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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

962 P. Goedegebuure 4.6. Evaluation We may conclude that Hittite ku-word questions are governed by the same focus assignment rules as DECLs, as has been noted for other languages (see Section 1). The correspondence between focus types and patterns discussed above are collected in Table 4 (compare Table 3 for identifying focus in Hittite DECLs): Table 4. Focus scopes and focus typology of Hittite Q-word questions Position in the clause Template Identifying focus Information Initial position (nu) ku- . . . V (ex. 5, 17a, 20, 21) Replacing/Selecting/ Rejecting Preverbal position . . . ku- V (ex. 6, 7, 12, 17b, 19) Comment focus Information, SubjQ-word Pattern position S(O)V (nu) ku- . . . V (ex. 28, 29) Information, ObjQ-word Pattern position (S)OV . . . ku- V (ex. 2, 4, 24) Reporting focus Information, SubjQ-word Pattern position SOV (nu) ku- . . . V (ex. 3) Besides the fact that INTERs and DECLs have the same focus scope possibilities, the Hittite material has shown that INTERs and DECLs may also share the same focus typology. It should therefore be possible to set up a focus typology for non-DECLs comparable to the focus typology as described in FG. The INTER column in Table 5 is a modification of the table for DECLs (Dik 1997a: 332, Figure 7). 32 The most important distinction between the DECL and INTER columns is that the roles are Table 5. Focus types in declaratives and interrogatives Type Of Focus DECL INTER Expression Type P S !ðP A Þ S ðP A Þ S ! P S Noncontrastive Information X ??? X ??? What did Mary buy? Contrastive Replacing X Y X Y (If not Y, then) what did Mary buy instead? Restricting X X and Y X X and Y (If not X and Y, then) which one did Mary buy? Selecting X X or Y X X or Y Which one did Mary buy? Expanding X and Y Y X and Y Y What else did Mary buy?
Hittite Q-word questions 963 reversed for the latter. Whereas in the DECL situation the speaker has some information, contrastive or not, to add to the pragmatic information of the addressee (indicated by the arrow: transfer information from (P S )to(P A ) S ), in the INTER situation the speaker assumes that the addressee has some information to add to the speaker’s pragmatic information (that is, transfer information from (P A ) S to (P S )). Again this information may be contrastive or not. Since the Q-word questions discussed in this study only showed replacing/selecting, rejecting and information focus, Table 5, which lists more focus and expression types, can only be considered provisional. 5. Conclusion Hittite belongs to those SOV languages in which the placement of Q- words is not restricted to the preverbal focus position. Instead, Hittite uses multiple strategies for the placement of Q-words, depending on the degree of counterexpectancy of the Q-word question. If the counterexpectancy of the Q-word question is high, the Q-word appears in preverbal position. But if the counterexpectancy of the Q-word question is low or zero, i.e., if there is only a request for completive information, then the Q-word appears in initial position or in pattern position. This motivation for the placement of the (always focused) Q-constituent is shared with the placement of focus constituents in Hittite DECLs. The observation that the focus assignment rules are the same in IN- TERs and DECLs naturally raises the issue of the status of the existential presupposition usually connected with Q-word questions. It turned out that the existential presupposition could easily be accounted for in the representation of Q-words at the interpersonal level of FDG. Thus, the existential presupposition was separated from the focus-presupposition structure of the INTER. Once the existential presupposition is separated from the focuspresupposition structure of the INTER, one should be able to set up a focus typology for INTERs. The focus typology of DECLs as used in FG has been extended, with a few modifications, to a provisional focus typology of INTERs in FDG. A necessary requirement for the retrieval of the INTER focus structures is to study INTERs in context. Because most studies on INTERs fail to do this, it is often impossible to further qualify INTERs as out-ofthe-blue or identificational, as informational or contrastive. This omission could be the cause for the contradictory statements on the placement of Q-words in the typological literature, clouding the fact that Q-words are
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 and 102: Hittite Q-word questions 955 (T I )
Page 103 and 104: Hittite Q-word questions 957 with i
Page 105 and 106: quires a lexically expressed subjec
Page 107: Hittite Q-word questions 961 In (3)
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?