The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective

Abstract

The original case system found in Sanskrit (Old Indo-Aryan) was lost in Middle Indo-Aryan and then reinvented in most of the modern New Indo-Aryan (NIA) languages. This paper suggests that: (1) a large factor in the redevelopment of the NIA case systems is the expression of systematic semantic contrasts; (2) the precise distribution of the newly innovated case markers can only be understood by taking their original spatial semantics into account and how this originally spatial semantics came to be used primarily for marking the core participants of a sentence (e.g., agents, patients, experiencers, recipients). Furthermore, given that case markers were not innovated all at once, but successively, we suggest a model in which already existing case markers block or compete with newer ones, thus giving rise to differing particular instantiations of one and the same originally spatial postposition across closely related languages.

Case innovation and agentive marking: A comparative overview of Central Indo-Aryan

“…Butt and Ahmed 2011: 564-565 The functions of -kũ demonstrated in examples (8)-(10) parallel those of modern Hindi/Urdu -ko, i.e. as dative in (8), dative experiencer in (9), and accusative in (10) (Butt and Ahmed 2011). Following the assumption that both -ne and -ko have their origins as postpositions marking space -'near' and 'from' in the case of the former and the latter as a marker of goals and recipients -Butt and Ahmed support the position that new case markers may be adopted by a language to reinforce semantic contrasts.…”

“…Hoernle (1880: 224-225) further suggested the connection between this marker and the -ne or -nɛ dative/accusative marker in the neighbouring Rajasthani dialects. In fact, most modern Rajasthani, Gujarati, and northern Bhili dialects still use -ne as a dative/ accusative marker (for further discussion see Butt 2001Butt : 116, 2006Butt and Ahmed 2011;and Montaut 2003and Montaut , 2006and Montaut , 2009. Tessitori (1913: 559) traces the Rajasthani -n-to the older locative form kanhai 'near' -derived from the Sanskrit noun 'ear' karne -which in Old Western Rajasthani would later take on simultaneously ablative and dative functions.…”

Ergative case, aspect and person splits: Two case studies

“…Many Iranian languages (though not Persian) are characterized by the contrast between a nominative alignment in the imperfective and an ergative alignment in the perfect. We already saw in relation to the Indo-Aryan language Haryani in (32) (Butt & Ahmed 2011) that ergativity splits can be observed in the absence of a specialized ergative case; indeed in Haryani the subject of perfect sentences is introduced by an all-purpose oblique (dative). Kurmanji Kurdish is characterized by an even more elementary case organization, since it has just two possible forms for DPs, best characterized as an absolute form and an oblique one.…”

Evolution of ergativity in the Western Hindi

“…The verb muskaranaa "to smile" Sentence structures are S NOM V with transitive vector verb (45) 'Vijender cried a cry of the lack of benefits' http://pathey.blogspot.com (Friday, October 29, 2010) According to a widespread opinion about ergativity of some intransitive verbs in HindiUrdu ergative usage involves volitional, intentional, purposeful reading, conscious control of the agent over action (Butt 2006;Butt & King 1993;Butt & Ahmed 2011;Joël 2010;Khan & Sarfraz 2009). But it doesn't seem to be convincing.…”