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 case as 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’, (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 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.