A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2 Genitive Data <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di<br />
In H<strong>in</strong>di, case markers occur as postpositions. The default genitive case<br />
marker specifies a relation between two nouns: head and modifier as <strong>in</strong> rAm<br />
kA ghar (Ram’s house), where rAm modifies the head ghar. The genitive case<br />
marker is kA, which has allomorphic variations as kI and ke, governed by the<br />
grammatical features <strong>of</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g head as illustrated <strong>in</strong> Table 1:<br />
Allomorph Head Gram. feature Example<br />
kA Mascul<strong>in</strong>e, S<strong>in</strong>gular,<br />
Direct Case<br />
rAm kA ghar<br />
„Ram‟s house‟<br />
ke Mascul<strong>in</strong>e, S<strong>in</strong>gular,<br />
Oblique Case<br />
saMwAdAtA ke savAl kA javAb diyA<br />
„Answered the question <strong>of</strong> Press‟<br />
Mascul<strong>in</strong>e, Plural, Any<br />
congress kI nIiyAm<br />
„Policies <strong>of</strong> Congress‟<br />
kI Fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e, Any brahaspativAr kI rAt<br />
„Thursday‟s night‟<br />
Table 1: Allomorphic variation <strong>of</strong> the genitive marker <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di<br />
As has been widely studied by Girju (2008), the genitive marker between<br />
two nouns is highly polysemous <strong>in</strong> nature as they express different semantic<br />
relations. H<strong>in</strong>di is no exception <strong>in</strong> this regard. However, the <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g fact<br />
<strong>of</strong> Indo-Aryan languages and other language families is that genitive data<br />
occur <strong>in</strong> many other contexts. We discuss those contexts <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di here one by<br />
one. The most significant one is the relation that occurs between the genitive<br />
noun and verb as illustrated <strong>in</strong> (1), which is dist<strong>in</strong>ct from (2), which is a<br />
regular noun-noun genitive construction.<br />
1. rAm ke do beTA hE<br />
Ram-gen two son be-3sg pr<br />
„Ram has got two sons.‟<br />
2. rAm ke do beTe skul jA rahe hE<br />
Ram-gen two son school go be-3sg pr<br />
„Two sons <strong>of</strong> Ram are go<strong>in</strong>g to school.‟<br />
In (1), the genitive noun is connected to the verb directly and not with the<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g noun do beTA „two sons‟. One might argue for the whole NP rAm<br />
ke do beTe „Two sons <strong>of</strong> Ram‟ to be argument <strong>of</strong> the verb hE „is‟ <strong>in</strong> the sense<br />
<strong>of</strong> „There exists two sons <strong>of</strong> Ram‟. This <strong>in</strong>terpretation is not viable because<br />
the NP do beTe can be scrambled with hE as <strong>in</strong> (3), which is not a regular<br />
phenomenon for Noun-gen Noun construction.<br />
3. rAm ke hE do beTe, aur madhu ke t<strong>in</strong><br />
Ram-gen be-3sg pr two sons and Madhu-gen three<br />
„Ram has got two sons and Madhu three.‟<br />
However, the case becomes more complex than it was assumed <strong>in</strong> the<br />
beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g because we have come across <strong>in</strong>stances where the head noun is not<br />
contiguous with its genitive modifier as exemplified <strong>in</strong> (4):<br />
4. mAntriyoM kI samiti kI adyakshaytA rakshA mantrI karenge<br />
m<strong>in</strong>ister-pl-gen committee-gen chair defense m<strong>in</strong>ister do-3sg fut<br />
„The committee <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>isters will be chaired by Defense M<strong>in</strong>ister.‟<br />
200