[tied] Re: Got to thinkin' about word order

The finnish (uralic?) partitive ending is -ta/ta (or -a/ä that
derives from tä/tä)

The partitive case is actually an old ablative that has taken on new
functions.

The finnish accusative ending is -n (from former -m)

The use of partitive in objects may imply an indefinite number of
things or indefinite amount of something, but more often it implies
that the action upon the object is regarded as imperfective. It never
implies the same thing as for example the english indefinite article.

The object of a negative sentence is always constructed with
partitive.

There is also a certain degree of ergativity in this construction.
The subject of an intransitive verb can be constructed with the
partitive in the same circumstances. The subject of a transitive verb
is allways in nominative (that here acts as an ergative).



An interesting question is weather both the Uralic ablative/partitive
and the Indo-european genitive ending and the use of the genitive
derives from a nostratic (or steppe?) old ablative (or postposition
with that function).







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> The partitive genitive is still fully alive in Polish:
>
> <napil/em sie, wody> 'I drank some water [gen.]'
> <wypil/em wode,> 'I drank up (all) the water [acc.]'
>
> <daj mi chleba> 'give me some bread [gen.]'
> <daj mi ten chleb> 'give me that loaf [acc.]'
>
> It's true that in such sentences the genitive implies

indefiniteness, while the accusative often refers to a definite
object. Polish also shows another feature often encountered in
languages that use the partitive genitive (and, as far as I know,
only in such languages): the genitive is used as the direct object
(instead of the accusative) with a negated verb and (instead of the
nominative) in negative existential sentences ('there's no...').

>
> <mam ksia,z.ke,> 'I've got a book [acc.]'
> <nie mam ksia,z.ki> 'I haven't got a book [gen.]'
>
> There are parallel constructions in other Balto-Slavic languages

and e.g. in Gothic (and of course French shows close typological
parallels).

>
> Piotr
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter P" <no1@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:40 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Got to thinkin' about word order
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually I'm sticking with the more trivial solution: Definite *so
> > as the source of the nominative. It should be also noted that the
> > genitive (or if available, a special partitive) can be used to
> > convey indefiniteness (French /Je bois de l'eau/ using the

genitive

> > particle /de/ "of, from" for a partitive marker, the equivalent of
> > Finnish's /Vetta" juon/ that uses a specific partitive case, all
> > to convey "I drink some water" or rather "I drink from the water"
> > as we may say in English).
> >
> Finnish prefered word order is SVO. So most would say 'juon

vettä',

> unless you really prefer water over other beverages. In that
> case 'vettä juon' is prefectly acceptable. With many cases and
> endings word order is less important. Finnish not only has a
> substantial case system, but also attached particles to indicate
> other conditions about the noun.
>
> I drank water from the stream. In Finnish could be any of these:
> Join vettä purosta.
> Join purosta vettä.
> Vettä join purosta.
> Vettä purosta join.
> Purosta vetta join.
> Purosta join vettä.
>
> It just depends on whether the emphasis is on the water, drank, or
> stream. If there is no special emphasis intended then most Finns
> would use the first sentence which has the same word order as the
> English above it, or the second.
>
> I can imagine PIE having more freedom with word order, because of

the

> greater abundance of endings/particles be they case endings or

other

> attachments.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.