Torsten, your hypotheses sound quite sensible for me but, as I believe, they
need some less important remarks and corrections.
> In Estonian (probably also in Finnish) (grammatical) objects
> are either whole or partial. Objects are partial in negative
> and in imperfective sentences. Whole objects are
> in the nominative in imperative sentences,
> otherwise in the genitive.
(your correction has already been taken here)
The things seem to be even more complicated. First, you naturally mean
Direct Objects, not Indirect Objects (which can be expressed with other
cases). I am not sure what kind of DObjects are in use in imperfective
sentences in Estonian but such an aspect dependency is not present in Slavic
for sure. Instead, some (Slavic) direct objects are just partial by their
nature (which has nothing to do with the aspect of the verb). For example,
the Polish sentence "dal/em mu wino" means "I gave him (the) wine", is
perfective and uses Acc for DObj. But also "dal/em mu wina" = "I gave him
some wine" is also perfective even if it uses Gen for DObj.
AFAIK, a similar state is in Finno-Ugric (at least in some of them), which
would make your model even more probable (unless I were wrong).
Namely, there exist two forms of Accusative in Finnish (if to believe to
Czesl/aw Kudzinowski who is the author of a Finnish grammar written in
Polish). The first form is formally equal to Genitive (-n) and it is used
for expressing the whole object, independently on the aspect (for example:
"Vanha juoppo joi viinan" = "The old drunkard has drunk the whisky",
perfective, and "Otan kirjan pöydältä" = "I am taking the book from the
table", imperfective).
The second form of Accusative is formally equal to Nominative (without an
ending) and it is used in positive imperative sentences. Personal pronouns
do not seem to distinguish those 2 forms of Accusative. Instead, they have a
special form which is different from both Nominative and Genitive (and this
is the basis to talk about Accusative at all).
If the direct object is partial, the third possibility occurs - and
Partitive is applied. Partitive has the -ta/-tä ending which is believed to
be ablative in the past. Partitive (so: not Genitive) is also used with a
negative form of the verb, and when the DObj is partial, independently on
the aspect, ex. "Vanha juoppo joi viinaa" = "The old drunkard has drunk some
whisky", which has the same aspect as in the example described above.
It is worth emphasizing that both Finnish sentences have exact translations
in Polish (and, I believe, also in other Slavic languages), one with
Accusative for Finnish Genitive-Accusative (-n), and another with Slavic
Genitive (genetically: Ablative) for Finnish Partitive (-ta/-tä,
genetically: Ablative). The third Finnish construction, the one with
Nominative-Accusative (used with imperative) has no formal equivalent in
Slavic.
> In Slavonian and East Baltic (Lit., Latv.), but not Prussian,
> the old IE genitive is replaced with the ablative.
> The PIE ablative is constructed with a suffix *-od
Yes, but only in the -o- stems, and only in singular (it's about the
replacement). In other declension models, the old genitive has survived, and
it is hard to guess if the old ablative has also survived there (and has
mixed with yet another case) or not because there are no good
reconstructions of this case (you know one?). Especially, if the Latin -e
for ablative in the consonantal declension is original, the Slavic
locative -e in some consonantal declension models may be an old ablative.
> In Slavonian (at least in Russian, to my knowledge) the genitive, ie.
> the old ablative, is used with partial objects, including in negative
> sentences.
Using genitive for some types of DObj is characteristic for all Slavic
languages. Genitive in negative sentences is also less or more popular, and
it is almost unexceptional in Polish (while in other Sl. languages a less or
more strong process of eliminating the "negative genitive" has occured).
> What does one make of this? Finno-Ugric substrate in Slavic and
> East Baltic? Or common pre-IE substrate in Baltic Fennic, East Baltic
> and Slavonian?
But what are arguments for the common substrate? Is the ablative (partitive)
construction limited to Baltic-Finnic, or does it also occur in other Uralic
languages? What is the probability that the state as can be seen in Finnish
is the result of internal development?
> Another thing: the East Slavonian have-sentence is said to be
> of the 'mihi est' type.
Incorrect, you are right.
> But the Russian is 'u menya kniga' "at me (is)
> book", not *'mnye kniga';
Indeed. And you may be right that this phenomenon could have FUgr source as
well. But as it has comprised East Slavic only, it should be emphasized that
the genitive-ablative matter and the have matter are rather independent from
one another. The first process had to occur before the second one as its
results are seen in all Slavic lngs. Nothing strange in it, but Slavic and
FUgric must have been neighbours for centuries.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi@...@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html