1 / 35

Semantic and morphological partitives in the Uralic languages

Semantic and morphological partitives in the Uralic languages. Anne Tamm SLE 43RD ANNUAL MEETING, VILNIUS, 2 - 5 SEPTEMBER 2010 SLE workshop Partitives , Vilnius , September 4th, 2010. What is special about the Uralic partitives ?.

ham
Download Presentation

Semantic and morphological partitives in the Uralic languages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Semantic and morphologicalpartitivesintheUraliclanguages Anne Tamm SLE 43RD ANNUAL MEETING, VILNIUS, 2 - 5 SEPTEMBER 2010 SLE workshopPartitives, Vilnius, September 4th, 2010

  2. What is specialabouttheUralicpartitives? • Havingmanylanguageswiththepartitive: thevariationacrosstheFinniclanguagesin ”whatthepartitive is usedfor” – thesemanticpartitive > partitive TAM semanticsdistinction • Embeddednessinrichcasesystems: themultitude of Source (separative) cases and a mismatchbetweenpartitivesemantics and semanticpartitives • Theinteractionbetween TAM and thepartitive • Aspectual DOM, DSM, DAM • Definitenesseffects, telicity, and partitivearguments • Caseonnon-finites and verbstems

  3. Semantics and morphology: a ”partitive” mismatch • SeveralUraliclanguageshavecasesthatarereferredtoas ”partitive”. • The semantics of thesecasesdivergesfromthegenerallyassumednotionof ”partitive”. • It is usefultodistinguishbetween ”semanticpartitives” (and casesthatexpressit) and ”morphologicalpartitives” (andthesemanticstheyexpress). Semantic Morphological PTV

  4. SemP The partitivesemanticscorrespondsto "part/amount-of-N", referringto a part orquantity out of a grouporamount of substance.

  5. Language-specificmorphologicalpartitives • Whilethesemanticpartitive has fixed semanticproperties, themorphologicalpartitivecaseshavedevelopedtheirownspecificsemanticsand pragmaticsineachUraliclanguagewherethecaseappears. • Karelian: thecausepartitive ”infinitives” • Inari Sami: afternumbers 7+ • Inari Sami: withcomparatives (thansomeone/something)

  6. Karelian ”partitiveinfinitives” Keittä-miäpadamusten-i. cook-M_NMLZ_PTV pot[NOM] blacken-3S.PST ’Cookingcausedthepotturnblack.’ (Karelian)

  7. Sami comparativeconstructions (Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 65)

  8. Sami numberphrases 7+ (Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 66)

  9. Richcasesystems • Uraliclanguagesaretypicallycharacterizedbyrichcasesystemswithapproximately 10 members, and manyhavecasesystems of approximately 15 or 20 cases. • Accordingtothe WALS map of Iggesen(2008), thereare 24 languageswith more than 10 cases. • The followinglanguageshave more than 10 casesin WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, EpenaPedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt. • Fiveof thoselistedareUralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).

  10. Partitiveinthecaseparadigm Morphologicalpartitives: (Baltic)-Finnic Skolt and Inari Sami ---------------------- Semanticpartitives: Almost allUraliccaseshaveoneor more casesfor ”separation”

  11. Partitive and no sourcecase: Sami (Toivonen 2003: 36)

  12. Partitive and sourcecases: Est Nominative book raamat Genitive of a book raamatu Partitive(of) a book raamatu-t Illative into the book raamatu-sse Inessivein a book raamatu-s Elative from (inside) a book raamatu-st Allative onto a book raamatu-le Adessiveon a book raamatu-l Ablative from the book raamatu-lt Translative in(to), as a book raamatu-ks Terminative until a book raamatu-ni Essive as a book raamatu-na Abessivewithout a book raamatu-ta Comitative with a book raamatu-ga

  13. No partitive, Sourcecases (U) 1. Nominative s’ik 2. Genitives’ik-len 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn 10. Illative s’ik-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  14. Sourcecasesinrichparadigms • Komi has 18 cases (Riese 1998: 268), nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, approximative, genitive/ablative, inessive, elative, ablative, terminative, instrumental, egressive, caritive, adverbial, prolative 1 and 2, consecutive, comitative.

  15. Sourcecasesinpoorparadigms • Tundra Nenets 7 (Salminen 1998: 537), nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, ablative, prosecutive. (thesuggestedProto-Samoyedicinventory, Janhunen 1998: 469) • Kamas 7 (Szimoncsics 1998: 585-586), nominative, accusative, genitive, lative, locative, ablative, instrumental • Selkup 13 (Helimski 1998: 560-561), nominative, accusative, genitive, instrumental, co-ordinative, caritive, translative, dative/allative, illative, locative, elative, prolative, vocative • Nganasan 8-11 (Helimski 1998: 496), nominative (= absoluteform), accusative, genitive, lative (= dative, ordative-lative), locative (=locative/instructive), elative (=ablative), prolative (=prosecutive)

  16. No partitive, noseparative (Kh) (Ruttkay 2003:20)

  17. Sourcecases: ablative, elative, delative, egressive, and exessive • Ablative(Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi, Vepsian, Votic, etc)denotesmovementawayfromsomething (e.g., awayfromthe house) • Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house). • Delative (Hungarian) denotesmovementfromthesurface (e.g., from (the top of) the house) • Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking thebeginning of a movementortime (e.g., beginningfromthe house) • Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc ) transitionawayfrom a state (froma house) • Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

  18. Uralicsemanticpartitive: elative, ablative • IntheUraliclanguages, thesemanticpartitive is generallyexpressedbytheelativecase. • Ifthere is no dedicatedelativecase, thenthesemanticpartitive is expressedbytheablative. • The morphologicalpartitiveis more characteristic of pseudopartitiveconstructions. • Pseudopartitiveconstructionsareexpressedpredominantlyviajuxtaposition. • It is notclearatthisstageifallUraliclanguageshaveanypartitiveconstructionswiththestructure • N-measure – N-substance

  19. SemP, elative • Elativedenotesmovementfrom a container, ablative - movementawayfromsomething, delative – movementfromasurface. gyerekeimből a legfiatalabb child-PL.1PX-ELA theyoungest ’theyoungest of mychildren’ (Hungarian)

  20. Juxtaposition (pseudo-partitives) ManyUraliclanguagesexpresspseudo-partitiveswithjuxtaposition (N and W Sami, Hungarian, Mari, Mordvinian, Komi, Udmurt (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001:555)). egy pohár bor det/oneglass[nom]wine[nom] ’a glass of wine’ (Hungarian)

  21. SemP: elative, MorphP: partitive • Estoniansemanticpartitive is typicallyrealizedbyelative; onlythepseudo-partitive is realizedwiththepartitivecase-marking. noorimmulaste-st youngestmychild.PL-ELA ’theyoungest of mychildren’ klaasveini glass[nom] wine.PTV ’a glass of wine’ (Estonian)

  22. TrueSemP and aspect Evett a pizzá-ból. eat.3sdef pizza-ela ‘She ate some of the pizza.’ Meg-ettea pizzá-t. TELIC-eat.3sdef pizza-acc ‘She ate up the pizza.’ *Meg-ettea pizzá-ból. TELIC-eat.3sdef pizza-ela (‘She ate up of the pizza.’) (Hungarian)

  23. MorphP Mari sõi (seda) pitsa-t. Mari ate this.ptvpizza-PTV ‘Mary waseating (this) pizza.’ (Est unbounded) Marisõipitsa / ??pitsa-t(ära). Mari ate pizza.ACC pizza-PTVup ‘Mary ate a pizza (up).’ (Est bounded) Pizzá-t evett. pizza-acc eat.3s ‘She waseating pizza.’ (Hu unbounded) The Hungarianelative is a realsemanticpartitive. BarenounscomparetootherUraliczeromarkedbarenouns.

  24. Udm.: acc. SemP, unmarked/acc n'an' s'i-i (odigjudes) bread[ACC]eat-INF (one[ACC] piece[ACC]) ‘toeat (a piece of) bread.’ n'an'-ezjudess'i-i bread-ACCpiece[ACC] eat-INF ‘toeat a piece of thisbread.’ n'an'-ezs'i-i bread-ACCeat-INF ‘toeat (a piece of) thisbreadup.’ (SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.)

  25. Komi, elativeSemP, unmarked/acc Курчч-и нянь-сьыс тор. bite-1s.pastbread-ela piece[acc] ’I havebittensomebread.’ Нянь сёй-и. bread [acc] eat-1sg/past ‘I waseatingbread, Iatesomebread.’ Сёй-инянь-сö. eat-1sg/past bread-acc.def ‘I atethebread (some of thebread).’ (NikolayKuznetsov, p.c.)

  26. Affectedness of theincrementalthemeand theobjectcase

  27. Case-marked non-finite verb forms • Partitives and sourcecasesappearonnon-finites. • Non-finite forms frequently originate from case-marked non-finite verb forms, which are complements originally but develop further into base predicates of larger predicate complexes. • Thesecomplexes develop case-related semantics and TAM meanings.

  28. Udmurt:caseonn-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-on(verb+n+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-on-len(verb+n+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-on-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-on-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-on-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-on-e 11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-on-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  29. Caseonm-nominalizations 1. Nominative s’ikmyn-em(verb+m+case) 2. Genitives’ik-lenmyn-em-len (verb+m+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez 4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’ 5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-em-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumentals’ik-enmyn-em-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-ynmyn-em-yn 10. Illative s’ik-emyn-em-e 11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)myn-em-ys’ 12. Terminative s’ik-oz’myn-em-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximatives’ik-lan’ Source: SvetlanaEdygarova, p.c.

  30. Spatialprepositions+infinitives (1) Je viens de manger. ‘I have just eaten.’ (2) I go to eat. (3) Jan is aan het eten. ‘John is eating.’ (4) *I come from eat. (5) Je vais manger. ‘I am going to eat.’

  31. The participlebecomes an object - auditoryevidence is partial Mari kuulis Jürit Mary heardG.ptv koju tulevat. homecome-pers.pres.ptcp.partitive ‘Mary heard Georgecome home.’ (Est)

  32. Visual evidence is notpartial Mari nägi Jürit Mary sawJ.part kojutule-mas. homecome-m_inessive ‘Mary saw Georgecominghome.’ (Est)

  33. Epistemicmodalityand thepartiality of evidence

  34. Summary • TherearemanySource (separative) cases. • There is a mismatchbetweensemantic and morphologicalpartitives. • The interactionbetween TAM, definiteness, and thepartitivecan be observedinmanyareas. • Aspectual DOM • Definitenesseffects, telicity, and partitivearguments • Caseonnon-finites and verbstems

  35. Thanks! partitive.pbworks.com

More Related