The paper claims that the independent partitive case in Finnic languages and the independent partitive genitive case in Baltic and East Slavic (henceforth: ip(g)) show considerable correlations that cannot be accounted for but by language contact. Given that both the ip(g) in Baltic and East Slavic as well as the ip(g) in Finnic are inherited from the respective proto-languages, the paper also offers a methodological discussion of how inherited categories may also be shown to be subject to language contact. A typologically not infrequent category must be individualized on the basis of a list of properties. Thus, 13 semantic and 5 morphosyntactic properties have been discussed. While the study reveals that in general the ip(g) is or was subject to intensive language contact, there is no common hotbed for all properties analysed and different properties have different hotbeds and are distinct with respect to their geographical distribution and entrenchment. North Russian and Finnic show the greatest degree of correspondence as, e.g., the aspectuality related functions of the ip(g) or the morphological distinction between the possession (sensu lato) and the partitive-related functions are concerned. Here, Finnic is the donor language. However, other properties such as the semantic and syntactic merger of the acc and ip(g) marking must have spread from Russian to Finnic and, to some extent, Baltic. Similarly, the genitive/partitive-under-negation probably developed first in Baltic and Slavic and spread then into Finnic, since preconditions for this rule are already found in the ancient Indo-European languages. Finnic, however, preserves this rule best.
The present paper aims to investigate the main semantic-functional and discursive properties of partitives on the bases of the bare (independent) partitive genitive in Ancient Greek. Contrary to previous views that the bare partitive genitive (b-PG) primarily encodes the part-of-relation I claim that this meaning of the b-PG has been lost in Ancient Greek. Instead, I claim that the b-PG encodes undetermined instantiations of a set descriptive and restrictive in nature and compatible with kind-or subkindreferring NPs/DPs. It allows the speaker to make no commitment as to the quantity, referentiality and semantic role of these instantiation(s); this/these instantiation(s) have inherently narrow scope (e.g. with negation). These semantic properties determine the discursive function of the b-PG. I claim that the b-PG detracts the focus of attention from the actual participant and links it to the descriptive set or kind/subkind this participant belongs to; the actual participant is extremely backgrounded and its reference is never stored in the discourse model. The b-PG allows the speaker to zoom out from the actual participant and view it schematically in terms of one of its hypercategories (subkind, kind, characterizing/descriptive set). This function of the b-PG explains its frequent occurrence with the verbs of consumption or desire. It explains, furthermore, its use in the predicative position and in headings. As to the diachronic perspective, it is claimed that the foregroundedness of the respective hypercategory and extreme backgroundedness of the subset indicate that the b-PG develops semantically towards pseudo-partitivity.
A surprising property of the Ancient Greek bare partitive genitive NP in the subject position is that it behaves morphosyntactically in many ways as a nominative-marked NP: (i) while being in the logical subject position, it triggers semantically driven verbal agreement and, (ii), it may be coordinated with nominatives. This is striking, since obliques typically do not have access to agreement in ancient Indo-European languages including Ancient Greek. To account for this discrepancy, I assume a covert head of the partitive genitive that is filled by pro with an arbitrary reference (pro arb ) by default; else, this position can be filled by any quantifier or determiner. It is this pro arb that gets Case and triggers verbal agreement. The presence of the pro arb in Ancient Greek explains also why the "independent" partitive genitive is not restricted to structural positions only (as are partitives, e. g., in Finnic languages) but can occur at any position including non-argumental adverbials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.