Datives: Locations and Possessors Case syncretism in Marathi ...

Introduction Locative to Dative Purposive to Dative Dative to accusative 

Datives: Locations and Possessors 

Case syncretism in Marathi diachrony 

Ashwini Deo 

Yale University 

Project A24 

SFB 471 Case Workshop 

University of Konstanz 

May 8-10 2008 

Datives, Locations, and Possessors SFB 471 May 8-10 2008


Outline 

Introduction 

Locative to Dative 

Old Marathi 

The dative domain 

Modern Marathi 

The trajectory 

Purposive to Dative 

Dative to accusative 



Locations and datives 

The localist hypothesis posits that notions of location in space and 

motion are central to the conceptualization of all other relations. 






◮ Possessors are animate locations (Aristar 1996). 







◮ Recipients/benefactives are abstract goals. (Gruber 1965; 

Jackendoff 1972, 1983) 









◮ Experiencers are goals/locations. (Brandt 2003; Landau 2005) 










At least some part of the motivation for the localist hypothesis 

comes from the common linguistic encoding for locations, 

possessors, recipients, benefactives, and experiencers 

crosslinguistically. 










At least some part of the motivation for the localist hypothesis 

comes from the common linguistic encoding for locations, 

possessors, recipients, benefactives, and experiencers 

crosslinguistically. 

e.g. Dative marking, prepositions like to, á... 




Dative marking (inflectional cases, case clitics, adpositions) 

provides the starting point for determining the relation between 

locations and the other categories. 

Three logical possibilities 

◮ Rampant homophony 

◮ Possessors, recipients, benefactive, experiencers are locations. 

◮ Some unified abstract category exists that subsumes these and 

locations. 



The semantic relation 

direction 

purpose 

predicative possessor external possessor 

recipient 

experiencer 

(Based on Haspelmath 2003 (pp.213), Fig,. 8.1.) 

beneficiary 




direction 

purpose 


recipient 

experiencer 

beneficiary 




direction 

purpose 


recipient 

experiencer 

beneficiary 

a. John went to Konstanz. direction 

b. John went to get a pen. purpose 

c. John gave a pen to Maria. recipient 

d. It seems absurd to John. experiencer 



Semantic maps (Haspelmath 2003) 

◮ Multifunctionality: a result of ambiguity or vagueness? 

◮ Recurrent patterns in distribution of linguistic units across 

languages. 

◮ The work done by the connecting lines is to impose 

restrictions on the clusterings of meanings. (the 

“arrangement” of functions). 

◮ Linguistic units express contiguous sub-sets of such functions. 

◮ Other terms 

◮ Conceptual Space Croft (2001) 

◮ Mental map (Anderson 1986) 

◮ Cognitive map (Kortmann 1997) 

◮ Implicational map (Haspelmath 1997) 



Some historical and typological questions 

◮ What is the morphological source of dative marking? 

◮ At least some cases where they come from locatives 

(Kurylowicz 1964; Aristar 1996) 

◮ At least some cases where they come from 

purposives/benefactives (Marathi) 









◮ How is the path to dative marking effected (or what does it 

mean for datives to “come from” locatives or benefactives)? 

◮ Locative ≫ Dative 

◮ Benefactive ≫ Dative 









◮ How is the path to dative marking effected (or what does it 

mean for datives to “come from” locatives or benefactives)? 

◮ Locative ≫ Dative 

◮ Benefactive ≫ Dative 

◮ What are the shared semantic properties of the categories that 

get realized with dative marking? 

◮ What properties make a particular exponent a dative marker? 



The relevant contexts of use: 

a. The lamp is to the edge of the table. static locative 

b. John walked to the corner. allative 

c. *To Maria is a pen/a car/a kitchen. possession-alienable 

d. *To Maria is a sister/a nose/pride. possession-inalienable 

e. *To Maria is fear/worry/a headache experiencer 

f. John gave the pen to Maria. recipient 

g. John sent the children to Maria. goal 

h. John baked a cake for Maria. beneficiary 

i. John came to the house for his keys. purpose 



The relevant contexts of use: 

a. The lamp is to the edge of the table. static locative 

b. John walked to the corner. allative 

c. *To Maria is a pen/a car/a kitchen. possession-alienable 

d. *To Maria is a sister/a nose/pride. possession-inalienable 

e. *To Maria is fear/worry/a headache experiencer 

f. John gave the pen to Maria. recipient 

g. John sent the children to Maria. goal 

h. John baked a cake for Maria. beneficiary 

i. John came to the house for his keys. purpose 

Which subsets of these contexts appear with dative marking across 

grammars? 

What does this depend on? 



A further twist: the accusative 

◮ Most Indic languages have DOM determined by animacy and 

definiteness. 

◮ There is no distinct accusative marker (at least in the 

well-studied languages); the dative gets employed in this use. 

◮ Is this a phenomenon that (at least partially) needs a 

diachronic account? 



A further twist: the accusative 

◮ Most Indic languages have DOM determined by animacy and 

definiteness. 

◮ There is no distinct accusative marker (at least in the 

well-studied languages); the dative gets employed in this use. 

◮ Is this a phenomenon that (at least partially) needs a 

diachronic account? 

◮ Evidence from Marathi does seem to suggest that the dative 

gets diachronically extended to accusative contexts (despite 

the presence of a morphologically distinct accusative marker). 



The morphological trajectory(ies) 

A set of morphological functional changes in need of an 

explanation... 

Purposive Locative 

Dative 

Accusative 



Goals of this talk 

◮ Present historical and synchronic data from Marathi to 

determine what a plausible path of change for some 

adpositional/case markers could be. 

◮ Extrapolate from this to determine what a plausible “semantic 

map” of these related categories could be. 

◮ Hypothesize what diachronic processes might be involved in 

the change (semantic generalization, pragmatic enrichment, 

etc...) 



In a nutshell: Datives across Marathi grammar 

◮ A dative that (is said to) have its source in a locative 

adposition. 

◮ A dative that has its source in a purposive adposition. 

◮ An accusative with marginal dative functions that is traceable 

to a purposive adposition. 

◮ The non-locative and non-purposive uses of locative and 

purposive adpositions. 




Introduction 











Old Marathi case marking 

◮ Contrast between direct and oblique case 

◮ A distinct ‘accusative’ case-clitic -t e (conditioned by animacy 

and specificity) 

◮ A locative-dative case clitic -si with both static and allative 

uses. 

◮ A number of other locative postpositions, e.g. jawal.a ‘near’, 

pāsi ‘near’, ātu ‘inside’, khāle ‘below’ etc. 

◮ Two purposive adpositions -lāgī ‘regarding’ and sāt.hī ‘for’. 




The case-clitic -si 

◮ -si appears as a locative-dative marker in Old Marathi and is 

traced back to the Sanskrit locative forms a´sra ‘side’. 

◮ At the Old Marathi stage, it has the following dative-like uses: 

◮ Spatial: coincidence at location, goals 

◮ Possession: control, part-whole, kinship, recipients 

◮ Other: experiencers, purposes, beneficiaries 




The Dative: static locative use 

(1) gosāvī Dvārāvatie-si 

G.nom D-dat 

zhād.i-ti 

sweep-impf.3.pl 

kharāt.e-vari bīdī 

broom-with road.nom 

The Gosāvī, while at Dvārāvati, would sweep the roads with a 

broom (LC:E:2). 




The Dative: static locative use 

(1) gosāvī Dvārāvatie-si 

G.nom D-dat 

zhād.i-ti 

sweep-impf.3.pl 

kharāt.e-vari bīdī 

broom-with road.nom 

The Gosāvī, while at Dvārāvati, would sweep the roads with a 

broom (LC:E:2). 

(2) tava gosāvīyā-si ekā sīl.ātal.ā-si āsan 

then G.-dat one.obl stone-dat seat.nom 

At that time, the Gosāvī had his seat at a stone. (LC:E:40) 




The Dative: Allative use 

(3) mag kram˜e-kram˜e pratisthānā-si bīj˜e k˜e-l˜e. 

then, in sequence, P-dat 

bhogāvatie-si rāhi-le 

go-perf.3.n.sg B-dat live-perf.3.m.pl 

Then, gradually, they went to Pratisthāna. (On the way), they 

stayed at Bhogāvati. (LC:E:75). 




The Dative: Allative use 

(4) dvārāvatī-ye gu ˙mpha-si ge-līy˜e tava teth˜e eku 

D.loc cave-dat go-perf.1.sg then there one 

mahātme ho-te 

great.soul.nom be.pst-3-pl 

(When) I went to the cave in Dvārāvati, there was a saint 

(great-souled one) there. (LC:E:4) 




The Dative: Alienable possession (Control) 

(5) ān.i vāyū-sī... bid.hāra jaise nāhī ˙m 

And wind-dat dwelling as neg-pres.3.sg 

And just as the wind does not have a dwelling (in one place)... 

(Dny. 12: 221) 

(6) teyān-ce mat.hāpatye pustak bhān.d.ār teyā-si 

their 

jā-le 

monastery.wealth book-library he-dat 

become-perf.3.n.sg 

Their wealth and library of books became his.(LC:E:52) 




The Dative: Inalienable possession (Part-Whole) 

(7) devā-sī pāt.hī pot.a āthī kī ˙m nāhī ˙m 

god-dat back belly be-pres.3.sg or not 

Does God have a back and a belly (front) or not? (Dny. 

11:530) 

(8) mhan.oni ādi madhya avasāna pāhī ˙m 

So beginning middle end world-dat 

jagā-si mī 

see-pres.1.sg I.nom 

So I see the beginning, middle, and end to this world (Dny. 

7:28) 




The Dative: Inalienable possession (Kinship) 

(9) t.hākur eku, tayā-si putra nāhī 

Landlord.nom one he.dat son.nom neg 

There was a landlord, he didn’t have a son. (LC:E:44) 

(10) devā-sī kāya devī ase 

Lord-dat inter lady-nom be-pres.3.sg 

Does the Lord have a lady (wife)? (LC:E:37) 




The Dative: Recipients 

(11) to ekā brāhman.ā-si dīdha-lā 

that one.obl brahmin-dat give-perf.3.m.sg 

(I) gave that (belt) to a Brahmin. (LC:E:15) 

(12) kaisā gā deõ, kaise āmhā-si sukh 

how prt lord.nom how us-dat joy-nom 

didha-le 

give-perf.3.n.sg 

Oh, what a Lord! How he gave us happiness. (LC:E: 33) 




The Dative: Experiencers 

(13) t˜e ā´scarye lokā˜-si jā-le 

by that amazement people-dat become-sc perf.3.n.sg 

That amazed the people. (LC:E:31) 

(14) jeyā-cīye pāt.hi-vari āruhan.a karī-ti 

who-gen.obl back-loc ascent.nom do-impf.3.pl, 

tayā-si sukh ho-e 

he-dat joy.nom be-impf.3.n.sg 

Whosoever’s back he would climb on, he experienced joy. 

(LC:E:33) 




The Dative: Purposes 

(15) tavã avadhūta eku bhiks.e-si rīgā-lā 

then monk.nom one alms-dat leave-perf.3.m.sg 

Then, one monk left for (collecting) alms. (LC:E:16) 

(16) paks.ī phal.ā-si jhomb-e jaisā 

bird.nom fruit.dat grab-pres.3.sg just as 

Just as the bird grabs for the fruit...(Dny. 3:41) 




The Dative: Beneficiaries 

(17) ja pūt ho-īl tari mĩ pācā˜ 

if son.nom be-fut.3.sg then five thousand-gen 

sahasrā˜-ci pūjā gosāviyā-si kar-īn 

worship.nom G.-dat do-fut.1.sg 

If I have a son, then I will do a worship of five thousand for (in 

honor of) the Gosāvī. (LC:E:15) 

◮ The beneficiary use is extremely rare for the -si marker. The 

usual beneficiary markers across Old and Middle Marathi are 

lāgī ˙m and sāt.hī. 




The Old Marathi Dative -si 

Domain Use Marathi 

√ 

Spatial location 

√ 

directed motion (goal) 

Abstract location (experiencer) √ 

√ 

Possession Control 

√ 

Part-whole 

√ 

Kinship 

√ 

Caused possession (recipient) 

√ 

Teleological Purpose 

√ 

Beneficiary 

(marginal) 




Haspelmeth’s semantic map 

direction 

purpose 


recipient 

experiencer 

(Based on Haspelmath 2003 (pp.213), Fig,. 8.1.) 

beneficiary 




Adpositional meanings 

◮ Locative adpositions are used to locate (typically) objects 

relative to another reference object. 

◮ Directional adpositions denote a movement/path relative to a 

reference object. 

◮ With verbs encoding a path, locative adpositions combined 

with the reference object may denote the end-point of a path. 

◮ Formally, adpositions apply to sets of points (regions) 

corresponding to the location of a object and return sets of 

regions that stand in some spatial relation to that region. 




Dative source: spatial adpositions 

◮ The locative meaning expressed by a dative marker is a 

non-projective near or at type meaning. 

◮ Proximity: A is near B iff the loc(A) is inside the region 

determined to be proximal to the loc(B). 

◮ Coincidence: A is at B iff the loc(A) is inside the region 

determined to be disjoint from but approximately identical to 

the loc(B). 

◮ How does spatial proximity or coincidence give rise 

(synchronically or diachronically) to other readings of the 

dative? 




Dative source: Locative adpositions 

How does spatial proximity or coincidence give rise (synchronically 

or diachronically) to other readings of the dative? 

◮ The animacy bias: Animate reference objects tend to be 

construed as standing in a control relation to the objects in 

their spatial proximity. 

◮ This inference of control may diachronically trigger a 

reinterpretation of locative markers as datives (where the 

dative category minimally subsumes location and possession). 




Locative marking: Mandarin 

◮ In many languages, locative markers optionally or obligatorily 

double up as possession markers (Aristar 1996, 1997; Tham 

2005). 

(18) wǒ 

I 

I have a book. 

(19) zhuō-shang 

table-upon 

yǒ shū (Mandarin) 

have book 

There is a book on the table. 

yǒu book (Mandarin) 

have book 




Locative marking: Hindi 

◮ In many languages, locative markers optionally or obligatorily 

double up as possession markers (Aristar 1996, 1997; Tham 

2005). 

(20) rām-ke 

R-gen 

pās ek hī makān hai 

near one only house.nom be-pres.3.sg 

Rām has (owns/controls) a house (Mohanan 1994:179). 

(21) rām bāzār-ke pās hai 

R.nom market-gen near be.pres.3.sg 

Rām is near the market. 




Locative adpositions in Modern Marathi 

The locative adposition jawal. optionally licenses a possessor 

(control) reading animate-denoting NPs. 

(22) ek da˙ngā dukānā-jawal . zhā-lā 

one riot shop-obl-near happen-perf.3.m.sg. 

One riot took place near the shop. 

(23) ek pustak rām-jawal. āhe 

One book Rām-near be.pres.3.sg 

One of the books is near Rām. or Rām has one (of the) books. 




Locative marking: Modern Marathi 

The locative adposition kad. e only licenses a possessor (control) 

reading with animate-denoting NPs. 

(24) ek da˙ngā dukānā-kad . e zhā-lā 

one riot shop-obl-near happen-perf.3.m.sg. 

One riot took place near the shop. 

(25) ek pustak rām-kad.e āhe 

One book Rām-near be.pres.3.sg 

Rām has one (of the) books. 




Locative marking: Modern Marathi 

In ditransitive verbs of caused possession, kad.e licenses a possessor 

(control) reading with animate-denoting NPs. 

(26) Rām-ne te pustak Reenā-kad . e di-la 

R.erg that book.nom R-near give-perf.3.n.sg 

Rām gave that book to (lit. near) Reena. 




The distribution of kad.e 

Domain 

Spatial 

Use 

location (proximity) 

Marathi 

√ 

directed motion (goal) ∅ 

Possession 

Abstract location (experiencer) 

Control 

∅ 

√ 

Part-whole ∅ 



∅ 

√ 

Teleological Purpose ∅ 

Beneficiary ∅ 






Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

∅ 

√ 




∅ 

√ 






Extending kad.e: Modern Marathi 

kad. e is being extended to denote part-whole and kinship relations. 

(27) mājhyā-kad . e nau bot.a āhet 

I.obl-loc nine fingers-nom be-pres.3.pl 

I have (only) nine fingers. 

(28) Rām-kad.e tīn bahin.ī ān.i don bhāu 

R-loc 

āhet 

three sisters-nom and two brothers-nom 

be-pres.3.pl 

Rām has three sisters and two brothers. 

This is marginal but acceptable in adult grammar... 




Extending kad.e: Modern Marathi 

kad. e is being extended to denote part-whole and kinship relations. 

(27) mājhyā-kad . e nau bot.a āhet 

I.obl-loc nine fingers-nom be-pres.3.pl 

I have (only) nine fingers. 

(28) Rām-kad.e tīn bahin.ī ān.i don bhāu 

R-loc 

āhet 

three sisters-nom and two brothers-nom 

be-pres.3.pl 

Rām has three sisters and two brothers. 

This is marginal but acceptable in adult grammar... 

...And seems to be the default pattern in child grammar. 




Extending locatives: child grammar 

A fairly stable production pattern in IDC: 

(29) tyā-cyā-kad . e bahin. kā nāhī āhe? 

he-gen-near sister why neg be-pres.3.sg 

Why doesn’t he have a sister? (IDC: March 17, 2008) 




Extending locatives: child grammar 

A fairly stable production pattern in IDC: 

(29) tyā-cyā-kad . e bahin. kā nāhī āhe? 

he-gen-near sister why neg be-pres.3.sg 

Why doesn’t he have a sister? (IDC: March 17, 2008) 

(30) Bus-kad.e mūh nāhī āhe, dāt nāhī 

bus-near mouth neg be-pres.3.sg teeth neg 

āhe, mag tī ma-lā kasa khā-un 

be-pres.3.sg, then she I-acc how eat-ger 

tāk-n.ār 

drop-prosp 

The bus doesn’t have a mouth, doesn’t have teeth, then 

how will she (it) eat me up? (IDC: April 12, 2008) 






Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

Part-whole 



∅ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 








Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

∅ 

√ 




∅ 

√ 






Extending locatives: experiencers 

Very sporadic, but also part of production data: 

(31) āj mājhyā-kad . e gandī ult.ī zhā-lī 

today I-gen-near bad vomit happen-perf.3.f.sg 

hoti 

pst.3.f.sg 

Today, a bad vomit had happened at me. (IDC: March 24 

2008) 

(32) āī, mājhyā-kad.e vāit. vāt.-tay 

Mommy, I.obl-near sad feel-prog.pres.3.n.sg 

(After being scolded), Mommy, I am feeling sad. (IDC: 

December 2 2007) 




Extending locatives: experiencers 

Very sporadic, but also part of production data: 

(31) āj mājhyā-kad . e gandī ult.ī zhā-lī 

today I-gen-near bad vomit happen-perf.3.f.sg 

hoti 

pst.3.f.sg 

Today, a bad vomit had happened at me. (IDC: March 24 

2008) 

(32) āī, mājhyā-kad.e vāit. vāt.-tay 

Mommy, I.obl-near sad feel-prog.pres.3.n.sg 

(After being scolded), Mommy, I am feeling sad. (IDC: 

December 2 2007) 

This is completely ungrammatical in adult grammar. 




Extrapolating a path for locative ≫ dative 

Stage I: Spatial proximity 


Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Abstract location (experiencer) ∅ 

Possession Control ∅ 


Kinship ∅ 

Caused possession (recipient) ∅ 







Stage II: Spatial proximity & Control with ANIM 


Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

∅ 

√ 




∅ 

√ 







Stage III: Spatial proximity & Core possession 


Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

Part-whole 



∅ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 







Stage IV: Spatial proximity & Core possession & Experiencers 


Spatial 

Use 



√ 


Possession 


Control 

Part-whole 



∅ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 






A semantic map 

Spatial Proximity 





Control 

Spatial Proximity Possession 





Control 


Coincidence 

Part-whole 





Control 


Spatial 


Experiencers 

Purposes 


Part-whole 




Extrapolating a path 

◮ A proximity-denoting adposition licenses control inferences 

with ANIM NPs. 

◮ This enables the generalization of a spatial marker to a 

possession marker. 

◮ The core possession categories are Control, Kinship, and 

Part-whole. 

◮ A marker denoting the Part-whole relation licenses coincidence 

inferences: Part is located at (as opposed to near the Whole. 

◮ This enables the generalization of the marker to experiencers. 

ANIM locations are experiencers. 

◮ Purely spatial (incidental) coincidence is the last subcategory 

expressed by a marker along this path. 




Inference-based expansion 

◮ A is near B. 






→ A is not-at B. 

→ A is incidentally near B. 








→ B controls A. with ANIM NPs 









◮ B controls A. 










→ A is non-incidentally near B. 

→ B possesses A control, kinship, part-whole 












◮ B possesses A. 














→ A is located at B. in Part-whole relations 

→ A is (non-incidentally) located at B. 
















→ B experiences A. with ANIM NPs 

















→ B is the purpose for A. Purposives 

















→ B is the purpose for A. Purposives 

→ A is incidentally located at B. spatial location 




Inference-based expansion: The dative domain 

+/-incidental 

incidental non-incidental 

Relation INAM ANIM INAN ANIM 

proximity near near – 

⇓ 

possession Control Kinship Part-whole 

⇓ 

coincidence at Experiencer Purpose Purpose 




Inference-based expansion: The dative domain 

+/-incidental 

incidental non-incidental 

Relation INAM ANIM INAN ANIM 

proximity near near – 

⇓ 

possession Control Kinship Part-whole 

coincidence at 

⇓ 

Experiencer Purpose Purpose 

◮ Purposives seem to involve additionally an interpretation on 

causal dimension, which needs to built in. 

◮ Where exactly do beneficiaries fit in? 




Inference-based expansion: some justification 

◮ The Hindi dative marker, which originates as a spatial 

adposition, does not easily license spatial readings associated 

with the dative. 








◮ Spatial goals (John came to Bombay) 

◮ Purely incidental locations (John is at his desk). 










◮ This does not make sense if experiencers and purposes are 

metaphorical/abstract goals. 










◮ This does not make sense if experiencers and purposes are 

metaphorical/abstract goals. 

◮ It makes sense if we think of the dative as denoting a 

non-incidental coincidence relation before it is compatible with 

a purely spatial coincidence relation. 




Inference-based expansion: some falsifiable predictions 

◮ Only locative adpositions that license control inferences can 

‘become’ datives. 

◮ Dative markers that diachronically arise from locative 

proximity adpositions extend to possessors and experiencers 

before they extend to spatial coincidence. 

◮ Languages in which datives cannot mark spatial proximity or 

control have innovated ‘newer’ markers for these functions 

(creating a blocking effect). 




Introduction 










The Modern Marathi dative 

◮ The dative in Modern Marathi -lā is traced back to an Old 

Marathi adposition that marks purpose or benefaction lāgī ˙m. 






◮ This postposition is infrequently attested in MIddle Marathi 

poetry, but always with a clear benefactive/purposive use. 








◮ It is entirely (and artifically) absent from 18th century literary 

and official literature. 








◮ It is entirely (and artifically) absent from 18th century literary 

and official literature. 

◮ In the late 19th century, and early 20th century, it emerges as 

the default dative case marker in the language ‘-lā’ (Bloch 

1914 pp. 207) 



lāgī ˙m: Purposive use 

(33) apatyā-lāgī ˙m 

child-pur 

tyajā-ve lāge-la sarva 

sacrifice-pot.n.sg need-perf.3.sg all 

Everything will have to be sacrificed for the (sake of the) 

child...(DB: 3:2:38) 

(34) bal.e.m-bal.e.m-ci 

forcefully-emph 

bal.āvi-tī kathelāgīm. 

clamor-impf.3.pl story-pur 

They (the children) forcefully clamor for a story ..(DB: 14:4:23) 



lāgī ˙m: Benefactive use 

(35) yā-chā nirvāha maja-lāgī ˙m dev˜e 

This-gen method I-pur 

niropā-vā 

elucidate-pot.3.m.sg 

Lord-erg 

The Lord should elucidate this method for me (DB: 12:7:6) 



lāgī ˙m: Benefactive use 

(35) yā-chā nirvāha maja-lāgī ˙m dev˜e 

This-gen method I-pur 

niropā-vā 

elucidate-pot.3.m.sg 

Lord-erg 

The Lord should elucidate this method for me (DB: 12:7:6) 

◮ n = 16 (in the entire text, DB cir. 1650CE). 

◮ 0 occurrences in three sets of official correspondences 

(1700-1774CE) 



The Modern Marathi Dative -lā 

Domain Use Marathi 

Spatial location ∅ 

√ 

directed motion (goal) 

Abstract location (experiencer) √ 

Possession 

Teleological 

Control 

Part-whole 



Purpose 

∅ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

(blocking) 

Beneficiary ∅ (blocking) 




◮ In the absence of data (unexplained hiatus), it is difficult to 

determine how the -lā dative actually developed. 






◮ But -lā seems to mark only non-incidental relations. 







◮ It occurs on goals, arguments of relational nouns, recipients, 

experiencers, purposes. 

◮ No spatial proximity 

◮ No control 







◮ It occurs on goals, arguments of relational nouns, recipients, 

experiencers, purposes. 

◮ No spatial proximity 

◮ No control 

◮ On the current story, there is no expectation that it should. 

◮ On any story that conflates location with possession, the lack 

of control readings for a dative is left unaccounted for. 

...More research, and more data is needed... 




Introduction 














Dative 

Accusative 



DOM and dative-accusative syncretism 

◮ Most modern Indic languages exhibit animacy and 

referentiality-dependent direct object marking. 






◮ The accusative marker is identical to the dative marker. 







◮ When/How/Why does this happen? 








◮ The common assumption seems to be that objects high on the 

relevant hierarchy need to be somehow marked and the dative 

is harnessed in the absence of or following the loss of a distinct 

accusative. 








◮ The common assumption seems to be that objects high on the 

relevant hierarchy need to be somehow marked and the dative 

is harnessed in the absence of or following the loss of a distinct 

accusative. 

◮ At least in Marathi diachrony, that seems to not be the case. 

◮ The dative marker ‘encroaches’ on existing devices for 

accusative marking rather than filling up a gap. 



Marking accusative in Marathi 

◮ Three markers for the accusative from Old to Modern Marathi 

◮ Old Marathi: -t˜e, mainly restricted to direct objects with 

marginal dative-like uses (source: Sanskrit arthe ‘for’ 

◮ Middle Marathi: -si, which covers the range of dative uses it 

has in Old Marathi, and extends to mark direct objects. 

◮ Modern Marathi: -lā, the modern dative-accusative syncretic 

case-clitic. 



Bloch’s observations 

Postpositions of the dative (pp. 206-212) 

◮ -t˜e, very liberally used in the oldest literary texts, disppears 

from usage very early, except with pronouns of the first and 

second singular. 

◮ -si, -s is the only postposition that has remained alive 

throughout the periods. 

◮ lā is missing in the oldest texts and appears only in Nāmdev 

(1500 CE). In the historical texts of the 18th century, its 

usage seems to be more restricted. In the ballads and in the 

recent texts, lā is constant and almost unique. 



The distribution of datives and accusatives 

◮ Indo-Aryan languages uniformly exhibit a dative-accusative 

syncretism. 

◮ Old Marathi is different and has a distinct case clitic for 

animate/specific objects. 

◮ The default case for causees in morphological causatives. 

◮ The case for marked theme objects in ditransitives. 

◮ Verbs of saying, pus ‘ask’, mhan. ‘say’, sā˙ng ‘tell’ only appear 

with t˜e. 

◮ Verbs of perception avalok ‘gaze’, pāh ‘see’ usually appear 

with t˜e. 

◮ -si, when it marks accusative case, is associated with verbs of 

directed change. 

◮ -si optionally appears on verbs which lexicalize a path scale 

:meet, jā ‘go’, ye ‘come’, zhomb ‘grab’, mil. ‘unite’ 

◮ -si also optionally appears on verbs which denote a directed 

change (often with affected object): ‘transform’, ghat. ‘reduce’, 

Datives, Locations, andbhed Possessors ‘pierce’, vadh ‘kill’, vismay ‘amaze’, the class of SFBcomplex 471 May 8-10 2008


The distribution of datives and accusatives 

◮ t˜e and -si appear to have differing domains within accusative 

marking in Old Marathi. 

◮ By Middle Marathi, t˜e is lost, and -si becomes the default 

accusative marker. 



A possible ordering 

Proto-Old Marathi 

Dative = t˜e Accusative = ∅ 

⇓ 


Dative = -si Accusative = -t˜e 

⇓ 

Middle Marathi 

Dative = -si Accusative = -si 

⇓ 


Dative = -lā Accusative = -lā 







Dative 

Accusative 



Conclusion 

◮ Location and core possessional relations, and coincidence are 

intertwined with each other and their overlap is encoded in 

Dative morphology. 

◮ A possible trajectory for locative to dative exploits certain 

inferences licensed by locative morphology. 

◮ The dative to accusative shift might originate with the 

extension of dative marking to verbs of directed change.

Datives: Locations and Possessors Case syncretism in Marathi ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?