Download Dating archaicness in Indo- European languages: various issues

Dating archaicness in IndoEuropean languages:
various issues concerning
alignment change
Junichi Toyota
Lund University
([email protected])
Aimes
To provide overview of historical changes
from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) to its
descendants
To identify crucial features which are
crucial in diversity in the Indo-European
(IE) languages.
To explain the diversity coherently.
Table of contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Origin of IE: PIE
Residues of PIE:
case
Residues of PIE:
gender
Case marking
Perception and
spontaneity
Tense-aspect and
passive
Word order and
topicality
8. Transitivity
9. Summary of various
features
10. Alignment
11.PIE: language with
activ alignment
12. Sumamry
7.
1. Origin of IE: PIE (Lehmann 1993; Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov 1995)
Basic structure is based on the nominal
binary feature between active (marked
with *-os) and inactive (*-om) nouns.
Some examples of active nouns:
*t’ent -s ‘tooth (NOM)’, *t’ent -m (ACC);
*p et’-s ‘foot (NOM)’, *p et’-m (ACC).
Inactive nouns normally have the identical
ending for nominative and accusative, e.g.
*yuk’-om ‘yoke (NOM, ACC)’.
Verbal structure
Verbs also have the active-inactive distinction.
These two forms are preserved differently in modern IE
languages. Two forms are often mixed in the
conjugation, making them suppletive verbs, e.g. Old
English he is, he bi ‘he is’.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Active
*b uH- ‘be’
*k ei- ‘lie’
*or- ‘stand’
*set’- ‘sit’
Inactive
*es- ‘be’
*ses- ‘lie, sleep’
*st -aH- ‘stand’
*es- ‘sit’
Verbal predicate
Earlier predicate required the active actor.
Inactive nouns could not be an actor, until the
innovation of an infix -nt -, which turned the
inactive noun into the active one.
a. Active alignment
b. Inactive alignment
Actor
Predicate
Undergper
Actor
Predicate
Undergoer
1SG
Active
-V-mi-
ActiveIn
1SG
Active
-V-Ha-
In
2SG
Active
-V-si-
ActiveIn
2SG
Active
-V-t Ha- In
3SG
Active
-V-ti-
ActiveIn
3SG
Active
-V-e-
In
Person
Kills
animal
Person
moves
stone
2. Residues of PIE: case
Case marking system often reflects on the
earlier active-inactive nominal distinction.
Hittite
Howi-s ‘sleep (NOM)’
*Howi-m (ACC)
swesor-s ‘sister (NOM) swesor-m (ACC)
Sanskrit
Latin
b húh ‘hand (NOM)’
b húm (ACC)
d t ‘giver (NOM)’
d t ram (ACC)
lupus ‘wolf (NOM)’
lupum (ACC)
equus ‘horse (NOM)’
equum (ACC)
3. Residues of PIE: gender
Some languages have identical forms for both
nominativ and accusative only in neuter.
Serbian
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Nominative
sin ‘son’
žena ‘woman’ selo ‘village’
Accusative
sina
ženu
selo
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Old English
Nominative wer ‘man’
Accusative wer
cwen ‘queen’ scip ‘ship’
cwen
scip
Words refering to a child or a little girl are
often considered neuter, e.g. German
Mädchen ‘girl’; Tamil makavu ‘child’,
Konkani (Indic) ed ‘child’; Serbian dete
‘child’.
Konkani bayl ‘woman’ and awoy ‘mother’
are feminine when referring to an older
woman, and neuter referrring to a younger
woman.
Neuter is used when referents are considered
incapable to reproduce.
The ability to initiate an action in the active noun
can be extended to ability to reproduce
something, e.g. PIE *Hap - ‘water, river, stream
(as moving element, i.e. active)’, *wot’ort ‘water (as a non-living element, i.e. inactive)’.
Names of fruits are often neuter, but their trees
are either masculine or feminine, e.g. Latin pirus
‘pear tree (MASC)’, malus ‘apple tree (MASC)’,
but pirum ‘pear (NEUT)’, malum ‘apple (NEUT)’.
4. Case marking
Old English
and
a
and
then
folgode
feorhgeni lan
follow.PST
deadly.foes.ACC
‘and then he pursued his deadly foes.’ (Beo 2928)
Old English
him
folgia
fugöas
he.DAT
follow.PRS bird.PL
scyne
fair
‘Fair bird shall follow him.’ (Whom 11.197)
Case marking pattern in older IE languages
Latin
NOM
ACC
DAT
GEN
VOC
LOC
ABL
INSTR
ILLA
ADESS
ALLA
OCS
Old Lith
Prt-Germ
Case marking pattern in modern IE languages
French
NOM
ACC
DAT
GEN
VOC
LOC
ABL
INSTR
ILLA
ADESS
ALLA
Serbian
Lith
English
German
5. Perception and spontaneity
Perception does not necessarily require
volitional action. It is normally considered
spontaneous.
Earlier IE languages had the middle voice, but
they disappear. The middle voice was primarily
used to denote spontaneous events.
Perception became expressed with impersonal
verbs, i.e. experiencer is in the dative case.
Middle voice
Sanskrit
Vidyam
adatte
knowledge.ACC
take.3SG.MID
‘He acquires knowledge.’
Gothic
Allai
inmaidja-nda
all
change-1PL.MID
‘We shall all change.’
Classical Greek
Loúo-mai
Wash-1SG.MID
‘I wash myself.’
Impersonal verbs
Old Lithuanian
Nie ti
mi
itch
I.DAT
‘I feel itchy.’
Hittite
[kued]aniiki
meerzi
someone.DAT
disappear
‘Someone disappears.’
Latin
Mihi
displicet
I.DAT
dislike.PRS.3SG
‘I dislike’
Latvian
kam
niet’
who.DAT
itch
‘Who itches.’
Russian
Mne
nravitsja
kniga
I.DAT
like
book
‘I like the book.’
6. Tense-aspect and passive
Earlier languages had an aspectual
distinction between perfective and
imperfective.
Tense was later developed, e.g. perfective
turning into the past (cf. Bybee et al.
1994); and it was often divided into two,
past and non-past.
The passive was poorly developed earlier,
but the middle was used more frequently.
Some exceptions: Proto-Germanic
so-called preterite-present tense
Proto-Germanic wáit ‘I know’ is derived
from PIE *weyd- ‘see’. The aspectual
meaning ‘I have completed seeing’ was
not shifted to the past tense ‘I saw/have
seen’, but rather to ‘I know’. Similar
examples are: kann ‘I know’ from ‘I have
recognised’; g ‘I fear’ from ‘I have
suffered in spirit’.
From aspect to passive
Old Church Slavonic
ast’ post-a
part
fast-GEN
preminu-l-a
est’
pass.PRF-PST.PRT.ACT-FEM
COP
‘A part of the fast-time has passed.’
Old Church Slavonic
prišel
jest
come.PRF.PST.PRT.MASC be.IMPRF.PRS.3SG
vasilisik
Basiliscus
‘Basiluscus has come.’ (Suprasliensis 20.2)
Are they passive?
Russian
a. On
he.NOM
napisal
zto
kartino
paint.PST.PRT.ACT
this.ACC
painting.ACC
‘He painted this picture.’
b. Zta
this.NOM
kartina
bila
painting.NOM was
napisana
im
paint.PST.PRT.PASS
he.INST
‘This picture was painted by him.’
Bosnian
a. On
he.NOM
je
slikao
ovu
sliku
is
paint.PST.PRT.ACT
this.ACC
picture.ACC
‘He painted this picture.’
b. Ova
this.NOM
silka
je
slikana
(*od
njega)
picture.NOM
is
paint.PST.PRT.PASS
from
he.ACC
‘This picture was painted.’
Split ergative
Constructions like b-example from
Bosnian can be considered a case of splitergative.
Celtic languages and Indo-Aryan
languages (such as Hindu) are known to
have this pattern of tense-aspect.
7. Word order and topicality (cf. Li and Thompson 1972)
Topic prominence: topic notion integrated into
basic sentence structure: topic and subject
distinct.
Subject prominence: topic has become
integrated into case frame of verb as a subject;
subject and topic often indistinct, sentences with
clear topics are highly marked.
The dummy subject is common in subjectprominent languages.
Diachrony of Word order and topicality
Older IE languages were topic prominent, and they had
a flexible word order. The basic order was SOV.
Prominence can shift over periods of time between
subject and topic prominence (cf. Figure 1).
English
Italian
Romanian Slovak
Lithuanian Irish
Promin
Subject
Subject
Topic
Topic
Topic
Subject
Flexibility
Rigid
Rigid
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Rigid
Case
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Bsc order
SVO
SVO
SVO
SOV
SOV
VSO
8. Transitivity
Transitivity is a term referring to transfer of
energy from actor to undergoer.
The IE languages seem to operate in two
different ways, i.e. semantic and syntatic
transitivity.
Semantic transitivity
Transitivity can be gradient, and there are some
ambiguous cases.
She left.
I like cakes.
He broke the window.
a. Participants
-
-
+
b. Kinesis
+
-
+
c. Aspect
+
-
+
d. Punctuality
+
-
+
e. Volitionality
+
-
+
f. Affirmative
+
+
+
g. Mode
+
+
+
h. Agency
+
-
+
i. Affectedness of object
-
-
+
j. Individuation of object
-
-
+
Syntactic transitivity
It is easier to tell whether a sentence is
transitive or not by the presence or absence of
direct object. So this type is less ambiguous
than semantic one.
a. A crazy man shot people on the street.
b. Police shot at demonstrators.
c. We’ll shoot as soon as all the cameras are
ready.
d. He was shot by the police.
9. Summary of various features
English
Italian
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Irish
Word odr
SVO
SVO
SVO
SOV
SOV
SOV
VSO
Flexibility
Rigid
Rigid
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Flexible
Rigid
Subject
Subject
Topic
Topic
Topic
Topic
Subject
Semantic
Syntactic
Case
Imprs V
Dummy S
Promin.
Passive
Mid/Ref
10. Alignment
Alignment: any one of several
grammatical systems for classifying noun
phrase arguments in the sentences of a
language, i.e. the pattern of treatment of
subjects and direct objects, referring to the
distribution of morphological markers or of
syntactic, semantic or morphological
characteristics.
Different types in alignment (cf. Figure 2)
Accusative alignment: Subjects in transitive
and intransitive constructions are treated
identically.
Ergative alignment: the subject in intransitive
construction and the direct object in transitive
construction treated identically.
Active alignment: this type splits intransitive
subject into two groups, often the active-cumpseudo-transitive subject and the
stative/inactive-cum-transitive object.
Demonstration of alignment types
Accusative
a. I punched him in the stomach.
b. He punched me in the stomach.
c. I run.
Ergative
a. I punched him in the stomach.
b. He punched me in the stomach.
c. Me run.
Active
a. I punched him in the stomach.
b. He punched me in the stomach.
c. I run. (dynmaic intransitive)
d. Me stay. (stative intransitive)
Characteristics of active alignment (Klimov
1977: chap. 3; Nichols 1992: 9-10)
Lexical properties:
1. Binary division of nouns into active vs. inactive (often
termed animate and inanimate or the like in the literature).
2. Binary division of verbs into active and inactive.
3. Classificatory verbs or the like (classification based on
shape, animacy, etc.).
4. Active verbs require active nouns as subjects.
5. Singular-plural lexical suppletion in verbs.
6. The category of number absent or weakly developed.
7. No copula.
8. “Adjectives” are actually intransitive verbs.
9. Inclusive/exclusive pronoun distinction in first person.
10. No infinitive, no verbal nouns.
11. Etymological identity of many body-part and plant-part
terms (e.g., “ear” = “leaf”).
12. Doublet verbs, suppletive for animacy of actant.
Characteristics of active alignment (Klimov
1977: chap. 3; Nichols 1992: 9-10)
Syntactic properties:
13. The clause is structurally dominated by the
verb.
14. “Affective” (inverse) sentence construction with
verbs of perception, etc.
15. Syntactic categories of nearer and farther
object rather than direct and indirect object.
16. No verba habiendi.
17. Word order usually SOV.
18. Direct object incorporation into verb.
Characteristics of active alignment (Klimov
1977: chap. 3; Nichols 1992: 9-10)
Morphological properties:
19. The verb is much more richly inflected than the noun.
20. Two series of personal affixes on the verb: active and inactive.
21. Verbs have aspect or Aktionsarten rather than tense.
22. The noun has possessive affixes.
23. Alienable-inalienable possession distinction.
24. Inalienable possessive affixes and inactive verbal affixes are similar or identical.
25. Third person often has zero affix.
26. No voice opposition (since there is no transitivity opposition). Instead, there can be
an opposition of what is called version in Kartvelian studies (roughly, active vs.
middle in the terminology of Benveniste 1966, or an opposition of normal valence vs.
valence augmented by a second or indirect object, or an opposition of speech-act
participant vs. non-participant in indirect-object marking on the verb).
27. Active verbs have more morphological variation or make more morphological
distinctions than inactive verbs.
28. The morphological category of number is absent or weakly developed.
29. There are no noun cases for core grammatical relations (no nominative, accusative,
genitive, dative). Sometimes there is an active/inactive case opposition.
30. Postpositions are often lacking or underdeveloped in these languages. Some of
them have adpositions inflected like nouns.
11. PIE: language with active alignment
(cf. Gamkrelidzeand Ivanov 1995)
Binary nominal and verbal distinction
No tense, but aspect between perfective and
imperfective
No transitivity as a central grammatical
organisation
Impersonal verbs with dative subject
The basic word order was SOV
The voice distinction between active (active) and
middle (inactive). There was no passive.
Development into modern IE languages
Word order became rigid, keeping subject
in a certain slot in a clause.
This creates a subject prominence, and
the case became redundant.
The subject prominence created a ground
for the passive to develop, provided that
an earlier resultative/perfective
construction is replaced by a new one.
Further development: transitivity
Change of alignment also means the
emergence of transitivity.
Among two types of transitivity, semantic
one appeared first. This type can be found
in some modern IE languages.
Syntactic one is newer of the two, found
mainly in Romance and some Germanic
languages such as English.
12. Summary
Various changes we have seen can be
attributed to the change in alignment from active
to accusative one.
The key element in the development is the
emergence of the transitivity, especially from
semantic to syntactic one.
Development of different features is at varying
stages according to each language, and this
variety allows us to judge archaicness of some
languages.
Selected references
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagluica, W. 1994. The evolution of
grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of
the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vja eslav V. Ivanov 1995. IndoEuropean and Indo-Europeans: a recpnstruction and
historical analysis of a proto-language and proto-culture
(part 1): text. (English version by Johanna Nichols). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell 1995. Historical syntax in
cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1993. Theoretical bases of IndoEuropean linguistics. London: Rutledge.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson 1976. ‘Subject and
topic: a new typology of language’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject
and topic. Academic Press, new York, 457-489.
Nichols, Johanna 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.