--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 03:52:51 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me that verbal -mmek and -ttek can be explained in a
> >similar manner: there were separate forms in Proto-Baltic-Finnic
(PBF)
> >for transitive verbs with singular, dual and plural object,
something
> >like:
> >
> > sg du/pl
> >1. -m > -n -k/t-m > -nn
> >2. -t -k/t-t > -tt
> >1. -mek -k/t-mek > -mmek
> >2. -tek -k/t-tek > -ttek
> >
> >This is the way Samoyed and Ob-Ugric work, so it would make sense
if
> >PBF had the same thing.
> >
> >When the distinction between sg/du/pl. objects in the verb was
given
> >up (as well as that between transitive and intransitive forms)
the two
> >(three, if the intransitive was different) series merged as -n, -
t/-d;
> >-mmek, -ttek.
>
> OK, I see the problem. If the Uralic verb agrees with the
_object_ in
> number (as it certainly does in Samoyed and Ob-Ugric, and in my
> analysis of PBF), the same as in Eskimoan, then the given analysis
of
> the accusative *-m can't be right: "the man is the dog's killer" ~
> "the men are the dog's killers" would imply number agreement with
the
> _subject_.
>
> We can get it to work if the analyze : "the killing of the dog by
the
> man" ~ "the killings of the dogs by the man". This requires a
marking
> on the subject as well as on the object, which is OK in IE (*-m, *-
s),
> but not in Uralic, where the subject is not marked (of course the
> marking, being redundant, may have been lost there).
Are you being attacked by yourself? Again I believe I can figure out
a way to agree with both of you.
The Eskimo way ("ergative") uses a possessive syntax implemented on
a passive participle: "The man has seen the seal" implies that the
man *has* something, to wit, a seen seal. That is precisely the way
it is expressed, Greenlandic anguti-p puiSi taku-va-a. The third
word is properly a pass.ptc. *taku-paR- 'seen', inflected with the
3sg possessive ending *-a, so that it means "his seen (thing), what
he has seen". The sentence is construed, then, as "of the man the
seal is his seen (thing)". This is exactly comparable to our
periphrases with 'have': what you have, is yours, and the one to
whom something belongs is in the genitive; therefore, the ergative
makes perfectly fine structural sense as an old genitive.
I know far too little about comparative Uralic, and my personal
collection of handbooks belongs in a museum, so I'll have to reserve
my final verdict until I can get better informed. Accepting your
information I see two possibilities of interpretation: 1. The fact
that the extra plural marking only takes place in some language if
the *object* is a plural word, may indicate that the verbal stem
here used is in reality a passive participle just as in Eskimo. - 2.
The same fact may also have come about secondarily in that speakers
only felt the need for the extra plural marker if there was a
special reference for it. It all began with a simple-minded line of
reasoning on my part: In the days when the forms were posited as
1.sg. *luke-m 'I am reading' and 1.pl. *luke-k-me-k 'we are
reading', I found it strange that the interior *-k- was identified
with the present marker. Doesn't the corresponding singular forms
need it too? And why does it just happen to be identical with the
plural marker seen in the plural forms? If it means "I am a reader",
then 'we two read' should be expressed as "we-two are two-readers"
with number marking on subject and participle alike. And that looked
so nicely like what I could see that I went on and subjected the IE
forms to a comparable analysis. I know I am way out in the shady
prehistory where we can't trust a single observation, so I don't
really insist upon it. I would, however, like the easiest solution
to make some sense, and perhaps than can be delivered.
The two structures, the "possessive" one with the passive
participle, and the "essive" one with the active participle, need
not be mutually exclusive. We have active and passive expressions
which may even be stylistic variants used to express what is in
essence the same message. So perhaps both existed side by side. That
would immediately explain that some languages have one structure and
others the other (provided that is so), for both were there, and
they could just generalize one or the other. It could also
potentially offer an explanation for events of confusion between the
two systems. Once the original intention of the verbal stem as the
expression of an active participle has been lost sight of, other
sets of inflectional endings with different rules of concord could
exert their influence. The result could be a total clash of the old
double system leaving only a single set of inflectional endings
which, seen in relation to the original intentions they were
designed to convey, may even in part have inconsistent forms.
We would still have *-m as the old genitive marking the one
that "has" found himself an object of a transitive action. And *-m
would also mark the old objective genitive expressing that "of
which" the actor is mentioned in the nominative. I see no problem in
assuming the simultaneous existence of both structures, especially
if the language is to have a chance to switch from one to the other.
I repeat: I will have a closer look at it all when I find the time
for it.
Jens