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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

952 P. Goedegebuure the subset stands in a focus relation to the rest of the C, roman type that the subset is part of the presupposition. 4. Focus and Q-word questions in Hittite I will use Hittite to illustrate how the focus model presented above is capable of including Q-word questions besides DECLs. For ease of comparison I will use the following set of English Q-word questions with di¤erent elements in the scope of the focus: 12 (10) a. (RF) Someone notices that the cookies are gone, and says: ‘‘[Who ate the cookies?] RFoc ’’ b. (CF) With verbalized context: ‘‘The cookies are gone! [Who ate] CFoc [them] Top ?’’ c. (IdF) speaker: ‘‘Someone ate the cookies’’ — addressee: ‘‘[Who] IdFoc ate them?’’ 4.1. The presuppositions of Q-word questions In order to find the focus structure of an INTER we need to divert from the common practice of automatically equating the existential presupposition entertained by just the speaker with the presupposition of an identifying focus structure, and the Q-word with the identifying focus. Instead, we need to concentrate on which presuppositions are shared between speaker and addressee. This ultimately leads to the recognition that other parts of the clause may be in focus besides the Q-word. 13 Nevertheless, the existential presupposition entertained by the speaker is considered an important property of Q-word questions (Comorovski 1996: 23–24; Dik 1997b: 264; and many others). This existential presupposition is captured in FDG as follows (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 122). The Q-word is treated as a nonspecific ( s) and identifiable (þid) referential subact (R) at the interpersonal level, in FDG notation: þid s R (see Keizer and van Staden this issue). This type of act, also called attributive (Dik 1997a: 189; further references in Lyons 1999: 171–172), does not allow cancellation of the existential presupposition it contains. 14 Thus, the existential presupposition is evoked by the representation of the Q-word itself. The presupposition of a focus structure on the other hand requires separate marking at the interpersonal level (see Figure 1 and Table 2). Because of its communicative saliency the Q-word is always in focus. 15 The full representation of a Q-word is therefore Bid Cs R.
4.2. Identifying focus and Q-word questions Hittite Q-word questions 953 Goedegebuure (2003) has shown for Hittite DECLs that di¤erent types of identifying focus, such as expanding and replacing focus, are correlated with di¤erent word order patterns. Additionally, focus can be marked by means of the enclitic -ya ‘and, also, even’ or the enclitic of specification, limitation and identity -pat ‘only, the same, even, etc.’ (Güterbock and Ho¤ner 1995: 212–230). The driving force behind the placement of identifying focus elements in Hittite is the degree of counterexpectancy, and not exhaustiveness or contrast in the FDG sense. Absence of counterexpectancy is connected with initial position, presence of counterexpectancy is connected with preverbal position. However, exhaustiveness and contrast still play a subordinate role: only exhaustive focus can and sometimes must be marked by means of the enclitic particle -pat (this marking is optional for replacing/ selecting focus but obligatory for restricting focus). In that case there do not seem to be any restrictions on placement in the clause (but further study is needed). Nonexhaustive contrastive focus is always marked by means of the enclitic particle -ya ‘also, even’. Table 3 shows how each combination of particle and position uniquely determines a type of focus, with its own template. The only exceptions are replacing and selecting focus, which receive the same expression. Contrastiveness in the FDG sense is indicated by means of eC, exhaustiveness by means of eE. In the remainder of this article I will test whether the placement of Q- words conforms to the patterns established for the di¤erent types of focus constituents in DECLs. Although the three instances of oblique ku-words seem to be freely distributed through the clause (see Table 1), whether functioning as the indirect object in ditransitives or as the complement of a directional or Table 3. Identifying focus in Hittite declaratives Particle Position in the clause Template Non-counterexpectant 1. Information ( C, E) ø initial (nu) Foc ...... V 2. Expanding ‘also’ (þC, E) -ya initial (nu) Foc¼ya ...... V Counterexpectant 3. Expanding ‘even’ (þC, E) -ya preverbal X . . . Foc¼ya V 4. Replacing/Selecting (þC, þE) ø preverbal X . . . Foc V -pat unrestricted no template 5. Restricting (þC, þE) -pat unrestricted no template
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: Hittite Q-word questions 951 Figure
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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?