Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • De Smit (2014) Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered

    Hochgeladen von

    rmspamacc
    87 Ansichten18 Seiten
    scientific paper investigating the existence and fate of ergative alignment in the proto-uralic language

    Originaltitel

    de Smit (2014) Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    scientific paper investigating the existence and fate of ergative alignment in the proto-uralic language

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    87 Ansichten18 Seiten

    De Smit (2014) Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered

    Hochgeladen von

    rmspamacc
    scientific paper investigating the existence and fate of ergative alignment in the proto-uralic language

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 18
    BBerIcHTE, MITTEILUNGEN, Nactmicur=N Budzisch, Josefina ~ Hannah Wegener ~ Attila Bihari ~ Chris Lasse Dabritz: Die zweite internationale Winterschule der Finnougristik mui Gast in Szeged. Grim, Annelieke: IFUSCO in SyktyVkar on Habner, Julia: Zurick zu den Wurzeln der IFUSCO.... Kniippel, Michael: Weitere Erginzungen zum Schriftenverzeichnis Eugen Helimski 295 299 303 307 Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered Merlin de Smit (Turkw) Abstract Purpose ofthis pape is to explore the hypothesis of Proto-Uraic ergativity ist proposed by Katz (1980), I argue that one of Katz’ arguments, namely that of Uralic participiel forms with *-md and a genitive agent, can be extended by postulating that the Proto- Uralie 3rd person objective suffix *-s¥’ was originally a possessive suffix governed by genitive agent In order for this to amount to ergative alignment in PU, however, one ‘would need to abandon the idea taat PU sported an accusative *-m for definite objects and argue thatthe object in PU was unmarked. I argue that evidence for *-m having been A definite object marker isnot that strong, and hypothesize tat, instead, “m developed. from a locel ease in an antipassive construction. Tentative support for this hypothesis is that there is a rough, albeit not exact, correlation between *-mr and secondary 3rd person ‘verb forms based on pasticiples, Allin all,I show that itis indeed possible to build upon Katz" original proposals and that an ergative PU may explain some mysterious aspects of Utalie argument marking, atthe cost of a number of auxiliary hypotheses that will have to stand on their own merits. Keywords: historical linguistics, Uralic languages, historical syntax, ergativity, case ‘marking 1. Introduetion The consensus view on Proto-Uralic argument case-marking is that Proto- Uralic was a nominative-accusative, partially head-marking language in which objects were marked with an accusative *-m if definite (Korhonen 19962). The cousative *-m is represented in Saami (-n or -0 in all Saami languages except South Saami, where *-m is retained), Finnic (-n or -0), Mordvin (+i as part of the composite definite object marker -At'), Mari (-m), the Samoyed languages (with the exception of Enets (Wickman 1955: 114)) as well as dialectally in Mansi, The Uralic accusative *-m is thus preserved in most Uralic languages with the exception of Khanty and Hungarian; in Petmic, traces remain in the declination of pronouns and nouns with possessive suffixes (Rédei 1988: 382). ‘The Finnie partitive case *-14 has developed from a local ablative case (which still occurs vestigielly in postpositions). Its usage as an object case may have 2 Merlin de Smic its origins in the proto-language common to Seami, Finnie and Mordvin (It- konen 1972: 185-186). Proto-Uralic was head-marking in that, to some extent, object cross-reference on the verb may be reconstructed to Proto-Uralic: this co-reference took the shape of an element *-s (Janhunen 1982: 35). The origin of the suffix has ‘been alternatively seen in a possessive suffix Janhunen 1982: 35, Mahieu 2009: 122-124) or in a personal pronoun with accusative case-marking (Honti 1995: 57-58). In Samoyed, Ugric and particularly Mordvin, object co-reference has developed further ina specific verb paradigm. In Mordvin, where it has deve- loped to the greatest extent, verbal suffixes refer to both person and number of the object. Differential object case-marking coding definiteness, with indefinite objects, ‘unmarked, is widespread in the Uralic languages: it occurs in Mordvin (which shows definiteness-based differential subject marking as well), Permic and dialectally in Mansi, as well as Samoyed (at least in Kamas). In Finnic and Saami, he development ofa partial object marker from the Proto-Uralie ablative *tA may have obscured this original Uralic distinction. In Saami, *-14 was generalized as the plural object marking; there is, with the exception of South Saami (where indefinite plural objects remain unmarked), no definiteness- or partiality-based differential object marking in Seami. In Finnie, partiality-based object marking is alive and well. Thus, the consensus position on Proto-Uralic primary argument case marking is: subject -0, definite object -m, indefinite object -0. There was no specific plural object marker (or indeed any case distinction beyond, perhaps, a subject! object -f and an modifier/oblique ~/). ‘There have, however, been aitemative positions arguing for ergativity in Proto-Uralic (Katzschmann 1977, 1999-2000; Katz 1980). Katz (1980) argued that Proto-Uralic was a split-ergative language, with 3rd person sub- jects patterning along exgative-absolutive lines, Ist and 2nd person subjects patterning along nominative-accusative lines. This spit-engative system would bbe typologically plausible: in split-ergative languages, the most prototypical subjects, such as personal pronouns, tend to remain unmarked and pattern along ‘nominative-accusative lines (Dixon 1994: 84-88). The ergative case would be {identical to the Proto-Uralic genitive *-n. The evidence marshalled by Katzis: 1. A single, ergative-like construction from Selkup (Katz 1980: 394). This has been criticized by Havas (2006: 103), 2. Ergativity in East Khanty. East Khanty is the only modern ergative Uralic language (aside from some ergative-like, relatively recently developed features in Finnic(Itkonen 1979)), and Katz argues thatthe ergative case of East Khanty, " Definiteness-based subject case marking of the type encountered in Mordvin cannot Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered 3 ‘based on a local case, is derived from the genitive (Katz 1980: 395). East Khanty ergativity is generally taken to be a recent phenomenon, developed through contact with Paleo-Siberian languages (Kulonen 1991: 187, Honti 1998: 351). 3, The so-called agent-participle constructions of Finnic, in which @ parti- ciple with the suffix *-m is combined with a genitive agent (Katz 1980: 396): @) Finnish isdinnd-n utsu-ma vieras Inndlord-cen invite-MA ——_guest{Now] “The guest invited by the landlord.” 4. The presence of an unexplained *-n in pronouns such as the Finnish 3* person pronoun hdin and the (archaic) interrogative pronoun ken (Katz 1980: 397). Katz’ proposal has not received much attention in Uralic linguistics, with the exception of Havas’ (2006) highly critical and Katzschmann’s (1999- +2000) more sympathetic treatment. In the paper below, I will reconsider Katz’ proposal and argue that a plausible, though not quite conclusive, case can be made for Proto-Uralic to have been to some extent ergative. However, this case presupposes, among other things, that our conception of Proto-Uralic object ccase marking be overturned, ‘The structure of the article is as follows. Chapter 2 below will deal with the areal context of Proto-Uralic case-marking. In Chapter 3, 1 will argue that the fourth of Katz’ arguments mentioned above, that of the unexplained *-n ‘in pronouns, must be rejected as an argument for Proto-Uralie ergativity, but that the third argument, that relating to the Finnish agent participles and its Uralic cognates, could perhaps indeed indicate Proto-Uralic ergativty. I will reinforce this argument with a hypothesis that 3rd person transitive verbs, which in Proto-Uralic sported a suflix *-s7, may have taken a genitive sub- ject as well, In Chapter 4, I will analyze the case-marking of the Proto-Uralic object and argue that, instead of the consensus view according to which the Proto-Uralic accusative *-m was & definite marker, there are reasons to assume that the basic object was unmarked, with an originally local *-m marking the object in detransitive, atelic constructions. In Chapter 5, I will combine my {arguments into @ comprehensive thesis on Proto-Uralie argument case-marking and in Chapter 6, [will consider whether this thesis explains issues that remain ‘unexplained on the consensus view on Proto-Uiralie case-marking, and argue that it does on the issue of the uneven distribution of the Uralic accusative *-m and the originally participial structure of the 3rd person verb in many Uralic languages. Chapter 7, finally, will discuss advantages and problems of the ‘viewpoints raised in tis article. 4 Merlin de Smit 2. The areal and typological context of Proto-Uralic argument case marking The presence or absence ofa specific grammatical construction in surrounding language families proves nothing in and of itself with respect to Proto-Uralic. However, Uralic has been argued to have been in long-term contact with, and even related to, a number of language families of Northern Eurasia, All else being equal, a typological profile of Proto-Uralic that fits that of the historically surrounding language families is more plausible than one that does not. This is, first of all, Proto-Indo-European, which might have been related to Proto-Uralic (Kortlandt 2010) and almost certainly was in contact with it (Kallio 2006: 10-11), though it should be noted that Proto-Uralic may have been a significantly more recent proto-language than Proto-Indo-European (Kallio 2006, Hakkinen 2009). Proto-Indo-European is argued to have been, at some point during its development, ergative: one proposal going back to Uhlenbeck is that the Proto Indo-European ergative *-s later developed in the subject case of masculine and feminine nouns; the unmarked PIE absolutive developed in the neuter noun class (Rumsey 1987: 301, Beekes 1995: 193-194, Kortlandt 2008: 3-4), The proposal has been criticized on typological grounds (Rumsey 1987: 307, Bauer 2000: 56), but is defended by Kortlandt (2008: 5). Another proposal is that early PIE was an active-stative language (Lehmann 1993: 218ff, Bauer 2000: 90-91). Proto-Indo-European sported an accusative marker *-m which may originally have marked animate objects (Bauer 2000: 173, Kortlandt 2008; 5); it was absent originally in thematic neuter nouns (Beekes 1995: 173). This would seem an important similarity between PIE and PU: both marked ‘objects high on the individuation scale (definites in PU, animated in PIE) with the same suffix. As forthe origin of the PIE accusative *-m, a local case (lative) has been proposed (Bauer 2000: 48, Kortlandt 2008: 5-6) In recent years, proposals drawing a link between Uralic, so-called Paleo- Siberian languages such as Yukaghir and Chukchi and also Eskimo-Aleut have (again) been made (Fortescue 1998, Seeffoth 2000). Fortescue’s (1998) “Uralo-Siberian”, which may be a hypothetical language family in the traditional sense or one descended from a group or “mesh” of languages in close con- tact, comprises Uralic, Yukaghir, the Chukotko-Kamehatkan group (Chukchi, Koryak, Itelmen) and Eskimo-Aleut. This hypothesis does not exclude Indo- Uralic genetic connections: notably Kortlandt (2006: 1) regards Indo-Uralic as a specific Uralo-Siberian subbranch. OF the Uralo-Siberian languages, Eskimo-Aleut and Chukotkan, but not Itelmen, are ergative (Fortescue 1998: 10), Ergativity has disappeared in the Aleut branch of Eskimo-Aleut (Fortescue 1998; 83). Ergativity in Chukehi is hypothesized by Fortescue (1998: 64) to bbe a relatively recent innovation through contact with Eskimo-Aleut. Yukaghir exhibits a kind of split ergativity in that transitive and intransitive subjects (A Proto-Uralic Ergativity Reconsidered 5 and S) align as topics, but as focus (marked with -(e)k or -le(y) in Tundra Yu- kaghit) intransitive subjects (S) align with objects (0); transitive subjects (A) are zero-marked as focus (Maslova 2003: 6-8). Thus in the following Tundra Yukaghir examples from Maslova (2003: 8) intransitive subject and object exhibit the same focus markers: 2) Tundra Yukeghir ten sarime-pe-ley raxuen guest-#1-Foc “Guests have come!” kelu-ge-l ‘come-PL-SF nieme-y find-TRANS.OF-LCR @) met tay —gob-ley Isa that —-man-roc “Thave found the man!” Maslova (2003: $4) mentions that S/O Focus often serves to introduce new participants, and that the default reading of focus-marked intransitive subjects and objects is therefore indefinite. This default reading can be overridden by markers indicating definiteness. In this, the Yukaghir system is somewhat re- rminiscent of the split intransitivity in Finnic, where existential clause subjects (always indefinite, usually new in discourse) align with objects in terms of case-marking ‘Tundra Yukaghir does not have an accusative: the locative (shane) may be used as an object marker. In Kolyma Yukaghir, a locative -gele has grammati- cized into an accusative (Maslova 2003: 52, 58). Eskimo, as an ergative lan- guage, has absolutive-marked objects; indefinite objects, however, occur in the anipassive construction and are marked with a ease based on the instrumental (Fortescue 1998: 10). The same goes for Chukchi, while Itelmen does not have distinet subject and object case markers (Pakendorf 2007: 153) ‘Though the idea of an Ural-Altaic language family has been abandoned, the Uralic languages are typologically and areally aligned with the so-called “Altaic” languages by Korhonen (1996a: 219-220) and Janhunen (2009: 61- 62), Janhunen (2009: 71-72) couples this with a proposed Siberian homeland for PU, similarly Hakkinen (2009: 44) for a “Pre-Uralic” predecessor of PU. ‘The Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic languages are nominative-accusative and generally show a distinction between accusative-marked definite or specific objects and unmarked indefinite or unspecific objects, similar to many Uralic languages (Pakendorf 2007: 142-149). Ket, finally, does not distinguish sub- jects and objects by case-marking, but by agreement markers and word order (Pakendorf 2007: 153-154). 6 Metijn de Sit Thus, in the language families surrounding Uralic, we would have both ergative (PIE and to some extent Paleo-Siberian) and nominative-accusati (Turkic) languages, with parallels to the hypothesized definiteness-based

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen