of the progressives to the infinitives, 21 how abrupt is this change of category of the locative case-marked word? Can 22 we reconcile the findings of the functional linguistic tradition that regard lan- 23 guage change as gradual (Hopper and Traugott 2003) and the inquiry in the 24 generative and formal tradition where it is claimed that all change is abrupt 25 (Roberts forthcoming)? In a synchronic system where the spatial-to-temporal 26 changes are currently under way, and the syntactic details can be tested by na- 27 tive speakers and checked in diachronic and synchronic corpora, as in Finnic, 28 these questions can be answered. 29 30 1.2.5. How is the progressive related to the absentive? What is the role of 31 syntax? The recent debate that is crossing the borders of linguistic camps 32 concerning the relationship between locative and temporal meanings targets 33 the absentive and the progressive. Glottopedia describes the absentive as “a 34 verbal aspect that expresses an ongoing activity of an agent who is currently 4 35 absent while engaging in this activity”. According to Vogel (2007: 263), 26 36 European languages of the 36 languages studied by her have the absentive. 37 The debate on the relatedness of the absentive and the progressive cross-cuts 38 the topics of the syntax and semantics of infinitives and finiteness. Several 39 languages encode the absentive by means of an infinitive, for instance German, 40 Dutch, and Hungarian (de Groot 2000). De Groot, who originally proposed the 41 term, discussed the data as remote progressive in an earlier work (de Groot 42 1989: 8). The meanings of progressives combine with those of absentives in

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 842–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 842) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 843–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 843) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 843

1 Finnic; yet in most languages, they are expressed by different grammatical 2 means (de Groot 2000; Bertinetto et al. 2000; Krause 2002; Vogel 2007). Dahl 3 (1985: 90) notes that the progressive is spread in the Indo-European languages, 4 and the same seems to be true for the absentive. The European languages have 5 developed separate constructions for absentives and progressives, and outside 6 Europe, not much is known about the existence of the absentive (Irina Niko- 7 laeva, p. c., reports this construction in Nenets though). 8 Abraham (2007) argues against de Groot on several points. In the account of 9 Abraham, the absentive meaning is not an independent meaning, but arises in 10 an elliptical progressive construction. He posits two absentives, absentive 1, 11 which is distal (the absentive as understood in the previous literature, as in Er 12 ist arbeiten ‘he is off working’), and absentive 2, which is proximate (the pro- 13 gressive one, as in Er ist am Arbeiten ‘he is working’). Another, control-based 14 syntactic account by Haslinger (2007) explains the emergence of the Dutch 15 absentive meanings in terms of Binding Theory. In her account, an argument 16 is specified for a triple index containing the variable l for spatial reference. 17 The subject and PRO do not have the same index for spatial reference. Is the 18 ellipsis or a PRO crucial for explaining the similarities and differences be- 19 tween the absentive and the progressive? Are the generalizations valid cross- 20 linguistically? On the basis of living languages that combine the progressive 21 and the absentive, the role of syntax in the relationships between the absentive 22 and the progressive could be tested on a larger database. If the two readings are 23 contained by one form without ellipsis or a control structure, then there should 24 be another solution for the relatedness of the meanings in the syntactic account. 25 The relationship between aspect and absentivity has remained unclear in the 26 syntactic approaches. Perhaps the absentive and the progressive do not differ 27 in stativity in some languages? The absentive, in contrast to the progressive, is 28 after all stative despite the agency of the predicate verb. 29 30 1.2.6. The puzzle of the Finnic combination of the progressive-absentive 31 meanings. Bertinetto et al. (2000: 542) consider the Finnic situation with the 32 combined absentive and progressive meanings exceptional. Bertinetto et al. 33 (2000: 541) notice that the Estonian progressive is weakly grammaticalized, 34 and that this suggests the persistence of a locative meaning and, simultane- 35 ously, the Estonian progressive seems to appear more and more often in focal- 36 ized contexts, unexpectedly skipping the stage of durative uses. Intuitively, 37 however, the situations of the absentive and the progressive seem to be 38 clearly differentiated for a native speaker of Estonian. Both categories are 39 expressed by the inessive mas-construction, but the two readings seem to be 40 distinct. The pieces of this puzzle have never been put together, but the re- 41 sults of this enterprise could be rewarding for understanding these categories 42 in general.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 844 A. Tamm

1 1.2.7. How to define the absentive category? Abraham’s second argument 2 against de Groot goes against the treatment of the absentive as a grammatical 3 category. He argues that the absentive meanings are “implications” in Dutch 4 and German and that implications are not a type of meaning that count as suf- 5 ficient for establishing a grammatical category. More specifically, Abraham 6 says that “the Absentive is a linguistic epiphenomenon to the extent that it is 7 hatched on a very specific situational context. In this sense, its treatment as a 8 grammatical category is doomed to outright failure” Abraham (2007: 11). 9 Which of the views is right? Perhaps both. This debate signals a problem for 10 defining the category, but not necessarily a controversy. Taking a step back to 11 evaluate the debate might be useful. If we abandon the idea of the absentive as 12 part and parcel of the aspectual category but view it as a category that has 13 much in common with another type of category, perhaps modality, then we 14 would exactly expect the category to be “hatched on a very specific situational 15 context”. For instance, the category of indirect evidentiality is also hatched on 16 a very specific situational context of several speakers. An utterance containing 17 an indirect evidential is formed in a situational context where the utterer is 18 mediating the message uttered by another speaker at another temporal mo- 19 ment. If the very specific situational context concerning another speaker of the 20 utterance and another temporal point does not hold, the indirect evidential is 21 not used. Therefore, the very specific situational context is part of the defining 22 properties of the category. A study into a non-Indo-European language having 23 evidentials as well as the absentive would help us to investigate the nature of 24 the category in a new light. 25 Abraham’s observation that the absentive meanings are mere implications 26 suggests the need for checking which of these properties are cancelable and 27 why. If I am right about the misclassification of the absentive as an aspectual 28 category, and if the nature of the absentive category resembles categories such 29 as indirect evidentiality instead, then it should be predictable that there is regu- 30 larity in the cancelability of the meanings. For instance, the fundamental con- 31 dition for the use of an indirect evidential is the existence of an utterance ut- 32 tered by another speaker at another time. However, the speaker can use the 33 indirect evidential even if this condition does not hold and there has never been 34 anyone uttering the proposition in the first place. This type of cancelability is 35 possible in categories where communication is involved, but not in categories 36 such as gender. For instance, the speaker may use an indirect evidential with- 37 out mediating anybody else’s utterance in order to eliminate a competitor by 38 telling a blatant lie about him without risking the consequences of exposure. 39 The question at the borderline of functional and formal grammars targets the 40 nature of the defining properties. How are they relevant for the identification 41 of the category in comparison to other categories? What are they in terms of 42 entailments, implicatures, or presuppositions? The received knowledge about

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 844–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 844) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 845–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 845) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 845

1 the European absentives is, for instance, that they appear in agentive environ- 2 ments only. This condition is actually unmotivated in present-day European 3 absentives — why cannot we inform our interlocutors of the absence of objects 4 using the absentive? Why are some defining properties of the absentive op- 5 tional whereas others are not? Here again, the cross-linguistic data from lan- 6 guages that grammaticalize an earlier stage of grammaticalization of the ab- 7 sentive would help to clarify some puzzles about the constraints that have 8 persisted through times. 9 10 1.2.8. Is the absentive a category in Estonian? Abraham’s puzzle is magni- 11 fied in the puzzle about the existence of the Estonian absentive. Before the 12 absentive category was discovered by linguists, there was no mention of the 13 absentive meaning of the Estonian mas-construction, although the examples 14 provided to illustrate the locative meaning represented locations that were 15 away from the deictic center, thus the absentive. After establishing the absen- 16 tive category, all sources discussing the mas-construction bought the idea of 17 the existence of the absentive without addressing the question in terms of an 18 analysis or conclusive evidence. The absentive in Estonian seems to be an in- 19 tuitively natural category. Vogel (2007) lists the Estonian examples with the 20 mas-construction as instances of the full absentive, Pajusalu and Orav (2008: 21 117) record one instance of the absentive; Tamm (2003: 649) illustrates the 22 absentive as well. Bertinetto et al. (2000) also take it for granted that all Finnic 23 languages have the absentive. Based on an account by Heinämäki (1995), 24 Tommola (2000: 680) concludes that the Finnic absentive does not necessarily 25 mean absence from the deictic center in Finnish. What can absence without 26 absence from the deictic center mean? Why do all researchers, employing dif- 27 ferent methods, still seem to believe that the Finnic languages have it? How to 28 make sense of this controversy? What does the controversy tell us about the 29 nature of the category? 30 31 32 1.3. The Finnic data 33 34 The Finnic languages have case forms of nonfinites that can give answers to 35 several seemingly different questions. These questions are in fact interrelated 36 if the Finnic data set is targeted. They are case forms that do not mark depen- 37 dent nouns as in the rare language, Manambu. They have several combinations 38 of cases and nonfinites, so clarification is needed to see what the categories that 39 combine with case markers are and what the role of case in the development of 40 infinitives is. The case relates the spatial and the TAM meanings, and one case 41 combines the progressive and the absentive, which is a unique phenomenon. 42 The nature of the absentive category is a debated issue, but the Finnic sources

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 846 A. Tamm

1 agree tacitly on its existence, which is a puzzle, because earlier sources did not 2 notice the category in Finnic. How do the locative and nonlocative meanings 3 develop? Section 1.3 presents the basic data about the variation in the Finnic 4 languages concerning spatial cases and nonfinitess. It discusses two factors 5 that determine the temporal and locative parallels in the meaning of the com- 6 binations of case and the verb. 7 8 1.3.1. Finnic. I present now the basic data that can answer the questions of 9 the previous section and then proceed to the analysis of them in Sections 2, 3, 10 4, and 5. The data are from Finnic languages and primarily from other lan- 11 guages than Finnish, which is better studied in the international linguistic lit- 12 erature: Finnish, Estonian, South Estonian (Võro and Seto), Livonian,5 Ingrian, 13 Karelian, Veps, and Votic. The variants subsumed under Karelian are regarded 14 as separate languages in many sources. 15 Finnic (or Baltic-Finnic, Balto-Finnic6) languages are a subbranch of the 16 Finnic branch of the Finno-Ugric languages, which in turn forms one of the 17 two branches of the Uralic languages. Viitso (1998: 97) includes seven Finnic 18 languages, Finnish, Estonian, Livonian, Ingrian, Karelian (subdivided into Lu- 19 dic and Livvi-Olonets), Veps, and Votic. The variants subsumed under Kare- 20 lian are regarded as separate languages in many sources; South Estonian (Võro 21 and Seto) is also treated as a separate language nowadays. Kven and Meänkieli 22 are politically recognized minority languages, which are linguistically re- 23 garded as dialects of Finnish. 24 25 1.3.2. The parallels in case semantics across the Finnic language continuum. 26 The essence of the data that I discuss can be introduced by drawing some paral- 27 lels with the adpositions and infinitives in English, French, and German. 28 Consider the combinations of prepositions and nonfinite verbs and nominal- 29 izations. The prepositions to, de ‘from’, and an ‘at’ are comparable to spatial 30 cases that denote the goal, the source, or the location of the movement of an 31 entity. Next to adpositions denoting goals and sources, as in French (4) and 32 English (5), adpositions denoting locations combine with an infinitive form 33 used as a nominalization, as in German (6). 34 35 (4) a. Je viens de manger. 36 ‘I have just eaten.’ 37 b. Je viens de Paris. 38 ‘I am from Paris.’ 39 (5) a. I am going to eat. 40 b. I am going to my office. 41 (6) Jan ist am Essen. 42 ‘John is eating.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 846–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 846) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 847–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 847) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 847

1 Although the prepositions used with these nonfinite verbs and nominalizations 2 are identical with nominal combinations, they encode temporal, not spatial 3 relationships. The prepositions are not perceived by native speakers as the car- 4 riers of locative meanings of source, goal, and location. Instead, they locate the 5 events in the past, future, and ongoing present. In all three languages, the event 6 of eating is encoded by the grammars as if it were a source, a goal, or a location 7 of movement. The result of combining a spatial adposition with an infinitive is 8 opaque. 9 English, French, and German are not symmetrical in combining prepositions 10 and nonfinite verbs, although the prepositions for these three directionality op- 11 tions are available for nouns. There seems to be no clear principle between the 12 choices; prepositions are used randomly with verbs. For instance, English 13 combines the uninflected verb with a goal prepositionto , as in (5), but not with 14 a source one, from, as in (7). French combines a source preposition de with the 15 infinitive, as in (4), but a goal preposition is not present for expressing the fu- 16 ture, as illustrated in (8). A locative preposition is not always there to express 17 a location in German, as in (9). 18 (7) *I am coming from eat. 19 (8) Je vais manger. 20 ‘I am going to eat.’ 21 (9) Jan ist essen. 22 ‘John is off eating.’ 23 24 The combinations are subject to several lexical or constructional constraints in 25 these languages. They have acquired temporal grammatical meanings, such as 7 26 the future, the past, the progressive, or the absentive. The demonstrated lan- 27 guages combine spatial adpositions with nonfinite forms in a random, asym- 28 metric way. However, other languages are symmetrical in grammatically en- 29 coding the three directionality options. For instance, Finnic languages have 30 nonfinite forms comprising all three forms that stand for internal spatial direc- 31 tionality relations (e.g., ‘into, inside, from inside’). 32 The following examples demonstrate the regularity of the spatial case forms 33 and meanings in the nonfinite systems of some Finnic languages. The goal is 34 also to illustrate that although there is considerable variation in the Finnic 35 forms, the systematic parallels in the spatial and temporal meanings are sur- 36 prisingly invariant. Examples (10)–(12) from 1930ies illustrate the phenome- 8 37 non of the Ingrian nonfinite case forms of the verb küntää ‘plow’. In these 38 examples, the temporal relationships of events are encoded by spatial case on 39 nonfinite predicates. Illative is the goal case of the argument of the verb ‘go’ in 40 (10); the sentence describes a past event of the subject going to another loca- 41 tion in order to get involved in the activity denoted by the verb lacking finite 42 inflection. There is no exact English equivalent for the sentence; the closest

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 848 A. Tamm

1 English translation is The kolkhoznik went to plow, or The kolkhoznik went 2 plowing. 3 4 (10) Ingrian 5 Kolhoznikka mäni küntä-mää. nom pst s m ill9 6 kolkhoznik[ ] go. .3 plow- _ 7 ‘The kolkhoznik went to plow.’ 8 (Junus 1936: 119) 9 Inessive is the location case in (11); the sentence describes the subject at an- 10 other location, in the middle of the activity. The English translation is again an 11 approximation: ‘The kolkhozniks were off to plow/plowing; the kolkhozniks 12 were (away) plowing the field.’ 13 14 (11) Ingrian 15 Kolhoznika-t ol-tii küntä-mää-s ahhoa. 16 kolkhoznik-nom.pl be-pst.3pl/pst.ips plow-m_ine field.ptv 17 ‘The kolkhozniks were off to plow/plowing; the kolkhozniks were 18 (away) plowing the field.’ 19 (Junus 1936: 119) 20 21 Elative is the source case on the argument of the verb ‘come’; sentence (12) 22 describes the subject leaving a place related to an activity: the kolkhozniks 23 came from plowing. 24 (12) Ingrian 25 Kolhoznika-t tul-tii küntä-mä-st. 26 kolkhoznik-nom.pl come-pst.3pl/pst.ips plow-m_ela 27 ‘The kolkhozniks came from plowing.’ 28 (Junus 1936: 120) 29 30 The activities denoted by the illustrated nonfinite verbs are purposeful and 31 typically take place somewhere else than the deictic center. Typical examples 32 are fishing, plowing, harvesting, making hay, hunting, hiking, dancing, or other 33 regular activities carried out in places other than where the typical discourse 34 takes place, but not spinning, doing the dishes, or knitting, which are done 35 in locations that are more frequently associated with the deictic center of the 36 discourse. 37 What kind of form and meaning variation can be expected across the 38 Finnic sources? The forms have changed over time, but the morphemes are 39 clearly recognizable and the main organization of the directional triads and 40 cases involved has remained invariant, as illustrated by Examples (13a)– 10 41 (13b) from recently collected Ingrian data and (14a)–(14c) from modern 42 Estonian.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 848–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 848) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 849–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 849) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 849

1 (13) Ingrian, Logove (Soikkola) 2 a. Hǟ on/oli kündö-mä-š. 3 s/ he[nom] be.3s/be.pst.3s plow-m_ill 4 ‘He is/was off to plow.’ 5 b. Hǟ tuli kündö-mä-št. 6 s/ he[nom] come.pst.3s plow-m_ela 7 ‘He came from plowing.’ 8 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 9 (14) Modern Estonian 10 a. Põllumees läks põldu künd-ma. 11 farmer[nom] go.pst.3s field.ptv plow-m_ill 12 ‘The farmer went to plow.’ 13 b. Põllumehe-d oli-d põldu künd-ma-s. 14 farmer-nom.pl be-pst.3pl field.ptv plow-m_ine 15 ‘The farmers were off to plow; the farmers were (away) plowing 16 the field.’ 17 c. Põllumehe-d tul-id põldu künd-ma-st. 18 farmer-nom.pl come-pst.3pl field.ptv plow-m_ela 19 ‘The farmers came from plowing.’ 20 The illative formant in the nonfinite forms is alternatively n (with the vowel 21 lengthening) or h, or no formant, the inessive form with h is illustrated with an 22 example from a Seto (South Estonian) song in (15). 23 24 (15) South Estonian 25 Kui läät sa põldu põim-ma-he.11 26 if go-2s you[nom] field.ptv harvest-m_ill 27 ‘When you go harvesting the field; when you go to harvest the field.’ 28 29 The same form variants appear across the contemporary variants of the Finnic 30 languages and dialects, as also illustrated by the contemporary Veps examples 31 of illative form in (16). 32 (16) Veps 33 Sid mesten nece mužik ajoo kevadoo, 34 then again this[nom] man[nom] drive-pst.3s spring-ade 35 paš-m-ha kagra-d seme-ta. 36 plow.and.harrow-m_ill oat.ptv sow-t_inf 37 ‘Then again, this man went to plow and harrow in spring in order to 38 sow oats.’ 39 (Ylikoski 2004: 250) 40 41 The nominal inessive form is either h (kooli-h ‘at school’) or s (or ssV, the 42 exact vowel depends on vowel harmony) as in South Estonian songs,

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 850 A. Tamm

1 kambõrõ-ssa ‘in the chamber’, or n, as in külä-n ‘in the village’ in present 2 South Estonian (Iva 2007: 41), as in (17). 3 (17) South Estonian 4 Olõ-s ma kooli-h oppi-ma-h.12 5 be-neg.pst I[nom] school-ine learn-m_ine 6 ‘I have not been to school to study.’ 7 8 Despite the variation in the system of case forms in Finnic morphology and 9 semantics, the infinitive section in the grammars of all Finnic languages con- 10 tains examples of the goal-location-source triple. They are uniformly described 11 as answering the following questions: Where to? Where? Where from? To (the 12 place of ) doing what? Doing what? From (the place of ) doing what? The non- 13 finites have direct parallels in spatial case marking of argument NPs. The illa- 14 tive marks goal arguments in (18a), the inessive marks location (18b), and the 15 elative marks source arguments (18c). 16 (18) Karelian (Livvi) 17 a. Lapse-t mennä-h škola-h.13 18 child-nom.pl go-3pl school-ill 19 ‘Children are going to school.’ 20 (Markianova 2002) 21 b. Lapse-t olla-h škola-s. 22 child-nom.pl be-3pl school-ine 23 ‘Children are at school.’ 24 (Sentence constructed on the basis of Markianova 200214) 25 c. Lapse-t läh-tiettih škola-s-päi.15 26 child-nom.pl go-pst.3pl school-ela_dir 27 ‘Children left the school; children came away from the school.’ 28 (Markianova 2002) 29 Variation as in (18c) may be caused by additional morphemes that have been 30 added to the case formants. Examples (19a)–(19f ) illustrate Karelian, where 31 the postposition -päi can optionally cliticize to the directional forms of source 32 and goal. The location and source cases are homophones (linna-s ‘in the town’ 33 and also ‘from the town’). Examples (19d)–(19f ) illustrate the variation in 34 Karelian as provided on the basis of a questionnaire method, yielding a slightly 35 different result from the grammar; the directional form with the illative is obvi- 36 ously a variant, and an innovation. The postposition -päi can optionally be 37 added to the directional forms of source and goal, but not to location. 38 39 (19) Karelian 16 40 a. Prokin-Rist’oi meni verkkoloi nosta-mah(-päi). 41 PR[nom] go.pst.3s net.ptv.pl lift-m_ill_dir 42 ‘Godmother Prokin went to take out the nets.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 850–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 850) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 851–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 851) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 851

1 b. Prokin-Rist’oi oli olluh verkkoloi nosta-ma-s. 2 PR[nom] be.pst.3s be-ptcp.3s net.ptv.pl lift-m_ine 3 ‘Godmother Prokin had been to take out the nets. / Reportedly, 4 Godmother Prokin was off taking out the nets.’ 5 c. Prokin-Rist’oi tuli verkkoloi nosta-ma-s(-päi). 6 PR[nom] come.pst.3s net.ptv.pl lift-m_ela_dir 7 ‘Godmother Prokin came from taking out the nets.’ 8 d. Menen linna-h / linna-h-päi. 9 go-1s town-ill town-ill_dir 10 ‘I go to town.’ 11 e. Olen linna-s / *linna-s-päi. 12 be-1s town-ine town-ine_dir 13 ‘I am in the town.’ 14 f. Tulen linna-s / linna-s-päi. 15 come-1s town-ela town-ela_dir 16 ‘I come from the town.’ 17 These data show that if the optional postpositions appear with the nonfinites, 18 then they tend to appear with the nouns as well, as illustrated by the parallel 19 produced in the noun and verb variants by the speaker in (19a)–(19f ). The 20 form of the case expressing the same direction tends to be identical in the noun 21 and verb forms. Also, if the h-inessive appears in the infinitive, it is the case 22 form of the nominal as well in the South Estonian variant of the folk song line 23 in Example (17) kooli-h oppi-ma-h ‘studying at school’ in South Estonian. In 24 the variants where the infinitival case form is n, as in võtma-n ‘taking’ (Iva 25 2007: 79), the noun bears an inessive form with n, as in külä-n ‘in the village’ 26 (Iva 2007: 41). It is therefore clear that the variants have a similar system of 27 encoding in nouns and infinitives. The correspondences in the data are regular. 28 Since the data in (10)–(19) give overwhelming evidence of parallel case forms 29 on predicates and arguments, verb-like and nominal categories, the phenome- 30 non can be classified as cross-categorial case. 31 32 1.3.3. The parallels of spatial cases on nouns and verbs. This subsection 33 sketches the semantic ground for further analyses on the basis of the observed 34 parallels that persist throughout the members of the Finnic sets with the case- 35 marked nonfinite forms. The temporal and spatial properties of the nonfinites 36 can be understood in two ways. Does the case apply widely, or does the verb 37 retain nominal properties in combinations with case? 38 The first way of analysis emphasizes the verbal characteristics of the nonfi- 39 nites (infinitives). The spatial case as a morpheme does not only have the prop- 40 erty of encoding only spatial relations, as in The kolkhoznik went to the field, 41 but it has the ability to systematically encode the simultaneous temporal rela- 42 tionships as well. In other words, case semantics encodes information that is

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 852 A. Tamm

1 available in the encyclopedic knowledge about the metonymic relatedness of a 2 spatial change and temporal change. That is, for instance if the farmer goes to 3 the field, he is at the location A at temporal point t1 and he is at the location B 4 at the temporal point t2, and the relationship between t1 and t2 is encoded by 5 case in addition to the spatial meaning (cf. Onikki-Rantajääskö 2005, Bybee et 6 al. 1994). In the Finnic examples, the spatial cases are parts of categories that 7 stand for events (The kolkhoznik went to plow the field ), which gives an addi- 8 tional dimension to the application of the case meaning. The core meanings of 9 the cases on the m-formative nonfinite forms and arguments are related as de- 10 scribed in (20). 11 12 (20) a. The construction with the illative form denotes a spatial transition 13 to the NP referent (location) and the temporal transition 14 accompanying the spatial transition; it denotes a temporal 15 transition from one event to another. 16 b. The construction with the inessive denotes a spatial location 17 within the NP referent (location) and the temporal duration of it, or 18 it denotes the temporal location in an event. 19 c. The construction with the elative form denotes a spatial and 20 temporal transition from the NP referent (location) and the 21 temporal transition accompanying the spatial transition; it denotes 22 a temporal transition from one event to another. 23 So in the first analysis is synchronic in its nature. The case can apply to verbs, 24 because it can apply to the temporal dimension in the nominal as well as verbal 25 domain. In the verbal domain, the nominal-locative part of the meaning of the 26 case simply does not apply, because space is not involved. 27 The second analysis is more diachronic and takes the nominal origin of the 28 nonfinites into account. The infinitives encoded with inessive, illative, and ela- 29 tive are analyzed as nouns, as case-marked nominalizations that have become 30 verbs in the course of language change. According to the second analysis, the 31 nonfinites are semantically abstract events (events as objects). In their combi- 32 nations with spatial cases, the Finnic nonfinites have locative meanings related 33 to the location of the events. The temporal and spatial dimensions coexist as in 34 the first analysis, but they relate to each other in a different way. In the second 35 analysis, the case applies in the temporal dimension at a later stage of language 36 development. This analysis is described in (21). 37 38 (21) a. The nonfinite illative form denotes a goal of movement to another 39 space associated with an event (and the temporal transition 40 accompanying the spatial transition). 41 b. The nonfinite inessive form denotes a location related to an event 42 (and the duration of the event).

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 852–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 852) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 853–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 853) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 853

1 c. The nonfinite elative form denotes the source of movement from 2 the location related to the event denoted by the predicate (and the 3 temporal transition accompanying the spatial transition). 4 In sum, the temporal and spatial meanings can combine in the nonfinites in 5 several ways; spatial cases instantiate the space-time parallels in a transparent 6 way and events are simultaneously located in time and in space. The locative 7 meanings of the constructions are all relational in the sense that they relate two 8 locations, typically one at the deictic centre and the other away from it. The 9 distant location is associated with the event denoted by the predicate. The tem- 10 poral relations are structured in a similar way. 11 The next section, Section 2, presents more examples of the ways the case 12 and aspect interact in a rich case system, of the relationship between nonfinite 13 meanings developed on the basis of various cases, and how rarer cases shape 14 the TAM system. Section 3 concentrates on how the temporal relationships and 15 the locative meanings combine in the progressive and the absentive (locative), 16 and Section 4 focuses on the Estonian phenomenon. Section 4 shows that the 17 first analysis is applicable to the Estonian progressive, while the second one is 18 suitable for capturing the essence of the absentive. Section 5 offers the con- 19 cluding remarks and Section 6 is a summary. 20 21 22 2. Cases and nonfinites 23 24 2.1. Nonfiniteness, nominalization and m-formative nonfinite case forms 25 26 The first section has shown that the Finnic languages have parallel case in the 27 spatial and temporal domain, and that this data set can shed light upon several 28 issues identified in previous sources about verbal case, TAM and infinitival 29 meanings. Across Finnic, much diachronic and synchronic variation in the 30 forms could be demonstrated, whereas the spatial and temporal meanings were 31 found to be related in a strikingly parallel way. 32 This section presents the parallel case in the spatial and temporal domain as 33 a phenomenon that appears within the context of a rich nonfinite verb system 34 running parallel with an even richer case system. Now the following issues can 35 be addressed in more detail: do these parallels persist with all cases and non 36 finites in the system? What are the semantic and syntactic properties of cases 37 and their hosts, and how are the forms and meanings related? Does case com- 38 bine with verbs because case is not only a nominal marker, or does case com- 39 bine with verbs because the verbs in question have nominal properties? Can 40 case have different combinatorial options syntactically and semantically? Re- 41 fining the previous question, does case combine with verbs because case is 42 not only a nominal marker semantically, and does case combine with verbs

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 854 A. Tamm

1 because the verbs in question are in fact nouns syntactically? This section takes 2 a look at the data that can answer these questions. 3 4 5 2.2. Characteristics of the case systems in the Finnic languages 6 7 Case appears in the predicate semantics in all Uralic languages, most of which 8 are characterized by rich case systems with approximately 10 members. Many 9 have case systems of approximately 15 or 20 cases. This is perhaps the most 10 special agglutinative characteristic of this language family in the context of 11 the world’s languages. In the selection of Iggesen (2008), there are 24 lan- 12 guages with more than 10 cases; five of those listed are Uralic (Erzya Mordvin, 17 13 Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt). Although the criteria applied for 14 casehood differ across Uralic sources, the recorded number of cases in the 18 15 Finno-Ugric languages is nevertheless telling. In addition to the two Finnic 16 languages mentioned in the WALS, all Finnic case systems comprise more 17 than 10 cases (see for a historical background in Viitso 1998: 110 –111). The 18 Estonian case system (Table 1) represents well the core of the productive case 19 inventory of the Finnic languages (except for the terminative, which is rare). 20 21 Table 1. The Estonian case system, singular case forms of raamat ‘book’.

22 no case form translation no case form translation 23 24 1 nominative raamat book 8 adessive raamatul on a book 2 genitive raamatu (of a) book 9 ablative raamatult from the book 25 3 partitive raamatut book 10 translative raamatuks into, as a book 26 4 illative raamatusse into a book 11 terminative raamatuni until a book 27 5 inessive raamatus in a book 12 essive raamatuna as a book 28 6 elative raamatust from inside 13 abessive raamatuta without a book 29 a book 7 allative raamatule onto a book 14 comitative raamatuga with a book 30 31 32 Since case labels cover cross-linguistically fuzzy concepts, a short termino- 33 logical note is in order. Nominative (row 1) indicates the subject or certain 34 types of objects and object-like adverbials. Genitive (row 2) indicates posses- 35 sion, marks singular objects, and appears as the most frequent complement 36 case of adpositions. Among the less-known cases, Finnic has the partitive case 37 (row 3). It is a case label that is also applied to Basque (Hualde and Ortiz de 38 Urbina 2003), and Turkish (Enç 1991). However, the term partitive covers 39 quite different semantic content in those languages. Partitive is perhaps mis- 40 leadingly used for the case having to do with the historical separative case 41 (marking in instances such as ‘eat from the apple’), and partial affectedness of 42 a theme argument (marking in instances such as ‘I ate a part of an apple (but

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 854–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 854) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 855–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 855) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 855

1 not all)’), but in Estonian this use is central only in the diachronic perspective. 2 Presently, the partitive object case appears in sentences that have the semantics 3 of incomplete event realization, unboundedness, atelicity, or imperfective as- 4 pect in Estonian (Erelt et al. 1993; Metslang 2001) irrespective of partial af- 5 fectedness (Tamm 2007). As the morphological nominative and genitive, the 6 partitive is also a complement case, the case of temporal adverbials and sub- 7 jects (see Tamm 2004 for more details). Across the Finnic dialects, there are 8 differences in the range of partitive uses and meanings, and the division of la- 9 bor between the nominative, partitive and genitive (Larsson 1983; Lees 2004, 10 2005). Some authors have argued for the dative (Matsumura 1997), covered by 11 the morphological adessive. The only Finnic language with a designated da- 12 tive, Livonian, has lost its last native speaker during the publication process of 13 this article; therefore, there are currently no living Finnic languages with a 14 dative. 15 The case for the predicate nominals of verbs of change (‘become, turn into 19 16 something’) is called translative (a.k.a. mutative) (row 10). Static qualities of 17 predicate nominals are encoded by the essive case (row 12) (a.k.a. predicative), 18 meaning ‘in the quality of, as’. Categories similar to comitative (‘together 19 with’) are variously known as associative, sociative, accompanitive, propri- 20 etive, or ornative across languages. Abessive stands for the case expressing 20 21 ‘without’. The last four Estonian cases are regarded as clitics in some ap- 22 proaches, since they do not trigger case agreement. 23 Since spatial cases appear cross-linguistically frequently in cross-categorial 24 marking, their position in the Finnic case system deserves more attention. The 25 Uralic languages are not uniformly symmetric in the orientational and direc- 26 tional members in the systems. Finnic spatial cases typically express symmet- 27 ric orientational contrasts of ‘in’ versus ‘on’. Hungarian has an additional ori- 28 entational set that denotes spatial relations in the vicinity. The locative meaning 29 of this set corresponds to the English preposition ‘at’. Finnic languages lack 30 this orientational set. For a more detailed spatial semantic analysis of Uralic 31 spatial cases see Kracht (2005). There are seven spatial cases in the modern 32 Estonian case system. There are two orientational sets of spatial cases, the in- 33 ternal (rows 4 – 6) and external ones (rows 7–9). Both sets have three direc- 34 tional members: a lative (goal, ‘to’), an essive (location, ‘at’), and a separative 35 (source, ‘from’) member. The lative set has illative (‘into’) and allative (‘onto’), 36 the essive set has inessive (‘in’) and adessive (‘on’), and the separative set has 37 elative (‘from inside’) and ablative (‘from the top of’). Some Uralic languages 38 have only one general ablative, lative or locative case, and in others, there may 39 be up to four goal cases in a system (Mari, Kangasmaa-Minn 1998: 226). In 40 addition to the triples of the external and internal spatial cases, Estonian has a 41 case labeled terminative (limitative) (row 11), a spatial case used for denoting 42 the envisioned endpoint of a (metaphorical) movement to this endpoint. Note

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 856 A. Tamm

1 that the translative is a predicate nominal case for quality transitions (transfor- 2 mative is the term for the corresponding case in Hungarian) and, therefore, it is 3 not a spatial case in Finnic. The translative is an abstract goal case, denoting 4 the goal of a change. Diachronically and in dialects, there are more spatial 5 cases in Finnic, such as the prolative (‘along’), and cases that are sporadically 21 6 related to spatial uses, exessive (‘from (usually a state)’) and instructive (‘by 7 means of, in’). If we consider that cases expressing spatial relations can be 8 grouped into four broad directional classes: cases expressing location (‘at’), 9 goal (‘to’), source (‘from’), and path (‘through, along’), then we can claim that 10 all these directional classes have been represented in the Finnic, but the path 11 one is typically not a productive case, except the new prolative in South Vep- 12 sian, -mu(d) ‘along’, a recently agglutinated postposition. More specifically, 13 prolative occurs in Finnish, Karelian, Ludic, Veps, Ingrian, Votic, and Estonian 14 according to Suoniemi-Taipale (1994); it can be found in South Estonian 15 (Võro), e.g., vesilde ‘by water’ (Iva 2007: 41). 16 17 2.3. Case in the Finnic nonfinite verbs 18 19 The spatial case system of the nominal paradigm is present in the paradigm of 20 nonfinites in Finnic. This fact raises several questions. Firstly, why do we get 21 the case formants on predicates that denote events? What is there in the struc- 22 ture of these languages that allows it? Secondly, what is its effect on the mean- 23 ing? In order to introduce that question, the reader should be given a brief 24 perspective on the morphosyntax. 25 Several infinitives originate from latives in Uralic (Viitso 1998: 97). The 26 Hungarian infinitive formant is originally a spatial case marked form (D. Bar- 27 tha 1958: 93). More specifically, the suffix -ni combines a deverbal nominal 28 suffix (-n) and a lative (goal) suffix (-i). The same holds for the Udmurt -ny and 29 the Mari infinitive suffix (Serebrennikov 1964; Kokla 1986). The great number 22 30 of inflected nonfinite verb forms is peculiar to Uralic in general. Many but 31 not all Finnic cases appear as parts of nonfinite forms, so the paradigms are 32 generally incomplete in comparison with the nominal paradigms. The spatial 33 cases are by far the most frequent. The t-formative infinitives in Finnic are 34 originally deverbal nouns that have developed their nominalizing suffix from 35 latives (Laanest 1975: 160). Lees (2010) provides an overview of the non 36 finites in Finnic, presenting a corpus study of the case encoding of the objects 37 of nonfinites in Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps, based on 38 Finnic Bibles. My article provides more data on Votic, Karelian, South Esto- 39 nian and Estonian and considers the examples of the Internet and native speak- 40 ers as well. 41 The nonfinite forms are illustrated on the basis of Estonian, which has the 42 illative, inessive, elative, translative, partitive, and abessive cross-categorial

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 856–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 856) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 857–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 857) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 857

1 cases (Table 2). The nonfinites are formed with the verb stem, a historical for- 2 mative for nominalization (-t-, -m-, or the present participle morpheme, -v-), 3 followed by the case formatives. The Modern Estonian m-formative nonfinite 4 forms contain the illative, inessive, elative, translative, and abessive cases. The 5 t-formative nonfinite form has an inessive; the instructive appears with this 6 nonfinite in some Finnic languages (e.g., Finnish). The present participle has a 7 partitive nonfinite form. The case marking of nonfinite forms is synchronically 23 8 unproductive; the internal spatial cases are particularly common in Finnic. 9 Diachronically or in dialects, in addition to the Modern Estonian inessive, illa- 10 tive, and elative, the system of spatial case-marked nonfinite forms is richer, 11 since the m-formative nonfinite forms also had the allative, adessive, and abla- 12 tive marking, and there was an inessive present participle form (Habicht 2001a: 13 254, 2001b: 188). The t-formative forms have had adessive marking in dialects 14 in addition to the Modern Estonian inessive. 15 16 17 Table 2. The nonfinite case-marked forms in Estonian.

18 Form Example Formant Case Origin or status 19 69 20 1 -ma sõudma -m- -, illative not constructed, ‘to row’ productive 21 2 -mas sõudmas -m- -s, inessive not constructed, 22 ‘rowing’ productive 23 3 -mast sõudmast -m- -st, elative not constructed, 24 ‘from rowing’ productive 70 25 4 -malle sõudmalle -m- -le, allative coast dialectal ‘to rowing’ 26 5 -malla sõudmalla -m- -l(a), adessive dialectal 27 ‘rowing’ 28 6 (-malt) sõudmalt -m- -lt, ablative dialectal, Finnish- 29 ‘from rowing’ Livonian 71 30 7 -maks sõudmaks -m- -ks, translative constructed in standard ‘in order to row’ language, productive 31 8 -mata sõudmata -m- -ta, abessive not constructed, 32 ‘not having rowed’ productive 33 9 -des sõudes -t- -s, inessive72 not constructed, 34 ‘rowing’ productive 73 35 10 -della sõudella -t- -l(a), adessive dialectal ‘by rowing’ 36 11 -de sõude -t- instructive74 not constructed 37 ‘by rowing’ 38 12 -da sõuda -t- lative, originally not constructed, 39 ‘row’ productive 40 13 -vat sõudvat -v/ partitive not constructed, ‘reportedly/ -ta-v productive 41 perhaps row’ 42

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 858 A. Tamm

1 The Estonian nonfinite case system represents well the core of the form in- 2 ventory of the Finnic languages. The Finnic languages are not unusual in hav- 3 ing nonfinite forms, since many languages have nonfinite verb forms. These 4 languages are also not particularly special in combining case with verbs as 5 the discussion in Section 1.2 showed. What makes the Finnic system worth 6 studying is the extent and regularity of case-marking on the nonfinite — 7 semantically hybrid — forms; more discussion on this issue can be found in 8 Siro (1964), Leino (2009), and in Ross et al. (2009). This regularity allows us 9 to study the relationships between the forms and finer meanings in more detail 10 than in other languages. 11 In sum, the Finnic languages provide an excellent illustration of the devel- 12 opment of parallels between case marking of nouns and nonfinite forms. The 13 next subsection examines spatial cases in the infinitive system, their form and 14 meaning, and provides the examples for the forms in Table 1 and Table 2 that 15 will be relevant for further discussion. 16 17 18 2.4. The Finnic m-nonfinites 19 20 The inventory of the m-formative case forms is not identical across the Finnic 21 languages and dialects; the internal spatial cases tend to be more common. For 22 instance, Finnish differs from Estonian in having an additional instructive and 24 23 adessive member, while lacking a translative. The Votic m-formative non 24 finites as described by Tsvetkov (2008) also exclude the translative. However, 25 the description that Ariste gives of the Western Votic dialect is identical with 26 the Estonian system (Ariste 1968: 77). Livvi Karelian has the inessive, illative, 27 elative, abessive, adessive, and partitive infinitives on the basis of Markianova 28 (2002). I will address the question about the possible misclassification of some 29 of these infinitives. 30 Some remarks on the productivity of these forms are in order. There are no 31 inherent restrictions on combinations of verb classes and nonfinite forms. 32 However, the case inventory is restricted; a comparison between Table 1 and 33 Table 2 shows that only a selection of nominal cases appear as parts of non 34 finites. The m-nonfinite case forms are thus not the result of productive nomi- 35 nalization processes from the synchronic viewpoint. The formative -m- is a 36 general nonfinitizer in the diachronic perspective, but it does not form new 25 37 nouns productively. The unproductive nominative can be found in nominal- 38 izations that occur frequently in frozen expressions, for instance sööm ‘eating’, 39 as in söömapidu ‘big feast’, joom ‘drinking’, as in suured joomad ‘big drinking 40 feast’, lööm ‘fighting’, as in läks löömaks ‘a fight broke out’ (see Laanest 26 41 [1975: 137–138] for other Finnic parallels). The -m-nominalization is special 42 even compared to other unproductive nominalizations, for instance, the nomi-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 858–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 858) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 859–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 859) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 859

1 nalizations with the suffix -k as in söök ‘food’, jook ‘drink’, or löök ‘hit’. The 2 nominalizations with -k inflect freely and appear in the nominative, whereas 3 the nominalizations with -m appear with a limited range of inflections, their 4 case is determined lexically. Since the nominative form is not productive in 5 Estonian, it is not included in Table 1. The m-formative does not create dever- 6 bal nominalizations allowing unconstrained case marking, as illustrated by a 7 couple of examples in (22) to emphasize the point. 8 9 (22) Estonian 10 a. *uju-ma-ni m term 11 swim- _ 12 ‘until swimming’ 13 b. *uju-ma-na m ess 14 swim- _ 15 ‘as swimming’ 16 The m-formative could have been a productive nominalizing suffix in the his- 17 tory of the Finnic languages, forming nouns that can be case marked. However, 18 since the inventory of cases that combine with this suffix is limited to mostly 19 locative ones, it is not a synchronically productive suffix; the Modern Estonian 20 inventory is represented in (23). 21 22 (23) Estonian 23 a. illative 24 uju-ma 25 swim-m_ill 26 ‘to swim, swimming’ 27 b. inessive 28 uju-ma-s 29 swim-m_ine 30 ‘swimming’ 31 c. elative 32 uju-ma-st 33 swim-m_ela 34 ‘from swimming’ 35 d. translative 36 uju-ma-ks 37 swim-m_tra 38 ‘in order to swim’ 39 e. abessive 40 uju-ma-ta 41 swim-m_abe 42 ‘not having swum’

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 860 A. Tamm

1 We have seen that the m-nonfinites are case forms that have an equivalent in 2 the nominal case system, but they are not a product of a productive nominaliza- 3 tion system. How do they behave in the overall Finnic system of nonfinites? 4 They are similar to action nominals in their form, but syntactically closer to 5 converbs, infinitives, and participles in the recent classical functional typo- 6 logical approach to nonfinites taken in Ylikoski (2009). Ylikoski divides non- 7 finites into the following four types: converbs, infinitives, action nominals, and 8 participles. Converbs “typically function as optional and not obligatory adver- 9 bial modifiers of verbs and clauses” Ylikoski (2009: 30). The inessive t-forms 10 (“gerundives” or “gerunds”) are in-between forms that are typically converbs 11 as illustrated in (24); the inessive m-form can be used similarly. 12 (24) Estonian 13 Laul-mas/ laul-des tunne-b Mari end hästi. 14 sing-m_ine sing-t_ine feel-3s M[nom] self well 15 ‘Mary feels well when/while singing.’ 16 17 Ylikoski (2009: 30) defines infinitives as “nonfinite verb forms that function as 18 obligatory arguments or so-called complements in a sentence”. The locative 19 case forms that are the focus of this study, such as the form uju-ma ‘to swim’, 20 are such infinitives. The Estonian tradition refers to them as “supines” (either 21 occasionally, e.g., Erelt et al. 1993, or consistently, e.g., Pajusalu and Orav 22 2008). Case-marked nouns combine with determiners or adjectives and trigger 23 agreement, as in (25). 24 (25) Standard Estonian 25 Ma lähen uju-ma/ suurde metsa. 26 I[nom] go-1s swim-m_ill big.ill forest.ill 27 ‘I am going to swim / to a big forest.’ 28 29 Nonfinite case forms do not combine with determiners or adjectives but with 30 adverbs, as in (26), so they are verb-like. 31 (26) Standard Estonian 32 Ma lähen intensiivselt / *suurde ujuma. 33 I[nom] go-1s intensively big.ill swim-m_ill 34 ‘I will go swimming intensively; I will go and swim intensively.’ 35 The Veps example in (27) has a form where the illative is combined with a re- 36 flexive clitic, as in ope-ma-ha-s ‘to study’ on an analogy of the corresponding 37 Russian verb; this innovation can be understood as indicating the increasingly 38 verbal character of the case form. 39 40 (27) Veps 41 Anna sanui: “Jäl’ges školad minä mänen 42 A[nom] say.pst.3s after school.ptv I[nom] go-1s

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 860–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 860) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 861–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 861) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 861

27 1 ope-ma-ha-s tehnikum-ha Piteri-he.” 2 study-m_ill-refl3s vocational.school-ill St. Petersburg-ill 3 ‘Anna said: “After graduating I will go to study in the vocational 4 school in St. Petersburg.” ’ 5 The Estonian m-illative nonfinite combining with the impersonal suffix (28) 6 shows the more verbal character of the Estonian illative forms as well. The 7 data also confirms that this form is taking on new verbal properties without 8 losing the case property from the nominal properties. Note that the impersonal 9 morpheme -ta- that precedes the m-formative combines only with the m-illative 10 nonfinite. 11 12 (28) Standard Estonian 13 Mees-te-st pidi tehta-ma raud ja 14 man-pl-ela must.pst.3s make.ips-m_ill iron[nom] and 28 15 teras. 16 steel[nom] 17 ‘Men had to be molded into iron and steel.’ 18 Spatial forms, both NP and nonfinite, differ from the abessive ones in Esto- 19 nian; the latter can (and the former cannot) modify nouns (29a). The absessive 20 form fulfills the criteria of a participle and a converb. I propose a unique test 21 for the nominal case nature for the abessive. This possibility in coordination 22 environments is available for abessives, since in Estonian, the case on nomi- 23 nals is optional in the coordination of nouns, as illustrated in (29b) versus 24 (29c), but not with the nonfinites, as illustrated in (29d) and (29f ) versus (29e) 25 and (29g). 26 27 (29) Standard Estonian 28 a. Köögis on klaas joomata valge 29 Kitchen-ine be.3s glass[nom] drink-m_abe white.gen 30 veiniga. 31 wine-com 32 ‘In the kitchen there is a glass of white wine that has not been 33 drunk.’ 34 b. Ta läks koju mütsi-ta ja salli-ta. 35 s/ he[nom] go.pst.3s home.ill hat-abe and shawl-abe 36 ‘She went home without a hat and a shawl.’ 37 c. Ta läks koju mütsi ja salli-ta. 38 s/ he[nom] go.pst.3s home.ill hat.gen and shawl-abe 39 ‘She went home without a hat and a shawl.’ 40 d. Ta läks koju söö-mata ja mängi-mata. 41 s/ he[nom] go.pst.3s home.ill eat-m_abe and play-m_abe 42 ‘She went home without having eaten or played.’

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 862 A. Tamm

1 e. *Ta läks koju söö-ma ja mängi-mata. 2 s/ he[nom] go.pst.3s home.ill eat and play-m_abe 3 Intended to mean: ‘She went home without having eaten or 4 played.’ 5 f. Mütsi(-ta) ja salli-ta laps. 6 hat-abe and shawl-abe child[nom] 7 ‘A child without a hat and a shawl.’ 8 g. Söö-ma(*ta) ja mängi-mata laps. 9 play-m_abe and eat-m_abe child[nom] 10 ‘A child who has not eaten or/and played.’ 11 12 The abessive form has the behavior of a participle. Ylikoski (2009: 31) charac- 13 terizes participles as attributive verb forms and as verbal adjectives. This is 14 what the Finnish ma-form is regarded (an agent participle), as in (30). 15 (30) Standard Finnish 16 Suomalaisten löytä-mä proteiini selventää syövän 17 finn-pl-gen find-ag.ptcp protein[nom] clarify.3s cancer-gen 18 syntymekanismeja.29 19 causal.mechanism-pl.ptv 20 ‘The protein discovered by the Finns clarifies the mechanisms that 21 evoke cancer.’ 22 23 Koskinen (1998: 326) describes how the Finnish ma-forms contradict the tra- 24 ditional division of nonfinite forms into participles and infinitives. The mor- 25 phosyntactic traits of the prenominal ma-structure are identical to those of the 26 prenominal participle construction, while the complement and adjunct ma- 27 forms function more closely like the Finnish t-infinitive. How to deal with the 28 category is dependent on theories; Vainikka (1995) proposes that the structure 29 VP is embedded under the NP projection with the following structure (V + 30 30 infinitival suffix (+ case suffix (+ possessive suffix))) for the Finnish forms. 31 An action nominal “is used to refer to fully regular, productive verbal nouns 32 such as the -ing gerund in English, but not to the quite idiosyncratically derived 33 deverbal nouns such as the English destruction, collapse or discovery (cf. 34 destroying, collapsing, and discovering)”, following Ylikoski (2009: 31). The 35 regular action nominals are also formed with the m-formative, but an addi- 36 tional formative -ine(n) is part of the morpheme as well. Action nominals can 37 be marked with any case, but the m-formative case forms that are the focus of 38 this study have restricted, grammaticalized case marking. The -mine(n) nomi- 39 nalizations create deverbal abstract nouns that stand for events, can be modi- 40 fied by adjectives, have a modified argument frame compared to the base verb, 41 can be pluralized and case-marked and trigger agreement. The -mine(n) forms, 42 in contrast to the infinitival forms, can be modified by adjectives and the adjec-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 862–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 862) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 863–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 863) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 863

1 tive agrees in case and number (31a). The plural formation is rare given the 2 abstract nature of the deverbal abstract form with -mine(n). 3 4 (31) Estonian 31 5 a. mõne-d viimase-d tegemise-d nom pl nom pl nom pl 6 some- . last- . doing- . 7 ‘some of the last activities’ 8 b. kiire-st ujumise-st ela ela 9 fast- swimming- 10 ‘because of fast swimming’ / 11 c. kiirelt kiire ujumise eest / gen gen 12 fast fast- swimming- for 13 ‘for fast swimming’ 14 d. pärast ujumis-t ptv 15 after swimming- 16 ‘after swimming’ 17 e. Karelian 18 Keittämize-n täh pada roih musta-kse. gen nom pst s tra 19 cooking- because pot[ ] become. .3 black- 20 ‘The pot has turned black because of cooking.’ 21 Regular event nominalizations, such as ujumine ‘swimming’ (Estonian) (31b) 22 typically cannot be quantized, but they can be modified by an adjective or an 23 adverb (31c), and they combine with postpositions or prepositions (31d). For 24 instance, forms such as in Karelian (31e) are typically action nominals as well 25 as those in (32a), despite their occasional classification as infinitives. There are 26 difficulties in distinguishing between the infinitives and action nominals, since 27 there seem to be in-between forms that are occasionally misclassified. The 28 Karelian partitive infinitives (with syyn partitiivi, partitivus causae [Ojajärvi 29 1950: 150]), as tested with native informants, are not infinitives either, but ac- 30 tion nominals, since they can be modified by an adjective that agrees with them 31 in case (32a). Moreover, they can be pluralized, as in (32b). In other dialects, 32 as illustrated in Example (32c), the partitive m-formative nonfinite denotes an 33 action for which something is paid or earned (Õispuu 1994: 51). The example 34 shows the variation in the Finnic dialect continuum. 35 36 (32) a. Karelian (questionnaire and elicitation, 2010) 37 Suur-du keittä-miä pada musten-i. 38 big-ptv cook-m_ptv pot[nom] blacken-3s.pst 39 ‘Intensive cooking has made the pot turn black.’ 40 b. Suur-ii keittä-mii pada-t muste-ttih. 41 big-pl.ptv cook-m_pl.ptv pot-nom.pl blacken-3pl.pst 42 ‘Many times of intensive cooking have made the pots turn black.’

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 864 A. Tamm

1 c. Karelian, Vesjegonsk, Dubrova 2 Kunže, makše-ttih avuttu-mi̮ a, paimenda-mi̮ a. 3 prt pay-ips.pst help-m_ptv herd-m_ptv 4 ‘Sure, I was paid for helping and herdership.’ 5 (Õispuu 1994: 51) 6 d. Estonian 7 Suure-st keetmise-st läks-id paja-d musta-ks. 8 big-ela cook-ela go-pst3pl pot-nom.pl black-tra 9 ‘Many times of intensive cooking have made the pots turn black.’ 10 e. Estonian 11 Maks-ti aitamise eest. 12 pay-ips.pst helping-gen for 13 ‘One was paid for helping.’ 14 15 Syntactically, the Karelian partitive m-nonfinites resemble the more nominal- 16 ized mine(n)-forms and their origin is that of agent participles (cf. Õispuu 17 1994: 51). They can be classified as action nominals, nominalizations of 18 verbs that denote an activity or process. The content of the Karelian partitive 19 m-form corresponds to the content of elative -mine-nominalizations in Esto- 20 nian, to action nominals, as in (32d), or combinations with postpositions, as in 21 (32e). 22 In sum, the Finnic languages and dialects display a wide variety of nonfinite 23 combinations with case that are not identical across the languages and dialects. 24 The structure and basic combinatorial properties in syntax of the Finnic forms 25 that include the m-nominalizer are summarized in (33). The nominalizer does 26 not nominalize productively and transparently. There are agent participles in 27 some Finnic languages with the structure that optionally allows pluralization 28 and case, as in (33a), and productive -mine(n)-nominalizations, with the struc- 29 ture as illustrated in (33b) and (33c), combining with prepositions and post 30 positions. The case forms in -m- that appear in the modern languages are built 31 up as in (33d); they are infinitives, participles, or converbs. They are formed 32 with the verb stem, a diachronically motivated nominalizing formative -m-, 33 followed by the case formatives, which in turn may be followed by a posses- 34 sive suffix (33b) in the languages that have it. Some combinations indicate the 35 persistence of the nominal properties of the nonfinites, such as the possessive 36 suffixation (33e), and even the increase in the nominal properties of the non 37 finites, as in the cliticization of the directional postpositions (33f ). Other com- 38 binations indicate an increase in the verbal properties of the nonfinites. For 39 instance, the impersonal suffix can be found preceding the nominalizer with an 40 illative and not any other form, as in (33g), and a reflexive suffix follows the 41 case in one instance as in (33h). Leino (2009) gives examples of more types in 42 Finnish.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 864–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 864) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 865–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 865) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 865

1 (33) a. (QUANT) (adj) V – ma – (pl) – (case) 2 b. PREP (QUANT) (adj)/(adv) V – mine(n) (pl) 3 c. (QUANT) (adj) V – mine(n) (pl) POSTP 4 d. V – (impersonal suffix) – nominalizer – restricted case – 5 (directional clitic) – (possessive) (/reflexive) 6 e. V – nominalizer – restricted case – (possessive) 7 f. V – nominalizer – restricted locative case – (directional clitic) 8 g. V – (impersonal) – nominalizer – illative 9 h. V – nominalizer – illative – reflexive 10 In sum, there are verbs that have undergone nominalization in the history of the 11 Finnic languages, and the variation data gives evidence of processes that are 12 reversing the direction of category change from deverbal nominalization to 13 denominal infinitive formation. In other words, Finnic evidences a process of 14 verbs becoming verbs again. The Finnic cases have proved themselves to be a 15 semantically stable element in this process. Many of them apply to the spatial 16 as well as temporal properties of the entities that the host forms denote. Several 17 of them can denote more abstract relationships between objects and events. 18 Certain patterns emerge; for instance, the internal locative cases — especially 19 the illative — the partitive, and the abessive are well-attested nonfinite cases; 20 the instructive, the adessive, and the translative emerge occasionally, whereas 21 cases such as the terminative or the essive are not typical parts of verb-like 22 nonfinites. 23 24 25 2.5. Diachronic approaches explain infinitival case and Finnic cross- 26 categorial cases clarify the development of infinitival meanings 27 28 Section 2.4 has established the special position of the illative case in the varia- 29 tion data in the Finnic dialect continuum, and this subsection looks at this 30 data from a wider perspective of infinitive meanings. In Veps, the illative -m- 31 nonfinites display the use of the reflexive suffix as in (27). In Estonian, the 32 illative -m-nonfinites have impersonal forms in contrast to all other-m- 33 nonfinites (28). The nonfinite illative case form, as in row 1 in Table 2,sõudma 34 ‘to row’, diverges from the nominal case forms that have the short illative but 35 also the longer illative form -sse, as present in raamatusse ‘into a book’, as in 36 row 4 in Table 1. 37 The role of case in the semantic arrangement of an infinitive system in a rich 38 case system is different from systems with less case. In Haspelmath’s (1989: 39 289) account, the allative gives rise to infinitives. The allative expressions de- 40 velop into purposive, as in Mary went to take photos of Sabina. This is the first 41 step of grammaticalization in the development of infinitives. The desemantici- 42 zation path suggested for infinitives in Haspelmath (1989: 298) contains the

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 866 A. Tamm

1 following stages: 1) benefactive/allative/causal, 2) purposive, 3) irrealis- 2 directive, 4) irrealis-potential, 5) realis-non-factive, and 6) realis-factive. In 3 order to proceed with more issues about the meaning of the m-infinitives in 4 Section 3, the suggested path suits as a reference point for illustrating the rela- 5 tionships of the modal meanings of infinitives; the range of Finnic meanings 6 and forms are arranged according to the stages discussed by Haspelmath 7 (1989) and presented in Table 3. The example contains only Estonian data and 8 since the correspondence of the meaning and the form are targeted, glosses are 9 omitted but the case forms are set in bold and glossed within the example. 10 11 Table 3. Estonian infinitives compared to Haspelmath’s grammaticalization path for infinitives. 12 stage or type semantic content form example 13 14 1. benefactive to a place m-illative lähen temast pilte tegema ‘I go to 15 /allative/ take.ill pictures of her’, lähen 16 Causal ujuma ‘I will go to swim.ill’ 2. purposive in order to m-illative, lähen ujuma ‘I go swimming/to 17 m-inessive, swim.ill’, olen ujumas ‘I am off to 18 m-translative swim.ine’, ostis fotoka tegemaks 19 temast pilte ‘he bought a camera to 20 make.tra pictures of her’ 21 3. irrealis- modality of the t-infinitive lasin tal laulda ‘I let him sing. directive complements of (lative), lative’, palusin tal laulda ‘I asked 22 manipulative and m-illative him to sing.lative’’, tahtsin laulda 23 desiderative verbs ‘I wanted to sing.lative’’, panin ta 24 laulma ‘I made him sing.ine’ 25 4. irrealis- modality of t-infinitive saab laulda ‘he can sing.lative’’, 26 potential complements to (lative), in a huvitav kuulata ‘interesting to modal and evaluative construction, listen.lative’ to’, pean laulma ‘I 27 predicates -m-illative must sing.ine’ 28 5. realis-non- modality of -vat (partitive) tundus laulvat ‘he seemed to sing. 29 factive complements to ptv, it seemed that he sang’, ütles 30 verbs of propositional teda laulvat ‘he said that she sang. 31 attitude ptv’ 6. realis- modality of verbs of -vat (partitive) teadsin end teadvat ‘I knew that I 32 factive cognition and knew.ptv it’ 33 evaluative predicates 34 35 36 The Finnic data in Table 3 pose a puzzle for the suggested path of infinitive 37 development, even if just one language is examined to make the point. Firstly, 38 there are several infinitives spread all over the developmental stadia. Secondly, 39 the purposive meaning is shared by many infinitives across Finnic languages, 40 and the development towards grammaticalization has affected more spatial 32 41 case forms than allative. Thirdly, if there are many infinitives in a system, if 42 the proposed grammaticalization path is universal, then it would predict that

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 866–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 866) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 867–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 867) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 867

1 younger infinitives enter the lower, earlier positions on the grammaticalization 2 path. Older forms, which are expected to be more developed, could be pre- 3 dicted to occupy higher positions that represent the more advanced, later de- 4 velopments. No occurrences at random points of the path would be predicted. 5 However, the picture that is illustrated with the Estonian infinitival mean- 6 ings and forms runs counter to these hypothetical predictions. Therefore, the 7 existence of several cases in the system emerges as a relevant factor for the 8 development and grammaticalization of the infinitives. The t-infinitive has 9 the longest history and its lative origin is semantically completely bleached 10 compared to the meaning of any other infinitives in the system. However, the 11 t-infinitive unexpectedly fails to crop up at the beginning and at the end of 12 the proposed grammaticalization path. Although its absence at the beginning 13 of the path is well motivated, since a new and more transparent illative m- 14 nominalized form has conquered the semantic space, the desemanticization 15 path seems to make a wrong prediction for the absence of the t-infinitive at the 16 very end of the proposed path, at stages (5) and (6). The semantic space in (5) 17 and (6) is occupied by a partitive based infinitive instead (row 13 in Table 2). 18 This infinitive is a new phenomenon in Finnic; it was still highly unstable in its 19 use in Standard Estonian at the beginning of the 20th century. Compared to 20 other Finnic languages and dialects, this infinitive is a late innovation in Esto- 21 nian, where it has been introduced from South Estonian (Wälchli 2000). In 22 addition to the unexpected position of the partitive based infinitive in the highly 23 developed stages of infinitive, the proposed path of grammaticalization of in- 24 finitives fails to motivate the lack of the translative and inessive infinitives at 25 stage 1. These infinitives enter the grammaticalization chain only at the second 26 stage (purposive semantics), skipping the first step. 27 The solution to this puzzle is as follows: the grammaticalization path may be 28 applicable for the prototypical cases, such as the allative, but it is certainly case 29 specific. In other words, the proposed path predicts and explains infinitives that 30 follow the allative grammaticalization path only. The main idea that infinitives 31 have distinct semantics because they have developed from adpositional or 32 case forms can be retained, since the diachronic development of illative and the 33 lative infinitives follows the prediction of the suggested path. More specifi- 34 cally, the t-infinitive spans over the proposed second and third stages, the m- 35 infinitive spans over the first and second stages, and reaches the thirdand 36 fourth stages with two constructions. 37 How to explain the counterintuitive fact that a recently developed infinitive 38 occupies an advanced stage of grammaticalization at the beginning of its de- 39 velopment already? The development of the infinitives is determined by their 40 origin as case-marked nominalizations, since different cases bring their spe- 41 cific semantics along. In case of allative based infinitives, the first step on the 42 path for allative is purposive, since agents move to another location with a

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 868 A. Tamm

1 specific purpose. These frequent pragmatic co-occurrence conditions in con- 2 text yield co-occurrent usage, which gives rise to implicatures, which, in turn, 3 become purposive entailments. The partitive based infinitive, however, en- 4 codes semantics that is different from allative. Partitive semantics encodes ab- 5 stract part-whole relationships. After being transferred to the propositional 6 level, partitive modifies propositions so that they express epistemic modality, 7 more specifically, partial, incomplete evidence (Tamm 2009). Therefore, the 8 partitive based infinitive enters the modal domain at stage 5 on the allative path 9 only, at epistemic modality and not earlier, that is, its meaning expresses the 10 modality of the complements of verbs of propositional attitude. The translative 11 infinitive enters the grammaticalization chain only at the second stage (purpo- 12 sive semantics), simply because the semantics of the Estonian translative case 13 is closer to purpose than to allative; translative is an abstract goal case. 14 In sum, Table 3 shows clearly that the distribution of infinitives would be 15 completely unmotivated without assuming a diachronic case semantic ap- 16 proach to the development of the Estonian infinitives. Only if we regard case 17 semantics as a crucial factor that shapes the domain of infinitive meanings can 18 we explain why desemanticization skips some stages and not others, and why 19 different infinitives can start their development at various points on the sug- 20 gested infinitive path. 21 Relating a selection of Finnic infinitives to a diachronic account of infinitive 22 development served the purpose to show that the forms in question are really 23 infinitives and not action nominals any more, with developed meanings that 24 characterize infinitives along their path of grammaticalization. The combina- 25 tions of case and verb are not free combinations, but forms with infinitival 26 TAM meanings combined with the meanings that characterize the original 27 nominal case paradigm. 28 29 30 2.6. Case, TAM, and predicate relations 31 32 This subsection takes a closer look at the meaning of Finnic cross-categorial 33 case in the nonfinite system. The fact that several Finnic markers of aspect, 34 tense, evidentiality, and modality are originally morphological cases and that 35 this is a characteristic of the grammatical system has not been studied yet. In 36 addition to the Karelian, Votic, and Veps examples in Section 1, the examples 37 in this subsection show how these categories are constrained in Estonian, 38 Livonian and Võro. 39 40 2.6.1. Inessives and progressives. For instance, the inessive case on non 41 finite verbs expresses aspect — progressive — in Estonian, as in Example (34), 42 and many other Finnic languages.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 868–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 868) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 869–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 869) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 869

1 (34) Standard Estonian 2 Õhu-s on helju-mas piparkooki-de ja röstitud 3 air-ine be.3s float-m_ine gingerbread-gen.pl and roasted 4 mandli-te magusvürtsikas lõhn, kusagil 5 almond-gen.pl sweet.and.spicy[nom] scent[nom] somewhere 6 küpseta-takse jõulusaia, jõululaata-de-l 7 bake-ips Christmas.raisin.bread.ptv Christmas.fair-pl-ade 8 paku-takse aurava-t Glühweini. 9 offer-ips steaming.ptv gluhwein.ptv 10 ‘In the air is hanging the smell of gingerbread and roasted almonds, 11 somewhere a Christmas raisin bread is being baked, Glühwein is 12 offered to the customers at Christmas fairs.’ 13 The progressive in Example (34) differs from the prototypical progressives in 14 terms of its incompatibility with agentive contexts. Specifically, the progres- 15 sive reading with the inessive construction appears with inanimate, non-agent 16 subjects and stative or process verbs in Estonian (Metslang 1994). The stative 17 contexts set the Estonian progressive apart from other generally attested pro- 18 gressives, which tend to appear precisely in agentive, dynamic environments. 19 Sections 3 and 4 give an in-depth survey of some inessive nonfinites. 20 21 2.6.2. Partitives, objects, and TAM. The partitive case is involved in the 22 expression of aspect, epistemic modality, and evidentiality in Finnic. The orig- 23 inal meaning of partitive is to denote a part of an object or matter. In all Finnic 24 languages, the partitive object case expresses aspectual and event structural 25 properties of incomplete events, atelicity, unboundedness, and imperfectivity 26 (e.g., Kiparsky 1998, 2001). For instance, the Livonian object case alternation 27 is analyzed in terms of telicity, closed-open situations, polarity, individuation 28 of the object, and realis-irrealis by Tveite (2004: 151), as in (35a) and (35b). 29 According to Tveite, in Livonian, partitive objects appear in sentences that are 30 atelic, open (incomplete, unbounded), negative polar, and in irrealis (35a), 31 which is the opposite of what is expressed in sentences containing an accusa- 32 tive object, which are telic, closed (complete, bounded), affirmative, realis sen- 33 tences (35b). The events that are encoded by means of partitive are not com- 34 plete, as parts of entities are not complete entities. 35 36 (35) Livonian 37 a. Jo se um juvvõ tüödõ min jūs 38 because it[nom] be.3s good.ptv work.ptv I.gen By 39 tiend. 40 do.pass.pst.ptcp 41 ‘Because she has done a good deed for me.’ 42 (Tveite 2004: 57, 59)

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 870 A. Tamm

1 b. Ta um ȳd itt jõva tüö min jūrõ 2 she be.3s one.acc emph good.acc work.acc I.gen to 33 3 tiend. 4 do.pass.pst.ptcp 5 ‘She has done a good deed for me.’ 6 (Tveite 2004: 59) 7 The semantic constraints imposed by case semantics are clearly recognizable 8 in the TAM categories expressed by means of the partitive case. The partial 9 semantics of partitive NPs has transferred to the domain of partial or incom- 10 plete events (aspect) and partial or incomplete evidence (epistemic modality) 11 (Tamm 2009). The partitive forms denote either an incomplete event or incom- 12 plete evidence. In the Livonian examples of object case alternation in (35a)– 13 (35b), the partitive object encodes incompleteness, partiality of an event — 14 atelicity. There are semantic constraints on the verbs that partitive-marked 15 objects occur with: they must be atelic or neutral about telicity. The semantics 16 of these TAM markers in Livonian is more uniform than the TAM semantics of 17 the markers other than case markers, such as the numerous Aktionsart prefixes 18 (Wälchli 2001). In this instance, the cross-categorial case determines the TAM 19 value of the clause via argument marking. 20 21 2.6.3. Illatives, elatives, and nonfinites as event structural boundaries (end- 22 points, telic points). The illative and elative case-marked NPs and nonfinites 23 telicize the situation in an identical manner, providing an endpoint or boundary 24 to the event; the boundary may be realized, as in the example with the accusa- 25 tive object (35b), or it may be left unrealized, as in the example with the 26 partitive case (35a). An example of situation bounding with an illative m- 27 construction shows that the aspectual properties of the predicates with the illa- 28 tive case-marked NP and nonfinite verb are identical. Examples (36) and (37) 29 provide identical (matrix) verbs viima ‘bring’ and tooma ‘fetch, bring’ and an 30 object marked with accusative-total and partitive. The test situations test for 31 the properties of the events expressed by the combination, using temporal ad- 32 verbs. Compatibility with time frame adverbials such as in an hour can detect 33 bounded events, while durative adverbials, such as for an hour, can be used for 34 detecting unbounded events and unbounded, but inherently goal-oriented 35 events and telic predicates. 36 37 (36) Estonian 38 a. Ma vii-si-n lapse ujula-sse 39 I[nom] take-past-1s child.acc/tot swimming pool-ill 40 tunniga/ *tund aega. 41 in an hour for an hour 42 ‘It took me an hour to take the child to the swimming pool.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 870–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 870) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 871–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 871) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 871

1 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I was taking the child to the 2 swimming pool for an hour.’ 3 b. Ma viisin lapse uju-ma tunniga/ 4 I[nom] take-past-1s child.acc/tot swim-m_ill in an hour 5 *tund aega. 6 for an hour 7 ‘I took the child swimming in an hour.’ 8 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I was taking the child to swim for an 9 hour.’ 10 ‘I took the child to swim in an hour/*for an hour.’ 11 c. Ma tõin lapse ujula-st ära 12 I[nom] take-past-1s child.acc/tot swimming pool-ela prt 13 tunniga / *tund aega. 14 in an hour for an hour 15 ‘I brought the child from the swimming pool in an hour.’ 16 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I was bringing the child from the 17 swimming pool for an hour.’ 18 d. Ma tõin lapse uju-mast ära 19 I[nom] take-past-1s child.acc/tot swim-m_ill prt 20 tunniga / *tund aega. 21 in an hour for an hour 22 ‘I brought the child from swimming in an hour.’ 23 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I was taking the child from swimming 24 for an hour.’ 25 Examples (36a)–(36d) show that the elative and illative NPs and nonfinites 26 appear in sentences that are aspectually bounded (telic, complete, perfective) 27 in a parallel manner. The reasons for assuming aspectual boundedness are the 28 following. The sentences contain total objects, objects that are marked with the 29 accusative case. They are compatible with time frame adverbials and incom- 30 patible with durative adverbials indicating boundedness. The elative and illa- 31 tive NPs and nonfinites are situation bounders; this means that the nonfinites 32 behave semantically as NPs bearing the same case. The parallel remains after 33 testing for semantically identical aspectual properties in unbounded sentences 34 with partitive objects, where modification with the time frame adverbial is un- 35 grammatical and the durative adverbial is tolerated, as in (37). 36 37 (37) Estonian 38 a. Ma viisin last ujula-sse 39 I[nom] take-pst-1s child.ptv swimming pool-ill 40 *tunniga / ?tund aega. 41 in an hour for an hour 42 ‘I was taking the child to the swimming pool for an hour.’

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 872 A. Tamm

1 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I took the child to the swimming pool 2 in an hour.’ 3 b. Ma viisin last uju-ma *tunniga / 4 I[nom] take-pst-1s child.ptv swim-m_ill in an hour 5 ?tund aega. 6 for an hour 7 ‘I was taking the child to (a place where she could) swim for an 8 hour.’ 9 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I took the child to swim in an hour.’ 10 c. Ma tõin last ujula-st ära 11 I[nom] take-pst-1s child.ptv swimming.pool-ela prt 12 *tunniga / ?tund aega. 13 in an hour for an hour 14 ‘I was taking the child from the swimming pool for an hour.’ 15 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I took the child from the swimming 16 pool in an hour.’ 17 d. Ma tõin last uju-mast ära *tunniga / 18 I[nom] take-pst-1s child.ptv swim-m_ill prt in an hour 19 ?tund aega. 20 for an hour 21 ‘I was taking the child from swimming for an hour.’ 22 Not possible to interpret as: ‘I took the child from swimming in an 23 hour.’ 24 25 Examples (37a)–(37d) show that the elative and illative NPs and nonfinites 26 behave similarly in aspectually unbounded sentences as well. These sentences 27 contain partitive objects, objects that are marked with the partitive case. The 28 unboundedness of the sentences is witnessed by their compatibility with dura- 29 tive adverbials even if the combination yields a coerced effect, and incompat- 30 ible with time frame adverbials. Sentences in (36) are bounded (it took one 31 hour to take the child to another location) and sentences in (37) unbounded 32 (progressive). In sum, the elative and illative nonfinites are semantic situation 33 telicizers on a par with directional PPs. This means that the nonfinites behave 34 semantically as NPs bearing the same case, and they behave as complements. 35 In these instances it is the argument case that interacts with TAM. These data 36 can explain the versatile case in some languages, where directional locatives 37 have evolved into telicity or completivity markers. 38 39 2.6.4. The two nonfinites derived from latives instantiate aspectually and 40 structurally different constructions. The nonfinites derived from latives, the 41 m-illative nonfinite and the t-formative nonfinite (infinitive) behave differently 42 in terms of aspect. Verbs that take an infinitival complement but that cannot

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 872–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 872) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 873–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 873) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 873

1 have incremental themes or paths and are not telic or resultative typically do 34 2 not have an m-illative infinitive but a t-infinitive, as shown in (38). 3 (38) Standard Estonian 4 a. Tudeng tahtis ujuda *tunniga / 5 student[nom] want-pst.3s swim-t_inf in an hour 6 tund aega. 7 for an hour 8 ‘The student wanted to swim for an hour.’ 9 ‘For an hour, it was the case that the student wanted to swim.’ 10 Not possible to interpret as: ‘The student wanted to swim in an 11 hour.’ 12 b. Tudeng läks tunniga /?tund aega 13 student[nom] go-pst.3s in an hour for an hour 14 uju-ma. 15 swim-m_ill 16 ‘The student went to swim in an hour.’ 17 ‘The student was going to swim for an hour.’ 18 Not possible to interpret as: ‘The student went for a one-hour 19 swim.’ 20 21 The tests illustrate the aspectual contribution of the nonfinites, which in the 22 case of illative nonfinites is similar to directional PPs and lative case-marked 23 NPs. The adverbial test shows additionally the biclausal and monoclausal na- 24 ture of the combinations of the finite and nonfinite verbs. The temporal adver- 25 bial in (38a) applies to both events and both predicates, the wanting and the 26 swimming ones, the structure is, therefore, monoclausal. The temporal adver- 27 bials in (38b) modify only the finite predicate, ‘want’, which means that the 28 finite and nonfinite verbs are in different domains, either because the structure 29 is biclausal or because the nonfinite is structurally a PP or an NP. 30 The data show that the lative case based infinitives pattern differently in 31 terms of telicity. The -t-nonfinite, which is an older form in the history of Esto- 32 nian, has lost all spatial directional meaning; the -m-nonfinite has retained its 33 PP-like locative meaning and can be analyzed as a telicizer. 34 35 2.6.5. Partitives, epistemic modality, and evidentiality. The partitive case is 36 involved in the expression of modality and evidentiality in South Estonian, and 37 since the 20th century, in Standard Estonian as well. The partitive eviden 38 tial (the quotative), as in the form polevat ‘allegedly, are not’ and tulevat 39 ‘allegedly, come’ in Example (39), has originally developed from the aspec 40 tual partitive object marking (Ikola 1953; Erelt et al. 2006). It is an epistemic 41 modality-conditioned reportative-hearsay evidential, which encodes the lack 42 of complete evidence (Tamm 2009).

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 874 A. Tamm

1 (39) Standard Estonian 2 Tal pole-vat praegu 3 s/ he-ade not.be-pers.prs.ptcp.ptv/ep_mod/indir_evid now 4 hambaid, aga need tulevat kohe, kui 5 tooth-ptv.pl but they[nom] come-indir_ev at.once when 35 6 titt väljub. 7 baby[nom] exit-3s 8 ‘Reportedly/allegedly, s/ he has no teeth yet but, allegedly, they appear 9 as soon as the baby comes out.’ 10 The semantics of the aspectual partitive is parallel to that of the evidential par- 11 titive: while the partitive on objects encodes incomplete events, the partitive as 12 an evidential encodes incomplete evidence. The epistemic modal meaning is 13 present in the independent use of the evidential on main predicates (39) as well 14 as in embedded ones as in (40). 15 16 (40) Standard Estonian 17 Ajakirjanikud, kes arvavad esinda-vat vaid 18 journalist-nom.pl who think-3pl represent-ep_mod only 19 iseennast, on tegelikult võimuvälja 20 oneself.ptv be.3 really power.structures.gen 36 21 ebateadlikud teenrid. 22 unconscious-nom.pl servant-nom.pl 23 ‘Journalists, who think that they represent their own ideas, only, are in 24 fact unconscious servants of the power structures.’ 25 Standard Estonian acquired the evidential from South Estonian; the South 26 Estonian folk song example illustrates epistemic modality in complements of 27 the verb ‘say’ (41). 28 (41) Võro 29 Minno üldä-s töödä tege-vät, minno 30 I.ptv say-ips-pst-neg work.ptv do-ep_mod I.ptv 31 üldä-s asõld aja-vat, ülti mu 32 say-ips-pst-neg thing.ptv drive-ep_mod say-ips-pst I.gen 33 laulu oppi-vat, kargu[s]ta kae-vat. 34 song.gen/ptv learn-ep_mod dance.ptv look-ep_mod 35 ‘It is told that I was not working, it is told that I was not busy, it was 36 told that I was learning how to sing and watching how to dance.’ 37 38 In Estonian and South Estonian, the meanings of evidentiality and epistemic 39 modality are expressed by a partitive form and constrained by partitive seman- 40 tics. In Modern Estonian, partitive is cross-categorial, being part of forms that 41 mark different lexical and functional classes — main predicates, embedded 42 predicates, and objects. The semantics of these categories has developed in a

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 874–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 874) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 875–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 875) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 875

1 strikingly uniform way, retaining the part-whole opposition in an abstract 2 sense, but in different functional categories. 3 4 2.6.6. Abessive, negation, tense, and aspect. In the tense category, the per- 5 fect negation can be instantiated by means of the abessive m-nonfinites. The 6 abessive negation is coupled with extra semantic constraints concerning pre- 7 suppositions. The abessive (caritive) case appears in regular NP (42a) and in 8 participle marking (42b), denoting the lack of a referent or an event. In both 9 environments, the abessive negation differs from standard negation in its pre- 10 suppositionality. The abessive negation has stronger presuppositions about the 11 standard expectations of the corresponding affirmative situation in the given 12 context. For instance, the internet games in the Võro language can be expected 13 to be expensive (42a) (the sentence asserts that they are not); in a yearly report, 14 planned accomplishments are supposed to be listed (42b) (the sentence asserts 15 that some goals could not be attained). In Example (43) from Ingrian and (44) 16 from Votic, the assertion is that the field is not yet plowed, but the assertion is 17 done in a context where fields can be plowed and can be expected to be plowed 18 (that is, this sentence is not uttered when fields are under snow). These are the 19 semantic environments where the abessive negation is used instead of standard 20 negation. 21 22 (42) South Estonian (Võro) 23 a. Üts’ ilma raha-ldaq intõrnetimänge lehekülg’ 24 one without money-abe internet.game.pl.gen site[nom] 25 (midä ungarlasõq üleväh pidäväq) tüütäs 26 that.ptv Hungarian-nom.pl up hold-3pl function-3s 37 27 noq ka võro keeleh. 28 now also Võro language-ine 29 ‘An internet site with games where you don’t have to pay 30 (maintained by Hungarians), functions now in the Võro language 31 as well.’ 32 b. Sis arotõldas, [ . . . ] midä om jo ärq 33 then discuss-ips what.ptv be.3s already prt 38 34 tett ja miä om tege-mä-ldäq. 35 do.pass.pst.ptcp and what be.3s do-m_abe 36 ‘Then it is discussed, what has been done already and what has not 37 been done.’ 38 (43) Ingrian 39 Tämä peллò om künde-me-dà̈ / kündö̆ -me-dà̈ . 40 this field[nom] be.3s plow-m_abe plow-m_abe 41 ‘This field has not been plowed.’ 42 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work)

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 876 A. Tamm

1 (44) Votic, Jõgõperä dialect 39 2 Kase pe̮ лto on tšüntemett. 3 this field[nom] be.3s plow-m_abe 4 ‘This field has not been plowed.’ 5 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 6 7 2.3.7. Discussion and summary. Case is a marker in the semantics of the 8 Finnic TAM, negation, and evidentiality domain. More cases than only the 9 spatial ones are employed in the system. They interact with the TAM as case 10 marking on arguments, or as parts of nonfinites, which are in turn independent 11 predicates or arguments. Interestingly, the TAM categories that are encoded by 12 means of case have several idiosyncratic constraints and these semantic con- 13 straints are frequently reminiscent of case semantics. Case is part of encoding 14 TAM semantics, but the semantics has peculiarities that are specific to the 15 Finnic categories only. The Estonian progressive differs from the prototypical 16 progressives in terms of its non-agentive contexts. The semantic constraints 17 imposed by case semantics are clearly recognizable in the TAM categories 18 expressed by means of the partitive case across Finnic. In addition to the all- 19 Finnic aspectual partitive that encodes incomplete events, the partial semantics 20 of partitive NPs applies to partial evidence (epistemic modality) in Estonian 21 and South Estonian. The abessive (caritive) case appears on regular NPs and in 22 participles, denoting the lack of a referent or an event. The abessive nonfinite 23 is the negation of the perfect, but it is coupled with extra semantic constraints 24 concerning presuppositionality, which makes the abessive nonfinite semantics 25 similar to the abessive NPs. The translative encodes an activity as a goal, or a 26 change of state. 27 The data has shown that the relationship between nominal and verbal case is 28 partly transparent and partly opaque. The spatial cases tend to be more trans- 29 parent. The parallels between nominal and nonfinite marking persist in many 30 cross-categorial cases. The event temporal and spatial meanings combine. The 31 locative meanings of the nonfinites are all relational in the sense that they re- 32 late two locations, typically one at the deictic centre and the other away from 33 it. The distant location is associated with the event denoted by the predicate. 34 These two spaces are related in different ways to each other depending on 35 the case in question. Semantically, the inessive case is the richest, combining 36 several temporal and spatial meanings. The -m- versus -t-formative nonfinites 37 are semantically linked to telicity-atelicity alternation in causatives (Tamm 38 forthcoming). Inessive forms give rise to the progressive and absentive (Tom- 39 mola 2000; Metslang 1994). Illative and elative forms are linked to situation 40 bounding. 41 In sum, the distribution of the Estonian infinitives in the overall system is 42 not random, since it is crucially determined by more or less transparent case

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 876–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 876) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 877–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 877) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 877

1 semantics. In contrast to the case-marking of arguments, the combinations with 2 nonfinites have developed additional TAM semantics and pragmatics. This is a 3 special characteristic of the Finnic system and these languages have not been 4 studied from this perspective yet. 5 6 7 3. Locatives, progressives, and absentives in Finnic: inessive nonfinite 8 verbs 9 10 3.1. The goals and the data 11 12 Section 2 has shown that there are several categories that are formed by means 13 of cross-categorial marking and that there are several ways of deriving the 14 link between the TAM meanings and the case. This section has as its goal pre- 15 senting one locative case and one nonfinite to see the cross-categorial case in 16 detail. Section 4 will concentrate on the Estonian inessive nonfinites. The Es- 17 tonian inessive m-formative nonfinites, henceforth referred to as mas-forms, 18 stand central in this study. 19 Typologists working on a large sample have already established the link 20 between locative marking and the progressive. How this link comes about is 21 not well understood, and this is the area where evidence from languages with 22 cross-categorial locative cases and that are under way developing a progres- 23 sive is invaluable. The challenging part of the Finnic data is thus not just the 24 progressive, but the grammatical categories and uses related to the progressive 25 but other than the progressive, such as the absentive and other locative uses if 26 they are expressed by the same construction. The recent debates around the 27 Germanic absentive-progressive link and the absentive in the history of Eng- 28 lish have presented the scholarship with new puzzles about the relationship 29 between the locative and temporal expressions. Evidence from a construction 30 that combines locative and temporal expressions helps us to see the universal 31 and the specific in these relationships and to check which hypotheses hold. 32 Locatives are a frequent source for progressives in languages; the European 33 absentives are frequently infinitival constructions. Infinitives in turn also tend 34 to develop from locative forms. Locative infinitives in Finnic combine infini- 35 tival modal, locative, progressive, and absentive meanings and are therefore 36 interesting. This subsection concentrates on spatial case on nonfinites in Finnic, 37 and introduces the puzzling data about the complementary distribution of pro- 38 gressive and absentive interpretations in one construction. 39 The focus is on the finer semantic distinctions of inessive nonfinites, which 40 give rise to progressive and absentive meanings in Finnic. The inessive 41 (‘within’) case combines with nonfinites to a larger extent than any other 40 42 Finnic case. In addition, inessive has developed a richer and clearer range of

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 878 A. Tamm

1 meanings than any other spatial case. The mas-forms are studied in combina- 2 tion with the copula verb olema ‘be’, and the construction is henceforth re- 3 ferred to as the mas-construction. The inessive NPs and the mas-forms have a 4 broader semantic spectrum than the cross-categorial abessive, illative, or ela- 5 tive meanings. In the mas-construction, the core meanings of the inessive are 6 recognizably parallel with inessive NP arguments: the inessive denotes a spa- 7 tial or a temporal location within the NP referent or within the event denoted 8 by the predicate. The temporal location within the event corresponds to the 9 meaning of the progressive. Literally, Estonian encodes in Example (45) that 10 the snow is ‘within a melting event’, which can be translated into English as 11 the progressive The snow is melting. In addition, the form is related to mean- 12 ings of imminence The snow is about to melt or absentivity The snow is put 13 away to melt, discussed in detail in Section 4. 14 (45) Standard Estonian 15 Lumi on sula-mas. 16 snow[nom] be.3s melt-m_ine 17 ‘The snow is melting.’ 18 19 On the other hand, native speakers do not perceive the similarity between the 20 meanings of inessive marked NPs and inessive nonfinite verbs in all instances 21 because of the far developed meaning extensions. The inessive nonfinite verbs 22 also denote a location related to an event, and agentive mas-constructions give 23 rise to readings that can be related to what are similar to the absentive category 24 in several European languages. The absentive is generally classified under as- 25 pect, as “a verbal aspect that expresses an ongoing activity of an agent who is 41 26 currently absent while engaging in this activity”. 27 This article argues for the importance of considering the absentive in terms 28 of modality as well, on a par with the modal meanings that are found in the 29 development of infinitives, as discussed in Sections 1.2.3 and 2.5. Several as- 30 pects of the absentive meaning, as it will be described in Section 4 in more 31 detail, belong to modality, since they are connected to such notions as expecta- 32 tions and beliefs. To some extent, the classification of the absentive under as- 33 pect is subject to more scrutiny. De Groot originally proposed the term absen- 34 tive in de Groot (1995a, 1995b). He discussed the data as instances of the 35 remote progressive in an earlier work (de Groot 1989: 8), which emphasized 36 the aspectual or Aktionsart meaning. Later, the absentive was shown to be 37 rather different from progressives. Specifically, absentives are stative, despite 38 their agentive verbal base. De Groot uses absentive as a term for a construction 39 that signals the absence of the subject referent from a deictic centre. However, 40 its treatment as an aspectual category has not been contested, and no other 41 general category has been proposed where the absentive could be subsumed. 42 Example (46) illustrates the mas-construction expressing the absence of the

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 878–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 878) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 879–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 879) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 879

1 subject referent from a deictic centre in Estonian. However, it is difficult to say 2 if the construction expresses the progressive. The sentence with the animate 3 subject in (46) is stative in contrast to the sentence with the inanimate subject 4 that is continuous, in (45). Sentence (45) is a process in contrast to sentence 5 (46), which is a state. 6 (46) Standard Estonian 7 Mari on uju-mas. 8 M[nom] be.3s swim-m_ine 9 ‘Mary is off swimming now.’ 10 11 Sentences with the agentive mas-construction, as in (46), are by default absen- 12 tive in Estonian. I will propose in Section 4 to concentrate on the difference of 13 the absentive from other locative expressions instead of its difference from 14 other progressives. So the definition and the defining properties of the absen- 15 tive will be discussed in contrast to locative expressions as in (47), and distin- 16 guished in terms of their additional modal meanings, as in case of other in- 17 stances of infinitives. 18 Although in natural speech situations referents are normally described as 19 being at a location if they cannot be seen by the hearer, since they are absent in 20 the speech situation, the absentive meanings do not obligatorily emerge with 21 locative NPs. Sentences with an inessive NP argument have no absentive 22 meaning, as in (47). 23 (47) Standard Estonian 24 Mari on metsa-s. 25 M[nom] be.3s forest-ine 26 ‘Mary is in a forest.’ 27 28 In other words, sentences (46) and (47) differ in the relationship between the 29 deictic centre and the location of the subject. While the location of the subject 30 is in the forest (in the locative NP referent) in sentence (47), the speaker’s de- 31 ictic centre may also be the forest. In contrast, in sentence (46) with the mas- 32 construction, if Mary’s swimming event takes place in a swimming pool, the 33 speaker’s location must be somewhere else. Mary is absent from that location. 34 The difference between the speaker’s and the subject’s locations is typically 35 assumed to be the essence of absentivity. 36 37 3.2. Approaches to the relationships between locatives and progressives, 38 and progressives and absentives 39 40 There have been several proposals about the connectedness of locative expres- 41 sions and the expression of progressive. Progressives are developed from loca- 42 tives in the world’s languages (Bybee et al. 1994: 129–135, 140 –141; Comrie

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 880 A. Tamm

1 1976). Earlier research has established that the relationship between spatial 2 and temporal meaning is well attested and motivated is discussed in Section 3 1.2.4 and as the data in Section 1.3.2 shows. 4 Another disputed issue is the relation between the semantics and syntax of 5 the absentive and the progressive. Locative meanings give rise to purposives 6 (Haspelmath 1989). In addition, the meanings of progressives may combine 7 with those of absentives in some languages; yet in most languages, they are 8 expressed by different means (de Groot 2000; Bertinetto et al. 2000; Krause 9 2002; Vogel 2007). The term absentive was proposed for the cluster of mean- 10 ings expressed by a construction consisting of an infinitive and a copula, such 42 11 as in the Hungarian (48) or the Dutch (49) counterparts of the English ‘he is 12 off singing/to sing’. 13 (48) Hungarian 14 Énekel-ni van. 15 sing-inf be-3s 16 ‘He is off singing.’ 17 (49) Dutch 18 Hij is zing-en. 19 He be-3s sing-inf 20 ‘He is off singing.’ 21 22 The absentive has distinct morphosyntactic and morphosemantic properties. 23 Its semantics is specified by de Groot (2000: 695) as in (50): 24 25 (50) a. the referent of the subject is absent from the deictic center, 26 b. the Subject is involved in an activity, 27 c. it is predictable how long the Subject will be absent, 28 d. the Subject will return after a period of time. 29 Following and correcting Abraham (2007: 3– 4) on the basis of de Groot (2000: 30 695), and the data from Vogel (2007: 272), there are three or four morphosyn- 31 tactic types of absentive, presented in (51). 32 33 (51) a. Type A: Copula+bare infinitive (German, Dutch, and Hungarian). 34 b. Type B1: The infinitive involved carries an extra infinitival goal or 35 position preposition or case (denoting TO or IN/AT): IS+TO/ IN/ 43 36 AT+Infinitive ‘John-is-to-shop’. (Finnish, Frisian, and Italian). 37 c. Type B2: The nonfinite form involved carries an extra preposition 38 G(EG)EN/GA: Copula+TOWARD+Gerund ‘John-is-toward-shop’ 39 (dialectal Swiss German, Austrian Alemannic). 40 d. Type C: The embedded infinitive of Types A and B is replaced by a 41 finite form agreeing with the subject in “pseudo-coordination” 42 with the preceding copula: Copula+coordinator+finite V (verb-of-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 880–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 880) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 881–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 881) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 881

1 movement) ‘John-is-and-shops’ (Swedish, Norwegian, and 2 Faroese). 3 4 Abraham (2007) argues against de Groot on several points, as introduced in 5 Section 1.2.5. Firstly, he proposes that the absentive meaning is due to a “silent 6 predicative addition” (+PP-of-verb-of-movement), which is added to the in- 7 finitive. The added element “+PP-of-verb-of-movement” is, for instance, un- 8 derstood as in the German (weg )gegangen ‘(away-)gone’. Therefore, in the 9 account of Abraham, the absentive meaning arises via ellipsis. The absentives 10 and progressives are seen to be related. More specifically, Abraham revises the 11 view of Ebert (1996: 47), who considers progressive meanings to be a subset 12 of absentive readings. The claim of Abraham (2007: 4) is that any absentive 13 meaning entails the meaning of the progressive and not vice versa. He posits 14 two absentives, absentive 1, which is distal (the absentive as understood in the 15 previous literature, as in Er ist arbeiten ‘he is off working’), and absentive 2, 16 which is proximate (the progressive one, as in Er ist am Arbeiten ‘he is work- 17 ing’). The meanings and the semantic entailment relationship are related via 18 ellipsis (syntax). 19 Abraham’s second argument, as introduced in Section 1.2.5, goes against the 20 treatment of the absentive as a grammatical category. He argues that the absen- 21 tive meanings are implications in Dutch and German and that implications are 22 not a type of meaning that is sufficient to establish a grammatical category. In 23 Section 4 below, there are tests to capture the finer semantic and pragmatic 24 distinctions that are necessary in understanding the relationships between the 25 meanings in the absentive and progressive categories. Since it is not further 26 specified in his article how Abraham understands implication, his claims about 27 it will not be addressed. However, I find the problem relevant for establishing 28 the nature of the category, even if the analysis proposed by Abraham does not 29 apply well to the Finnic data. There are two reasons for finding the ellipsis ac- 30 count inapplicable to the emergence of the absentive meaning in Estonian. 31 Firstly, it is impossible to assume a silent predicative addition. The motion 32 verb and the predicative addition (ära läinud ‘away-gone’) do not make a 33 grammatical sentence with the mas-construction, as in (52a). Instead, only the 34 illative (‘into’) nonfinite verb is possible with the motion verb, as in (52b). 35 Without the hypothetical ‘predicative addition’, the mas-construction, how- 36 ever, appears with the absentive interpretation, as in (52c). This stands in stark 37 contrast with the illative nonfinite, which cannot produce an absentive inter- 38 pretation without the predicative addition, as in (52b) and since it is only ac- 39 ceptable with the predicative addition, as in (52b), the conclusion is that there 40 is no silent predicative addition in an elliptical structure involved. This could 41 be shown only because the underlying spatial relations of the two infinitives 42 are explicit in Estonian.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 882 A. Tamm

1 (52) Standard Estonian 2 a. *Mari on (ära) läi-nud uju-mas. 3 M[nom] be.3s away go-act_ptc swim-m_ine 4 ‘Mary has gone/is off swimming.’ 5 b. Mari on (ära) läi-nud uju-ma. 6 M[nom] be.3s away go-act_ptc swim-m_ill 7 ‘Mary has gone/is off swimming.’ 8 c. Mari on uju-mas. 9 M[nom] be.3s swim-m_ine 10 ‘Mary has gone/is off swimming.’ 11 d. *Mari on uju-ma. 12 M[nom] be.3s swim-m_ill 13 ‘Mary has gone/is off swimming.’ 14 15 Therefore, the rise of the possible implicature about the subject’s absence can- 16 not be explained by ellipsis; moreover, ellipsis would not explain the rise of the 17 rest of the related implicatures and the link to the progressive. 18 Secondly, the absentive reading cannot entail the progressive meaning via a 19 syntactic interface relying on ellipsis either in this case as will be discussed in 20 more detail below. Many languages display the relatedness of the progressive 21 and absentive meanings, but others show their separation. These meanings are 22 not necessarily structurally related via an ellipsis. 23 Diachronically, the direction of the developments of the meanings can be the 24 opposite of the entailment relations proposed by Abraham. A grammaticalized 25 absentive form may acquire a progressive meaning without any previous en- 26 tailments of the progressive meaning, which would be difficult to understand 27 under an explanation that relies on ellipsis. De Groot’s account about Old and 28 Middle English argues that there were two different constructions, He wæs 29 huntende and He wæs on huntunge. De Groot (2007) argues that the first con- 30 struction, consisting of be + present participle, developed into the progressive, 31 and that the second construction, consisting of be + on + verbal noun, was 32 originally an absentive. Due to phonological changes, the two separate con- 33 structions became very similar in Middle English, which led to the situation 34 where there was one form and two meanings. In order to gain insights into this 35 period of English, one could profit from the situation with the Estonian ines- 36 sive nonfinite mas-construction, which combines the absentive and the pro- 37 gressive. This situation is comparable as there was also some overlap in the 38 meanings. The more dominant progressive meaning became the standard 39 meaning (for details see De Groot 2007) and the absentive was lost. It is not 40 clear how the elliptical and non-elliptical structures merge to produce a struc- 41 ture without a silent predicative addition. Under the influence of the participial 42 form, two changes should have taken place: the elliptical structure should have

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 882–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 882) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 883–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 883) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 883

1 disappeared in the absentive ing-form to eliminate the possibility of the absen- 2 tive reading, and the semantics of the participial form should have replaced 3 that of the ing-form. The abstract nominal phrase must have been replaced by 4 a verbal one. A stative construction evolved in a continuous, process construc- 5 tion. Ellipsis could have had a role in these changes, but it could not have had 6 a central role, but Old and Middle English cannot obviously be tested as Mod- 7 ern Estonian. 8 The proposed approach to the absentive meaning does not apply universally 9 in any case. I consider now an alternative syntactic account in addition to the 10 ellipsis-based one for the Estonian absentive. As an alternative to silent catego- 11 ries, there is a control-based account relying on empty categories. Haslinger 12 (2007: 10) explains the emergence of the Dutch absentive meanings in terms 13 of the Binding Theory. In her account, an argument is specified for a triple in- 14 dex containing the variable x for pronominal reference, the variable t for tem- 15 poral reference, and the variable l for spatial reference. For instance, in the 16 Dutch sentence John is off fishing, the argument John and an empty category 17 coindexed with it have these indices as in (53). 18 19 (53) Dutch 20 Jan(x, t, l ) is PRO(x, t, p ) vissen. 21 J[nom] be.3s fish-inf 22 ‘John is off fishing.’ 23 (Haslinger 2007: 35) 24 The subject and PRO do not have the same index for spatial reference. The 25 mismatch results in an interpretation where the event [PRO vissen] is inter- 26 preted as being removed from its default location, which is associated with the 27 lexical subject Jan in Haslinger’s control-based account. But how universal is 28 this approach? Is there a PRO in the structure with the mas-construction? As 29 shown in (54), Estonian spatial case marked NPs and nonfinite forms may be 30 coordinated, which shows their syntactically similar status in a monoclausal 31 structure. The mas-form behaves like a PP at the syntactic level that matters 32 here, and PPs typically are not regarded as PRO structures. 33 34 (54) Standard Estonian 35 (?)Mari oli eile uju-mas ja kooli-s. 36 M[nom] be.past.3s yesterday swim-m_ine and school-ine 37 ‘Mary was yesterday off swimming and at school.’ 38 39 For some speakers, the combination is slightly zeugmatic, which points to the 40 fact that some of the meanings are identical (locative, absentive), and in others, 41 there is discrepancy (purposive). This fact needs an explanation in pragmatics 42 and semantics instead of syntax. The progressive meaning, however, does not

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 884 A. Tamm

1 emerge at all; only the stative progressive does. In terms of coordination, Esto- 2 nian is markedly different from Hungarian (55) or Dutch (56) infinitives. These 3 nonfinite verbs cannot be coordinated with PPs and have, therefore, more prop- 4 erties of verbs or point to syntactic differences. The Dutch coordination is not 5 grammatical, since it is uninterpretable. Replacing ‘and’ with ‘but’ and nega- 6 tion in Hungarian shows that the absentive sentence has a locative conven- 7 tional implicature or a presupposition; the same seems to be true for Dutch and 8 Estonian. Their divergence from the English progressive can be demonstrated 9 clearly, since the English progressive does not have any locative implications: 10 John is not singing, but at school is odd. 11 (55) Hungarian 12 a. *Janos énekel-ni és iskolá-ban van. 13 John[nom] sing-inf and school-ine be.3s 14 Intended to mean: ‘John is off to sing and off at school.’ 15 b. Janos nem énekel-ni, hanem iskolá-ban van. 16 John[nom] neg sing-inf and school-ine be.3s 17 ‘John is not off to sing, but at school.’ 18 (56) Dutch 19 a. *Jan is zing-en en naar school. 20 John be.3s sing-inf and to school 21 Intended to mean: ‘John is off to school and off to sing.’ 22 b. #Jan is zing-en en op school. 23 John be.3s sing-inf and on school 24 ‘Jan is off singing and at school.’ 25 26 Not all participants of the events denoted by the two verbs are realized overtly 27 in nonfinite constructions. In addition, the nonfinite ‘predicate-arguments’ in 28 Estonian lack several verbal predicate properties in syntax, and there is plausi- 29 bly no PRO subject argument in the construction. The nonfinite case-marked 30 verb resembles a PP in the test, as in (54), and it is analyzed as such in several 44 31 sources on the equivalent structure in Finnish. There is no reason to assume 32 that the Estonian copula is a subject-control verb and that there is a controlled 33 empty category in Estonian inessive nonfinite forms. Therefore, the locative 34 co-indexation account is not applicable. 35 In sum, since the absentive and progressive meanings combine in the mas- 36 construction, it is plausible that there is some relationship between them in 37 Finnic. However, neither of the two syntactic approaches can explain well the 38 absentive meaning in Estonian. There is no ellipsis of the PP and motion verb 39 with the construction and no PRO subject to be coindexed with. Also, the rela- 40 tionship between the absentive and the progressive remains unmotivated in 41 both accounts if the Estonian nonfinite forms are considered. Before proposing 42 a more semantic alternative to the syntactic one, the two meanings of the Finnic

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 884–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 884) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 885–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 885) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 885

1 and Estonian mas-construction will be introduced in the setting of its other 2 meanings and uses. 3 4 5 3.3. ‘Without’ is ‘within’: the absentive inessive infinitives in Finnic 6 7 This subsection shows that there is no single clear category that corresponds to 8 the meanings of the inessive m-formative nonfinites in the Finnic languages. 9 The mas-construction in Finnic combines the absentive meanings with other, 10 primarily spatial and temporal meanings, including the progressive. Tommola 11 (2000: 658) mentions Veps, Livonian, Karelian, Sami, and Old Literary Finn- 12 ish as languages that have a morphologically identical construction with Finn- 13 ish. Ingrian and Votic are reported to have the construction in the absentive 14 meaning, but the translation method is not the most reliable one.45 Also, South 15 Estonian has the construction with the absentive interpretation. 16 17 3.3.1. The absentive, purposive, and progressive in Finnic languages. 18 Examples from the Bibles provide evidence for the existence of absentives, 19 purposives, and progressives. The Livonian example (57) illustrates progres- 20 sive, purposive, or absentive interpretations. The context of the Livonian ex- 21 ample can be understood as progressive, since it describes several simultane- 22 ous and successive events at an identical location: “But the commander of the 23 soldiers and those who were with him guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake 24 and what happened, became very frightened and said: Truly, this was the Son 25 of God”. An absentive-purposive reading can be constructed as well. The sol- 26 diers can be interpreted as being temporarily away from their normal place, 27 with the temporary task of guarding Jesus. Soldiers are typically relocated ac- 28 cording to someone else’s purposes. They are away from another location, in 29 connection with their task; it is difficult to associate this place with the speak- 30 er’s deictic center or imagine that the unique task of guarding Jesus is a habit- 31 ual activity of the soldiers, although in the context of crucifixions there were 32 conventional temporal bounds set for displaying the crosses and for taking 33 turns for guarding them. 34 35 (57) Livonian 36 Kis täm jūs voļt Jēzusõ vaŗtõ-mõ-s46 37 who s/ he.gen near be. pst.3pl Jesus.ptv guard-m_ine 38 ‘who were with him guarding Jesus’ 39 40 The Veps example (58) is an absentive; the context is as follows: “So, while 41 they were buying oil, the bridegroom came.” Since they were away, they were 42 locked out of the wedding. The absentive interpretation is the most plausible

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 886 A. Tamm

1 for the Ingrian example (59) from the typical Finnic grammar example of the 2 m-formative inessive nonfinite, and for the Votic example (60) from fieldwork. 3 Since the agents are away from the deictic center, they are temporarily ex- 4 cluded from other activities in the deictic center. 5 6 (58) Veps 47 7 No kuni hö oliba void ost-ma-s pst pl ptv m ine 8 so while they be. .3 oil. buy- _ 9 ‘so while they were buying oil’ 10 (59) Ingrian 11 Rьbakka-t ollaa mere-l püütä-mää-s kallaa. nom pl pl ade ine ptv 12 fisherman- . be.3 sea- catch_ fish. 13 ‘Fishermen are at sea, fishing.’ 14 (Junus 1936: 119) 15 (60) Votic Jõgõperä subdialect 16 Hǖ e̮ ллa e̮ sse̮ -me̮ -z lejpä pl m ine ptv 17 they be.3 buy- _ bread. 18 ‘They were off buying bread.’ 19 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 20 The Bible example (61a) from Livvi Karelian is different from typical absen- 21 tives, since it is in an embedded when-clause. However, the absentive interpre- 22 tation is present, since two juxtaposed locations can be found in the context, 23 ‘the altar’ and ‘home’: “When you are carrying a gift to the temple altar and 24 you remember: your brother has something against you, then leave your gift in 25 front of the altar and first go to your brother to make amends”. The form ap- 26 pears frequently at the beginning of the narrative, locating the subject at a dif- 27 ferent place from their usual location. Additional native speaker elicitation 28 about a naturally produced text example, (61b), did not confirm a clear absen- 29 tive meaning for Karelian. 30 31 (61) a. Karelian Livvi 32 Ku sinä ollet vedä-mä-s lahjua jumalankoin 33 when you be.2s carry-m_ine gift.ptv temple.gen 48 34 altarile 35 altar-all 36 ‘when you are carrying a gift to the temple altar’ 37 b. Karelian 38 Prokin-Rist’oi oli olluh verkkoloi 39 PR[nom] be.pst.3s be-act.pst.ptcp net.ptv.pl 49 40 nosta-ma-s. 41 lift-m_ine 42 ‘Godmother Prokin had been to take out the nets.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 886–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 886) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 887–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 887) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 887

1 All of these examples with the nonfinites are, however, purposive. Tommola 2 (2000) establishes that the Finnic equivalents of the mas-construction have the 3 purposive, absentive, and imminential meanings, lacking the continuous mean- 50 4 ing. Note that the purposive meaning appears in constructions other than 5 mas-constructions as well in Finnic, such as the translative m-infinitives and 6 the Veps inessive t-converbs (62a). Neetar (2000: 180 –181) reports the Kihnu 7 dialect having the same purposive inessive t-form in compounds, pestesvesi 8 ‘water for washing’. The relatedness of inessives and translatives, as well as 9 the occasional use of reflexive suffixes, deserves more study than the spatial 10 limits of this article allow. Many factors are unclear around these issues and 11 will be left for further study. Specifically, in some Uralic languages, such as 12 South Estonian, the translative and inessive are expressed by an identical form; 13 the origin is different, but the identity of the morpheme is not clear in some 14 instances. The translative nonfinite purposive denothe the event as a goal, as 15 illustrated by Estonian in Example (62b). Also, as in the example opemahas ‘to 16 study’ from Veps, the suffix -s may be interpreted as a reflexive (possessive) 17 suffix. Note that the verbs are typically reflexive: invastoides, it is the activity 18 of slapping oneself with the sauna whisks, in pestesvesi ‘water for washing’, 19 the activity concerns washing oneself and, in opemahas ‘to study’, there may 20 be a lexical conceptual loan from the Russian uchit’sja ‘study,’ which has a 21 reflexive suffix. 22 (62) a. Veps 23 Mina teg-in kül’beti-n kol’mižruiže-n/ sini 24 I make-pst.1s sauna-gen three-storey.gen you.all 25 i perske-in vastoi-des. 26 and buttock.pl.gen slap.with.a.sauna.whisk-t_ine 27 ‘I built a three-storey sauna for you to slap your buttocks with a 28 sauna whisk.’ 29 (Ylikoski 2004: 261) 30 b. Estonian 31 Igaüks neist aseta-s laua-le ühe 32 each they.ela put-pst.3s table-all one.acc/tot 33 sümboli: süda-me too-maks esile 34 symbol.acc/tot heart-acc/tot bring-m_tra out 35 armastuse . . .51 36 love.acc/tot 37 ‘Each of them put one symbol on the table: a heart for emphasizing 38 love . . .’ 39 40 On the other hand, the Finnic illative m-form is also a purposive, illustrated 41 by the minimal pair contrasting non-purposive (63a) and purposive (63b) 42 uses.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 888 A. Tamm

1 (63) Veps 2 a. Ižand havado-n toi. 3 master[nom] sack-acc bring.pst.3s 4 ‘The master brought a sack.’ 5 (Ritter [1989: 65] in Tveite [2004: 10]) 6 b. Mänē kod’ihe havado-d to-mha. 7 Go home.ill sack-ptv bring-m_ill 8 ‘Go home and get a sack.’ 9 (Ritter [1989: 65] in Tveite [2004: 10]) 10 11 These examples have established a strong purposive element in the meaning of 12 the infinitives. Finnic languages have ample examples with semi-grammatical 13 absentive constructions with käima ‘go and come back’ (cf. Vogel 2007), 14 illustrated in (64)–(67), which may have influenced the absentive implicatures 15 that have developed in the copula construction as well. 16 (64) Standard Estonian 17 Mari käi-s metsa-s /uju-mas. 18 M[nom] go-3s forest-ine swim-m_ine 19 ‘Mary went to the forest /swimming (and returned).’ 20 (65) Ingrian, Logove (Soikkola) 21 Lehmä käü-p šȫ-mäš rohta. 22 cow[nom] go-3s eat-m_ine grass.ptv 23 ‘The cow goes to eat grass (and returns regularly).’ 24 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 25 (66) Votic, Liivitsülä-Luuditsa subdialect 26 Nu a tāttə e̮ l-i mej-lə sitä 27 part part father[nom] be.pst.3s we-ade/all this.ptv 28 püsü-ka tšäj mettsä mǖ ampu-me̮ -z. Nu 29 gun-com go-pst.3s forest.ptv along hunt-m_ine part 30 kak jut e̮ л-лə ohotn’ik e̮ štol’i vot tak. 31 [rus] как сказать-inf [rus] охотник [rus] что ли [rus]вот так 32 ‘Now, my father was this . . . he was hunting in the forest, how to say, 33 he was, like, a hunter, or something, you see.’ 34 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 35 (67) Votic, Jõgõperä subdialect 36 Miä tšäj-n esimäjs-s vōt-t tšäj-n e̮ pp e̮ -me̮ -z. 37 I[nom] go-pst.1s first-ptv year-ptv go-pst.1s study.m_ine 38 ‘I was in the first class, I was studying.’ 39 (Markus and Rozhanskiy, field work) 40 41 It deserves to mention that in several Finnic languages the mas-construction 42 has an imminential reading as well, also referred to as approximative or a pro-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 888–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 888) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 889–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 889) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 889

1 pinquative. In Estonian, the mas-construction has a proximative Aktionsart 2 reading, ‘be soon V-ing, be about to V’, as in (68). It is important to note that 3 with the imminent meaning, the absentive meaning does not emerge. 4 5 (68) Standard Estonian 6 Oliver on abiellu-mas. 7 O[nom] be.3s marry-m_ine 8 ‘Olivier is about to marry.’ 9 The imminent reading emerges in the environment of verbs that are either dy- 10 namic, encode a change of state, or culmination. In fact, if this reading is the 11 first reading that emerges with a verb inmas -construction, it can be taken as an 12 indication of the given aspectual class membership. Punctual (momentary) 13 verbs have only an imminent meaning in this construction. Since their lexical 14 aspects constrain the events to last for a moment, it is not possible to refer to 15 some internal time point due to these lexical restrictions. Therefore, the im- 16 minent reading emerges naturally (see the Estonian verb classification tests 17 with this construction in Tamm 2003). In Finnish, this Aktionsart has a special- 18 ized grammatical marker. Ylikoski (2003) discusses an Aktionsart he refers to 19 as “the proximate aspect” as expressed by the nonfinite verb form that consists 20 of the suffix-maisilla- /-mäisillä- followed by a possessive suffix indicating the 21 subject of the verb. It is a close relative to the progressive verb form in -massa/ 22 -mässä, and a “grammatical means of referring to ‘a temporal phase located 23 just before the initial boundary of the situation described by the main verb’ ” 24 (Ylikoski 2003: 43), illustrated in the example by kuolemaisillaan ‘be about to 25 die, be on the verge of dying’ as in (69). 26 27 (69) Standard Finnish 28 Kuole-maisillaan=kin hän sai kirjoite-ttu-a 29 die-5inf-3s=prt (s)he get.pst.3sg write-pass.prf.ptcp-ptv 30 oma-lla vere-llää-n lattiaa-n vihjee-n Mulderi-lle hänen 31 own-ade blood-ade-3sg floor-ill clue-acc Mulder-all his 32 uudes-ta tietolähtee-stää-n.52 33 new-ela informant-ela-3sg 34 ‘Even on the verge of death, he managed to write Mulder a clue on the 35 floor about his new informant with his own blood.’ 36 (Ylikoski 2003: 44) 37 38 This environment excludes the absentive in Finnish, which points at the pos- 39 sibility that the development of the progressive meanings could involve the 40 imminent meaning in Estonian. In addition, the existence of the special propin- 41 quative explains why the inessive constructions do not tend to develop immi- 42 nent meanings in some Finnic languages that have the propinquative.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 890 A. Tamm

1 Onikki-Rantajääskö (2005: 192) concludes that the progressive reading of 2 the mas-construction is a new development in Finnish. This fact has conse- 3 quences for my study on other Finnic languages. If Finnish has developed its 4 progressive only recently, then it follows that the progressive-like uses in other 5 Finnic languages should also be relatively recent. It is possible but unlikely 6 that Finnish has lost its original progressive. If a Finnic language has the pro- 7 gressive, there are two main options: it is either an internal development, or it 8 has developed on the basis of other contact languages, Finnish being one of 9 them. 10 Tommola (2000: 671) has established that the Finnic progressive is not used 11 in prototypical progressive contexts. In Finnic, the construction typically de- 12 notes either a dynamic situation that is developing towards a change, or a situ- 13 ation where a change is expected (Tommola 2000: 671). In addition, the con- 14 struction is also used in purposive situations where the process denoted by the 15 verb is not going on, although the situations cannot be interpreted as imminen- 16 tial or absentive either (Tommola 2000: 671). As for the absentive uses, they 53 17 emerge with expressions of duration in Finnic. Tommola (2000: 680) men- 18 tions that the Finnic absentives are also purposives, expressing a goal-oriented 19 activity at a different location. The only grammatical means to express the 20 absentive in Finnic is the construction with the m-formative inessive nonfinite 21 verb (Tommola 2000: 680). 22 Establishing the existence of the progressive or the absentive on the basis of 23 sources with examples of the inessive nonfinite is frequently difficult even if 24 large contexts are available in the source. It could be established that the Finnic 25 languages have a semi-grammaticalized absentive with the verb go (e.g. the 26 Estonian käima). It is difficult to establish if the form with the copula instanti- 27 ates a contextual use or a grammaticalized meaning, and whether the temporal 28 or the locative meaning prevails. Only direct testing could provide hard facts. 29 In the following subsection, previously recorded facts about Finnic and by na- 30 tive speakers will be, therefore, tested by manipulating some Estonian sen- 31 tences in use. 32 33 3.3.2. The unusual progressive prototype in Estonian. Tommola points out 34 that the meaning of the Estonian mas-construction differs considerably from 35 Finnish. Erelt et al. (1993: 255–256) regard the locative meaning still as the 36 prominent one for the Estonian construction. Absentive, presentive, and op- 37 tionally stative are the additional uses attributed to the Estonian progressive in 38 Tommola (2000: 660). Since the continuous meaning of the progressive is ex- 39 pressed by partitive objects and not by the mas-construction with transitive 40 verbs (e.g., Metslang 1994, Tamm 2003), and there are other constraints within 41 the system (Metslang 1994), the use and interpretation of the meaning of the 42 sentence with the mas-construction is heavily dependent on the classification

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 890–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 890) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 891–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 891) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 891

1 of the verb. Tommola summarizes three subtypes of the mas-construction as 2 identified by Erelt (1987: 45– 46): locative, progressive, and imminent, as in 3 (70). 4 5 (70) a. the construction appears as a locative adverb when it denotes a / 6 durative activity (ta on söömas = ta on sööma läinud ‘s he’s gone 7 to eat’; 8 b. expressing progressive aspect when it denotes a durative process 9 (kellad on helisemas = kellad helisevad parajasti ‘the bells are 10 ringing right now’); and 11 c. expressing immediate future when it denotes a momentaneous 12 process (kontsert on algamas = kontsert algab kohe ‘the concert 13 will begin soon’). Tommola (2000: 660) 14 Only agentive verbs and events as illustrated in point (70a), describing a loca- 15 tive adverbial use, ta on söömas ‘s/ he’s gone to eat’, exemplify the absentive. 16 The other uses that were recorded in Erelt’s account of the mas-construction 17 appear in non-agentive environments and are not instances of the absentive. 18 The imminential meanings as described in (70c) arise with verbs that stand for 19 events that contain a change of state or a culmination. The special restricted 20 nature of the verbs and situations that allow progressive meaning along the 21 lines sketched in (70b) becomes evident — these are non-agentive, stative, 22 or process verbs. The emergence of progressive meanings may be restricted 23 due to the existing verbal TAM system in Estonian. This can explain the wide 24 variety of favorable and non-favorable environments for the mas-construction 25 progressives. 26 One of Metslang’s unfavorable factors for progressive is clearly aspectual in 27 nature (Metslang 1993: 474). The environment typical of absentive meanings 28 is described as “imperfective dynamic situations, notably agentive” (Tommola 29 2000: 660).54 This means activity verbs in Vendler’s classification, which is 30 exactly the typical verb class environment of the absentive in European lan- 31 guages. Tommola also goes on to generalize about the Estonian progressive 32 that it is different from Finnish, and that it does not “fit into the picture we have 33 of the prototypical progressives in general, and of the development of the Eng- 34 lish Progressive (Dahl 1985: 91–92, Bybee et al. 1994: 132–137)” (Tommola 35 2000: 660). Tommola summarizes the favorable environments listed in Met- 36 slang (1993: 474). 37 38 1) perfective verbs (imminential meaning), 2) verbs denoting gradual 39 change, 3) unmarked verbal categories (active voice, indicative mood etc.), 40 4) existential sentences and rhematic subject, 5) nonfocused position of the 41 construction, 6) iterative or distributive context, 7) coordination, parallel- 42 ism, dialogue, 8) polarization with local adverbials, 9) sentences expressing

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 892 A. Tamm

1 a temporal frame, 10) backgrounding in narrative, and 11) reportage. Tom- 2 mola (2000: 660) 3 4 One group of clearly delineable contextual preferences pertains to the do- 5 main of aspect. These preferences concern the event structural classification 6 of the verb, perfectivity, gradual change, iterativity, and temporal framing. 7 However, another group of usage preferences can be understood in terms of 8 a variety of discourse situations or preferences — rhematicity of the subject, 9 nonfocused position of the construction, contextual iterativity or distributiv- 10 ity, dialogue, interaction with other elements such as local adverbials, back- 11 grounding in narrative, report, and unmarkedness of verbal categories, which 12 frequently gives evidence of unmarkedness in discourse as well. Polariza- 13 tion with local adverbials may be a pragmatic, semantic, or syntactic property. 14 It is important to note that the characterization concerns the usage of the 15 construction, not the semantic or syntactic restrictions that the grammatical 16 form imposes on its environment. This may mean that other environments are 17 also acceptable, but they would not be as frequent in normal speech situations. 18 The description suggests a pragmatic approach to the meaning of the mas- 19 construction, combined with event structural constraints. This article regards 20 these uses as the prototypical use of the Estonian progressive. The first two 21 conditions, perfectivity and the verbs of gradual change, instantiate an immi- 22 nent meaning. 23 In the TAM structure, Estonian has verb-and-argument based, compositional 24 aspectual encoding of event properties, where the progressive continuous 25 meaning is encoded by partitive objects rather than the mas-construction. The 26 purposive or absentive readings can be completely excluded in sentences with 27 states or processes, since the absentive and the purposive typically require a 28 volitional agent. An illustration of a prototypical Estonian progressive use of 29 mas-construction follows in (71), where a situation of a Christmas fair in Ber- 30 lin is described. The mas-construction is used to describe a situation where the 31 smell of gingerbread fills the air. This example can be considered as prototypi- 32 cal use of progressive. It instantiates the Estonian progressive conditions num- 33 ber 3–10: it has unmarked verbal categories, it is an existential sentence with a 34 rhematic subject, the construction is not focused, the context is distributive 35 context, there is coordination and parallelism, polarization with local adverbi- 36 als, the sentence expresses a temporal frame, it is backgrounded in a narrative, 37 which is a report about a situation. A smell cannot have a purpose, there is an- 38 other locative phrase in the sentence, the smell is not away, and the speaker 39 necessarily needs to be present in the situation in order to perceive the smell of 40 gingerbread. If the conditions for the emergence of the locative, purposive, and 41 absentive readings are blocked in the context, only then the progressive read- 42 ing can emerge.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 892–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 892) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 893–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 893) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 893

1 (71) Standard Estonian 2 Õhu-s on helju-ma-s piparkooki-de ja röstitud 3 air-ine be.3s float-m_ine gingerbread-gen.pl and roasted 4 mandli-te magusvürtsikas lõhn, kusagil 5 almond-gen.pl sweet and spicy[nom] scent[nom] somewhere 6 küpseta-takse jõulusaia, jõululaata-de-l 7 bake-ips Christmas.raisin.bread.ptv Christmas.fair-pl.ade 8 paku-takse aurava-t Glühweini. 9 offer-ips steaming.ptv gluhwein.ptv 10 ‘In the air is hanging the smell of gingerbread and roasted almonds, 11 somewhere a Christmas raisin bread is being baked, Glühwein is 12 offered to the customers on Christmas fairs.’ 13 14 The state may be expressed without the progressive as well, but the progressive 15 adds the element of temporary state or a time frame (‘processes going tempo- 16 rarily, only at Christmas time’) and an impression of a gliding view or percep- 17 tion from one bounded scene to another (‘I first perceive the smell of ginger- 18 bread (as if it were a materialized wave of smell), then I perceive the smell of 19 Christmas bread for a while, then the scent of Glühwein catches my attention’). 20 In this sentence, Tommola’s generalization that progressives are purposives in 21 Finnic does not extend to Estonian, since the state described in (71) has no 22 specific purpose. Moreover, contrary to previous sources that have not empha- 23 sized the fact adequately, the sentence instantiates a continuous progressive, 24 not the stative one. 25 Estonian agentive absentives, however, have a purposive basis, moreover, a 26 purposive entailment. The latter is demonstrated in (72) which is odd if tested 27 for its compatibility with adverbials removing a possible purpose, such as sihi- 28 tult ‘without goal’, ilma mingi eesmärgita ‘without any purpose’. 29 (72) Standard Estonian 30 Mari on sihitult/ilma mingi eesmärgita 31 M[nom] be.3s without goal/without any purpose-abe 32 uju-mas. %Ta on varsti tagasi. 33 swim-m_ine She[nom] be.3s soon back. 34 ‘Mary is off swimming without any goal/purpose. She will be back 35 soon.’ 36 37 This example shows that the absentive and purposive meanings are closely tied 38 in the agentive environments. The absentive reading becomes unavailable with 39 the extension that eliminates the purposive reading (sihitult, mingi eesmärgita 40 ‘without any goal, without any purpose’), which is demonstrated by the infelic- 41 ity of adding a phrase that should be compatible with the absentive meaning, 42 ta on varsti tagasi ‘she is back soon’ as in (72). The absentive meaning cannot

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 894 A. Tamm

1 be evoked felicitously if the purposive meaning is unavailable, even if there is 2 an agent. The mas-construction can be interpreted in many ways; therefore, 3 blocking one interpretation by eliminating its conditions results in another in- 4 terpretation. In other words, the meaning can be coerced into another interpre- 5 tation if the context allows it. This is the reason for why the progressive mean- 6 ing may emerge marginally in (72) with the pragmatically odd interpretation 7 that Mary is just floating in the water. These facts can be established by testing, 8 native speakers’ intuitions, and introspection. 9 10 3.3.3. Conclusions of Section 3.3. Although the multiple meanings that 11 vary considerably across the Finnic languages make it difficult to pin down 12 one single category behind the mas-construction, the development of sepa- 13 rate absentive and progressive meanings can be observed in Finnish and in 14 Estonian. 15 Previous sources have recorded that Finnish has the most developed pro- 16 gressive, but Estonian seems to be the most intriguing case as far as the absen- 17 tive is concerned and the progressive is developing rapidly. An identical 18 construction encodes progressives and absentives, and the usage conditions 19 have conventionalized already to some extent. The progressive is gaining 20 ground, and the absentive is the default interpretation. Bertinetto et al. (2000: 21 542) consider the Finnic situation with the absentive and progressive mean- 22 ings exceptional. On the one hand, there are few languages that display the 23 combination of the two meanings, and it is not clear for the authors whether 24 the absentive or the progressive meaning developed first. On the other hand, 25 the progressive in Estonian combines two developmental stages without an 26 intermediate stage. More specifically, Bertinetto et al. (2000: 541) notice 27 that the Estonian progressive is weakly grammaticalized, and that it suggests 55 28 the persistence of a locative meaning (stage ii in their description) and, si- 29 multaneously, it seems to appear more and more often in focalized contexts 30 (stage iv), skipping unexpectedly stage iii (durative). My data have shown 31 that the durative progressive is present in Estonian, but it has very restricted 32 application. 33 The division of labor between the absentive and the progressive seems 34 to be the clearest in Estonian. Both categories are expressed by the mas- 35 construction, but since the occurrence of the different meanings pattern with 36 different verb classes, the two readings are rarely mixed for native speakers. 37 Only the imminential reading occurs with agentive verbs that denote a culmi- 38 nation or a change. The progressive tends to be the interpretation when agen- 39 tivity is excluded in Estonian, the Finnish progressives can be agentive and the 40 absentive reading is less frequent. The Estonian progressive interpretation 41 clearly tends to emerge in non-agentive environments and with the interpreta- 42 tion of imminence, with verbs that encode a change of state or a culmination,

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 894–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 894) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 895–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 895) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 895

1 while the absentive appears in agentive environments. Only agents can have 2 wishes, expectations, habits, control their comings and goings, and have goals; 3 this is why only agents can be subjects in absentive sentences. In the European 4 languages as well as in Estonian, the absentive reading emerges only if the 5 condition of agentivity is fulfilled, which is closely related to purposive. In 6 languages where the absentive is based on a locative phrase, the development 7 from locative to absentive may have been mediated by a stage of purposive, 8 just as in the case of infinitives as in Table 3. After stage 2 in Table 3, a split 9 between absentive and more verbal, infinitival developments can be hypothe- 10 sized. In other words, the absentive retains the nominal characteristics of the 11 phrase, while the more verbal meanings start developing along the grammati- 12 calization path towards stage 3 and further. 13 Purposive meaning can be the phase that locative expressions develop be- 14 fore obtaining a stable absentive grammatical meaning. The European absen- 15 tives may have a purposive meaning element, and agent-related conditions are 16 still among the properties of the absentive. The European languages have de- 17 veloped separate constructions for absentives and progressives and the link 18 between locatives, purposives, progressives, and absentives is not present. The 19 German and Dutch constructions, however, seem to combine progressive and 20 absentive interpretations to some extent, but the Finnic data integrate them 21 overtly in one locative construction. However, the progressive that co-occurs 22 with the absentive, purposive, imminential, or locative is stative, and the pro- 23 gressive that emerges without the absentive is continuous, durative; that is, it 24 has the genuine progressive property. 25 26 27 3.4. Conclusions of Section 3 28 29 The Finnic situation with the absentive and progressive meanings encoded by 30 an identical locative nonfinite construction is exceptional. All Finnic languages 31 have m-formative inessive nonfinites that appear in copula constructions and 32 are referred to as the mas-constructions. The exact pattern of interpretations 33 displayed by the mas-constructions across Finnic is clearly different on the 34 basis of the text examples collected from various sources and tested by means 35 of several methods. The Finnic data can provide information about the stage in 36 the relatedness of temporal and locative meanings and about the way the ab- 37 sentives and progressives have developed in different direction at a later stage. 38 Section 4 concentrates on perhaps the most challenging instance in the Finnic 39 inventory, the absentive in Estonian. Section 4 employs several methods and 40 ways of testing, and solves the puzzle how different perspectives on the data 41 may yield different results and lead to opposite conclusions about the existence 42 of a category in a language on the basis of the same data set.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 896 A. Tamm

1 4. A semantic and pragmatic approach to nonfinite case forms: 2 the Estonian absentive 3 4 4.1. Why is the absentive in Estonian so elusive? 5 6 4.1.1. The puzzle created by the approaches to the data and the selection of 7 data. The meaning of nonfinites combines noun-like and verb-like character- 8 istics. How these meanings can be teased apart is illustrated in more detail in 9 this section, in the form of solving the puzzle about the existence of the absen- 10 tive category in Estonian. After establishing the absentive category, all native 11 speakers’ sources discussing the mas-construction mention its presence in Es- 12 tonian, but none brings conclusive evidence. Other sources, such as Bertinetto 13 et al. (2000) take it for granted that all Finnic languages have the absentive. 14 Accounts and comments by native speakers suggest tentatively that there is an 15 absentive, but absence from the deictic center is thereby not strictly required. 16 This fact put forward as a claim is controversial yet challenging. Partly based 17 on an account by Heinämäki (1995), Tommola (2000: 680) concludes that the 18 Finnic absentive does not necessarily mean absence from the deictic center in 19 Finnish. What could absence without absence from the deictic center mean? 20 Why do all researchers, employing different methods, still believe that these 21 languages do have the absentive? Vogel (2007) lists the Estonian examples 22 with the mas-construction as instances of the full absentive (73a), Pajusalu and 23 Orav (2008: 117) record one instance (73b), Tamm (2003: 649) illustrates ab- 24 sentive as the reading that emerges alongside with the purposive one in agen- 25 tive mas-constructions (73c). 26 27 (73) a. Anna on tantsi-mas. 28 Anna be.3s dance-m_ine 29 ‘Anna is off dancing.’ 30 (Vogel 2007: 270) 31 b. Ilusa-l ja sooja-l jaaniõhtu-l istu-s 32 nice-ade and warm-ade St. John’s.night-ade sit-past3s 33 Nõstekivi talu noor peremees Tehvan 34 N.gen farm.gen young[nom] owner[nom] T[nom] 35 üksinda õitsitule ääres, teise-d ol-id kõik 36 alone bonfire.gen by other-pl be-pst.3pl all 37 pidu pida-mas. 38 feast.ptv hold-m_ine 39 ‘On a nice and warm St. John’s night, the young owner of the 40 Nõstekivi farm, Tehvan, was sitting alone by the bonfire, 41 everybody else was off partying.’ 42 (Pajusalu and Orav 2008: 115)

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 896–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 896) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 897–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 897) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 897

1 c. Kui sa sisene-si-d, ol-i-n ma (mujal) kukli-t 2 When you step.in-pst-2s be-pst-1s I elsewhere roll-ptv 3 (??ära) söö-mas. 4 up/ptc eat-m_ine 5 a. ‘When you stepped in, I was (somewhere else) eating (up) a 6 roll.’ 7 b. ‘When you stepped in, I had the task/aim to eat (up) a roll.’ 8 (Tamm 2003: 649) 9 d. Ta ol-i tundi-de viisi kukli-t (??ära) 10 s/ he be-pst.3sg hour-gen.pl wise roll-ptv up/ptc 11 söö-mas. 12 eat-m_ine 13 a. ‘S/ he was somewhere (for hours), eating (up) a roll.’ 14 b. ‘For hours, s/ he was engaged in the task of eating up a roll.’ 15 (Tamm 2003: 649) 16 17 The examples suggest the existence of the absentive. If the mas-construction 18 is used in an agentive environment, the default reading is absentive. These 19 environments are also locative, since the mas-construction refers to a place. 20 Example (73a) shows that the mas-construction is the translation equivalent 21 of the German Anna ist tanzen ‘Anna is off dancing’. Example (73b) illus- 22 trates a context for the mas-construction. It is clear from the context with a 23 deictic center at a bonfire that everybody is partying somewhere else. The 24 use of the adverb üksinda ‘alone’ in the context reveals the absence of every- 25 body. Example (73c) shows that the absentive and purposive readings co- 26 occur. The example illustrates the available interpretations in a typical progres- 27 sive test in combination with the mas-construction: when X stepped in, Y was 28 eating a roll. The stative progressive reading is present when tested, but the 29 purposive and the absentive readings are prominent. More specifically, the pur- 30 posive reading is coupled with discourse unavailability. Rephrasing the inter- 31 pretation of (73c), as “on the moment that you stepped in, I was eating a roll, 32 and since eating it up was a task for me, I was unavailable in the discourse 33 where you expected me to be actively present”, the link between purpose and 34 absence can be established: “because of another purpose, I am unavailable”. 35 The addition of the aspectual particle is constructed, but possible. Additional 36 native speaker elicitation reveals that, indeed, none of the examples in (73a)– 37 (73c) can be interpreted as activities in the deictic center. As expressed in the 38 examples, Anna cannot be understood as dancing in the same room, people 39 cannot be partying at the bonfire, and while the roll is being eaten by the sub- 40 ject, the subject is by default absent as an active discourse participant, either 41 being away (absentive-locative) or too busy with a task (absentive-purposive). 42 These interpretations are valid even if the clues ‘alone’ and ‘away’ are removed

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 898 A. Tamm

1 from the sentence. Minimal pairs can be established where the opposition is 2 clear. 3 In order to allow spatial proximity and availability in the discourse as pos- 4 sible interpretations, the verbs must be inflected for simple present or past 5 tense, as in: Anna tantsib ‘Anna is dancing’, kõik pidasid pidu ‘everybody was 6 partying’, ma sõin kuklit ‘I was eating a roll’. In sum, these environments sug- 7 gest distance, primarily physical, but also in terms of being absent in the dis- 8 course as an active participant. The latter encompasses the former. 9 This section employs the methods of previous research but goes more in- 10 depth in exploring the borderline cases of progressives, purposives and absen- 11 tives. The study relies on a comparison with several European absentives (as in 12 Vogel 2007), a contrastive study with other Finnic constructions (as in Tom- 13 mola 2000), text corpus search (Pajusalu and Orav 2008), testing and com- 14 parison of the absentive reading in the context of other readings of the con- 15 struction within Estonian, using native speakers’ intuitions and introspection 16 (as in Tamm 2003, Erelt 1985, 1987, Metslang 1994). In addition, spontaneous 17 native texts and pragmatic and syntactic testing is added to the inventory of 18 methods to show that not only the progressive but the absentive has a different 19 prototype in Estonian as well, but it is nevertheless strikingly comparable with 20 the attested European categories. The similarity could be attributed to general 21 features of an absentive situation. 22 23 4.1.2. No one-to-one meaning-form relationship. Despite the existence of 24 examples that do not allow for other interpretation than absentive, there is no 25 clear one-to-one meaning-form correspondence. Therefore, a valid question 26 that may be asked is whether all criteria for establishing the absentive category 27 are met in Estonian. Absence can be expressed in different ways and the copu- 28 lar mas-construction has various other interpretations as well. There are many 29 non-grammaticalized ways of expressing being absent or away in Estonian, 30 such as eemal olema ‘be away’, mujal olema ‘be elsewhere’, kuklit sööma 31 läinud olema ‘be gone (to eat the roll)’, and some semi-grammaticalized ways 32 of expressing it, käis leiba ostmas ‘went away in order to eat and returned’.56 33 The mas-form combines with vision verbs in modal contexts that are similar to 34 the partitive evidential, which in turn appear with verbs denoting less evidence 35 than vision, as in Example (74) below (see Tamm 2009 for the details about the 36 choice between the mas-form and the partitive evidential — the mas-form ap- 37 pears with visual and thus more reliable evidence). 38 39 (74) Kui näed joodiku-t hange-s maga-mas, siis 40 If see.2s drunkard-ptv heap.of.snow-ine sleep-m_ine then 57 41 helista! 42 call[imp.2s]

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 898–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 898) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 899–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 899) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 899

1 ‘If you happen to see a drunkard who has fallen asleep in the snow, call 2 us!’ 3 4 In addition to the noncopular clauses, the mas-construction gives rise to mean- 5 ings other than absentive in copular constructions with ‘be’ as well. However, 6 the meanings pattern according to aspectual verb classification and volitional- 7 ity. Agentive durative verbs give rise to absentive and purposive readings. 8 Verbs encoding a change or a culmination express imminence (75a)–(75b), and 9 non-agentive process verbs give rise to a progressive (75c) reading. In case of 10 (75a), the imminent reading (“about to go”) is situationally conditioned, since 11 the verb ‘go’ is an activity, while in (75b) the propinquative-imminent reading 12 is lexically determined by the momentary nature of the verb. 13 (75) a. Ma ol-i-n juba mine-mas. 14 I be-pst-1s already go-m_ine 15 ‘I was going already; I was on my way; I was about to go’. 16 b. Kui sa sisene-si-d, ol-i-n ma ( juba) võti-t 17 When you step.in-pst-2s be-pst-1sg I already key-ptv 18 leid-mas. 19 find-m_ine 20 ‘When you stepped in, I was already about to find the key.’ 21 c. Ja sügise-st on puhu-mas juba uue-d 22 and fall-ela be.3s blow-m_ine already new-nom.pl 23 tuule-d.58 24 wind-nom.pl 25 ‘And from fall already, new winds will be blowing.’ 26 27 Previous sources are not divided but rather hesitant and puzzled about the 28 absentive reading. Tommola (2000: 680) mentions that in order to express 29 the absentive meaning, the mas-constructions are the only choice in Finnic. 30 This may explain why the previous sources, Tommola (2000), Tamm (2003), 31 Pajusalu and Orav (2008), and Vogel (2007), assume the existence of the ab- 32 sentive category in Estonian — there is a clear form designated for the given 33 meaning. However, none of these sources analyze the essence of the absentive 34 meaning in detail. Even Tommola (2000), which is the fullest account of the 35 phenomenon in Finnic, does not provide a concrete Estonian text example for 36 the absentive. Vogel (2007) includes an example of full absentive expressed by 37 the mas-construction, which sets Estonian apart from Latvian, Lithuanian and 38 Russian that lack the absentive. The Estonian sources that deal with the ines- 39 sive m-nonfinite, Erelt (1987) and Metslang (1994), do not mention absentiv- 40 ity, but the examples provided for the locative are in fact absentive. However, 41 this can be due to the fact that De Groot’s notion of Remote Progressive (De 42 Groot 1989) was not yet crystallized into a coherent definition of absentivity

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 900 A. Tamm

1 (cf. De Groot 1995a, 2000) by the time the articles by native speakers ap- 2 peared, and the absentive was subsumed under the locative meanings. Sources 3 that precede establishing the category, speak of mas-forms as locative adverbi- 4 als, but rephrasing the use via a construction with a motion verb denoting 5 movement away from the deictic center, as in ta on söömas = ta on sööma 6 läinud ‘s/ he’s gone to eat’ (Erelt 1987: 45). An inspection of the contexts shows 7 that the activities and locations are always understood as taking place in an- 8 other location. 9 10 4.1.3. The dual nature of nonfinites and a pragmatic approach to the absen- 11 tive category. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of exclusive and inclu- 12 sive approaches to categories, this article concentrates on some properties of 13 Estonian that might help to understand the nature of nonfinites, progressives, 14 and absentives of other languages as well. The Estonian absentive mas- 15 construction is special because of its explicit connection with the emerging 16 progressive and the disappearing locative readings. Estonian exemplifies a de- 17 velopmental state in a living language that represents a possible earlier stage in 18 languages with full-blown progressives and absentives. At the border area of 19 social interaction, semantics, pragmatics, lexicon, and syntax, the Estonian ab- 20 sentive combines locative-based nominal meaning with verbal, infinitival, and 21 temporal meaning. The changes in the nominal-verbal status seem to parallel 22 the changes in the semantic sphere, towards an emerging progressive and a 23 disappearing absentive-locative. In this situation, testing crucially relies on the 24 native speaker’s judgment about the availability of the different readings in the 25 test situation because of the possibility of meaning coercion in tests (that is, 26 tests can verify anything). 27 This subsection should be read with the caveat that the absentive is dis- 28 cussed as a category, that is, in the “inclusive” sense. This is a practical solu- 29 tion in order to be able to refer to a certain cluster of meanings, uses, and 30 constraints of the mas-construction. The cluster corresponds to the cluster 31 of meanings of the absentives discussed in previous literature (Hungarian, Ital- 32 ian, and Dutch) and differs from other readings of the mas-construction — 33 progressive proper (continuous), imminent, and locative. This section wishes 34 to show that most of the absentive meanings are cancelable in Estonian, having 35 the status of implicatures. Therefore, the Estonian absentive does not instanti- 36 ate a canonical, prototypical category. The defining meaning of the Estonian 37 absentive has to do with the essence of being absent, which often is understood 38 as being expected to be available in the discourse but in reality being unavail- 39 able. One can be absent from location A only if one is expected to be at location 40 A. The core meaning of the Estonian absentive is not the absence of the subject 41 from the deictic center but from a location where the hearer expects him or her 42 to be as an actively available participant in the discourse. If these meaning ele-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 900–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 900) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 901–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 901) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 901

1 ments are relevant for defining the category, and not the relation to the progres- 2 sive, then the category has more to do with modality than with aspect within 3 the TAM categories. The approach to this category involves discourse and 4 pragmatics. 5 6 7 4.2. A pragmatic approach to the absentive in Estonian 8 9 4.2.1. Semantic versus pragmatic properties of the absentive category. The 10 elusive character of the phenomenon indicates the pragmatic nature of the pos- 11 sible answer to the puzzle. As discussed briefly above, the classification of 12 verbs plays a role in the exact interpretation of the construction. The Estonian 13 absentive mas-construction encodes a volitional agent’s purposeful intention 14 that is typically, but not necessarily related to an activity carried out away from 15 a deictic center and in any case related to some notion of remoteness, distan- 16 tiation, or unavailability. 17 The absentive properties that de Groot (1995a: 58) lists make an impression 18 of being pragmatic conditions, since they are related to encyclopedic condi- 19 tions set on the world (knowledge about the habits of the subject, time frame, 20 etc). There is variation in the Hungarian use: some speakers use the construc- 21 tion only as an answer to the question Where is X? However, for languages 22 such as Hungarian, these properties are obligatory and not optional properties 23 of the construction. In other words, if a speaker utters a sentence containing an 24 absentive construction, these properties all hold. If Mary is off singing, then it 25 is obligatory that Mary is not in the vicinity of the speaker, she is involved in a 26 habitual activity, and she cannot be seen by the speaker and the hearer. It is 27 predictable how long she will be away, and that she will return after a while. 28 The exact content of these properties is filled in by encyclopedic knowledge 29 about Mary and her lifestyle and habits, the hard constraint is that these condi- 30 tions must be present in discourse; otherwise, the speaker forces the hearer to 31 accommodate this information. These properties could be regarded as pre 32 suppositions in Hungarian, if they are retained after negation. The Estonian 33 examples contain the same conditions, but several of them can be cancelled. 34 This comes as no surprise since the construction has other conventionalized 35 meanings (progressive, imminent, purposive), and the interpretation can 36 always be coerced into one of those. 37 38 4.2.2. Testing for the locative and activity interpretations. The contex- 39 tual tests in (76a)–(76f ) check the locative nature of the construction. The 40 context shows that the absentive properties are present. Although the ques- 41 tion about the activity of the agent as formulated in (76b) is not impossible in 42 the discourse, the response would be odd. The question formulated directly

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 902 A. Tamm

1 with a specific spatial inessive case as in (76c) is impossible, showing that 2 there is no reference to an internal location, which the inessive NPs typically 3 denote. 4 (76) a. Kus ta on? — Ta on uju-mas. 5 where s/ he be-3s s/ he be-3s swim-m_ine 6 ‘Where is he?’ — ‘He is off swimming.’ 7 b. Mis ta tee-b? ? Ta on uju-mas. 8 what s/ he do-3s s/ he be-3s swim-m_ine 9 ‘What is he doing?’ — ‘He is off swimming.’ 10 c. Mille-s ta on? — # Ta on uju-mas. 11 what-ine s/ he be-3s s/ he be-3s swim-m_ine 12 ‘Where (in what) is he?’ — ‘He is off swimming.’ 13 d. Ta on seal juba ammu. 14 s/ he be-3s there already long.time 15 ‘He has been there for quite some time already.’ 16 e. ??Ta tee-b seda juba ammu. 17 s/ he do-3s it.ptv already long.time 18 ‘He is doing it quite some time already.’ 19 f. ??Ta jää-b=ki sinna. Tegelikult, ta jää-b=ki 20 s/ he remain-3s=ki there really s/ he remain-3s-ki 21 sinna. 22 there 23 ‘He will stay there. In fact, he will stay there.’ 24 25 Example (76a) is typically quoted to demonstrate the locative meaning, but in 26 fact answering to the where question with a verbal form is not necessarily in- 27 dicative of a locative meaning. One can ask: Where is he? And the answer may 28 be: He is studying. Although spatial and temporal meanings are conceptually 29 connected, it would be incorrect to consider studying as conventionally ex- 30 pressing locativity as part of the grammatical meaning, either pragmatically, 31 by implicatures and convention, or semantically, by entailments. It is fixed in 32 the pragmatics of languages that the answers to where-questions are followed 33 by answers that refer to a location. However, in the English -ing-form, in con- 34 trast to the mas-form, the implicature arises because of the context. It is not an 35 independent entailment of the form studying that it should happen at a location 36 — the event of studying always requires a location, but this is not contained in 37 the grammatical meaning of the morpheme -ing. The meaning of location is 38 pragmatic. This location is targeted by the where-question. The point is that 39 this implicature is not only triggered by the ad-hoc discourse circumstances by 40 the mas-form. The use of the form evokes certain interpretations of absence 41 and being in a different location, independent of the discourse. The discussion 42 of the -ing form serves as an illustration of the insufficiency of the question-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 902–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 902) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 903–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 903) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 903

1 answer test. It cannot be regarded as a valid test for establishing a grammatical- 2 ized locativity meaning, but as an indication of a typical discourse situation. 3 Therefore, the previously attested locative meaning may be nonexistent in the 4 mas-construction. Spatial deictic pronouns such as seal ‘there’ as in (76d) can 5 be used to refer in the continuation of the discourse started in (76a). The valid- 6 ity of the test as an indication of the locative meaning has to be considered 7 again in terms of discourse and pragmatics, as in the case of the question- 8 answer pairs. 9 On the other hand, the absentive does not encode activities either. The con- 10 tinuation in (76e) involving reference to an activity would be odd. The con- 11 struction is stative in its meaning despite the agentivity of the verb in the mas- 12 construction. The odd effect in Example (76f ), which asserts the remaining of 13 the subject at the different location, ‘there’, shows that returning to the original 14 place and the temporary nature of the absence is indeed part of the meaning 15 of the Estonian construction. However, the continuation in (76f ) is not impos- 16 sible either; the continuation is accompanied by a marked pragmatic effect. 17 Preceded by ‘in fact’, the odd effect is considerably reduced and the require- 18 ment of temporary absence cancelled, indicating the pragmatic nature of the 19 property. 20 It is plausible that these preferred interpretations have emerged as a conse- 21 quence of purposive semantics. The construction was used to refer to a location 22 of the subject that was associated with a traditional activity that served some 23 specific purpose (hunting, fishing, washing, plowing) but was not necessarily 24 associated with one specific place (one specific forest, river, field, etc) from 25 where the agent returns. These typical situations may have contributed to the 26 development of the absentive meaning in a typical social situation, reinforced 27 by the predominantly Germanic influence on the language in the past eight 28 centuries. Germanic languages surrounding the language area of Estonian typi 29 cally have an absentive construction (Vogel 2007). In Estonian, these are the 30 preferred conditions for the construction but they are also defeasible. 31 32 4.2.3. The Estonian absentive is not typically restricted to third person. In 33 addition to direct testing of sentences for the exact type of meaning, an- 34 other method is applied. A typical Internet example of the Estonian locative- 35 absentive is provided in (77). Since the absentive meanings occur in an em 36 bedded that-clause, it is possible to explicate the meanings that are left implicit 37 without context. 38 39 (77) Kuna minek tul-i äkki, siis alles Itaalia-s 40 since trip[nom] come-pst.3s suddenly then only I-ine 41 sai-n öel-da lapse-le ja vanemate-le, et ole-n 42 can.pst-1s tell-t_inf child-ade and parent-pl-ade that be-1s

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 904 A. Tamm

1 Alpi-de-s matka-mas ja levi-st väljas mõne-ks 2 A-pl-ine hike-m_ine and range-ela out some-tra 3 aja-ks 4 time-tra. 5 ‘As my trip came suddenly, then I could tell my child and parents only 6 while in Italy that I am hiking in the Alps and out of the range for a 7 while.’ 8 9 Sentence (77) provides a more informative context for understanding a typical 10 Estonian absentive situation. The following components can be identified, as in 11 (78). 12 (78) a. The referent of the subject is absent, being at a different location 13 from where he can be expected (Alpides ‘in the Alps’). 14 b. The subject is not absent from the speaker (first person). Since the 15 first person is used in (77), the absence is not from the Speaker, but 16 from the hearer, in this case, the absence is defined with regard to 17 the child and the parents etc. 18 c. The subject is involved in a purposeful activity (matkamas 19 ‘hiking’). 20 d. It is specified how long the subject will be absent (mõneks ajaks 21 ‘for some time’). 22 e. The subject will return after a period of time, the situation of 23 absence is bounded (mõneks ajaks ‘for some time’). 24 f. The situation of absence is accompanied by a situation of 25 inaccessibility (levist väljas ‘out of the phone range’). 26 g. The absence is absence for the participants who expect the subject 27 to be in different location and available. The actual location is 28 unexpected for the hearer, as the description of the situation goes 29 (Kuna minek tuli äkki, siis alles Itaalias sain öelda lapsele ja 30 vanematele . . . ‘as my trip came suddenly, then I could tell it to 31 my child and parents only while in Italy’. 32 h. The hearer expects the subject (which is the speaker) not to be 33 absent; that is, the hearer expects the subject to be at a location that 34 is not Italy, not in the Alps, not related to hiking, not causing the 35 subject to be inaccessible, etc. This description plausibly applies to 36 a situation where the speaker and subject was asked to babysit at a 37 certain place and time but did not keep his promise. 38 i. The speaker believes that the hearer has the expectations as in 39 point (78h). 40 41 The use of the mas-construction in the absentive sense prevails without the 42 support of the contextual elements that have found expression in this excerpt.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 904–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 904) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 905–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 905) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 905

1 These elements indicate and reinforce the typical discourse properties of the 2 Estonian absentive. Note that there is another locative phrase in the sentence, 3 Alpides ‘in the Alps’, which shows that the construction cannot be considered 4 as a pure locative but rather as a bleached purposive expressing unavailability. 5 As an instance of the category of absentive, however, this is an atypical ex- 6 ample. The original absentive properties as defined by De Groot and identified 7 in (78) are thus optional. There are additional meaning elements, such as un- 8 availability, that are indispensable and more central. These elements gain 9 prominence in the absentive meaning cluster in Estonian. 10 11 12 4.3. Authentic text search for establishing the uses 13 14 4.3.1. Progressives and mediated purposives. In the other Finnic lan- 15 guages, there seems to be a link between “mediated purpose” and progressive. 16 Agentive environments trigger the absentive meaning, but not always. Pro- 17 gressive seems to be the analysis of several other Finnic examples, where loca- 18 tive and purposive meanings are not plausible, as in the Ingrian examples with 19 horses rotating the threshing machine (79). The horses are not located at a 20 specific location in the sentence, they are not absent and do not have their own 21 purpose either. However, sentences like (79) seem to instantiate a borderline 22 case between progressive and purposive in Finnic. Rotating the threshing ma- 23 chine, however, is the purpose of the speaker or some other agent, not the three 24 horses who are actually performing it. 25 (79) Ingrian 26 Tappomasinaa pöörittä-mäs oli kolt 27 threshing.machine.ptv rotate-m_ine be.pst.3s three[nom] 28 hepoist. 29 horse.ptv 30 ‘The threshing machine was being rotated by three horses; three horses 31 were put to rotate the threshing machine.’ 32 (Junus 1936: 120) 33 34 In addition to the volitional environments in previous subsections, it is neces- 35 sary to eliminate the subject’s agentivity in order to explore the limits of the 36 absentive. Non-agentive environments trigger progressive in Estonian, there- 37 fore stative verbs are suitable for exploring the borderline between the progres- 38 sive and other uses. The main difference between several Finnic progressives 39 and prototypical progressives is the lack of purposive semantics, that is, the 40 expression of a goal-oriented activity. The purposive semantics is difficult to 41 pin down, but it can be defined as the property of an action to serve somebody’s 42 purpose or goal.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 906 A. Tamm

1 4.3.2. Stative verbs to test progressives and mediated purposives. As 2 the example with the horses in (82) shows, the goals do not necessarily as 3 sociate with the subject, but the perspective of the speaker. A good point 4 is made in Tommola (2000: 680), where nukkua ‘sleep’ in a Finnish exam- 5 ple in present tense and third infinitive inessive construction are contrasted 6 (80). 7 8 (80) Standard Finnish 9 a. Vauva nukkuu. nom s 10 baby[ ] sleep.3 11 ‘The baby is sleeping’ 12 (Tommola 2000: 680) 13 b. Vauva on nukku-massa. nom s m ine 14 baby[ ] be.3 sleep- _ 15 ‘The baby is sleeping; the baby is put to sleep.’ 16 (Tommola 2000: 680) 17 In this example, the Finnish present tense and the third infinitive inessive con- 18 struction are contrasted. Example (80a) describes what the baby is doing and 19 (80b) expresses that the baby is put to sleep, as Tommola explains. However, 20 Tommola still classifies the construction in (80b) as just the progressive, be- 21 cause he does not look into the implications for the discourse availability of the 22 subject, which co-occurs with putting the baby to sleep. Tommola’s example of 23 a minimal pair of the Finnish verb for ‘sleep’ is insightful for further testing 24 of the borderline between progressive, absentive, and purposive in Estonian as 25 well. The stative verbs such as magama ‘sleep’ or istuma ‘sit’ are suitable for 26 teasing apart the readings, since one of the prominent readings, namely, im- 27 minence, is excluded with statives. For Estonian, the difference between the 28 simple present tense and the mas-construction in (81) can be pinned down 29 more precisely. 30 31 (81) Standard Estonian 32 a. Tita maga-b. 33 baby[nom] sleep-3s 34 ‘The baby is sleeping.’ 35 (after Finnish in Tommola [2000: 680]) 36 b. Tita on maga-mas. 37 baby[nom] be.3s sleep-m_ine 38 ‘The baby is sleeping.’ 39 (after Finnish in Tommola [2000: 680]) 40 c. Tita-d maga-vad palju. 41 baby-nom.pl sleep-3s much 42 ‘Babies sleep much.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 906–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 906) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 907–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 907) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 907

1 d. #Tita-d on palju maga-mas. 2 baby-nom.pl be.3s much sleep-m_ine 3 ‘Babies are sleeping much.’ 4 5 I have established in the Ingrian example with the horses that were working, 6 in (79), that the purpose is not necessarily related to the subject. Horses have 7 no goals; they are put to work to serve people. Non-volitional stative environ- 8 ments, as in (81), also provide a test bed for examining the mediated purpo- 9 sive and absentive combined with the progressive. In (81b) it is the parents 10 who have a purpose; it is them who remove the baby from active discourse 11 (Tommola notices that the baby has been put to sleep). The purposive ele- 12 ment is, therefore, weak. On the contrary, the absentive element of discourse 13 unavailability is prominent in (81b): the baby is away and unavailable for 14 interaction. Examples (81a) and (81b) are equal in expressing continuous ac- 15 tivity. They differ in genericity; the mas-construction cannot be used generi- 16 cally in (81d). In (81d), at a specific time point, the baby is away, falling 17 asleep or sleeping. This example is illuminating, since it shows that the rele- 18 vant discourse context is not just verbal discourse. Since babies are unable 19 to speak, the context of unavailability is created by activity and interaction. 20 In comparison with Finnish, the Estonian mas-construction is predominantly 21 absentive. 22 23 4.3.3. Stative verbs for testing the interpretations of absentive and discourse 24 unavailability. Authentic texts serve as the basis for gathering the informa- 25 tion about the actual use of the grammatical form and as the basis of further 26 testing with native speakers. Similar other contexts can be found on the Inter- 27 net. In (82a) the absentive combines with discourse unavailability, removal of 28 the baby from the discourse, so that the baby’s interaction does not disturb. The 29 purposive reading may but need not be accompanied by a locative reading, as 30 in (82b), where the sleeping event takes place out of the range of visibility of 31 the speaker. Locative, purposive and absentive readings are combined in (82c), 32 where the dog is removed from interaction, has gone to the car in order to 33 sleep. 34 35 (82) a. Alles nüüd on laps maga-mas ja tuli 36 Only now be.3s child[nom] sleep-m_ine and fire[nom] 59 37 pliidi all ja või-b haka-ta mõtle-ma. 38 stove.gen under and can-3s start-t_inf think-m_ill 39 ‘Only now the child is sleeping and the fire is under the stove, and 40 I can start thinking.’ 41 b. Ole-n ma siis üksi kodu-s et teis-te-s 42 be-1s I[nom] then alone home-ine that other-pl-ine

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 908 A. Tamm

1 tuba-de-s keda=gi ei ole või on kõik 2 room-pl-ine nobody.ptv=gi neg be or be.3s all[nom] 60 3 juba maga-mas. 4 already sleep-m_ine 5 ‘Am I alone home, because there is no one in the other rooms, or 6 everybody is sleeping already.’ 7 c. Samuti on ta laevasõidu aja-l auto-s 8 Also be.3s s/ he ship.trip.gen time-ade car-ine 9 maga-mas oma pesa-s. 10 sleep-m_ine one’s nest-ine 11 ‘Also during the boat voyage it is in the car, taking a nap in its 12 nest.’ 13 4.3.4. The absentive encodes unavailability in active discourse. An excerpt 14 from a diary of a drinking party of football fans contrasts durative situations 15 with the verb magama ‘sleep’ in order to illustrate the specific type of absen- 16 tive-unavailability with the mas-construction, as in the last sentence in (83). 17 The absentive encodes unavailability as an active discourse participant. The 18 excerpt is chosen because of the static character of the narrative, which is lo- 19 cated in one place only and there is a high concentration of the verb in similar 20 yet slightly different situations. It describes the participants and their activities 21 one by one along a timeline; the excerpt is presented in the form of a logbook 22 or the minutes of a night party where different people drink, bring more drinks, 23 and talk. The diary records meticulously when the participants fall asleep or 24 are asleep. 25 26 (83) Colloquial Estonian 27 Jeeg 28 J[nom] 29 24-02-02, 07:48 30 [date] 31 Njah, otsusta-si-n ainsa üleval ja ärkvel 32 well decide-pst-1s lonely.gen awake and up 33 püsiva-na siin hilise-l öötunni-l kirja panna, 34 staying-ess here late-ade night.hour-ade writing-ill put.t_inf 35 kuidas teise-d välja näe-vad joomingu käigus mis 36 how other-pl out look-3pl drinking.gen during that 37 siis 23.02.2002 Koski juures ase-t leid-is. 38 then /date/ K.gen by place-ptv find-past.3s th 39 ‘Jeeg. February 24 , 2002, 07:48. So, now that I am the only one 40 constantly awake at this hour, I decided to write a diary of how the 41 others look during the drinking party, taking place at Kosk’s place on 42 the 23rd of February, 2002.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 908–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 908) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 909–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 909) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 909

1 Enamus maga-b hetke-l...... :) 2 majority[nom] sleep-3s moment-ade 3 ‘Most of the people are sleeping at this moment.’ 4 Kosk maga-b. Juba tükk aega maga-b. [ . . . ] 5 K [nom] sleep-3s already piece[nom] time.ptv sleep-3s 6 ‘Kosk is sleeping. He has been sleeping for a long time already.’ 7 8 kolmteist 9 thirteen[nom] 10 ilmu-s lambi-st siia, siis kui mina just 11 appear-pst.3s lamp-ela here.ill when I[nom] just 12 ärkasin – aga ilmu-s vähema-lt koos viina-ga :) 13 wake.up-pst.1s but appear-pst.3s at.least with vodka-com 14 13 on KURADI KAINE!!! . . . teis-te-ga 15 13[nom] be.3s devil.gen sober[nom] other-pl-com 16 võrrel-des. [ . . . ] 17 compare-t_ine 18 ‘Thirteen. Appeared from nowhere when I just got up, but appeared at 19 least with vodka. Thirteen is damn sober, compared to others.’ 20 Erxx 21 E[nom] 22 And-is alla. :) Jäi magama. ;uidu hoidis 23 give-pst.3s up fall.pst.3s sleep-m_ill otherwise keep-pst.3s 24 jututempo-t üleval. Ühesõnaga – kahju [ . . . ] 25 tempo.of.speech.ptv up in.a.word pity 26 ‘Erxx. Has given up. Fell asleep, otherwise he was the one who kept 27 the discussion going. In sum, pity.’ 28 29 wiiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30 W[nom] 31 Maga-b...... 32 sleep-3s 33 Nagu kogu päeva on maga-nud. . . . .[ . . . ] 34 like all day.gen be.3s sleep-pass.pst.ptcp 35 ‘Wiiner! Is sleeping. Like, has been sleeping all day.’ 36 37 yeg ise...... 38 Y[nom] oneself 39 yeg maga-S, seega on koos 13ne-ga ainus 40 Y[nom] sleep-pst.3s thus be.3s with thirteen-com only 41 ärkvel inimene. [ . . . ] 42 awake person

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 910 A. Tamm

1 ‘Yeg, myself. Has slept [emphasis on the past], so he is the only person 2 who is awake with Thirteen.’ 3 Praegu joob jeeg viina 7UP’i abi-ga. 4 now drink-3s Y[nom] vodka.ptv 7UP.gen help-com 5 ‘Right now, Jeeg is drinking vodka with 7UP.’ 6 7 Nüüd on ka 13 maga-mas ja ma olen 8 now be.3s also 13[nom] sleep-m_ine and I[nom] be.1s 9 üksi jäe-tud koos viina ja nii mõne=gi 10 alone leave-pass.pst.ptcp with vodka.gen and so some=gi 61 11 õlle-ga. 12 beer-com 13 ‘Now, even Thirteen is asleep and I have been left alone in the 14 company of a vodka and quite some bottles of beer.’ 15 16 Example (83) shows that durative events are normally expressed by simple 17 tenses. All examples of sleeping events use simple tenses (in the second, third, 18 fourth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth sentences), while the last sentence (the 19 sixteenth sentence) in the excerpt records a mas-construction (third text line 20 from below). The eighth sentence contains a finite light verb and an illative 21 nonfinite verb form for the event of falling asleep. 22 The context shows that the mas-construction is used to encode that the 23 subject is unavailable for further discussions and interaction. The narrator 24 expresses his appreciation of conversation partners in earlier context and 25 presents the loss of the last available discourse participant in a dramatic 26 way in the last sentence. The construction is not the preferred form to ex- 27 press duration or an activity at a particular moment either, since the verb 28 used for “Most of the people are sleeping at this moment” has the form of 29 a simple tense. The purposive interpretation of sleeping and the locative 30 interpretation of sleeping somewhere else are not possible options in this 31 context. Several clues in the text reinforce this interpretation of absence 32 from active discourse. The use differs from more progressive-like uses in the 33 preceding sentences: sleeping means here “asleep and out of discourse and 34 interaction”. 35 36 4.3.5. Stative purposives. Other examples indicate a higher degree of pur- 37 posivity, even if the verbs are stative. The use of a translative temporal adver- 38 bial, which indicates a goal, shows that falling asleep early was an intended, 39 planned state. Since the goal is to get up early, the plan is to be asleep as early 40 as possible, as in (84). The reasons for a special purpose are clear from the 41 context — in both examples, early plans for the following morning are re- 42 corded in the text.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 910–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 910) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 911–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 911) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 911

1 (84) a. Enne kesköö-d ol-i-me juba maga-mas, kuna 2 before midnight-ptv be-pst-1pl already sleep-m_ine because 62 3 äratus oli 6.30. 4 alarm be.pst.3s 6.30 5 ‘We were in bed already before midnight, because the alarm was 6 set for 6.30.’ 7 b. Vana-aasta õhtu möödu-s rahuliku-lt ning terve 8 new.year’s eve pass-3s calmly and whole 9 meeskond ol-i juba kella 11’ks 10 team[nom] be-pst.3s already clock.gen 11-tra 11 maga-mas. Uus aasta alga-s hommiku-l 12 sleep-m_ine new[nom] year[nom] start.pst.3s morning-ade 63 13 kella 7 trenni-ga 14 clock.gen 7 training-com 15 ‘The New Year’s Eve passed calmly and the whole team was 16 asleep by eleven already. The new year started in the morning with 17 a 7 o’clock training session.’ 18 19 4.3.6. Progressive and purposive combined in spatial arrangements of pas- 20 sive animates. Locative and absentive readings are missing in Example (84), 21 but the progressive and purposive readings emerge in an example describing 22 the arrangement of seating. The sentence describes a particular interesting con- 23 figuration of people sitting around a table, possibly on a photo, arranged ac- 24 cording to a plan in (85). 25 (85) Mei-le kõige lähema-s laua-s on istu-mas 26 we-all most closest-ine table-ine be.3s sit-m_ine 27 huvitav seltskond: Kairit Leibold, tema 28 interesting[nom] company[nom] KL[nom] s/ he.gen 29 vasaku-l käe-l Shaun Deeb ning nende vastas 30 left-ade hand-ade SD[nom] and they.gen opposite 31 on kõrvuti istu-mas Tunnet Taimla ja Revo Kink.64 32 be.3s side.by.side sit-m_ine TT[nom] and RK[nom] 33 ‘At the table that was closest to us, an interesting company was sitting: 34 Kairit Leibold, on her left hand, Shaun Deeb and opposite to them, 35 Tunnet Taimla and Revo Kink are sitting side by side.’ 36 37 This sentence exemplifies an extension of the meaning of the absentive, which 38 contributes the momentary feature to the meaning: at the relevant moment, the 39 people were spatially arranged as described. The common semantic constraint 40 of the Estonian progressives, purposives, and absentives stems from the gram- 41 maticalized momentary element in the discourse situation of the absentives 42 based on locatives that are used at the moment of asking about the whereabouts

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 912 A. Tamm

1 of an expected discourse participant who is absent — Section 4.4.2 can be 2 referenced for more details. 3 4 4.3.7. Progressive and mediated purposive combined in spatial arrange- 5 ments of passive animates: photos. Perhaps the most numerous use of the 6 construction on the Internet is the description of activities on photos, as in (86). 7 This use represents the borderline between purposive, progressive, and absen- 8 tive. As in (85), this sentence also exemplifies an extension of the meaning of 9 the absentive, describing a momentary feature of a static and temporary situa- 10 tion. On photos, a static arrangement of people’s activity is depicted; people 11 are arranged according to the purposes of the one who takes the photo. As a 12 contrast, videos are not titled using the mas-construction, which can be ex- 13 plained because moving pictures do not represent static arrangement of people 14 according to the plan and goals of the author of the shots and live their own 15 life. In a certain sense, unavailability of the subjects in the discourse is also 16 present among the readings, since those who are on the pictures, are unavail- 17 able, passive participants, missing in the active discourse. 18 65 19 (86) Inimese-d istu-mas parlamendihoone treppi-de-l. nom pl m ine gen pl ade 20 man- . sit- _ parliament.building. stair- - 21 ‘Crowds sitting on the stairs of Parliament building.’ 22 There are examples with purposive that exclude unavailability, as in (75), (85), 23 (87) and examples where unavailability is present but purposivity is not pres- 24 ent (82), (83). 25 26 4.3.8. Purposive in agentive contexts and imminence. The borderline be- 27 tween purposive and imminential can be established in an example describing 28 the imminent political moves of calculating political figures in the process of 29 almost obtaining their goals, as in (87). 30 31 (87) On ju praegune hariduse abilinnapea Georg Aher 32 be.3s ptc present education.gen vice.mayor[nom] GA[nom] 33 liiku-mas [ . . . ] abilinnapea koha-le ning tema 34 move.m_ine vice.mayor-gen place-all and he.gen 35 tooli-le on istu-mas [ . . . ] Jüri Sasi. Vähemalt 36 seat-all be.3s sit.m_ine JS[nom] at.least 37 niisuguse-d on juttu-de järgi Tartu 38 such-nom.pl be.3s gossip-gen.pl according T.gen 39 linnavõimu plaani-d. 40 town.council.gen plan-nom.pl 41 ‘Georg Aher, the current vice-chairman of council in education is 42 moving to the job of the vice mayor, and his task in being taken over

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 912–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 912) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 913–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 913) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 913

1 by Jüri Sasi. At least this is what the gossip says about the plans of the 2 town leadership of Tartu.’ 3 In this instance, the absentive reading is missing; it can be concluded that the 4 absentive and the imminential exclude each other. However, one of the central 5 properties of the Estonian mas-construction is that it presents an event from a 6 viewpoint of a moment in time (Metslang 1993, 1994). This semantic con- 7 straint stems from the momentary element in the discourse situation, which has 8 grammaticalized in the absentive. Section 4.4.2 can be referenced for more 9 details. 10 The progressive is spreading in Estonian for language internal as well as 11 language external reasons. On the one hand, the change can be attributed to the 12 influence of the progressive in English and Finnish, or Russian influence, 13 where there are secondary imperfectives. On the other hand, the progressive is 14 spreading because of the universal tendency of progressive meanings develop- 15 ing from locative expressions. It is plausible that the external and internal fac- 16 tors reinforce each other. 17 Firstly, the use of mas-construction is spreading with the interpretation of 18 the English progressive, where the progressive interpretation is accepted with 19 human sentient subjects. In that case, the speaker makes an impression of 20 an innovative, dynamic, well-informed, open personality, who cares about 21 original and unreplicable self-expression. The occurrences with the mas- 22 construction are typically paralleled by the English progressive in translation. 23 In some instances the origin of the particular uses of the mas-construction can 24 be pinned down exactly. For instance, Jõks (2010) reports a sentence from 25 2003, illustrated in (88). The agentive saying verb väitma ‘claim’ and the 26 stative verb with an animate sentient subject lootma ‘hope’ appear in the pro- 27 gressive mas-construction. Jõks notes that there cannot be any doubt about the 28 authorship of the sentence: it is the hallmark style of a certain Estonian journal- 29 ist from the United States. This is an instance of an idiolectal progressive. 30 31 (88) Davise meeskond on nüüd küll väit-mas, 32 davis.gen team[nom] be.3s now still claim-m_ine 33 et Austrias sündi-nud filminäitleja vastu esita-tud 34 that A-ine born actor.gen against raise-pst.pass.ptcp 35 uu-te süüdistus-te-ga ei ole neil mida=gi 36 new-gen.pl accusation-pl-com neg be 3pl.ade anything=gi 37 pistmis-t, kuid on silmanähtavalt loot-mas, et 38 to.do-ptv but be.3s obviously hope-m_ine that 39 need Schwarzeneggeri toetaja-te arvu 40 these[nom] S.gen supporter-gen.pl number.ptv 41 vähenda-vad. 42 make.decrease-3pl

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 914 A. Tamm

1 ‘The team of Davies is busy claiming now that they have nothing to do 2 with the new accusations raised against the Austrian-born actor, but it 3 is obvious that they are in fact hoping that the accusations will 4 diminish the number of Schwarzenegger’s supporters.’ 5 6 Secondly, there are language-internal tendencies that indicate the spread of the 7 progressive. The environments that lack the defining properties of the absen- 8 tive have the progressive interpretation. The combination of the progressive 9 and locative is frequently characterized by the preposing of the nonfinite verb. 10 The example in (89) combines a special spatial position on a scale at a moment 11 of time; the nonfinite verb is in the syntactic position preceding the finite verb. 12 Why should the nonfinite verb precede the finite verb? In this example, after a 13 description of the evaluation scale that measures economic freedom, we expect 14 the information about positioning on the scale. That some countries will be 15 positioned better and others worse according to a scale belongs to known infor- 16 mation, while the identity of those countries belongs to new information. So 17 the information about the specific type of positioning precedes the verb as 18 topical information, and the information about the identity of the country is the 19 focus. Changing the order of the phrases leads to an odd effect; multiple coer- 20 cions of meaning are needed in order to yield an interpretable sentence in the 21 context, as in (90). The minimal pair was created to demonstrate the difference 22 that emerges if the position of the phrases is switched. 23 (89) Hindamisskaala on 5-palliline, kusjuures 1 24 evaluation.scale[nom] be.3s with 5 degrees where 1 25 vasta-b täieliku-le majandusvabaduse-le ja 5 26 correspond-3s complete-all economic.freedom-all and 5 27 vabaduse puudumise-le. Juhti-mas on siin=gi Singapur 28 freedom.gen lack-all lead-m_ine be.3s here=gi S[nom] 29 ja Hong Kong. 30 and HK[nom] 31 ‘The evaluation scale has five degrees, one corresponds to full 32 economic freedom, and five corresponds to the absence of economic 33 freedom. Here as well, the leading position is taken by Singapore and 34 Hong Kong.’ 35 (90) %Singapur ja Hong Kong on juhtimas. 36 S[nom] and HK[nom] be.3s lead-m_ine 37 %‘Singapore and Hong Kong are off leading.’ 38 39 The inessive nonfinite verbs also become topicalized in weather forecasts. The 40 topical information contains the arriving, disappearing, and prevailing weather 41 conditions; the exact identity of the weather conditions forms the focus. In 42 sports reports, the presentation is expected to be about changing positions in

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 914–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 914) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 915–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 915) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 915

1 the competition, and the new information concerns the identity of the ones who 2 are winning, keeping, or losing the leading position. The information provided 3 by the verb is topical, but starting a sentence with a finite verb requires many 4 special constraints in Estonian, so a nonfinite verb is an optimal solution in this 5 case. 6 7 4.3.9. The locative, absentive, purposive, and progressive interpretations. 8 In the previous sections, I wanted to see how the readings of the nonfinite con- 9 struction pattern. Specifically, I tried to find out if the absentive reading can 10 appear independently or if it is just one possible interpretation that cannot 11 exist without the earlier well-established core meanings: imminence, location, 12 and purpose. I examined contexts where imminence, location, or purpose was 13 eliminated. Firstly, I blocked the imminential reading by selecting stative 14 verbs. Stative verbs do not encode a culmination, and in addition, their incep- 15 tive meaning is expressed by a light verb construction in Estonian. So there is 16 no suitable linguistic environment for placing the viewpoint to a preparatory 17 phase in front of an imminent event. Secondly, state verbs have the advantage 18 of being typically non-agentive. Only agents can have independent purposes; 19 therefore, by using non-agentive verbs, I could also block the purposive read- 20 ing. Thirdly, in order to block the locative meaning, I chose a description of 21 events happening at an identical physical location with the speaker. Potentially, 22 the progressive reading may also appear with animate topical subjects involved 23 in states, if using the mas-construction where English would use the progres- 24 sive would be an essential component of the speaker’s hallmark style. How- 25 ever, I could exclude an idiolect as well. I found a longer excerpt, where the 26 mas-construction stands in stark contrast with several instances of the same 27 verb in simple tenses. The verbs in simple tenses appeared in contexts where 28 the Estonian verb would normally be translated with the English progressive. 29 This environment is illuminating for one of the central questions about the 30 meaning of the mas-construction: is the absentive just a dependent, contextual 31 use, or does it instantiate an independent grammatical meaning? If the absen- 32 tive reading is a contextual interpretation, then we would not expect it to ap- 33 pear independently, without the locative, imminent, or purposive readings. We 34 would predict the meaning extensions to be based on the established locative, 35 imminent, or purposive readings. If the absentive has established itself inde- 36 pendently in the grammar, then we would expect it to appear without the sup- 37 port of these readings. The evidence for a grammatical absentive would be 38 even stronger if further contextual modulations are based on the absentive 39 core meaning. If the environments and conditions for the locative, imminent, 40 or purposive readings are eliminated, a contextual absentive use would not 41 emerge. A simple tense would be used instead. But if the absentive has devel- 42 oped a grammatical meaning, then it is possible — though not necessary —

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 916 A. Tamm

1 that it emerge in this environment. Removing agentivity and remoteness strips 2 the context of the characteristics of the typical absentive environment. The 3 absentive reading can emerge only if it has established itself in the grammar 4 and, therefore, further contextual adaptations are possible. 5 I have found that the absentive meaning can appear independently, without 6 the purposive, locative, or imminential. In addition, further contextual adapta- 7 tions are possible, since if physical absence is excluded, “absence in the active 8 discourse” appears as a contextual adaptation. Therefore, the common mean- 9 ing element of the Estonian absentives could be termed as “absence in the ac- 10 tive discourse”. How do the other readings pattern? The purposive and the 11 absentive have developed in clearly different directions. There are examples 12 with purposive that exclude discourse absentivity, and examples where the fea- 13 ture of discourse absentivity is present but purposivity is missing. The same 14 can be concluded about the locative and discourse absentivity. The progressive 15 uses are spreading, even if they are still recognized as the hallmark of indi- 16 vidual style. In agentive and nonagentive sentences with stative verbs it is the 17 speaker’s, not the subject’s purposivity that is relevant for encoding, paving 18 way for the progressive. In agentive contexts, the purposive but not the absen- 19 tive reading may combine with the imminent one. The links between the dis- 20 cussed synchronic readings suggest the following relationships in grammati- 21 calization, where the purposive-locative readings seem to be central, and the 22 imminent and absentive exclude each other: 23 – Mediated purposive-progressive (4.3.2.) 24 – Absentive, unavailability (4.3.3.) 25 – Unavailability in discourse (4.3.4.) 26 – Pure purposive (4.3.5.) 27 – Mediated purposive and progressive (4.3.6., 4.3.7.) 28 – Purposive (agentive), imminence (progressive) (4.3.8.) 29 – Locative and progressive (4.3.8.) 30 31 The stative progressive reading is always present in the combinations with the 32 copula. The prototypical progressive, which expresses continuous, durative, 33 and dynamic situations, is an interpretation that is developing perhaps under 34 the influence of other languages and as the extension of the purposive mean- 35 ings, and rather if the purposive is understood as mediated purposive. The de- 36 velopment of the prototypical progressive can be related to the meanings of the 37 imminential with verbs that are durative, such as degree achievements (widen, 38 shorten, etc.). Degree achievements are continuous despite the meaning ele- 39 ment of a marked change of state. It is difficult to say if the progressive proper 40 emerges in stative environments and in set phrases (on olemas ‘exists’, on 41 käimas ‘is going on’) and in expressions of temporary positions and configura- 42 tions (on juhtimas ‘is leading, has the leading position’). These are the most

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 916–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 916) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 917–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 917) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 917

1 common uses of the progressive without the absentive, but since they are over- 2 whelmingly stative, they do not match with the progressive prototype either 3 and remain at the periphery instead. 4 The absentive may be the extension of the purposive, but it is also locative 5 in its basic spatial meaning. The overlaps in the absentive, locative, purposive, 6 progressive, and imminent occurrences, as depicted in Figure 1, suggest that it 7 is plausible that the absentive use constitutes the original core of the mas- 8 construction. The progressive proper meaning is depicted by the intersection of 9 imminence, purposive, and progressive and not noted specially on the figure. 10 Giving information about someone else performing a specific purposeful activ- 11 ity at another, unknown location, is based on a plausible discourse situation 12 where a verbal noun would be used instead of a noun denoting the location. 13 The continuous progressive meaning has emerged only in the conceptual space 14 that is left unoccupied by the locative and the purposive, and is primarily 15 stative. This progressive is clearly a more recent but rapidly developing ten- 16 dency as in Finnish. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Figure 1. Overlaps in the occurrences of the absentive, locative, purposive, progressive (under- 33 stood as the Estonian stative-progressive), and imminential. 34 35 As an interesting result of the study into stative verbs, “unavailability” or 36 “absence in active discourse” emerges as a cover term in the absentives in 66 37 agentive and nonagentive domains. 38 39 4.4. The conditions of the absentive and the progressive 40 41 4.4.1. Context manipulation to exclude the absentive conditions. The anal- 42 ysis of the examples tantsimas ‘off dancing’, pidu pidamas ‘off having a party’,

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 918 A. Tamm

1 söömas ‘off eating’ shows that the mas-construction is used as an absentive; 2 see Section 4.1.1, the examples listed under (73). The testing procedure in Sec- 3 tion 4.2 and the corpus search in Section 4.3 show that the defining properties 4 of the absentive are not entailments. On the other hand, “defining properties” 5 is a vague term. What are the defining properties of the absentive then, and 6 how to find ways to establish their nature in semantics or pragmatics? Does 7 unavailability in active discourse belong to these defining properties? This sub- 8 section tests by context manipulation in minimal pairs if unavailability is op- 9 tional and if any changes in the context could block the meaning. This is the 10 goal of the test in (91), where the context renders implausible that the baby 11 would be expected to be available in the discourse, suggesting rather the op- 12 posite (‘sleeping, as before’). Only the simple present is possible, as in (91a), 13 which is a sentence on the Internet. Replacing the simple present with the mas- 14 construction is not acceptable, as seen in (91b), since purposive, absentive, or 15 unavailability are blocked in the context. 16 (91) a. Nüüd maga-b ta väga rahulikult, nagu enne.67 17 Now sleep-3s s/ he very calmly as before 18 ‘Now he is sleeping very calmly, as before.’ 19 b. %Nüüd on ta maga-mas väga rahulikult, nagu 20 Now be.3s s/ he sleep-m_ine very calmly as 21 enne. 22 before 23 ‘Now he is sleeping very calmly, as before.’ 24 25 In the manipulated internet example, the contextual setting lacks the necessary 26 properties of the absentive. The odd effect of the mas-construction in this con- 27 text demonstrates that what are referred to as properties are indeed linguisti- 28 cally relevant for grammatical encoding. However, the defeasibility of the 29 defining properties of the absentive was also demonstrated in Section 4.2.2. 30 Therefore, a study into default meanings is motivated after a recapitulation on 31 the absentive properties in Estonian. 32 33 4.4.2. The structure of the meaning of the Estonian absentive. On the basis 34 of the previous discussion, Estonian requires modifications to the properties of 35 the absentive as identified in De Groot (2000: 695) in (50), repeated in (92). I 36 divide the properties and the meaning I have established according to how 37 necessary or essential they are. 38 39 (92) (i) the referent of the subject is absent (not necessary), 40 (ii) the Subject is involved in an activity (not necessary), 41 (iii) it is predictable how long the Subject will be absent (not 42 necessary),

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 918–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 918) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 919–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 919) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 919

1 (iv) the Subject will return after a period of time (not necessary), 2 (v) the location or discourse availability of the Subject does not 3 correspond to the expectation (this is the essence of being 4 absent) 5 6 Unlike the absentives of Europe — or at least unlike what has been established 7 about them — the key feature of the Estonian absentive is the perceived expec- 8 tation about the subject’s discourse availability or physical presence. Each of 9 the elements in (80) is relevant but optional in Estonian, except for the one 10 identified in (v), which is the essence of the Estonian absentive meaning. Being 11 absent is being unavailable in active discourse. This feature could be applica- 12 ble to the absentives found in the European languages; therefore, I dwell on the 13 topic of absence in active discourse in more detail. 14 More specifically, the absentive mas-construction constrains the discourse 15 so that it accommodates an expectation about the availability of the subject. 16 The hearer of the utterance with the absentive mas-construction expects the 17 subject to be present and available in the given discourse situation. This is why 18 the typical context preceding the absentive mas-construction includes asking 19 or wondering about the subject’s location. A typical conversation between the 20 hearer (A) and the speaker (B) would include conversations such as: A: Where 21 is Anna? or: Why is Anna not here? B: She is off dancing. In order to avoid the 22 confrontational effects of an interrogative, an indirect speech act provides an 23 alternative for expressing one’s curiosity about the subject’s absence and an 24 expectation about the subject’s presence, as in the following mini-discourse: A: 25 No Anna, I see. B: No, she is off dancing. The utterance No Anna, I see triggers 26 a conversational implicature of A expecting to find Anna at the location of the 27 discourse. The speaker B acts upon the conversational implicature, since for B, 28 A’s remark about not seeing Anna is interpreted as a request for further infor- 29 mation about Anna’s absence. However, Anna’s exact location is not relevant 30 for what A does next. The speaker B may even not know the exact locations 31 where Anna exercises or performs her dances, and if he does know the exact 32 location, he supposes that A would not be looking for Anna in order to follow 33 her to the dance school. To the best of B’s knowledge, A just expects to find 34 Anna at her office. The speaker B thinks that Anna will be back, but it will not 35 be worthwhile for A to wait for her. This requires a notion of Theory of Mind 36 from the speaker, that is, social cognitive ability to attribute mental states to the 37 interlocutor. In this case, the speaker attributes some beliefs or expectations 38 about the presence of Anna to the interlocutor. If these expectations are not 39 made explicit in a question, then they arise by a conversational implicature that 40 is triggered by some other expression in the situation. 41 I have shown now that the conversation does not necessarily contain any 42 explicit question about the whereabouts or activities of the subject, but the

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 920 A. Tamm

1 absentive mas-construction still informs the hearer about the activities and 2 whereabouts of the subject. The speaker conveys information about various 3 issues, among them there is another, arbitrary location that is associated with 4 a specific activity or custom of the subject. Why should the speaker provide 5 all this information if not asked? The answer to this question is the key to 6 understanding the Estonian absentive and perhaps to the absentive category in 7 general. I have established by now that the speaker provides the information 8 about the subject’s activity at an arbitrary but different location, because she 9 reacts to the conversational implicature. There is a request for this informa- 10 tion in a situation of expecting the presence of the subject. However, the ex- 11 amples offer ample evidence that a proper trigger of the conversational impli- 12 cature may be missing. We can find the absentive mas-construction in blogs 13 and reports without any dialogue or conversation going on; the interlocutor 14 may be imaginary. In (83), the blogger who is taking the minutes of the drink- 15 ing party reports to the potential readership that even the last party animal is 16 unavailable, off, because he has drunk himself under the table and fallen asleep. 17 In (77), the speaker uses the absentive mas-construction in the description of a 18 situation of absence. She is telling the parents of a child that she is not where 19 the parents would expect her to be but away and traveling. If the speaker ex- 20 pects the hearer to be curious about the absence of the subject, then she uses the 21 absentive mas-construction. This expectation about the hearer’s implicit re- 22 quest for information about the whereabouts of someone absent is a necessary 23 presupposition of the speaker who utters a sentence with the absentive mas- 24 construction. 25 The situation where the Estonian absentive is used can be compared to 26 the situation where the telephone rings, and you answer it by, for instance, 27 telling your name. The caller does not ask: What is your name? However, 28 you are doing so because you are already anticipating the caller’s interest 29 in your identity. You are expecting the caller to be uncertain if the phone 30 is picked up by the intended person; therefore, you are cooperative and help 31 the caller by telling your name without any explicit inquiries. In a situation 32 of calling, shared phones, and trust in the callers, you tell your name with- 33 out any advanced Theory of Mind, but as a matter of convention if you 34 are from a culture where names are told at the beginning of a phone call. 35 Crucially, this convention of telling your name has an origin in a situa- 36 tion where a Theory of Mind and an experience of social communication 37 via phones are necessary. You do not tell your name when answering a 38 door, because in the situation where you do not expect the visitor to be curi- 39 ous about your identity the custom of telling your name does not become 40 conventionalized. 41 The use of the absentive mas-construction is comparable to answering the 42 phone by telling your name. It comes about by means of similar processes and

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 920–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 920) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 921–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 921) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 921

1 contains the same elements: an expected implicit question (No Anna, I see / 2 Where is Anna?), and a conventionalized way of answering this question (Off 3 dancing). The implicit request for information is an implicature. This implica- 4 ture is triggered by anything that the speaker believes to be a sign of the hearer 5 expecting the subject’s presence: the hearer’s comment (No Anna, I see), her 6 facial expression of surprise looking at the empty desk, perhaps the speaker’s 7 knowledge about similar situations of people looking for Anna. That there is 8 such an expression of expectation about the subject’s presence that triggers the 9 implicature is in turn a presupposition that belongs to the utterance containing 10 the absentive mas-construction. The speaker reacts on the implicature, using 11 the mas-construction. The presupposition about the hearer’s request for infor- 12 mation may be triggered by rather abstract or even false expectations about 13 potential hearers, such as the possible interest of the parents about the where- 14 abouts of the babysitter who has left the child alone because she went to hike 15 in the Alps, or the curiosity of the readers of a blog on the formidable feats of 16 a bunch of drunkards. 17 In sum, the utterance with the mas-construction constrains the discourse 18 around it; it introduces a presupposition that, in turn, contains elements that 19 trigger an implicature. The speaker presupposes that the hearer expects the 20 subject to be present or available. The belief about the existence of the expecta- 21 tion triggers a conversational implicature of the hearer’s request for more in- 22 formation. The speaker wishes to provide the requested information about the 23 unexpected situation. If the speaker knows only the identity of the subject’s 24 activity, not the exact location, and if the exact location is not relevant either, 25 then she uses the absentive mas-construction. 26 27 4.4.3. Category or not? The question whether the absentive category exists 28 in Estonian does not belong to the burning questions of science today. How- 29 ever, the transparent nature of the data at present and in its historical develop- 30 ment, the available sources, and native expertise makes the study of the Esto- 31 nian absentive illuminating for other questions linguists are compelled to ask. 32 These questions concern the development of language, and the relationships 33 between general cognitive abilities interacting with grammaticalization (the 34 progressive) on the one hand and category formation based on social cogni- 35 tion, the conventionalization of interaction (the absentive), on the other. The 36 current stage of grammaticalization opens a window of opportunity for getting 37 a handle on more general issues than that of establishing the existence of a 38 category. Therefore, this section is devoted to the question of category-hood, 39 one-to-many form-meaning relationships, default meanings, and the question 40 of what we can understand as “form” and “meaning” on the example of the 41 mas-construction. The basic considerations that speak for the absentive cate- 42 gory follow:

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 922 A. Tamm

1 – The intuition is that the absentive is markedly different from the loca- 2 tive, the purposive, the progressive, and the imminential. 3 – The absentive mas-construction belongs to a set of locational verbal 4 meanings where two spatial points are involved, the deictic center and 5 another location. 6 – The use of the absentive is strongly associated with its defining proper- 7 ties that differentiate the absentive from the other readings (the locative, 8 the purposive, the progressive, and the imminential). 9 – The data discussed in the preceding sections have demonstrated the in- 10 dependence of the absentive interpretations. In addition, there is an ex- 11 tension of the absentive meaning to denote absence or unavailability in 12 discourse. 13 – Figure 1, which represents the overlap in the uses, shows that the absen- 14 tive combines the purposive, the locative, and the progressive. The ab- 15 sentive turns out to be, therefore, a central use in the cluster. 16 – The striking resemblance between the defining properties of the Dutch, 17 Hungarian, Italian, German, and Estonian absentives suggests that the 18 meaning of the Estonian absentive is not only clearly delineated but 19 has also been determined by universal factors and it is not merely a 20 language-specific development. 21 22 One way to represent multiple interpretations is the introduction of a de- 23 fault. Levinson (2000) discusses default meanings in terms of generalized 24 conversational implicatures (GCIs). A generalized implicature is a “default 25 inference, one that captures our intuitions about preferred or normal inter 26 pretation” (Levinson 2000: 11). A generalized conversational implicature is 27 inferable without reference to a special context, and it is a nonconventional 28 implicature based on a hearer’s assumption that the speaker is following the 29 conversational maxims. Generalized conversational implicatures are “hard 30 to distinguish from the semantic content of linguistic expressions, because 31 they are routinely associated with linguistic expressions in all ordinary con- 32 texts” (Levinson 1983: 127). Generalized conversational implicatures arise 33 by default when the relevant linguistic trigger is encountered. An instance 34 of a generalized conventional implicature of “Mary has three children” is 35 that Mary has exactly three children, not more. Strictly speaking, if Mary 36 has four children, she has also three children. The advantage of this ap- 37 proach is its intuitive nature; intuitively, the mas-construction is interpreted 38 as the absentive, unless other conditions overrule this interpretation. The 39 combination of an agentive verb and the mas-construction indeed triggers 40 the typical absentive cluster of meanings. However, there seem to be more 41 elaborate conditions involved in the composition of the absentive meaning in 42 Estonian.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 922–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 922) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 923–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 923) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 923

1 Chierchia and McGonnell-Ginet (2000: 356 –357) discuss various types of 2 meanings, among which are presuppositions that are simultaneously implica- 3 tures and backgrounded information in non-restrictive relative clauses that sur- 4 vives the presupposition test family but is intuitively not presupposition. The 5 latter may point to the need of a (partly) syntactic account. There are two types 6 of presupposition-implicatures. A sentence A may presuppose another sentence 7 B by means of a convention associated with the meaning of the sentence A 8 (conventional implicature) or by means of conversational dynamics (conversa- 9 tional implicature). The discussion of ‘but’, and other Grice’s conventional 10 implicatures and the claims that they are in fact presupposed (Chierchia and 11 McGonnell-Ginet 2000: 352–353) is relevant in the context of absentive mean- 68 12 ings but left for further study. In summary, questions about presuppositions, 13 conventional and conversational implicatures are relevant for the absentive 14 category, which shows that the absentives to not instantiate primarily aspectual 15 categories. 16 I am taking a step back to evaluate the debate started by Abraham (2007). If 17 we abandon the idea of the absentive as the aspectual category but view it as a 18 category that has more in common with another TAM category, such as modal- 19 ity, then we would expect the category to be defined by its situational context, 20 beliefs, and expectations of the participants in the situation. For instance, evi- 21 dentiality is also hatched on a very specific situational context, because several 22 TAM categories are not like the categories of gender or classifiers but depend 23 on the speakers and their knowledge, attitudes, and goals. An utterance con- 24 taining an indirect evidential constrains the situation where the utterer is medi- 25 ating the message uttered by another speaker at another temporal moment. If 26 the very specific situational context concerning another speaker of the utter- 27 ance and another temporal point does not hold, the indirect evidential is not 28 used. Therefore, the very specific situational context is part of the defining 29 properties of the category. In the evidentiality and the absentive type, the defin- 30 ing properties of the category fix the discourse conditions of use. 31 The progressive and the absentive are obviously related in Estonian, but 32 in my study, the purposive-locative element as well as stativity and temporal 33 boundedness of the situation that is present in the absentive use has possibly 34 shaped the structure of the Estonian progressive, yielding an unusual stative 35 and non-agentive type of progressive in a larger perspective. This is due to the 36 general stative nature of the locative expressions with the copula, locating an 37 entity in a bounded space at a specific moment of time. 38 The conclusion is that the data help in understanding the interfaces between 39 semantics, pragmatics, and syntax via grammaticalization that relies on gen- 40 eral cognitive mechanisms such as metonymy, and conventionalized social 41 interaction. However, the definitive implications for similar phenomena in 42 other languages with the absentive and the progressive are yet to come.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 924 A. Tamm

1 4.5. Some syntactic perspectives on the absentive-progressive question 2 3 Now it is possible to distinguish the characteristics of the progressive and the 4 absentive as expressed by a cross-categorial case construction and the syntac- 5 tic issues can be addressed. The absentives and progressives tend to appear in 6 mutually exclusive contexts in terms of verb class, pragmatic and discourse 7 configurational setting, so standard testing in equal conditions can be applied 8 only in restricted environments. Two principal reasons for assuming a syntac- 9 tic difference between clearly absentive and clearly progressive constructions 10 present themselves. One of the progressive environments defined by Metslang, 11 “polarization with locative adverbials,” is in fact syntactically quite telling. 12 The progressive and absentive constructions contrast in the place of a possible 13 adverb and the location of the mas-nonfinite. It is typical of the absentives 14 to have the word order of nominative subject — copular verb — mas-nonfinite 15 as in (93a) and (93b), while the progressive interpretation emerges typically 16 in sentences where the nominative argument follows the copular verb, as in 17 (93c). 18 19 (93) a. Anna on tantsi-mas. s m ine 20 Anna be.3 dance- _ 21 ‘Anna is off dancing.’ 22 (Vogel 2007: 270) 23 b. . . . teise-d olid kõik pidu pida-mas. pl pst pl ptv m ine 24 other- be- .3 all feast. hold- _ 25 ‘. . . everybody else was off partying.’ 26 (Pajusalu and Orav 2008: 115) 27 c. Õhu-s on helju-ma-s piparkooki-de ja röstitud ine s m ine gen pl 28 air- be.3 float- - gingerbread- . and roasted 29 mandli-te magusvürtsikas lõhn . . . gen pl nom nom 30 almond- . sweet and spicy[ ] scent[ ] 31 ‘In the air is spreading the sweet and spicy smell of gingerbread 32 and roasted almonds . . .’ 33 While in a sentence with an absentive the location of the adverbs and the mas- 34 nonfinite is not restricted, as in Examples (94a)–(94c), this is less acceptable 35 with progressives as in (94d). Example (94d) may show that there are dis- 36 course pragmatic constraints on the syntactic structure associated with the 37 progressive. 38 39 (94) Standard Estonian 40 a. ?Uju-mas on Mari. 41 swim-m_ine be.3s M[nom] 42 ‘Mary is the one who is off swimming.’

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 924–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 924) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 925–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 925) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 925

1 b. ?Täna on uju-mas Mari. 2 today be.3s swim-m_ine M[nom] 3 ‘Today, Mary is off swimming.’ 4 c. Nüüd on ka 13 maga-mas 5 now be.3s also 13[nom] sleep-m_ine 6 ‘Now, even Thirteen is asleep . . .’ 7 d. */%Helju-mas on piparkookide ja röstitud 8 float-m_ine be.3s gingerbread-gen.pl and roasted 9 mandlite magusvürtsikas lõhn . . . 10 almond-gen.pl sweet and spicy[nom] scent[nom] 11 ‘The sweet and spicy smell of gingerbread and roasted almonds is 12 spreading . . .’ 13 14 Many other discourse-related factors influence the word order differences in 15 progressives and absentives, but the coordination data also make a difference 16 between sentences with absentive and progressive interpretation. While coor- 17 dination with the mas-nonfinite and a locative adverbial is possible with the 18 absentive interpretation, as in (95a), this is impossible with the progressive 19 interpretation as illustrated in (95b). 20 (95) Standard Estonian 21 a. ?Mari on uju-mas ja koolis. 22 M[nom] be.3s swim-m_ine and school-ine 23 ‘Mary is off swimming and at school.’ 24 b. #/*Röstitud mandlite ja piparkookide 25 roasted almond-gen.pl and gingerbread-gen.pl 26 magusvürtsikas lõhn on helju-mas ja 27 sweet.and.spicy[nom] scent[nom] be.3s float-m_ine and 28 õhus . . . 29 air-ine 30 (Not interpretable: ‘The smell of gingerbread and roasted almonds 31 is spreading and in the air. . . .’) 32 33 The progressive interpretation appears when the inessive nonfinite seems to 34 have less nominal-like meanings than it has in an absentive sentence. The 35 nonfinite in the absentive sentence is at some level of syntax still like a PP, 36 even if it has lost all other noun-like properties. The progressive interpreta- 37 tion emerges in sentences where the inessive nonfinite has more properties 38 of verbs, since its coordination with a PP is impossible. The absentive inter 39 pretation is in sentences where the nonfinite has more nominal properties, 40 since the coordination with a PP is possible even if the coordination is ac 41 companied by slightly zeugmatic effects. In sum, the progressive-absentive 42 distinction is reinforced by structural differences as well, since the meaning

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 926 A. Tamm

1 of nonfinites combines noun-like (absentive) and verb-like (progressive) 2 characteristics. 3 4 5 4.6. Summary of Section 4 6 7 This section has pointed out that what has been referred to as the absentive in 8 previous sources does not exist according to the definitional properties of the 9 absentive as a category in terms of entailments, but this fact may be due to the 10 discourse-related nature of the category. The location or discourse availability 11 of the subject does not correspond to the expectation — this was found to be 12 the essence of being absent in Estonian. 13 On the basis of the examples, progressive can be regarded as the extension 14 of the purposive and imminential meanings, but only if purposivity is under- 15 stood as mediated purposivity. Absentive is clearly co-occurring with purpo- 16 sive meanings in most instances. Progressive and absentive exclude each other 17 in stative environments as well and can be considered different developments. 18 Estonian can provide a handle on understanding other languages in their 19 earlier stages of grammaticalization, since it shows an intermediate stage in the 20 development of a variety of locative meanings into a variety of aspectual- 21 temporal meanings. The goal of the section was to exemplify the semantic 22 space of the absentive in Estonian, and by doing so, to present a new perspec- 23 tive on the semantics of spatial cases, the hybrid meaning of nonfinites be- 24 tween nouns and verbs, and the relationship between spatial and temporal 25 grammatical meanings. 26 27 28 5. Concluding remarks 29 30 In this article I have proposed a new term, cross-categorial case, and shown its 31 usefulness in discussing the semantics of nominal marking in the verbal do- 32 main. I have suggested to research case, verbal categories, and nonfiniteness 33 from the viewpoint of case semantics, and I have implemented this approach to 34 case in Finnic. Demonstrating the regular parallels between the Finnic nominal 35 and verbal (nonfinite) case, I have drawn attention to the need for a broader 36 view on case systems than previously assumed and shown the merits of this 37 approach. 38 From the diachronic perspective, cross-categorial marking and cross- 39 categorial case are widely spread. Earlier literature has documented two large 40 areas in grammar where case combines with verbs. Firstly, infinitives are fre- 41 quently lative (allative) case forms of verbs at the initial stage of their develop- 42 ment. Secondly, spatial cases are attested to grammaticalize temporal relations

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 926–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 926) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 927–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 927) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 927

1 across languages. Recent research has drawn attention to verbal or versatile 2 case that appears in the verbal paradigm (e.g., Aikhenvald 2008; Blake 2001; 3 Butt 2006; Spencer 2009). Cases mark bare stems, nonfinite verbs, or inflected 4 verbs, serve as clause linkers, and encode tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) (e.g., 5 in Ket, Manambu, Kalaw Lagaw Ya). Unusual TAM marking by nominal case 6 has also been attested in many languages (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004). How- 7 ever, the evidence for the gradual loss of the original transparent and system- 8 atic spatial and temporal correspondences has been scarce, since languages 9 that display regular cross-categorial case paradigms are difficult to access and 10 tend to have only few historical records and corpora. Therefore, apart from the 11 recent surge in typological interest, the research agenda of cross-categorial 12 case has been relatively neglected. An in-depth analysis of a rich and transpar- 13 ent cross-categorial case system in an accessible and living language was miss- 14 ing. Now the results of earlier research scattered over various sources on case 15 semantics, nominalization, and TAM categories could be united in a study of 16 cross-categorial case. 17 Concerning case, its extensive relationships with TAM and other functional 18 categories, such as negation and evidentiality have been established in this ar- 19 ticle. The Finnic examples have shown that case (or at least the semantic effect 20 of the formants corresponding to case) goes beyond verbal lexical semantics, 21 grammatical relations and word order, since case pertains to event relation- 22 ships outside the verbal lexical semantics, sequencing events before or after 23 each other, and combining the temporal and spatial interpretations. Case en- 24 codes predicate semantics beyond grammatical relations, since it pertains to 25 categories such as the progressive and the absentive, negation, evidentiality 26 and epistemic modality, and has little to do with word order in the Finnic lan- 27 guages, which are largely discourse configurational. 28 The examples have shown that case formants on some Finnic nonfinites in- 29 deed resemble the marking of the type of relationship that dependent nouns 30 bear to their heads. However, in addition, cross-categorial case marks a much 31 wider range of relationships. The impossibility of adjectival modification has 32 demonstrated that the categories that bear case do not have all properties of 33 nouns but are more verb-like. The nonfinites function as complements and 34 adjuncts but also as verbal or non-verbal predicates. It is not only the relation- 35 ship between the head and the dependent that is encoded by these forms, but 36 several other categories are expressed as well. 37 I have united the results of the studies on atypical case with the study of 38 the development of TAM categories and infinitives. Previous scholarship 39 has established the coexistence of spatial and temporal meaning in locative 40 expressions and the fact that some infinitives and the progressive are typically 41 developed from verbal constructions with locative cases or adpositions. The 42 bleaching of the locative meaning motivates the cross-linguistically attested

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 928 A. Tamm

1 development of locatives into progressives (Bybee et al. 1994) and the devel- 2 opment of infinitives (Haspelmath 1989). However, various obstacles have 3 prevented insight into the TAM and verbal case in rare or dead languages; 4 typically, only rather limited case systems have been described. I have shown 5 that verbal case phenomena can be compared to combinations of adpositions 6 and verbs in the Indo-European languages (as in go to swim). The difference 7 between Finnic and the Indo-European instances resides in regularity. In the 8 Indo-European languages discussed, the links between the nominal and verbal 9 systems are irregular, the combinations in the verbal systems are fossilized, 10 and the locative meaning has disappeared. I have shown that the Finnic lan- 11 guages are special in using spatial case in the verbal domain in a systematic 12 way. The Estonian construction with the illative (‘into’) denotes a spatial or 13 temporal transition to the NP referent or to the event denoted by the predicate 14 or an event-related location. The construction with the inessive (‘within’) de- 15 notes a spatial or temporal location within the NP referent or in an event de- 16 noted by the predicate or in an event-related location. The construction with 17 the elative (‘from’) denotes a spatial or temporal transition from the NP refer- 18 ent or from an event denoted by the predicate or from an event-related location. 19 The focus was on the Estonian inessive (‘within’) case, which has the richest 20 range of meanings. Inessive nonfinite constructions denote the progressive 21 (‘being within an event’) as well as the absentive. The space-time correspon- 22 dences are regular in the Finnic combinations of nonfinites and spatial cases. 23 The study has confirmed previous observations that several languages en- 24 code absentives by means of an infinitive, and that the modal meanings of in- 25 finitives are shaped by their origin as case constructions during the stages of 26 their evolution. However, the study of the Finnic system has provided evidence 27 from a much richer spatial and non-spatial case system shaping various infini- 28 tival and TAM meanings and forms; the infinitives do not develop necessarily 29 on the basis of the allative. The factor of the richness of the case system ex- 30 plains the wider range of semantic meanings expressed by the nonfinites in the 31 infinitival or TAM systems. 32 The study has shown that the case paradigms of Finnic nonfinites derive 33 from paradigms of deverbal nominalizations but cannot be regarded as para- 34 digms of nouns any more at present. Finnic has a wide variety of in-between 35 categories combining nominal and verbal syntactic and semantic properties 36 within the context of a rich case system. It could be shown on the basis of 37 variation data and diachronic data that in the process of the emergence of ver- 38 bal infinitive system, some cases have fallen out of use. The cases that have 39 remained have typically developed more abstract meanings, such as the loca- 40 tives and the core cases, especially the partitive. The locative cases are the 41 most frequent in the Finnic cross-categorial system, appearing as part of sev- 42 eral nonfinites and instantiating temporal relations. The cross-categorial parti-

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 928–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 928) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 929–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 929) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 929

1 tive can boast with the widest range of meanings: aspect, epistemic modality, 2 indirect evidentiality, and irrealis. The translative is another frequent cross- 3 categorial case in the Finnic system, expressing action as a purpose or a goal. 4 Some cases are more stable or rigid in their cross-categorial behavior than 5 others. The Finnic inessive and the partitive are the best examples to examine 6 how the various degrees on the nominal-verbal scale are related to the diverg- 7 ing effects in grammaticalization. The article has shown how prominent the 8 spatial case is compared to other cases in terms of combining with nonfinites 9 and serving as the basis for TAM categories. 10 The semantics of the case turned out to be a relevant factor for bleaching. 11 While locative cases tend to bleach on the basis of space-time contiguity, other 12 cases are rather stable in their meaning across categories. The abessive nomi- 13 nal marker, which expresses negation, is for instance transparent in the verbal 14 domain. I have observed that the Finnic nonfinites containing cross-categorial 15 case display cross-linguistic variation of the syntactic properties that determine 16 their similarity to verbs in contrast to nouns. Across Finnic languages, the ines- 17 sive and the partitive give rise to more variation than the other cases in the 18 inventory. 19 Despite the presence of the nominalizing formatives and case formatives, it 20 could be shown that the resulting forms are not nominalized verbs (verbal 21 nouns) at present, although their coordination syntax retains their behavior as 22 case-marked nouns for some of them. In other instances, the forms behave as 23 verbs. A detailed example of the inessive m-formative nonfinite has shown that 24 the coordination test fails when the purely progressive meaning is expressed. 25 Therefore, it could be demonstrated that the development in the meaning is 26 also paralleled by structural changes in syntax. The progressive and the absen- 27 tive constructions in Estonian have an identical form, but the progressive inter- 28 pretation emerges in sentences where the nonfinite has more verbal properties, 29 whereas the absentive interpretation emerges in sentences where the nonfinite 30 has more nominal properties. This finding is important, since it demonstrates 31 that the presence of the nominalizer and the case formants are not necessarily 32 the indicators of the nominal nature of the forms in question. 33 Finiteness, nonfiniteness, and nominalizations have been examined from the 34 viewpoint of the form’s regularity in combining with case. The data have con- 35 firmed the usefulness of approaches where the distinction between finite and 36 nonfinite is split up into different tiers of properties. The Finnic nonfinites have 37 demonstrated that case and the relationship denoted by case is preserved long 38 after the other nominal syntactic properties have been lost in the process of 39 acquiring verbal properties. This curious fact can be motivated by the flexibil- 40 ity of the case in denoting spatial as well as other relationships. 41 The rich case system of the Finnic languages combined with several types of 42 nonfinites has given an opportunity to observe several stages of the process

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 930 A. Tamm

1 where case becomes integrated with an infinitive system. In the synchronic 2 system of the Finnic spatial case, it can be seen now that many changes are 3 under way, for instance, the progressive is gaining ground. The study of Finnic 4 confirmed the cross-linguistically attested pattern of locative expressions giv- 5 ing rise to the progressive, but this process has not resulted in a clear category 6 in Finnic. Finnish has the clearest examples of the progressive, and in Estonian 7 there are instances of the progressive that cannot be classified under the absen- 8 tive, purposive, locative, or imminential either. The examination of the data 9 also confirmed the previous findings that the Finnic progressives are primarily 10 stative. 11 The elusive relationship between the absentive and the progressive has be- 12 come clearer on the basis of the data from Estonian. The progressive meanings 13 are a recent development in Finnic, while the locative-purposive use in dis- 14 course constitutes the core of the meaning of the mas-construction. The use of 15 the locative-purposive mas-construction in discourse has become crystallized 16 in the absentive, while the temporal-spatial metonymy has given rise to the 17 progressive extension. The Finnic development of the absentive and the pro- 18 gressive on the basis of an identical spatial case construction is a rare phenom- 19 enon. The origin of the partly similar progressive and absentive constructions 20 in some Germanic languages may be different and the constructions may be 21 unrelated at present, the progressive proper (the continuous progressive) being 22 based on a nominalization (verbal noun) and the absentive (stative progres- 23 sive) on an infinitive. 24 An examination of grammars, a corpus study, and testing has shown that 25 the spatial and temporal meanings of the Estonian nonfinitemas- constructions 26 correspond to differences in syntax. The Estonian progressive has patterns 27 with more verb-like syntactic behavior, and the absentive corresponds to more 28 noun-like syntactic behavior. This is exactly the opposite compared to the Ger- 29 manic examples. Therefore, the nature of the nonfiniteness type has no bearing 30 upon the type of category. 31 The weak point in earlier attempts at defining the absentive as a category 32 was the cancelability of the properties that define the category, and the tacit 33 or overt assumption that the absentive category is an aspectual category. The 34 analysis of Estonian has shown that the progressive reading emerges simply as 35 a by-product of the stative component of the absentive cluster of the mas- 36 construction. The Estonian progressive expressed by the mas-construction is 37 compatible with the absentive, since the Estonian progressive it is not a proto- 38 typical continuous, dynamic, and durative progressive, but a stative one. 39 In establishing the category, I have proposed to concentrate on the situation 40 of perceiving and communicating absence instead of the temporal-aspectual 41 features of the absentive. The Estonian absentive is based on the use of a verbal 42 noun as a locative expression in discourse. More specifically, the absentive has

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 930–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 930) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 931–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 931) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 931

1 grammaticalized the situation of perceiving the interlocutor’s need for infor- 2 mation about the whereabouts of an expected other discourse participant who 3 is found to be absent at a specific moment in time. A sentence with the absen- 4 tive construction has a presupposition that the subject is expected to be at the 5 deictic center of the discourse; the implicature is that the discourse participant 6 is requiring information about it from the other discourse participant who ulti- 7 mately ends up as the utterer of the sentence with the mas-construction. The 8 assertion is that the subject is absent from the deictic center. Being absent is 9 more precisely being unavailable as an active discourse participant in the Esto- 10 nian absentive. The absentive comprises the following implicatures in Esto- 11 nian: the subject is involved in an activity, it is predictable how long the subject 12 will be absent, and the subject will return after a period of time. This analysis 13 classifies the absentive among other categories that encode conditions of social 14 interaction. Concentrating on the social cognitive intersubjective perception of 15 absence as the defining property of the category resulted in an analys of the 16 absentive not as part of the aspectual category, but as a category that has more 17 in common with categories such as indirect evidentiality. In categories of the 18 evidential and the absentive type, the defining properties of the category fix the 19 discourse conditions of use. These conditions may become optional because of 20 the communicative goal of the speaker to present a situation in a particular 21 manner. 22 Since the Estonian progressive has not developed into a category yet but its 23 use is gaining ground, I have recorded the details of the relationships between 24 the meanings and the syntactic properties of the progressive and the absentive, 25 sketching them in Figure 1. In my approach, the locative element as well as 26 stativity and temporal boundedness of the situation have shaped the structure 27 of the Estonian progressive, yielding an unusual stative non-agentive type of 28 progressive. This is due to the general stative nature of the locative expressions 29 with the copula, locating an entity in a bounded space at a specific moment of 30 time. 31 This article has shifted the focus of interest from the morphosyntactic mat- 32 ters of case on verbs to the semantics and pragmatics of the phenomenon. 33 Since nonfinite case system in Finnic is regular and related to the marking of 34 modality, negation, tense, and aspect, I have proposed to regard case as an ab- 35 stract notion of marking in a wider array of categories. Concentrating on the 36 Finnic data, I could give more detailed empirical data to illustrate my proposal. 37 38 39 6. Summing up 40 41 I have proposed a study of TAM categories from the viewpoint of case seman- 42 tics. The well-known Indo-European languages as well as many rare and

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 932 A. Tamm

1 understudied ones (Kalaw Lagaw Ya, Ket, Manambu, Kayardild) display nom- 2 inal case that also occurs on verbs or as part of verb forms. In order to refer to 3 nominal marking and case that determines the semantics of predicate catego- 4 ries, I have proposed the terms cross-categorial marking and cross-categorial 5 case. 6 Finnic has a rich cross-categorial case system. Finnic languages are unique 7 because of their large case inventories of around 20 cases; in addition, they 8 have an elaborate system of nonfinites combining various properties of 9 nominals and verbs. This combination gives rise to a whole system of cross- 10 categorial case in Finnic, where the meanings of cases are bleached to different 11 extents and where the nonfinites display a variety of properties on the nominal- 12 verbal scale. Spatial cases encode the parallel spatial and temporal semantics 13 of source, goal, and location. The Finnic examples could show how the case 14 markers in a rich nonfinite system retain or lose their original meaning along- 15 side with the development of the functional categories, such as tense, aspect, 16 modality, evidentiality, or negation. 17 Examining the structures of the TAM categories from the viewpoint of case 18 semantics and the pragmatics of case-marked expressions in discourse has 19 been rewarding for understanding Finnic TAM categories. Several language- 20 specific peculiarities in the categories could be accounted for. The peculiar 21 feature of the Finnic inessive nonfinite constructions is their ability to express 22 the progressive and the absentive. The proposed analysis has established that 23 the progressive belongs to the unusual stative and non-agentive types, and this 24 is the reason why it can have the same form with the absentive in Finnic. The 25 defining properties of the Estonian absentive turned out to be similar to the 26 already established defining properties of the absentive in other European lan- 27 guages. The in-depth study into the nature of these properties suggests that the 28 absentive category resembles categories such as indirect evidentiality, because 29 both categories fix the discourse situational conditions as part of the category’s 30 defining properties. In sum, despite cross-linguistic differences, the TAM cat- 31 egories based on cross-categorial cases are determined by the case semantics 32 in the nominal domain. 33 34 Received 4 February 2009 Università degli Studi di Firenze 35 Revised version received 01 May 2010 36 37 38 Notes 39

40 1. I acknowledge the support of the grant OTKA PD 73826 of Hungarian Scientific Research 41 Fund, for Section 3, the grant SF0050023s09 of the Estonian Science Foundation. My warm- 42 est thanks go to Helen de Hoop and Sander Lestrade for their work and for inviting me to join

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 932–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 932) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 933–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 933) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 933

1 their intriguing and rewarding workshop and the special issue on “Spatial Case”. I have 2 profited from the discussions with the organizers and participants of this workshop, as well as of the following workshops: LFG 2008, CHRONOS 2009, “Finiteness and non-finiteness 3 in Finno-Ugric languages. Synchronic, diachronic and cross-modular issues”, “Finiteness 4 and Non-Finiteness II”, “Non-finite phenomena in Finnic”, “Mood and modality inthe 5 Uralic languages”, “Primavera Ugrofinnica”, and the kick-off meeting of the Uralic Data- 6 base Project. I am grateful for the discussions, field work materials, and other written sources 7 sent by Tatiana Agranat, Alexandra Aikhenvald, Ágnes Bende-Farkas, Östen Dahl, Bart Geurts, Casper de Groot, Sulev Iva, Marje Joalaid, Ferenc Kiefer, Katalin É. Kiss, Aet 8 Lees, Ora Matushansky, Helle Metslang, Iris Metsmägi, Tatiana Nikitina, Tiina Onikki- 9 Rantajääskö, Jaan Õispuu, Fedor Rozhanskiy, Heete Sahkai, Balázs Surányi, Gabriella 10 Tóth, Petra Vogel, and Bernhard Wälchli. I am indebted to Aet Lees and John Harbord, 11 who have offered numerous useful comments on the style of the manuscript. I appreciate 12 greatly the work of two anonymous reviewers and the editor Ann Kelly. The page for further remarks on the issue, glossing, and possible errata is . Correspondence address: Dipartimento di Filologia Moderna, 14 Università degli Studi di Firenze Via S. Reparata, 93-95 50129 Firenze (FI), Italy. E-mail: 15 [email protected] 16 2. The University of Helsinki has started a large-scale research into the Finnish nonfinites, but 17 the results are still pending. Therefore, I have minimized the discussion of Finnish, apart from the oral presentations by Leino (2009) and Onikki-Rantajääskö (2011) that are directly 18 relevant for the focus of this paper. 19 3. Nikolaeva (2007) and Malchukov (2006) can be consulted for the interaction between sev- 20 eral levels of grammar in finiteness and nominalization. This discussion is relevant for the 21 understanding of mixed categories (Bresnan 1997), but since the term is understood differ- 22 ently by various scholars, I confine myself to mentioning this fact only. 4. http://www.glottopedia.de/index.php/Absentive. 23 5. Between the first and last draft of the article, the status of one of these languages, Livonian, 24 has turned from “moribund” to “dead” with the death of the last local native speaker in Feb- 25 ruary 2009. 26 6. “Baltic” in the name of the language group refers to the territory around the Baltic Sea and 27 not the Indo-European, Baltic languages. 7. The phenomenon of prepositions and nonfinites is not confined to the well-known Romance 28 and Germanic languages. For instances in Albanian see Manzini and Savoia (2003). 29 8. The glossing follows the Leipzig glossing rules. Specific details about additional glossing 30 decisions of this article are provided on the website and the added abbreviations are as follows: abe acc/tot 32 — abessive; — the morphological genitive or nominative as an aspectual object case; act.pst.ptcp — active past participle, the nud-form; ade — adessive; ag.ptcp 33 — agent participle; all — allative; cond — conditional; dir — directional; ela — elative; 34 ep_mod — epistemic modal; ess — essive; ill — illative; ill_dir — illative-directional; imp 35 — imperative; indir — indirect; indir_evid — indirect evidential; ine — inessive; ine_dir 36 — inessive-directional; ins — instrumental; ips — impersonal; ipf — imperfective; lk — m abe 37 linker; _ — m-formative abessive nonfinite (the ‘mata-infinitive’), the abessive participle; m_ela — m-formative elative nonfinite form (the ‘mast-infinitive’); m_ill — m- 38 formative illative nonfinite form, the supine (the ‘ma-infinitive’), m_ine — m-formative ines- 39 sive nonfinite form (the ‘mas-infinitive’); m_nom — m-formative nominative form; pers — 40 personal, ptv — partitive, ptv_evid — partitive evidential, pot — potential, prop — proprietive, 41 prs — present, prt — particle, pst — past, ptcp — participle, t_inf — t-formative nonfinite t ine 42 form (the Estonian ‘da-infinitive’, the Finnish e-infinitive), _ — t-formative inessive

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 934 A. Tamm

1 nonfinite form (the ‘gerundive’);term — terminative; tot — total (semantic accusative); tra pass pst ptcp / 2 — translative (transformative); . . — passive impersonal past participle, the tud- participle; 5inf — the form as in the Finnish tradition for the propinquative the ‘about to’ 3 form, as in kuolemaisillaan ‘about to die’. Evaluations of ill-formedness try to classify the 4 judgments by the following signs: “*” grammatically unacceptable, violates a syntactic or a 5 morphological rule, “#” semantically unacceptable, “%” pragmatically unacceptable, vio- 6 lates a Gricean maxim, “?” odd use, rather context-dependent, “??” possible, but not likely 7 to be found in native productive texts. 9. A note on glossing is in order, since it is representative of the analysis of case and nonfinites 8 advocated by this approach; the case-based glossing differentiates it from previous accounts. 9 In the nonfinites across Finnic that are targeted in this article, the verb stem precedes the 10 historical nominalizing formative, such as -m(a)-, which is followed by a case formative, 11 such as inessive or elative (Laanest 1975: 137–138). The glosses contain the identification m ine 12 for these formatives. For instance, the glossing “verb- _ ” is applied uniformly to the so- called Estonian “mas-forms”, as in uju-ma-s ‘swimming’, which are also referred to as “in- 13 finitives” or “supines” (Erelt et al. 1993) and the Finnish “third infinitive inessives”, as in 14 ui-ma-ssa ‘swimming’, and in the general Finnic tradition. The glosses contain the transla- 15 tion of the verb stem, the identification of the m-formant and the inessive case formant or 16 formants. The goal of glossing is to reflect better than the previously applied labels referring 17 to semantically void and morphologically unanalyzable “infinitives”, how the Finnic languages encode predicate semantics symmetrically by spatial case. 18 10. I am grateful to Fedor Rozhanskiy and Elena Markus for providing the Votic and Ingrian 19 fieldwork data and for discussing them with me. 20 11. http://www.folklore.ee/rl/pubte/ee/setu/laul/laul2/x/2.html 21 12. http://www.folklore.ee/rl/pubte/ee/setu/laul/laul2/x/2.html // / / / / 22 13. http: opastajat.net opastus grammar lessons urokku041.html 14. http://opastajat.net/opastus/grammar/lessons/urokku039.html 23 15. http://opastajat.net/opastus/grammar/lessons/urokku040.html 24 16. The Karelian example (14) is found on the Internet, accessed at January 1, 2010 at . For further answers to the questionnaire, explanations 26 and elicitation of the Karelian data, I am grateful to Matti Saveljev. 27 17. The following languages have more than 10 cases in WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chuk- chi, Epena Pedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, In- 28 gush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nung- 29 gubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, and Udmurt (Iggesen 2008). 30 18. A critical note about the exact number of cases is in order, since the criteria applied for case- 31 hood differ across Uralic sources. One of the differences concerns productivity, most ac- 32 counts do not include the nonproductive cases such as vocative. Other sources explicitly state both cases, for instance, Võro is described as having 13 productive and 3 nonproduc- 33 tive cases (Iva 2007: 41), Eastern Mari with 8 productive and 3 nonproductive cases 34 (Kangasmaa-Minn 1998: 226). The number of cases varies considerably in the dialects 35 of Khanty (3–11, the alignment system has variants, e.g. the Khanty Vakh dialect has an 36 ergative-accusative alignment) and Mansi (6 –7) (Honti 1998: 343) and some sources do not 37 state the exact dialect. Variation in registering the number of cases occurs due to case syncre- tism. Many languages, especially the Finnic ones, have an object case that may be referred 38 to as “accusative” in the system, but they have no morphological accusative formant in the 39 present-day variants; therefore, Sámi languages are described having systems with 6 –9 cases 40 (Inari, Pite, Skolt Sámi 9 or 8, Southern Sámi 8 or 7, Lule Sámi 7, Northern Sami 7 or 6 (cf. 41 Sammallahti 1998). Political minority status may result in a different number of cases in one

42 language; for instance, Meänkieli has two cases less than Standard Finnish, which has 15

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 934–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 934) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 935–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 935) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 935

1 cases (VISK § 81). Grammatical analysis matters as well, since the distinction between clit- 2 ics, inflection, derivation, and postpositions is not uniformly treated. Veps with its various recently agglutinated postpositional cases is a challenging example (Grünthal 2005, Tikka 3 1992). Hungarian with its 17–28 cases is an equally challenging instance. It has been argued 4 that most of the 18 cases are rather postpositions or adverbs (Kiefer 1987, Spencer 2008, 5 Surányi 2009, de Groot 2009). Spencer (2008: 35) notes that the Hungarian case markers are 6 fused postpositions, and what is referred to as ‘case’ are understood as canonical grammati- 7 cal function markers on dependents. Surányi (2009) gives an adverbial analysis of the Hun- garian phenomenon of preverbs that resemble case in their form and are therefore possible 8 instances of cross-categorial case (e.g., note that the preverbal telicizers i be-ment a kert-be 9 ‘entered the garden,’ rá-lépett a kavics-ra ‘stepped on a stone’). In most Uralic languages, 10 several factors combine, as in Votic or Veps. The Votic dialect reported by Tsvetkov (2008: 11 27) presents an inventory identical to that of Estonian (the only caveat being that the gram- 12 mar is written by an educated native speaker without formal training in linguistics), consisting of 14 cases; the additional unproductive exessive and instructive, and the accusative ob- 13 ject case are recorded in the dialect studied by Ariste (1968: 17). Erzya Mordvin has 12 and 14 Moksha Mordvin 13 cases (Zaicz 1998: 192–194), Udmurt 16 cases (Riese 1998: 268), 15 Komi has 18 cases (Riese 1998: 268), Komi Permyak has 17 cases (Lytkin et al. 1962: 184) 16 and more cases have developed in modern Komi Permyak (Larisa Ponomareva, p.c.), Tundra 17 Nenets 7 (Salminen 1998: 537), Kamas 7 (Szimoncsics 1998: 586), Nganasan 8–11 (Helim- ski 1998a: 496), Selkup 13 (Helimski 1998b: 560 –561), Veps 22–23 (Viitso 1998), Karelian 18 12–16 (Markianova 2002), Ingrian more than 10 (Viitso 1998). 19 19. Here a note of warning is in its place. In some languages, as in Archi (Kibrik et al. 1977: 59), 20 the term translative has a different meaning, that of ‘along, through’. Kibrik’s concept of 21 translative is referred to in the Finno-Ugric languages as prolative, and yet in other lan- 22 guages, as perlative, prosecutive, traversal, vialis, and mediative. Hungarian has the term ‘transformative’ for a case with similar semantic content with the Finnic translative. The al- 23 ternative case labels are provided in parenthesis and obtained from Haspelmath (2009: 512– 24 517). 25 20. Terms used for similar categories: caritive, privative, anticomitative or deprivative. 26 21. In addition, one could weakly argue that the comitative and the abessive are also related to 27 spatial relations, since they frequently denote the spatial co-occurrence or the lack of spatial co-occurrence of more than one entity. If we count the rare partitive uses that are still inter- 28 pretable as an instance of separative, we could also weakly argue for another partially spatial 29 case. The difference between the elative and the partitive as spatial cases concerns the iden- 30 tity of the spatially separated matters or entities. In case of the partitive, the separated matters 31 are the same (part-of x is x), whereas the separated matter marked with the elative can be 32 identical with the source, but by default it is different (something taken out of x may be x or y). This paper does not discuss these rarer cases as spatial cases. 33 22. The wide-spread use of negative nonfinite verb forms (negative converbs) is also a common 34 feature of Uralic. Negation is expressed most generally by an inflected negative auxiliary and 35 a negative converb that is not inflected for person and number. More information can be 36 obtained from the database by Bradley et al. (2009). 37 23. Here are more suggestions for further reading on the syntax and history of the Estonian nonfinite forms: Erelt et al. (1993), Erelt (1985), Uuspõld (1966, 1989), Habicht (2001a, 2001b). 38 24. See the list of Finnish nonfinite forms in VISK § 490; see Finnish case-marked m-formative 39 nonfinite forms at § 121. 40 25. For a more detailed discussion, see Koskinen (1998: 324) on the syntactic, verbal, and nom- 41 inal properties of the m-formative nonfinite forms in Finnish. Many properties, such as the

42 modification by verb-oriented adverbs, or appearing in noun position, hold for Estonian

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 936 A. Tamm

1 as well. However, as a difference, Estonian has a passive counterpart of the m-formative 2 illative nonfinite verbs, and the Estonian nonfinite verbs cannot assign aspectual case on their objects (only partitive is possible). Estonian m-formative nonfinite verbs do not inflect for 3 number. Since Estonian has no possessive suffixes, they do not appear on nonfinite forms 4 either. 5 26. These are lexicalized nominalizations, as a test for which I propose a phonological compari- 6 son between the verbal and nominal forms, exemplified here by the translative forms of the 7 Estonian verb lööma ‘hit’. The translative that has derived from the lexicalized nominalization, as in läks löö-ma-ks ‘a fight started’ has different phonological qualities — the vowelö 8 has the second vowel gradation of the 3 possible length gradations, more specifically, that of 9 a monosyllabic similar noun such as loom ‘animal’ — loomaks ‘into (the quality of ) an ani- 10 mal’. This property stands in stark contrast with the nonfinite translative, as in löömaks 11 vaenlast ‘in order to hit the enemy’, where the vowel has the third gradation (indicated in 12 the word with underlining, it is pronounced with “superlong” quality). The translative m-formative forms can be distinguished on the basis of morphophonology, depending on 13 whether they are formed on the basis of a verbal (third gradation) or a nominal base (second 14 gradation), and are, therefore, derivationally different. 15 27. http:// kodima.1accesshost.com/ kodima/110/3.htm 16 28. http://www.hot.ee/fotoleht/nugiseks_00.htm // / / / / 17 29. http: www.tietysti.fi fi T TietystiUutiset Suomalaisten-loytama-proteiini-selventaa-syovan- syntymekanismeja/ 18 30. For a more detailed discussion, see Koskinen (1998: 324) on the syntactic, verbal, and nom- 19 inal properties of the m-formative nonfinite forms in Finnish. Many properties, such as the 20 modification by verb-oriented adverbs, or appearing in noun position, hold for Estonian 21 as well. However, as a difference, Estonian has a passive counterpart of the m-formative 22 illative nonfinite verbs, and the Estonian nonfinite verbs cannot assign aspectual case on their objects (only partitive is possible). Estonian m-formative nonfinite verbs do not inflect for 23 number. Since Estonian has no possessive suffixes, they do not appear on nonfinite forms 24 either. 25 31. http://foorum.twstr.ee/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7554 26 32. The spatial use of the forms is asymmetric. According to recent corpus statistics, the illative 27 nonfinite occurred 108 times, the inessive one 28 times in contrast to the elative nonfinite, which occurred only once (Pajusalu and Orav 2008: 118–119). 28 33. Aet Lees points out that the original has ǖd ‘one’. 29 34. See Tamm (forthcoming) for an analysis of the event structural differences between the 30 m-formative illative and the d-formative nonfinite verbs in permissive constructions. 31 35. http:// kassartur.blogspot.com/2009/11/artur-kui-tulevane-ema.html // / / 32 36. http: paber.ekspress.ee viewdoc E3561844E1B6DBBCC2256CA8003920A1 37. http://www.umaleht.ee/index.php?leht=4190&keel=147 33 38. http://www.wi.ee/img/picture/Voro_Instituudi_toimondusoq_22.pdf 34 39. For more discussion and examples from Votic the reader is referred to Agranat (2009). 35 40. Extent is understood here as type frequency. Inessive has emerged in three different verb 36 forms in the variants and history of Estonian. The m- and d-formative inessive nonfinite 37 forms exist in Modern Estonian, but the inessive present participle has only been found in a written text by Heinrich Stahl from the 17th century (Habicht 2001a: 254). The Finnish tradi- 38 tion refers to the inessive m-formative nonfinite forms as “third infinitive inessive”, and the 39 Estonian tradition refers to them as “mas-infinitive” or “supine”. 40 41. http://www.glottopedia.de/index.php/Absentive. 41 42. The origin of the construction as a lative expression seems to have influenced the relative

42 similarity of the Hungarian absentive to the German and Dutch absentive.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 936–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 936) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 937–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 937) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 937

1 43. Abraham (2007: 3– 4) includes only the goal preposition TO, which does not cover the pre- 2 cise spatial content of the Finnic inessive case, which corresponds to IN, WITHIN; this is a crucial difference, since it will render a wall-to-wall absentive analysis based on ellipsis 3 inapplicable. 4 44. Other generative Finnic analyses also confirm the PP-analysis of the m-formative verb 5 forms. Nikanne (1989) and Vainikka (1989) analyze the -ma complements as locative PP 6 complements. Vainikka suggests that the thematic subject of the -ma clause is the syntactic 7 direct object of the matrix verb, and that the nonfinite PP construction is predicated of this object. 8 45. Heinike Heinsoo, p.c. and Tatiana Agranat, p.c. 9 46. Ūž Testament (1942), Matteus 27:54. I am grateful to Aet Lees for all examples from the 10 Finnic Bibles and the correction and discussion of glossing and translations. 11 47. Evangelii Matvejan mödhe 25: 10. 12 48. Uuzi Sana 2003, Matteus 5: 23. 49. http:// koti.mbnet.fi/savelma/starinuusi.html 13 50. See also Metslang (1993, 1994, 1995), Erelt (1987), Tamm (2003), and Pajusalu and Orav 14 (2008) for more discussion on Estonian, and Onikki-Rantajääskö (2005, 2011) for a detailed 15 study on the development and meanings of the Finnish m-formative nonfinite inessive forms 16 in dialects and from a diachronic perspective. // / 17 51. http: www.parnupostimees.ee ?id=97197 52. http://personal.inet.fi/ koti/jsintonen/Xfiles/Frames/ henkilot/tietol.html 18 53. In Finnish and Hungarian, word order plays a role in the interpretation of progressive (Berti- 19 netto et al. 2000: 525). Word order plays a role in Estonian as well, where the absentive- 20 locative and imminential-progressive meanings emerge with different word order. However, 21 for Estonian the difference is due to the fact that the position immediately preceding the 22 nonfinite verb is restricted to non-specific NPs (v). This position is occupied by the NP in the absentive (i) and not in the progressive (ii). The reason for this particular word order is that 23 the NP is non-specific, and the reason for the NP to be non-specific is the part of the seman- 24 tics of the Estonian absentive that is out of the scope of this paper (see Tamm 2008 for re- 25 lated, semantic incorporation-like phenomena in Estonian). The Estonian absentive is used 26 for conventionalized events where the referent of the object is non-specific. 27 (i) ??Ma olen müümas pileteid. 28 I am sell-m_ine ticket-ptv.pl 29 ‘I am selling tickets. It is tickets that I am selling.’ (progressive, imminent, slightly odd) 30 (ii) Ma olen pileteid müümas. 31 I am ticket-ptv.pl sell-m_ine 32 ‘I am selling tickets.’ (absentive) 33 54. However, the past decade has witnessed an increase in the use of the mas-construction in 34 imperfective dynamic situations in, for instance, sports reports and several media events, 35 which can be attributed to the rapid increase of the influence of Finnish and English. In 36 sports events, the performers are typically involved in temporary activities; the tempo- 37 rary nature of the activity seems to be an absentive-like restriction on the new progressive uses. 38 55. Bertinetto et al. (2000: 540) describe the relevant stages of progressivity as follows: stage (ii) 39 is referred to as progressivity I, and described as residually locative, durative, and accessible 40 to perfective aspect. Stage (iii) is referred to as progressive II and described as durative, and 41 accessible to perfective aspect. Stage (iv), progressivity III, is described as focalized, and

42 strictly imperfective.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 938 A. Tamm

1 56. cf. Vogel (2007) for the semi-grammaticalized forms. // / / / / 2 57. http: www.delfi.ee news paevauudised 110_112 kui-naed-joodikut-hanges-magamas-siis- helista.d?id=28383463 3 58. http://www.tps.edu.ee/esindus/?menyy=2-0-2 4 59. http://liina.koks.pri.ee/2006/04/ 5 60. https://www.arst.ee/static/ArstSearch/do/piim&page=7 6 61. http://foorum.soccernet.ee/archive/index.php?t-827.html // / / / 7 62. http: toonetikas.blogspot.com 2010 02 uusi-lahti-cup-2010.html 63. http://www.liivamagi.net/ 8 64. http://ee.pokernews.com/pokkerifoorum/topic3034/4.htm 9 65. http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilt:Parliament_building_of_finland_1.jpg 10 66. This interpretation reminds of a Spanish example (iii), where the progressive use implies that 11 the subject is involved in an activity and cannot or should not be interrupted (Bybee et al. 12 1994: 137). This progressive use is similar to the absentive. 13 (iii) No puede venire al teléfono; se está bañando. 14 not can.3s come-inf to phone refl be.3s bathing 15 ‘He can’t come to the telephone; he is taking a bath.’ 16 67. http://paber.maaleht.ee/?page=&grupp=artikkel&artikkel=6008 17 68. I am grateful to Ágnes Bende-Farkas, Östen Dahl, and Bart Geurts for brainstorming on the 18 problems of the absentive meaning and pointing to inspiring (not satisfying — the relationship between what testing shows, presuppositions and implicatures needs more clarification) 19 literature on it. 20 69. See Erelt et al. (1997) for the examples of the form, Erelt (1985) for the illative, inessive and 21 elative of the ma-infinitive. 22 70. See Peegel (2006: 145): sõudemalle ‘to row, rowing’, tahtamelle ‘to want, wanting’. 23 71. Peegel (2006: 145): istumaksi ‘to sit’. 72. Peegel (2006: 149) includes examples of the des-gerundive that is combined with the posses- 24 sive suffix heitessani, heitenessa (‘during his throwing’, the second form might contain the 25 potential). 26 73. The adessive of the -t- formative nonfinite verb is found in South Estonian Seto songs, e.g., 27 magadella ‘sleeping’, Peegel (2006: 149). 28 74. See Ross (1988), illustrations from Peegel (2006: 155, 156) of the instructive are kiuste ‘by tormenting, in spite of’, jõude ‘by force, without function’, sõude ‘by rowing’. 29 30 31 32 References 33 Abraham, Werner. 2007. Absent arguments on the absentive: An exercise in silent syntax: Gram- 34 matical category or just pragmatic inference? Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguis- 35 tik 45. 3–16. 36 Adelaar, Willem F. H. & Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes (Cambridge lan- 37 guage surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 38 Agranat, Tatiana. 2009. O svjazi otricanij s aspektom, zalogom i semantičeskimi roljami v pribaltijsko-finskix jazykax [The relationships between negation and aspect, and semantic roles 39 in Baltic Finnic]. In Nina Davydovna Arutjunova (ed.), Logičeskij analiz jazyka: Assercija i 40 negacija, 424 – 435. Moscow: Indrik. 41 Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2008. Versatile cases. Journal of Linguistics 44. 565– 603. 42 Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. Bloomington: Indiana University.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 938–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 938) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 939–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 939) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 939

1 D. Bartha, Katalin. 1958. A magyar szóképzés története [The history of Hungarian derivation]. 2 Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Karen Ebert & Casper de Groot. 2000. The progressive in Europe. In Östen 3 Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 517–558. Berlin & New York: Mouton 4 de Gruyter. 5 Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge, London, New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University 6 Press. 7 Bradley, Jeremy, Johanna Laakso, Regula Sutter, Lotti Viola & Beáta Wagner-Nagy. 2009. Typol- ogy of negation in Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages: An electronic database. http://www. 8 univie.ac.at/negation/index-en.html (accessed 13 March, 2010). 9 Bresnan, Joan. 1997. Mixed categories as head-sharing constructions. In Miriam Butt & Tracy 10 Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 11 Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 12 Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: University of Chicago 13 Press. 14 Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McGonnell-Ginet. 2000. Meaning and grammar: An introduction to 15 semantics. 2nd edn., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 16 Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. 17 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard & Sandra Annear Thompson. 1985. Lexical nominalization. In Timothy Shopen 18 (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 19 349–398. London: Cambridge University Press. 20 Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. New York: Basil Blackwell. 21 Ebert, Karen. 1996. Progressive aspect in German and Dutch. Interdisciplinary Journal for 22 Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 1(1), 41– 62. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 1–25. 23 Erelt, Mati. 1985. MA-, MAS- ja MAST-infinitiivist eesti keeles [On -MA, -MAS and -MAST 24 infinitive in Estonian]. In Mati Erelt & Henno Rajandi (eds.), Ars Grammatica 1985, 4 –22. 25 Tallinn: Valgus. 26 Erelt, Mati. 1987. Sekundaartarindid eesti keeles [Secondary constructions in Estonian] (Preprint 27 KKI-50). Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Ühiskonnateaduste Osakond. Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt & Kristiina Ross. 1997. Eesti keele käsiraamat [The handbook of Estonian]. 28 Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. 29 Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & 30 Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II: Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri [The grammar of the Estonian 31 language II. Syntax. Appendix: Writing system]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja 32 Kirjanduse Instituut. Erelt, Mati, Helle Metslang & Karl Pajusalu. 2006. Tense and evidentiality in Estonian. Belgian 33 Journal of Linguistics 20. 125–136. 34 Evangelii Matvejan mödhe [The Gospel according to St. Matthew]. 1998. Stockholm, Helsinki: 35 Bible Translation Institute. 36 Groot, Casper de. 1989. Predicate structure in a functional grammar of Hungarian (Functional 37 Grammar Series 11), Dordrecht: Foris. Groot, Casper de. 1995a. The absentive in Hungarian. In István Kenesei (ed.), Levels and struc- 38 tures (Approaches to Hungarian 5), 45– 61. Szeged: JATE. 39 Groot, Casper de. 1995b. De absentief in het Nederlands: Een grammaticale categorie [The absen- 40 tive in Dutch: A grammatical category]. Forum der Letteren 36. 1–18. 41 Groot, Casper de. 2000. The absentive. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of

42 Europe, 641– 667. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 940 A. Tamm

1 Groot, Casper de. 2007. The king is on huntunge: On the relation between progressive and absen- 2 tive in Old and Early Modern English. In Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), The English clause: Usage and structure, 175–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3 Groot, Casper de. 2009. Reconsidering the Hungarian case system. Paper presented at Case in and 4 across languages, University of Helsinki, August 27–29. 5 Grünthal, Riho. 2005. Hány oka lehet a vepsze szekunder névutói eredetű helyhatározóragok suf- 6 fixálódásának? [Multicausality in the suffixation of spatial postpositions in Veps]. In Beatrix 7 Oszkó & Mária Sipos (eds.), Uráli Grammatizáló 2003. Proceedings of Budapesti Uráli Műhely 4, BUM 2003, 4 – 6 September, 126 –134. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. 8 Habicht, Külli. 2001a. Eesti vanema kirjakeele leksikaalsest ja morfosüntaktilisest arengust ning 9 Heinrich Stahli keele eripärast selle taustal [About the lexical and morphosyntactic develop- 10 ment of Older Written Estonian and the background for the peculiar features in the language of 11 Heinrich Stahl] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis 10). Tartu: Tartu 12 University Press. Habicht, Külli. 2001b. Infinite Konstruktionen in der estnischen Schriftsprache der ersten Hälfte 13 des 17. Jahrhunderts. Linguistica Uralica 4, 245–269. 14 Haslinger, Irene Marianka. 2007. The syntactic location of events: Aspects of verbal complementa- 15 tion in Dutch. Utrecht: 16 Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive — a universal path of grammaticization. 17 Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1–2). 287–310. Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), 18 The Oxford handbook of case, 505–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 19 Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1995. The progressive in Finnish: Pragmatic constraints. In Pier Marco Ber- 20 tinetto, Valentina Bianchi, Östen Dahl & Mario Squartini (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and 21 actionality, vol. 2: Typological perspectives, 143–153. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 22 Helimski, Eugen. 1998a. Nganasan. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Language Family Descriptions), 480 –515. London & New York: Routledge. 23 Helimski, Eugen. 1998b. Selkup. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge 24 Language Family Descriptions), 548–579. London & New York: Routledge. 25 Honti, László. 1998. Ob-Ugrian. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Lan- 26 guage Family Descriptions), 327–357. London & New York: Routledge. 27 Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. 28 Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: 29 Mouton de Gruyter. 30 Iggesen, Oliver A. 2008. Number of cases. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & 31 Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online (Chapter 49). Munich: // / / 32 Max Planck Digital Library. http: wals.info feature 49 (accessed 17 January, 2010). Ikola, Osmo. 1953. Viron ja liivin modus obliquuksen historiaa [On the history of the Estonian and 33 Livonian oblique mood]. Suomi 106(4). Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 34 Iva, Sulev. 2007. Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem [Inflectional morphology in the Võro Liter- 35 ary Language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis 20). Tartu: Tartu 36 Ülikooli Kirjastus. http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/10062/4860/1/iva_sulev.pdf (ac- 37 cessed 1 January, 2010). Jõks, Maris. 2010. Kas see on eesti keel? [Is this Estonian?]. Postimees, 25 November 2010. http:// 38 www.postimees.ee/?id=347446 (accessed 25 November 2010). 39 Junus, Vladimir. 1936. Izoran keelen grammatikka [The grammar of Ingrian]. Leningrad-Moscow: 40 UCPEDGIZ. 41 Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge

42 Language Family Descriptions), 219–249. London & New York: Routledge.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 940–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 940) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 941–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 941) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 941

1 Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Sandro V. Kodzasov, Irina P. Olovjannikova & Džalil S. Samedov. 1977. 2 Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arxinskogo jazyka, vol. 2. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 11). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 3 Kiefer, Ferenc. 1987. The cases of Hungarian nouns. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 37. 93–101. 4 Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Miriam Butt & Willem Geuder (eds.), The pro- 5 jection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 6 Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111. 315–376. 7 Kokla, Paul. 1986. Das System der infiniten Formen im Marischen. Finno-Ugrishe Mitteilungen 10. 207–217. 8 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London & New York: Routledge. 9 Koskinen, Päivi. 1998. Features and categories: Non-finite constructions in Finnish. Toronto: 10 University of Toronto dissertation. 11 Kracht, Marcus. 2005. The semantics of locatives in the Uralic languages. In Jocelyne Fernandez- 12 Vest (ed.), Les langues ouraliennes aujourd’hui (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes-Études, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques 340), 145–158. Paris: Éditions Honoré Champion. 13 Krause, Olaf. 2002. Progressiv im Deutschen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit 14 Niederländisch und Englisch (Linguistische Arbeiten 462). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 15 Laanest, Arvo. 1975. Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Baltic Finnic lan- 16 guages]. Tallinn: Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. 17 Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15). Uppsala: Uppsala 18 University. 19 Lees, Aet. 2004. Partitive-accusative alternations in Balto-Finnic languages. In Christo Mus- 20 kovsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http:// 21 www.als.asn.au (accessed 1 January 2009). 22 Lees, Aet. 2005. The case of the object in early Estonian and Finnish texts. In Christo Muskovsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 2004 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.als. 23 asn.au (accessed 1 January 2009). 24 Lees, Aet. 2010. Non-finite verbs and their objects in Finnic languages. In Yvonne Treys & Rik De 25 Buster (eds.), Selected papers from the 2009 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. 26 http://www.als.asn.au (accessed 1 May 2010). 27 Leino, Jaakko. 2009. Finnish infinitives and deverbal nouns. Paper presented at the workshop Finiteness and Non-Finiteness in Finno-Ugric languages: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross- 28 Modular Issues, Institute of the Estonian Language, 23 January. 29 Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30 Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings (Bradford Books). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 31 Lytkin, Vasilij I. (ed.), 1962. Komi-Permjatskij jazyk [Komi-Permyak language]. Kudymkar: 32 Komi-Permjatskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. Manzini, Maria Rita and Savoia, Leonardo Maria. 2003. Participio e infinito nella varietà di 33 Scutari. In Matteo Mandalà (ed.), Cinque secoli di cultura albanese in Sicilia: Atti del XXVIII 34 Convegno Internazionale di Studi Albanesi, 401– 432. Palermo: A. C. Mirror. 35 Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Constraining nominalization: function-form competition. Linguistics 36 44(5). 973–1008. 37 Markianova, Ludmila. 2002. Karjalan kielioppih [Grammar of Karelian]. Periodika. Matsumura, Kazuto. 1997. Is the Estonian adessive really a local case? Journal of Asian and Afri- 38 can Studies 46 – 47. 223–235. http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/bitstream/10108/21802/1/jaas046011. 39 pdf (accessed 1 January 2010). 40 Metslang, Helle. 1993. Kas eesti keeles on olemas progressiiv? [Is there a progressive in Esto- 41 nian?]. Keel ja Kirjandus 6. 326 –334; Keel ja Kirjandus 7. 416 – 422; Keel ja Kirjandus 8.

42 468– 476.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 942 A. Tamm

1 Metslang, Helle. 1994. Temporal relations in the predicate and the grammatical system of Esto- 2 nian and Finnish (Oulun Yliopiston suomen ja saamen kielen laitoksen tutkimusraportteja 39). Oulu: Oulun Yliopiston Kirjasto. 3 Metslang, Helle. 1995. The progressive in Estonian. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bianchi, 4 Östen Dahl & Mario Squartini (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect, and actionality: Typological 5 approaches, 169–183. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 6 Metslang, Helle. 2001. On the developments of the Estonian aspect: The verbal particle ära. In 7 Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The circum-Baltic languages: Their typology and contacts (Studies in Language Companion Series 55), 443– 479. Amsterdam & Philadel- 8 phia: John Benjamins. 9 Neetar, Helmi. 2000. Kihnu murraku kahest erijoonest [On two specific features of the Kihnu 10 dialect]. In Viikberg, Jüri (ed.), Inter dialectos nominaque: Pühendusteos Mari Mustale 11 11. novembril 2000 (Eesti Keele Instituudi toimetised 7), 179–183. Tallinn: Eesti Keele 12 Sihtasutus. Nikanne, Urpo. 1989. On locative case marking in Finnish. In Jussi Niemi (ed.), Papers from the 13 11th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Joensuu: Joensuu University. 14 Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses. In Nikolaeva, 15 Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 138–180. Oxford: Oxford Uni- 16 versity Press. / / 17 Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2004. Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal tense aspect mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 597– 641. 18 Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa: Nominatiivi, 19 genetiivi, akkusatiivi ja partitiivi: Vertaileva funktio-opillinen tutkimus [On the semantic func- 20 tions of the cases in the East Karelian dialects of Maaselkä: The nominative, genitive, accusa- 21 tive, and partitive: A comparative functional study] (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 22 97). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Onikki-Rantajääskö, Tiina. 2005. 3. infinitiivin inessiivi ja määräpaikkaisuuden arvoitus [3rd in- 23 finitive inessive and the mystery of specified location]. In Ilona Herlin & Laura Visapää (eds.), 24 Elävä kielioppi: Suomen infiniittisten rakenteiden dynamiikkaa, 173–193. Helsinki: Suomal- 25 aisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 26 Onikki-Rantajääskö, Tiina. 2011. On the contextual functions of the progressive form in Finnish: 27 olla ‘to be’ and MA-infinitive+inessive. Paper presented at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 10 March. 28 Õispuu, Jaan. 1994. Karjala keelesaarte sõnamuutmissüsteem [The inflectional system of the 29 Karelian enclaves]. Acta Universitatis Scientiarum Socialium et Artis Educandum Tallinnensis, 30 A1 Humaniora. Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikool. 31 Pajusalu, Renate & Heili Orav. 2008. Supiinid koha väljendajana: Liikumissündmuste 32 keelendamise asümmeetriast [Supine constructions encoding spatial entities: asymmetry in expressing motion event]. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat, 104 –121. Tallinn: 33 Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. 34 Peegel, Juhan. 2006. Eesti vanade rahvalaulude keel [The language of old Estonian folk songs]. 35 Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. 36 Riese, Timothy. 1998. Permian. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Lan- 37 guage Family Descriptions), 249–275. London & New York: Routledge. Ritter, Ralf-Peter. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen (Veröffentlichungen der 38 Societas Uralo-Altaica 26). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 39 Roberts, Ian. forthcoming. Grammaticalisation, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In 40 Graham Trousdale & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), Proceedings of NRG4. 41 Ross, Kristiina. 1988. Instruktiiv läänemeresoome keeltes [The instructive case in Finnic lan-

42 guages]. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 942–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 942) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 943–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 943) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 Cross-categorial spatial case in the Finnic nonfinite system 943

1 Ross, Kristiina, Heete Sahkai & Anne Tamm. 2009. Finiitsus ja mittefiniitsus soome-ugri keeltes 2 [Finiteness and non-finiteness in Finno-Ugric languages]. Keel ja Kirjandus 6. 460 – 464. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages: An introduction. Kárásjohka: Davvi girji. 3 Salminen, Tapani. 1998. Nenets. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Lan- 4 guage Family Descriptions), 516 –547. London & New York: Routledge. 5 Serebrennikov, Boris Aleksandrovich. 1964. Istoričeskaja morfologija permskix jazykov [The his- 6 torical morphology of Permic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 7 Siro, Paavo. 1964. Infinitiivin asema suomen kieliopissa [Infinitives in Finnish grammars], Sananjalka 6. 20 –26. 8 Spencer, Andrew. 2008. Does Hungarian have a case system? In Greville C. Corbett & Michael 9 Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, 35–56. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John 10 Benjamins. 11 Spencer, Andrew. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew 12 Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suoniemi-Taipale, Inga. 1994. Itämerensuomalaisten kielten prolatiivi [Prolative in the Finnic lan- 13 guages] (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 616). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjal- 14 lisuuden Seura. 15 Surányi, Balázs. 2009. Incorporated locative adverbials in Hungarian. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 16 Adverbs and adverbial adjuncts at the interfaces, 37–72. Berlin & New York: Mouton de 17 Gruyter. Szimoncsics, Péter. 1998. Kamassian. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge 18 Language Family Descriptions), 580 – 601. London & New York: Routledge. 19 Tamm, Anne. 2003. Estonian transitive verb classes, object case, and the progressive. Nordlyd 20 31(4). 639– 653. 21 Tamm, Anne. 2004. Relations between Estonian verbs, aspect, and case. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd 22 University dissertation. Tamm, Anne. 2007. Perfectivity, telicity and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30(2). 23 229–255. 24 Tamm, Anne. 2008. Aspect and the Estonian partitive objects: a review of arguments for analysing 25 partitive NPs as instances of incorporation. In Daniele Monticelli (ed.), Aspect in languages and 26 theories: Similarities and differences, in Tartu, 2006 (Studia Romanica Tartuensia 6), 205–226. 27 Tartu: University of Tartu Press. Tamm, Anne. 2009. The Estonian partitive evidential: Some notes on the semantic parallels be- 28 tween the aspect and evidential categories. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrej Mal- 29 chukov (eds.), Papers from TAM TAM: Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modal- 30 ity, 365– 401. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 31 Tamm, Anne. forthcoming. Subevents, complement case and the -ma and -da infinitive forms: On 32 the Estonian analytical permissive and factitive constructions. In Jaakko Leino & Ruprecht von Waldenfelds (eds.), Papers from the Permissives and Causatives Workshop of the 22nd Scandi- 33 navian Conference of Linguistics, June 2006. Munich: Lincom. 34 Tikka, Toivo. 1992. Vepsän suffiksoituneet postpositiot: Kieliopillisiin sijoihin liittyvä suffiksoitu- 35 minen [Agglutinating postpositions in Veps: Suffixation to grammatical cases] (Studia Uralica 36 Upsaliensia 22). 1101–7430. 37 Tommola, Hannu. 2000. Progressive aspect in Finnic. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe: Empirical approaches to language typology (EUROTYP 20 – 6), 655– 692. 38 Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 39 Tsvetkov, Dmitri. 2008. Vadja keele grammatika [Grammar of Votic]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele 40 Sihtasutus. 41 Tveite, Tor. 2004. The case of the object in Livonian: A corpus based study (Castrenianumin to-

42 imitteita 62). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.

PMU: K 06/05/2011 PMU: K 06/05/2011 944 A. Tamm

1 Uuspõld, Ellen. 1966. Määrusliku des-, mata-, nud-(-nuna-) ja tud-(-tuna-) konstruktsiooni struk- 2 tuur ja tähendus [On the structure and meaning of the adverbial constructions containing des-, mata-, nud-(-nuna-) and tud-(-tuna-)]. Keele modelleerimise probleeme 1. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik 3 Ülikool. 4 Uuspõld, Ellen. 1989. Modaalsusest ja modaalsest predikaadist eesti keeles [On modality and 5 modal predicates in Estonian]. Keel ja Kirjandus 8. 468– 477. 6 Uuži Sana [New Testament]. 2003. Helsinki: Bible Translation Institute. 7 Už Testament [New Testament]. 1942. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Kirjapainon Oy. 8 Vainikka, Anne. 1995. Functional projections in Finnish non-finite constructions. Penn Working 9 Papers in Linguistics 2. 141–146. 10 Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 1998. Fennic. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Lan- 11 guage Family Descriptions), 96 –114. London & New York: Routledge. 12 VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Suomal- 13 aisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk (accessed 1 March, 2010). 14 Vogel, Petra M. 2007. Anna ist essen! Neue Überlegungen zum Absentiv. In Ludmilla Geist & 15 Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche 16 Aspekte (Linguistische Arbeiten 512), 253–284. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 17 Wälchli, Bernhard. 2000. Infinite predication as a marker of evidentiality and modality inthe languages of the Baltic region. Sprachtypologie and Universalienforschung 53(2). 186 –210. 18 Wälchli, Bernhard. 2001. Lexical evidence for the parallel development of the Latvian and Livo- 19 nian verb particles. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic lan- 20 guages 2: Grammar and typology, 413– 441. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 21 Ylikoski, Jussi. 2003. Havaintoja suomen ns. viidennen infinitiivin käytöstä [Remarks on the use 22 of the proximative verb form (the so-called 5th infinitive) in Finnish]. Sananjalka 45. 7– 44. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2004. Remarks on Veps non-finite purposives.Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aika- 23 kauskirja 90. 231–276. 24 Ylikoski, Jussi. 2009. Non-finites in North Saami (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 257). 25 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 26 Zaicz, Gábor. 1998. Mordva. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages (Routledge Lan- 27 guage Family Descriptions), 184 –218. London & New York: Routledge. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2445 LING, 49:4 pp. 944–944 2445_49-4_05 (p. 944) (idp) PMU:(idp[KN]/W)18/05/2011 18 May 2011 11:28 AM

PMU: K 06/05/2011