1 / 45

Ilja A. Ser žant 43th SLE meeting, Vilnius, 02.09.2010

The relation between the partitive genitive subject constructions in ancient Indo-European languages and Baltic, Slavic. Ilja A. Ser žant 43th SLE meeting, Vilnius, 02.09.2010. Programme. The present study concentrates on the following points :

gabi
Download Presentation

Ilja A. Ser žant 43th SLE meeting, Vilnius, 02.09.2010

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. The relation between the partitive genitive subject constructions in ancient Indo-European languages and Baltic, Slavic Ilja A. Seržant 43th SLE meeting, Vilnius, 02.09.2010

  2. Programme • The present study concentrates on the following points: • only bare Partitive Genitives are taken into account; • major focus on the PG in subject position; • comparison of certain semantic and morphosyntactic properties of the bare PG in the early Indo-European languages with the bare PG in Baltic and (East) Slavic (not an exhaustive study!); • is there an areal (Finnic) influence on Baltic and (East) Slavic?

  3. Structure: • The bare Partitive genitive in the Ancient IE Languages, (emphasis on Ancient Greek) 1.1 Semantics of the bare Partitive Genitive; 1.2 Morphosyntax of the bare Partitive Genitive; 2. The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic 2.1 Semantics of the bare Partitive Genitive; 2.2 Morphosyntax of the bare Partitive Genitive; 2.3 Conclusions

  4. 1.1. Semantics of the bare Partitive Genitive (PG) in ancient Indo-European languages

  5. 1.1 PG semantics (i) The bare PG picks up an indefinite number of entitiies from a given group, cf. (1):

  6. 1.1 PG semantics Indefinite quantity: (1) (Ancient Greek) Eisi de kai tōn peri fusin, be:3.pl.pres but and the-sudent-of-nature:gen.pl hoi ... ouk epragmateuthēsan … which:nom.pl not care:3.pl.aor … ”There are [some] students of nature, who did not pay attention to …”

  7. 1.1 PG semantics The indefinite quantity can also be expressed lexically in Ancient Greek with tínes „some:nom.pl“ (but also in Baltic and Slavic), to compare with English „some“. However, there is a functional difference between the lexically expressed indefinite quantity („some“) and the bare PG: It lies in the discourse prominence of the (uncertain)number.

  8. 1.1 PG semantics Quantity, when the PG is used, is always discoursively non-prominent / irrelevant. • Typically for grammatical means (as opposed to lexical means) (cf. Boye & Haider, forthc.), the PG provides only back-grounded number.

  9. cf. English: (2a) Students must have been here The number is irrelevant, it is not the point of the utterance (2b) Some students must have been here The number is relevant in the sense that it is opposed to all, one or none; the number can be the point of the utterance depending on the context

  10. 1.1 PG semantics (i) The bare PG picks up an indefinite number of entitiies from a given group, cf. (1), this imples that at least the hearer cannot identify these entities / this entity. (ii) In other words, the PG functionally matches to an indefinite (plural) article, referring to a non-identifiable entity / entities of the kind specified by the NP/(DP); Hence, the overall meaning is: • discursively always back-grounded indefinite quantity • indefiniteness of the members of that quantity (as an implicature)

  11. 1.1 PG semantics In certain cases in Ancient Greek the indefinite quantity can be violated, cf. the following example from Ancient Greek with indefinite reference but definite quantity:

  12. 1.1 PG semantics Diomedes speaks about his father (and implicitely his mother) Tydeus who married the daughter of Adrastos (the king of Argos) named Deipyle: (3) Adrēstoio egēme thugaterōn Adrastos:gen.sg. marry:aor.3.sg. daughter:gen.pl. ”He married a daughter of Adrastos” (Hom. Il. 14.121) Indefinite (specific!) while the quantity is definite, i.e. one. (similar the next example)

  13. 1.1 PG semantics (4) ka-an gamē pot’ autos If-subj marry:subj.3.sg. somewhen he:nom.sg. ē tōn sungenōn ē tōn filōn, or relatives:gen.pl. or friends:gen.pl. husomen tēn nukta pasa ... we will rain the whole night „If he or [one] of the relatives or [one] of the friends will ever marry, we will rain the whole night” (Arist. Nub. 1128f). „If he or a relative or a friend will ever marry…” (singular, indefinite, non-specific)

  14. 1.1 PG semantics • Hence, the number referred to by the PG can also be „one“, i.e. definite; • Such uses remind very much an indefinite article like the English article ’a’ that is definite in number but indefinite in reference.

  15. 1.1 PG semantics • In other words, the bare PG can have two meanings in Ancient Greek: (i) ”discursively irrelevant and therefore not specified number of Xs” (domain of quantity, cf. ex. 1); (ii) ”discursively irrelevant therefore not specified reference of X” (domain of definiteness, cf. ex. 3 and 4).

  16. 1.2 Morphosyntactic behaviour of the PG in ancient languages

  17. 1.2 Morphosyntax • (4) shows that the PG can also be morphosyntactically singular (i.e. trigger verb singular form), even though being formally a plural:

  18. 1.2 Morphosyntax (4) ka-an gamē pot’ autos If-subj marry:subj.3.sg. somewhen he:nom.sg. ē tōn sungenōn ē tōn filōn, or relatives:gen.pl. or friends:gen.pl. husomen tēn nukta pasa ... we will rain the whole night „If he or [one] of relatives or [one] of friends will ever marry, we will rain the whole night” (Arist. Nub. 1128f).

  19. 1.2 Morphosyntax But the PG can also trigger verb plural form: : (1) (Ancient Greek) Eisi de kai tōn peri fusin, be:3.pl.pres but and the-sudent-of-nature:gen.pl hoi ... ouk epragmateuthēsan … which:nom.pl not care:3.pl.aor … ”There are [some] students of nature, who did not pay attention to …”

  20. 1.2 Morphosyntax • The PG-S can combine not only with the singular but also with the plural verb form (though always in the 3rd person); • It seems that there is a subject-verb agreement with the PG-S in Ancient Greek (Conti 2008) • I assume that there is semantically triggered agreement in number between the PG subject and the verb in Ancient Greek (and probably in Vedic and Avestan) pointing out to the original state of affairs in IE.

  21. Number agreement (5) kai en hosoisi tu liparu enēn and in bones def:gen.sg. fat:gen.sg. be inside:3.sg.impf. (”As soon as the hot air reached the bones, [one coud see], that) ”there was some fat inside the bones” (Hp. Carn. 4.6) (6) Eisi gar autōn be:3.pl.act. because they:gen.pl. kai para basilei tō Perseōn and at the king of Persians [lit.] ”There are some of them at the king of Persians...” “The king of Persians has also some of them” (about exotic animals)

  22. Number agreement Cf. a passage from Demosthenes (Ol.1 26.4-5): (7) tōn atopōtatōn ment-an eiē, def.:gen.pl. awkward:superl.gen.pl. irreal.particle be:3.sg.opt. ei ha nyn anoian ofliskanōn homōs ekalei, tauta dynētheis mē praxei. ”[it] would be, surely, of the most awkward [things], if, having the power, he should lack the will to carry out the threat which today he utters at the risk of his reputation for sanity.”

  23. 1.2 Morphosyntax Another feature of the PG in Ancient Greek is that: • PG-subjects can agree and coordinate with nominatives, cf. (8) and (9):

  24. 1.2 Morphosyntax PG-S can agree with the nominatives: (8) Eisi gar autōn be:3.pl.act. because they:gen.pl. kai para basilei tō Perseōn at the king of Persians entheuten thēreuthentes there catch:partc.pass.aor.nom.pl. ”Because the Persian king has some of them, which have been caught there.” (about exotic animals) (H.Hist.3.102)

  25. 1.2 Morphosyntax PG-S can coordinate with the nominatives: (9) ka-an gamē pot’ autos if marry:subj.3.sg. somewhen he:nom.sg. ē tōn sungenōn ē tōn filōn, or relatives:gen.pl. or friends:gen.pl. husomen tēn nukta pasa ... we will rain the whole night „If he [himself] or [one] of relatives or [one] of friends will ever marry, we will rain the whole night” (Arist. Nub. 1128f).

  26. 1.2 Morphosyntax • Other ancient Indo-European languages also show both verb singular and plural forms accompanying a PG case-marked subject, cf. Vedic and Avestan:

  27. 1.2 Morphosyntax: Vedic Sanskrit (10) ákāri vām ándhaso make-3SG.AOR.PASS you.two-DAT soma.juice-GEN ‘Some soma-juice has been prepared for you two’ (RV VI 63.3) (11) ápāyi asya ándhaso drink-3SG.AOR.PASSIVE this-GEN soma.juice-GEN mádāya inebriation-DAT ‘[Some] of this soma-juice has been drunk for inebriation (i.e. in order to get inebriated)’ (RV II 19.1)

  28. 1.2 Morphosyntax: Avestan (12) ýat hē stārąmbaχō.dātanąm so.that he:dat. stars:gen.pl. set.up.by.the.gods:gen.pl. aii raocaiiāṇte round shine:3.pl.prs. “so that stars, set up by the gods, shine around for him’ (Vendīdād 19.23)

  29. 1.2 Morphosyntax: Ancient languages: Summary 1. I assume that the PG-S triggered verb agreement in number, depending on its logical number (semantic agreement): - some of X triggers verb plural form • one of X triggers verb singular form 2. The PG subject behaved in some respects as a nominative: could agree with the nominative-marked argument (e. g. participles) and coordinate with other nominatives.

  30. 2. PG-S in Baltic and (East) Slavic

  31. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic

  32. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic • The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic equally as in ancient languages marks: • discoursively back-grounded indefinite quantity („irrelevance of the quantity“), • discursively back-grounded indefiniteness of the members of that quantity („irrelevance of the reference“)

  33. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic • Cf. Lithuanian: Indefiite quantity: (13a) Čia buvo žmonių here AUX:Past.3.pers. people:gen.pl. “People have been here” defiite quantity (and/or definite reference): (13b) Čia buvo trys / tie žmonės here AUX:Past.3.pers. three/those people:nom.pl. “3 persons have been here”

  34. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic • Standard Russian: the PG-S is almost extinct. It occurs mostly with the verbs with quantificational prefixes as na- • At the same time, however, in the North Russian, Belorussian varieties the construction with the PG in the subject position is attested at much broader range than in Standard Russian (Filin 1972: 514-5; Karskij 1956: 319, 403), cf.: (14) Segodn’a budet dožd’a Today be:Fut.3.pers. rain:gen.sg. “There will be rain today”

  35. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic • Differently from the ancient languages, the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic îs not compatible with definite quantity „one“. • Thus, constructions as in (3) would result in ungrammaticality in both Baltic and Slavic.

  36. 2.1 Semantics of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic Diomedes speaks about his father and (implicitely) his mother (Tydeus married the daughter of Adrastos (the king of Argos) named Deipyle): (3) Adrēstoio egēme thugaterōn Adrastos:gen.sg. marry:aor.3.sg. daughter:gen.pl. ”He married a daughter of Adrastos” (Hom. Il. 14.121) Indefinite (specific!) while the quantity is definite, i.e. one. (similar the next example)

  37. 2.2 Morphosyntax of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic

  38. 2.2 Morphosyntax of the bare PG in Baltic and Slavic The verb form is always 3rd p. sg. (neutr.): Gostej ponajexalo (Russian) guests:gen.pl. arrived:3.sg.neutr.Past “There came too many guests” (“as we have expected”) Žmonių buvo atsiradę (Lithuanian) people:gen.pl. be:3.past appear:partc.act.nom.sg.neutr. ”People had appeared there” => impersonal agreement: always 3d.sg.neutr. verb f.

  39. 2.3. Conclusions

  40. 2.3. The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic Part. in Finnic • Baltic and Slavic genitive morphology is etymologically related to the one of the ancient languages such as Ancient Greek, Vedic and Avestan. • Thus, the formal, semantic and morphosyntactic correspondence allow to assume that the PG is an inherited category in Baltic and Slavic from Indo-European proto-language.

  41. 2.3. The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic Part. in Finnic At the same time: • The PG shows more common properties with the Finnic partitive case rather than with the PG in the ancient IE languages in both morphosyntax and function: (a) in morphosyntax: - semantic agreement has been replaced with the impersonal agreement / with lack of agreement in Baltic and Slavic (as it is the case in Finnic); - the ability to concord with the nominatives has been abandoned: only genitive NPs can concord with the PG in Baltic and Slavic;

  42. 2.3. The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic Part. in Finnic (b) in function: - expansion (grammaticalization) of the genitive of negation (in Ancient Greek only sporadically, cf. Conti 2008); - rise of the (negated) evidentiality (Padučeva 2005); - loss of the definite quantity reading (namely, singular value) (in contrast, e.g., to Ancient Greek as in (3));

  43. 2.3. The bare PG in Baltic and Slavic Part. in Finnic • It seems that - even though the PG is an inherrited category in Baltic and Slavic (in both respects: morphology and function); - it has been accommodated functionally and morphosyntactically to the corresponding pattern of the partitive case in the Finnic languages.

  44. Thank you for your attention! Ancient Greek examples: from Conti 2008; Indo-Aryan examples: from Dahl 2008

  45. BibliographyBabby, L. H. 1978: Negation and subject case selection in existential sentences : evidence from Russian. Indiana University Linguistics Club [Papers 81:1].K. Boye & P. Harder, A functional theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization, A forthcoming paper.Conti, L. 2008: Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genetivs als Semisubjekt, HS 121.Crockett, D. 1976: Agreement in Contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, Mass. Slavica Publishers.Dahl 2008: Non-Canonical Argument Realization in Indo-Iranian: A Preliminary Investigation. Presented at the Workshop on Case Marking and Alignment in Indo-European at the University of Bergen, December 11th 2008. Handout.Filin, F. P. 1972: Proisxoždenije Russkogo, ukrainskogo i Belorusskogo jazykov. Istoriko-dialektologičeskij očerk. Leningrad. Nauka.Helasvuo (1996 Hettrich, H. Forthc. Some Remarks on the adverbial genitive in Rgvedic Sanskrit. In: Papers of the 13 World Sanskrit Conference. Forthcoming.Jakobson, R. 1936: Reprint in 1971: Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Selected Writings II, 23-71. The Hague: Mouton. Karskij, E. F. 1956: Belorussy. Jazyk Belorusskogo naroda. Vyp. 2. and Vyp. 3. Moscow. Izdatelstvo ANSSR. Moravcsik, E. A. 1978: On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns, Lingua 45, 233-279.Padučeva, E. V. 2005: Ješe raz o genetive subjekta pri otricanii, Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2005[5], 84-99.Sands, K. & Campbell, L.: Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In: Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, Masayuki Onishi. Typological studies in language v. 46. Amsterdam. Benjamins. 251-305.

More Related