Genitive case and multiple checking in Basque

2012 ◽  
pp. 209-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xabier Artiagoitia
Keyword(s):  
Genitive Case

scholarly journals Reviving the genitive. Prescription and practice in the Netherlands (1770–1840)

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Krogull ◽  
Gijsbert Rutten
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Extreme Case ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
National Language ◽  
Prepositional Phrases ◽  
Historical Sociolinguistics ◽  
The One ◽  
Genitive Case

AbstractHistorical metalinguistic discourse is known to often prescribe linguistic variants that are not very frequent in actual language use, and to proscribe frequent variants. Infrequent variants that are promoted through prescription can be innovations, but they can also be conservative forms that have already largely vanished from the spoken language and are now also disappearing in writing. An extreme case in point is the genitive case in Dutch. This has been in decline in usage from at least the thirteenth century onwards, gradually giving way to analytical alternatives such as prepositional phrases. In the grammatical tradition, however, a preference for the genitive case was maintained for centuries. When ‘standard’ Dutch is officially codified in 1805 in the context of a national language policy, the genitive case is again strongly preferred, still aiming to ‘revive’ the synthetic forms. The striking discrepancy between metalinguistic discourse on the one hand, and developments in language use on the other, make the genitive case in Dutch an interesting case for historical sociolinguistics. In this paper, we tackle various issues raised by the research literature, such as the importance of genre differences as well as variation within particular genres, through a detailed corpus-based analysis of the influence of prescription on language practices in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch.

scholarly journals Adnominal possessive constructions in Mordvin, Mari and Permic

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-168
Author(s):  
Polina Pleshak
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Relations ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Syntactic Function ◽  
Genitive Case

This paper deals with adnominal possessive constructions in Moksha, Erzya, Meadow Mari, Hill Mari, Izhma Komi and Udmurt. The two main constructions that encode possessive relations in all the languages of the sample are the same: Dependentmarking and Double-marking. Izhma Komi also uses Head-marking and Juxtaposition. However, a more fine-grained analysis helps to find out many differences between the languages of the sample. Firstly, restrictions on the use of the genitive case and possessive markers can be slightly different in these languages. Secondly, there are factors that influence marking of NP elements (both the Head and the Dependent) in different ways. These factors are semantic relations, animacy hierarchy and syntactic function of an NP.Аннотация. Полина Плешак: Посессивные конструкции в мордовских, марийских и пермских языках. В данной статье обсуждаются результаты исследования приименных посессивных конструкций в мокшанском, эрзянском, луговом марийском, горномарийском, ижемском коми и удмуртском. Две основные стратегии, кодирующие посессивные отношения во всех рассматриваемых языках, – зависимостное маркирование и двойное маркирование, а также дополнительно вершинное маркирование и конструкция с соположением в ижемском коми. Однако более детальный анализ позволяет выявить большое количество различий между языками выборки. Во-первых, как генитив, так и посессивные показатели имеют разные области применения в разных языках. Во-вторых, существуют факторы, по-разному влияющие на маркирование членов ИГ (как вершины, так и зависимого). Таковыми являются семантические отношения, иерархия одушевлённости и синтаксическая позиция ИГ.Ключевые слова: внутригенетическая типология, посессивные конструкции, зависимостное маркирование, двойное маркирование, генитив, посессивный показатель, семантические отношения, иерархия одушевлённости, финно-угорские языкиKokkuvõte. Polina Pleshak: Adnominaalsed possessiivkonstruktsioonid mordva, mari ja permi keeltes. Artikkel käsitleb adnominaalseid possessiivkonstruktsioone mokša, ersa, niidumari, mäemari, ižmakomi ja udmurdi keeltes. Kaks põhikonstruktsiooni, mis possessiivseid suhteid väljendavad, on kõikides käsitletud keeltes samad: laiendi markeerimine ja topeltmarkeering. Ižmakomi keeles kasutatakse ka põhja markeerimist ja jukstapositsiooni. Peenekoelisem analüüs aitab aga käsitletavate keelte vahel leida rohkelt erinevusi. Esiteks võivad nendes keeltes mõneti erineda genitiivi ja possessiivmarkerite kooskasutuse piirangud. Teiseks on faktoreid, mille mõju tõttu markeeritakse NP elemente erinevalt (seda nii põhisõna kui ka laiendi puhul). Need faktorid on semantilised suhted, elususe hierarhia, ja NP süntaktiline funktsioon.Märksõnad: intrageneetiline tüpoloogia, possessiivkonstruktsioonid, laiendi markeering, topeltmarkeering, genitiiv, possessiivmarker, semantilised suhted, elususe hierarhia, soome-ugri keeled

Case Variation in Eastern Polynesian Spatial PPs

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-83
Author(s):  
David J. Medeiros
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Feature ◽  
Feature Matching ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Distributed Morphology ◽  
Common Pattern ◽  
Spatial Prepositions ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Genitive Case

This chapter examines variation in terms of case marking within complex spatial prepositions in Hawaiian and Māori. A dialect difference is proposed such that post-revitalization Māori patterns with Hawaiian in the realization of genitive case within spatial prepositions (the cross-linguistically more common pattern), to the exclusion of pre-revitalization Māori. Working within a model in which genitive case within spatial prepositions follows from syntactic structure, the unexpected non-genitive marking in pre-revitalization Māori is linked to the grammar of possession in that language, as contrasted with Hawaiian and post-revitalization Māori. The specific case marking variation is modeled in terms of morphological feature matching in a Distributed Morphology framework. Therefore, independent properties of the grammar of possession accounts for the observed micro-variation.

PSIs with Head-Like Properties

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-210
Author(s):  
Ahmad Alqassas
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Polarity Items ◽  
Dependent Case ◽  
Accusative Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Polarity Sensitive ◽  
Genitive Case

This chapter discusses two main issues that arise from PSIs (polarity-sensitive items) with head-like properties. These PSIs seem to be outside the (immediate) domain of their licensor. The first issue is how these PSIs are licensed in syntax and how a unified analysis can handle their distribution. The author argues that these PSIs are adverbial phrases that do not project a clausal projection and that negation licenses these PSIs either in Spec-NegP or under c-command. This unified analysis does not appeal to the problematic head–complement relation as a putative licensing configuration. Another issue that arises from these NPIs (negative polarity items) with head-like properties is their ability to host clitics with accusative and genitive case marking. This issue raises interesting questions pertaining to case theory and dependent case licensing. The author argues that negation licenses the puzzling accusative case of the pronominal complement, a conclusion with far-reaching implications to dependent case licensing in natural language.

A case of an unjustified Aphid name emendation 

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4567 (3) ◽  
pp. 598
Author(s):  
OMAR M. ENTIAUSPE-NETO ◽  
ARTHUR DIESEL ABEGG
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Spelling Error ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Vast Array ◽  
Personal Names ◽  
Intentional Change ◽  
Specific Epithets ◽  
Genitive Case

The norms regarding validity and formulation of specific epithets in Zoology are ruled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), a published convention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, that operates under a vast array of underlying nomenclatural principles. One of its components is Article 31, which rules upon the formation of specific or subspecific epithets for personal names, by the use of nomina (sensu Dubois 2007) under genitive case. As discussed by Dubois (2007), this has erroneously led several authors to assume that the aforementioned nomina should exclusively end in “-i” if dedicated to a man (or -orum, for plural), and in “-ae” if dedicated to a woman (or -arum, for plural) (being also important to state that this provision is sensitive on whether the chosen nomina is a modern personal name (Art. 31.1.2) or not (Art. 31.1.1)), leading to several independent proposed emendations to these names, which authors have considered as “wrong”, under the Code; the author then, proceeds to conduce a careful and extensive literature review on matter, proposing an amendment to the Code, correcting several unjustified emends, and highlighting that “[...] the stem of such a nomen is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive, and should be preserved by subsequent authors. Any subsequent demonstrably intentional change in the stem or ending of this nomen, other than correction of an inadvertent spelling error, must be considered an unjustified emendation [...]” (Dubois 2007: 64). 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document