Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

More documents

Recommendations

Info

956 P. Goedegebuure why-phrase in its scope because Mary ate the cookies is presupposed. In the (b) examples, on the other hand, the presuppositions behind the expressions seem to clash with the speaker’s prior assumptions. The speaker cannot endorse them, and the focus type seems therefore to be counterexpectational, i.e., a contrastive focus type. In Hittite the speaker sometimes supports a counterexpectational ku-question by adding a rhetorical question emphasizing the normal situation, as in (6) and (17b). The speaker assumes that the SoA of the INTER was not supposed to obtain: X is the case whereas ‘‘everyone’’ knows X should not happen at all, so the speaker wants to know the reason for the rejection of not-X (‘‘why not [not-X]’’ ¼ ‘‘why X’’). On the other hand, in (19) the SoA, ‘sending the envoys back to me’ (¼ X), was supposed to happen. After all, it is common practice to return one’s envoys. Now the speaker asks, ‘‘why not X?’’: LU:ME (19) S ṪEMI¼YA¼mu kuwat UL man:pl messengers¼my¼me:1.sg.dat why not uie-ski-ttani send-iter-2pl.npst ‘Why are you not sending my envoys (back) to me?!’ (MH/MS letter, a95) In view of my analysis of why-questions as either ‘‘why not X’’ or ‘‘why not (not-X) ¼ why X’’, I tentatively classify the focus type of the counterexpectational why-phrase as rejecting. The why-phrase has scope over the negation, whether expressed or not. To summarize, in Hittite all counterexpectational why-phrases, 18 kuwat with or without negation, occur in preverbal position. But without counterexpectation the ku-adverb appears in initial position, as in (17a). Clearly, the position of ku-adverbs is governed by the identifying focus assignment rules of Table 3. In English the di¤erence in communicative point between (18a) (information focus) and (18b) (counterexpectational focus) is expressed by di¤erences in pitch accent. 19 Although the SoA of a ku-adverb clause typically coincides with the shared background, which is nonfocused, in certain contexts focus assignment is not restricted to the ku-phrase. In those cases the speaker expresses that only parts of the shared background clash with some prior assumptions. The following two examples show preverbal constituents in replacing focus, while kuwat is in initial position. In (20) the princess observes that her own, implicit assumption that she should receive a large amount of goods in view of her status as daughter of the king, is changed for some reason into ‘‘receiving this little (ki tepu)’’. She requests an explanation for the replacement of much by this little by asking a question
Hittite Q-word questions 957 with information focus on kuwat and replacing focus on ki tepu (‘‘Not X, but Y’’). In (21) the angry deity should have been seeking to do good for mankind given the honours received by him, as the speaker reminds the angry deity. The noun idalauwani ‘for harm’ replaces the expected phrase assuli ‘for good’. Initial kuwat, in information focus, has scope over the preverbal constituent in replacing focus. 20 (20) She (the princess) said: [ku]wat¼mu kī tepu pai-tta [W]hy¼me:dat.sg this:N.acc.sg little:N.acc.sg give-2sg.pst ‘[‘‘W]hy have you given me this little bit’’.’ (OH/NS narrative, a 81) (21) [E]a, King of Wisdom, said to Kumarbi: kuwat¼pat 21 ¼wa [ z]ik d Kumarbis dumu.lú.u 19 .lu-UTTI why¼foc.ptcl¼quot you:nom deity K. mankind idalauwani -is[ki-si ] evil:dat.sg sanh˘ search-iter-2sg.npst ‘‘‘Why are you seeking to harm mankind, O Kumarbi? (Does not mankind fetch a heap of grain to promptly honour you, Kumarbi?’’)’ (NH myth, KUB 33.103 ii 9–10) In English one could think of the following INTERs with why in information focus and with main accent on the constituent in replacing focus. (22) a. Why (did) SHE (eat them)? JOHN said he would eat them. b. Why (did she eat) the COOKIES? I thought she wanted to eat the CAKE. The representations of (17a) with only information focus on the whyphrase, (17b) with counterexpectational focus on the why-phrase and (20) with information focus on the why-phrase and replacing focus on the preverbal constituent are (23a), (b) and (c), respectively: (23) a. (C I : [{(R I )(T I )}{(Bid Cs R J ) Inf IdFoc }](C I )) b. (C I : [{(R I )(R J )(R K )(T I )}{(Bid Cs R L ) Rej IdFoc }](C I )) 22 c. (C I : [{(R I )(R K )(T I )}{(R J ) Repl IdFoc }{(Bid Cs R L ) Inf IdFoc }] (C I )) 23 4.3. Comment focus and Q-word questions In comment focus clauses one of the subacts is what the other subacts ‘‘are about’’. This subact is assigned topic function. To find the sentence
Page 1 and 2:
Universität zu Köln Institut für
Page 3 and 4:
2 4. Accented *-u: no certain examp
Page 5 and 6:
4 Melchert 1994: 186-7). NB makes v
Page 7 and 8:
6 ēšta ‘was’ < *h 1 és-t. Ge
Page 9 and 10:
8 References Agbayani, Brian, and C
Page 11 and 12:
10 ——. 2008. The Origin of the
Page 13 and 14:
2 No explanation is offered by Sihl
Page 15 and 16:
4 zarwaniya- ‘of horn’ (C) < *k
Page 17 and 18:
6 requires a preform with fixed mid
Page 19 and 20:
8 no conditioned change of posttoni
Page 21 and 22:
10 contrasting example to prove tha
Page 23 and 24:
12 Appendix: Evidence for Three Set
Page 25 and 26:
14 References Bader, Françoise. 19
Page 27 and 28:
16 Starke, Frank. 1990. Untersuchun
Page 29 and 30:
2 (1) HKM 18:18-20 (MH/MS) nu=mu k
Page 31 and 32:
4 For (“CAPERE”)u-pa- as ‘bri
Page 33 and 34:
6 Appendix 1 Provisional Analysis o
Page 35 and 36:
8 3. /o:/ < *uh 2 wa-šu-u-(ḫa)
Page 37 and 38:
10 Hackstein, Olav. 2007. Ablative
Page 39 and 40:
2 B. Evidence for basic types 1. Op
Page 41 and 42:
4 presents with 3Sg -atär/-etär o
Page 43 and 44:
6 2. Effects of change of state oft
Page 45 and 46:
H. Craig Melchert Università di Ro
Page 47 and 48:
3 As to Grk. γέγωνε ‘shout
Page 49 and 50:
Hittite ḫi-Verbs of the Type -āC
Page 51 and 52: 3 would like to attribute the alter
Page 53 and 54: 5 wappu- ‘river-bank’ reflects
Page 55 and 56: 7 totally exclude laḫḫiya- < l
Page 57 and 58: 9 *n e h 2 - > naḫḫ-. However,
Page 59 and 60: 11 attempts Tischler (1983: 8-9). P
Page 61 and 62: 13 We may thus assume that the preh
Page 63 and 64: 15 Kimball, Sara. 1988. Analogy, Se
Page 65 and 66: H. Craig Melchert University of Sie
Page 67 and 68: 3 E. Ergo not coincidental that onl
Page 69 and 70: On Wh-(Non)-Movement and Internal S
Page 71 and 72: On the Hittite Preposed Relative Cl
Page 73 and 74: 2.1. Movement driven by features On
Page 91 and 92: Focus structure and Q-word question
Page 93 and 94: Hittite Q-word questions 947 di¤er
Page 95 and 96: Hittite Q-word questions 949 This q
Page 97 and 98: Hittite Q-word questions 951 Figure
Page 99 and 100: 4.2. Identifying focus and Q-word q
Page 101: Hittite Q-word questions 955 (T I )
Page 105 and 106: quires a lexically expressed subjec
Page 107 and 108: Hittite Q-word questions 961 In (3)
Page 109 and 110: Hittite Q-word questions 963 revers
Page 111 and 112: Hittite Q-word questions 965 uris
Page 113 and 114: Hittite Q-word questions 967 27. In
Page 115: Hittite Q-word questions 969 É. Ki
Page 127 and 128: kaiå eœlonto iërÈa SimÌan Kond
Page 129 and 130: H. Craig Melchert 57th R.A.I. Unive
Page 131 and 132: 3 (7) TÜNP 1 (text after Hawkins 2
Page 133 and 134: 5 MU.ḪI.A-uš ušneškemi kāša
Page 135 and 136: H. Craig Melchert Naming in Anatoli
Page 137 and 138: 3 (a) /pi:hamma/i-/ ‘resplendent;
Page 139 and 140: 5 4. Ethnica (in contrast with Hitt
Page 141 and 142: 7 5.2. Adverb+Noun (with deity or t
Page 143 and 144: 9 (36) */Tarhu(nta)-tsalma-/, i.e.
Page 145 and 146: 11 8.3 m Tarḫu(n)miya- (Maşat, H
Page 147 and 148: 13 ——. 1994. Über die chronolo
show all

Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?