Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Whereas D-stem reduplication introduced an adjectival component to the transitive verbs above, with respect to adjectival roots, which are necessarily intransitive, the D-stem reduplication introduces a direct object through causativization. 15 (7) OBGT XI (MSL IV; Yoshikawa 1993, 305) 11. [gun 3].≠gun 3±.na.ab bu-≠ri-im± make colored! 12. [sig 7].sig 7.ga.ab bu-ri-≠iq± make green! Likewise in example (7), the reduplication of the verbal root yields a resultative form and in the case of adjectival roots results in a causative semantics. Note, then, that in purely formal terms, the examples of originally transitive predicates in (4) and (5) form a resultative secondary predicate through simple reduplication of the root, whereas the adjectival examples in (6) and (7) start out as a verbal root followed by the nominalizing/resultative suffix, *-a, and form the resultative secondary predicate by verbal reduplication that preserves the nominalizing/resultative suffix in final position. The fact that the resultative D-stem construction of both the transitive and the adjectival roots yields a semantic complex that includes both a direct object and an adjectival predicate that modifies the direct object should probably be taken as evidence that it is a resultative secondary predication (see Rothstein <strong>2004</strong>, 59-90 and references therein). Yoshikawa drew a fundamental contrast between the D-stem ˙amt¬u reduplications dealt with above and the Gtn-stem ˙amt¬u reduplications that I turn to now 15 Whether the causativization of the predicate follows from reduplication alone or is related in one way or another to the *-b- morpheme remains an open question: this is the generalization that best fits the grammatical texts (Kowaki 1982), but it probably needs to be investigated more thoroughly in non-lexical environments. 109
(Yoshikawa 1993, 308). Whereas D-stem reduplications share a number of important properties with resultative secondary predicates, Gtn-stem reduplications bear a number of similarities to depictive secondary predicates in English. Yoshikawa refers to a number of examples from Late Old Babylonian lexical lists such as the following. (8) Izi, E (Yoshikawa 1993, 297) 329. u 2 ki tag pa-ßa-lum to crawl 330. u 2 ki tag.tag pi-ta-ßu-lum to crawl continually (9) Izi, F (Yoshikawa 1993, 297) 119. gu 2 gid 2 ßa-da-hu to walk 120. gu 2 gid 2.gid 2 ßi-≠ta±-[du-du] to walk continually (10) Izi, G (Yoshikawa 1993, 298) 249. gu 4.ud ßa!-˙a-≠t¬u± to jump 250. gu 4.ud.gu 4.ud ßi-ta˙-˙u-≠t¬u± to jump continually In each case, the verb is intransitive and agentive and the reduplication of the Sumerian verbal root is translated by an Akkadian verb in the Gtn-stem, indicating repetitive action. The meaning of such repetitive Gtn-stem reduplications corresponds to the depictive secondary predicates described above in that the period of time referred to by the Gtn- stem reduplication is the entire period of time in the relevant domain, likewise depictive 110
Page 1 and 2:
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angele
Page 3 and 4:
To Grace iii
Page 5 and 6:
Section 2.3: BNBV inal reduplicatio
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Each dance and its
Page 9 and 10:
education in anthropological lingui
Page 11 and 12:
adopted me, taught me Japanese, fed
Page 13 and 14:
forthcoming book. Both provided me
Page 15 and 16:
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS John
Page 17 and 18:
topic and focus. This dissertation
Page 19 and 20:
FocusP Focus Phrase ForceP (Illocut
Page 21 and 22:
Preface Before turning to the first
Page 23 and 24:
1994), has produced a degree of com
Page 25 and 26:
grammatical phenomenon begins with
Page 27 and 28:
morphological oppositions that are
Page 29 and 30:
The topic-marked noun in (1), Mary,
Page 31 and 32:
descriptive characterizations appli
Page 33 and 34:
espects and differ only with respec
Page 35 and 36:
ergative case-marked lexical noun p
Page 37 and 38:
focus, clause-linkage and rhetorica
Page 39 and 40:
1 The BNBV inal distributional clas
Page 41 and 42:
transitivity as opposed to the patt
Page 43 and 44:
1.1 Directive case and the oblique
Page 45 and 46:
(3) Ean. 11 2:9-3:4 (Jagersma forth
Page 47 and 48:
(6) Ean. 1 9:2-3 (Zólyomi 1999: 21
Page 49 and 50:
interpreting [ni] 10 as locative, w
Page 51 and 52:
BNBV class will be proposed, but in
Page 53 and 54:
Examples (8) and (9) obviously diff
Page 55 and 56:
all identical in syntax), XP 1 refe
Page 57 and 58:
the two criteria mentioned above, n
Page 59 and 60:
Note that two lexemes, saœ-√il 2
Page 61 and 62:
this chapter. And, it is, after all
Page 63 and 64:
1.3 BNBV inal as a low source appli
Page 65 and 66:
in the English double object constr
Page 67 and 68:
Various theoretical considerations
Page 69 and 70:
But Landau then draws a comparison
Page 71 and 72:
work of Nichols who describes the d
Page 73 and 74:
1.4 BNBV inal verbs of perception B
Page 75 and 76: (31) Eduba Regulations [PBS 1/2, 98
Page 77 and 78: The special characteristic of BNBV
Page 79 and 80: 9. 1/3(diß) ma.na 5(diß) gin 2 in
Page 81 and 82: (40) Inanna and Ebih [1.3.2], ll. 8
Page 83 and 84: (44) Sumerian Proverbs, Collection
Page 85 and 86: 465. d nergal d meß 3.lam.ta.e 3.[
Page 87 and 88: 15. [x x] ki niœ 2 zi pa.an.pa.ne.
Page 89 and 90: 23. d en.lil 2.le igi.ni ki kur 2.r
Page 91 and 92: argument to be changed to locative
Page 93 and 94: (60) A praise poem of Shulgi (Shulg
Page 95 and 96: 199. uruda ˙a.zi.in 2(diß) ma.na
Page 97 and 98: 1.7 Possible motivations for the BN
Page 99 and 100: Note that I differ from Zólyomi in
Page 101 and 102: Gragg’s statistics, based on a co
Page 103 and 104: 1.8 Ergative possessors and the tra
Page 105 and 106: sentences in which they occur, but
Page 107 and 108: In the examples in (72), a dummy pr
Page 109 and 110: 2 Decomposing lexical aspect: Telic
Page 111 and 112: aspect” as a rough equivalent to
Page 113 and 114: esultative secondary predicates—i
Page 115 and 116: In (1), factoring out tense as much
Page 117 and 118: separately on the basis of whether
Page 119 and 120: In the three examples in (2), contr
Page 121 and 122: nominal modified by the secondary p
Page 123 and 124: translated by Akkadian D-stem verbs
Page 125: forms are, in some cases at least,
Page 129 and 130: coffee—only the inanimacy of coff
Page 131 and 132: (16) wo3 wen4 (yi) wen4 zai4 jue2-d
Page 133 and 134: (19) ta1 de lian3 hen3 bai2 she Pos
Page 135 and 136: eduplicated stem is followed by the
Page 137 and 138: 2.3 BNBV inal reduplication: Depict
Page 139 and 140: 16. dum.dum.bi lugal d ur. d za.ba
Page 141 and 142: 352. œiß bal ki.ßar 2.ra mu.ni.i
Page 143 and 144: check on quality or quantity of fie
Page 145 and 146: accomplishment, so as secondary pre
Page 147 and 148: earing the *bi-√ prefix generally
Page 149 and 150: denoting progress also occurs in su
Page 151 and 152: verbs are also injunctive forms, an
Page 153 and 154: (42) The Exploits of Ninurta [1.6.2
Page 155 and 156: The example in (44) was presented i
Page 157 and 158: The last area of lexical aspectual
Page 159 and 160: As an example of the restriction on
Page 161 and 162: followed by *-e (which could be an
Page 163 and 164: (50) [ Topic saœ.ki.ni [ Appositio
Page 165 and 166: 26. d en.ki me a.na œal 2.la mu.u
Page 167 and 168: 167. peß 2 tur.≠gin 7± kiri 3
Page 169 and 170: context available in these three pa
Page 171 and 172: less clear. Achievements are quite
Page 173 and 174: (61) A hymn to Haya for Rim-Sin (Ri
Page 175 and 176: 2.5 Introducing telicity, ßu, and
Page 177 and 178:
followed by resultative seems to be
Page 179 and 180:
In (67), I present the two-part der
Page 181 and 182:
internal relative clauses such as t
Page 183 and 184:
gave the floor a clean sweep” onl
Page 185 and 186:
248. [za].e tuß.a er 2 œa 2.e ga.
Page 187 and 188:
Since it is an achievement predicat
Page 189 and 190:
10. siki.ni u2 numun 2.bur.gin 7 i
Page 191 and 192:
(81) Enmerkar and Ensu˙girana [1.8
Page 193 and 194:
2.6 BNBV inal as a particle-verb co
Page 195 and 196:
than indicating the location or adv
Page 197 and 198:
(90) Hey, toss [ Indirect object me
Page 199 and 200:
object position if the applicative
Page 201 and 202:
(98) Indonesian causative in -kan (
Page 203 and 204:
constituents, which happens to corr
Page 205 and 206:
2.7 The link between the BNBV const
Page 207 and 208:
(103) a. BI (du 8, igi, gig) b. gu
Page 209 and 210:
3 Diagnosing presupposition in Sume
Page 211 and 212:
contrastive focus construction with
Page 213 and 214:
3.1 Presupposition and assertion, t
Page 215 and 216:
The easiest way of differentiating
Page 217 and 218:
In the case of an existential sente
Page 219 and 220:
verbs of direct perception in Sumer
Page 221 and 222:
demonstrative reference, whereas th
Page 223 and 224:
3.2 Focus and focal presupposition
Page 225 and 226:
In both (15a) and (15b), the focuse
Page 227 and 228:
sentence (taking into consideration
Page 229 and 230:
similar structures in other languag
Page 231 and 232:
of *mini-√ < *bi-ni-√, the situ
Page 233 and 234:
emphasize that in all likelihood th
Page 235 and 236:
line 207: instead of igi mi.ni.in.i
Page 237 and 238:
349. i 3.gur 2 ki.a mu.na.ab.za He
Page 239 and 240:
182. niœ 2. ak.a “What my evil m
Page 241 and 242:
The curious word-order in line 146
Page 243 and 244:
105. e 2 nam.ti.la e 2 d en.lil 2.l
Page 245 and 246:
(29) Lugalbanda I [1.8.2.1], l. 409
Page 247 and 248:
similar to the previous examples of
Page 249 and 250:
(33) Textual witnesses to Dumuzi’
Page 251 and 252:
55. su 8.ba.ra ki d œeßtin.an.na.
Page 253 and 254:
Shlonsky 2004). If one were to tran
Page 255 and 256:
Although the omission of the nomina
Page 257 and 258:
(38) a. Enmerkar and the Lord of Ar
Page 259 and 260:
If we are to pick apart the subtle
Page 261 and 262:
which refer to permanent properties
Page 263 and 264:
Definite noun phrases such as “my
Page 265 and 266:
. kamree-mee aadmii hai room-in man
Page 267 and 268:
. larkee-kee paas kuttaa hai boy.Ob
Page 269 and 270:
topicalized, the following example
Page 271 and 272:
. when there is more than one gover
Page 273 and 274:
The contrast in (53), therefore, is
Page 275 and 276:
(55) John-un [[totwuk-i tomangka]-n
Page 277 and 278:
These distinctions can also provide
Page 279 and 280:
ather THE BIRD that did so” count
Page 281 and 282:
epeating the presupposition of the
Page 283 and 284:
(5) Gilgamesh and the Netherworld,
Page 285 and 286:
4.2 Focus-affected *bi-√ prefix c
Page 287 and 288:
In the first of my examples of focu
Page 289 and 290:
indicate that Enmerkar seeks neithe
Page 291 and 292:
62. d en.lil 2 d nin.lil 2.da tuß.
Page 293 and 294:
117. ki lugal gub ki dadag.ga nam I
Page 295 and 296:
Alster (1974, 34-35) reconstructs l
Page 297 and 298:
245. d ezina 2.ra You should not ..
Page 299 and 300:
ki 34. lu2 ma2.ri2 .ke4 œalga ur.r
Page 301 and 302:
(22) The Young Scribe and his Fathe
Page 303 and 304:
4.3 Focus-affected compound verb co
Page 305 and 306:
11. na ri.ga.œu 10 ßu nam bi 2.ba
Page 307 and 308:
following a word that ends in /n/ i
Page 309 and 310:
408. u 4 ˙ul gig du 11.ga d en.lil
Page 311 and 312:
and made the subject of a lengthy
Page 313 and 314:
It is interesting that the construc
Page 315 and 316:
as “to look at,” which need not
Page 317 and 318:
(32) María se fué con nada Maria
Page 319 and 320:
applying to nada as in [32b]) and
Page 321 and 322:
is negated. The phrase igi nu mu.ni
Page 323 and 324:
(33a), “Maria didn’t leave with
Page 325 and 326:
(41) a. ston petro dhanisan to vivl
Page 327 and 328:
ninda and uzu.zu appear in the same
Page 329 and 330:
(“Specify” in Chung and Ladusaw
Page 331 and 332:
5 Possession, animacy and the rise
Page 333 and 334:
understood as a single component of
Page 335 and 336:
increasingly specific) models of th
Page 337 and 338:
diachronic origins (as opposed to t
Page 339 and 340:
C” ergativity. Whether Type C erg
Page 341 and 342:
Here in the realm of participial co
Page 343 and 344:
straightforward: the perception beg
Page 345 and 346:
instrumentality. In other words, th
Page 347 and 348:
causative environment described by
Page 349 and 350:
work on bare nouns, indefiniteness
Page 351 and 352:
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A
Page 353 and 354:
Cooper, Jerrold, and Wolfgang Heimp
Page 355 and 356:
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax: A Function
Page 357 and 358:
Kim, Ji-yung. 2003. Verb Reduplicat
Page 359 and 360:
Loprieno, Antonio. 1991. Focus, Moo
Page 361 and 362:
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG Letter
Page 363 and 364:
------. 1991. The Alignment of Argu
Page 365 and 366:
------. 1970. Eine Schicksalsentsch
show all

Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?