Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(88) a. I gave [ Indirect object John [ Direct object his books [ Particle back]]]. b. Hey, toss [ Indirect object me [ Direct object that wrench [ Particle up]]], will you? c. Would you saw [ Indirect object me [ Direct object a piece [ Particle off?]]] Den Dikken (1995, 173-174) elaborates the matter in some detail, but the reason that the examples in (87) fail is presumably due to the details of the fine structure of phrasal movement in English and need not concern us here. My point in raising examples such as (88c) is that they also display a rather consist set of word-order variations in English. (89) a. Hey, toss [ Direct object that wrench [ Particle up [ Indirect object to me]]], will you? b. Hey, toss [ Particle up [ Direct object that wrench [ Indirect object to me]]], will you? c. Hey, toss [ Indirect object me [ Direct object that wrench [ Particle up]]], will you? d. Hey, toss [ Indirect object me [ Particle up [ Direct object that wrench]]], will you? e. **Hey, toss [ Particle up [ Indirect object me [ Direct object that wrench]]], will you? What the series of examples in (89) demonstrate is that given an underlying word-order such as [Direct object [Particle [Indirect object]]] in (89a), the verb can “incorporate” either the particle as in (89b) or the indirect object as in (89c), but both can only be incorporated if they are in a particular order: (89d) is good, whereas (89e) is bad. The parallels with the BNBV inal construction are manifold, but somewhat difficult to describe due to differences in morphosyntactic structure. 179
(90) Hey, toss [ Indirect object me [ Direct object that wrench [ Particle up]]], will you? (91) gig.e igi bi 2.in.du 8 [ Indirect object gig-e [ Direct object igi [ Particle bi [ Verb n-du]]]] Just as in the BNBV inal construction, the transfer of possession model is paramount in the English example, due obviously to the necessary presence of a recipient or benefactee, which is incorporated into the verb. The particle (“up”), likewise, codes two distinct functions: the relational or orientational value (“up, out, in, back”) that holds between the source (the addressee in [90]) and the goal (“me” in [90]) and the telicity of the verb through its modification of the direct object. The differences between (90) and (91) are also interesting, however, particularly in light of the fact that Sumerian and English differ in terms of ergative vs. accusative case-marking systems and basic word-order. Since Sumerian uses an inalienable body-part noun to code the relational/orientational value, the body-part noun remains in the absolutive case and uses two distinct forms of raised possessor construction (locative-terminative and ergative as inalienable possessor, both *-e) to indicate the nature of the relation between source and goal. At the same time, it seems to indicate the telicity or boundedness of the predicate through the conjunction of igi and the *bi-√ prefix. Ultimately these differences seem to result—quite directly— from the basic word-order of the respective languages in that the SVO language is capable of forming a particle-verb construction by stranding a bare adposition to the right of the verb, whereas in an SOV language like Sumerian, this is not possible and the 180
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 and 126:
forms are, in some cases at least,
Page 127 and 128:
(Yoshikawa 1993, 308). Whereas D-st
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: than indicating the location or adv
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?