![]() ![]() ![]() This paper inquires into the external possessor in West Germanic and Romance. The latter is found with different types of coding (accusative, dative, different prepositional phrases) which have different diachronic sources. ![]() To account for this terminologically, I introduce the term non-thematic affectee construction, a subtype of which is the free (non-thematic) affectee construction particularly spread in European languages. Positing a dedicated external-possessor construction faces the following problems: the same binding procedure is found in other constructions as well (such as the monotransitive or ditransitive constructions) at the same time, the very possession relation is only inconsistently found in constructions referred to as external-possessor constructions, and, what is more, the possession relation may sometimes be canceled (even if it is inalienable). The external-possession relation and the meaning of the hosting construction are orthogonal to each other, but there is a strong interplay between them. The binding procedure identifying the possessor operates at the pragmatic-semantic interface and takes into account the semantic roles of the event participants, their discourse saliency and lexical properties (such as animacy), world knowledge, properties of the possessum (such as the degree of (in)alienability), etc. Instead, various host constructions such as the free-affectee construction (a subtype of which is the free-dative construction), monotransitive or applicative construction can – to a different degree – accommodate participants that are bound by a possession relation. There seems to be no construction that would code specifically the possession relation of external possessors. Je veux démontrer en particulier que -osio (dialecte de Satricum), -oeo (romain) et -oio (ardéatin), comme d’autres terminaisons documentées en autres variétés indo-européennes, seraient formations qui peuvent être ramenées à deux matrices abstraites *-o/es- ± -jo e *-o/e-(i)- ± -so/jo ensuite je vais faire quelques considérations sur la distinction sémantique et/ou syntactique originelle entre ces terminaisons et -ī < *-j(e/o)H2. Résumé L’article traite de la question du génitif singulier des thèmes en -o- à partir de la phénoménologie des variétés latines dans un cadre qui prend en compte les données de la comparaison et des réflexions générales sur le génitif. Subsequently, I will put forward some considerations on the original semantic and/or syntactic distinction between these endings and -ī < *-j(e/o)H2. In particular, I intend to show that Satrican -osio, Roman -oeo and Ardeatine -oio, like other endings attested in other IE languages, are formations attributable to two abstract matrices *-o/es- ± -jo and *-o/e-(i)- ± -so/jo. Summary This article looks at the issue of the o-stem genitive singular, starting from the data of the Latin dialects, within a framework which takes account of the comparative data too as well as more general reflections on the genitive. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |