Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Australian
Linguistic
Society
1998
Adpositions
Alan Libert, Department of Linguistics, University of
Newcastle, Callaghan,
lnarl@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Introduction
The Government-Binding rule of Case assignment by adpositions is "NP is
oblique if
governed by P" (Chomsky 1981:170), and this is consistent with
the fact that in some of
the best known languages, such as Latin and
German, objects (or complements) of
adpositions are marked for some case
other than the nominative. One may note the remark
by Beard (1995:240) that
"Ps do not occur without Case Marking on the nouns which they
accompany in
inflectional languages". However, one does sometimes find objects of
Ptolomaic era with the preposition apo 'from', which usually takes
the genitive:
(1)
apo
from
'peliote:s [sic]
east.wind-NOM (cited in Mayser 1934:367)
FULL
PAPERS
fuer
for
ein
a-NOM
Mund
mouth
(6)
kim-in
ile
gittiniz?
who-GEN
with
you-went
'with whom did you go?' (Lewis 1967:86)
vapur
ile
gittiniz
boat-NOM
with
you-went
'you went by boat' (ibid.)
A few remarks are in order here. First, what I am calling the nominative
in Turkish has a
significant difference from the nominative cases of
languages such as Latin and Greek:
this case is also borne by direct
objects if they are not "definite" (v. Lewis 1967:35-6 for
details), i.e.
it covers some of the territory of the accusative of many other case
languages.
Lewis calls it the absolute rather than the nominative. One may
wonder whether this
difference has any connection with the facts just
described, and whether there is a
language with a more typical nominative
where these same facts hold.
Second, two of these postpositions, ile and ichin, also
turn up as suffixes, namely -yle and
chin (and variations),
so it is not entirely clear whether we are in fact talking about
seen as the same kind of "error" as those in Greek and other languages
described earlier.
The pronouns which are (generally) genitive here are ben 'I',
sen 'you (singular/informal)', o
'he, she, it, that',
biz 'we', siz 'you (plural/formal)', bu 'this',
shu 'that', and kim 'who?'. A fact
complicating any attempt
to account for this phenomenon is that when these pronouns take
the plural
ending -ler/-lar they are nominative, not genitive, e.g. onlar
gibi 'like them'
(Lewis ibid.).
In some languages there is a split with respect to the case taken by an
adposition based not
on the syntactic category of the object, but on
semantics: the choice between the
nominative and some other case depends on
the meaning to be expressed; this is similar to
the situation in Latin
where several prepositions can take accusative or ablative objects.
This
appears to happen with two postpositions in the Turkic language Bashkir:
saqlI
means 'like(= the size of)' with the nominative, but 'up to,
until, till' with the dative; tiklem
has the latter meaning with the
dative, and means 'the size of' with the nominative (glosses
from Poppe
1964:41).
We find something similar in several Indo-European languages. For
example, Russian has
two prepositions, za and v, which general
ly take oblique cases, but which apparently take
the nominative in certain
circumstances, although they could perhaps be analyzed as
something other
than prepositions in those circumstances (I thank Daniel E. Collins and
particular
postpositions. The problem is with those pronouns which are involved in the
Note
I thank George Horn, Christo Moskovsky, Peter Peterson, and Anne
Robotham for useful
discussion.
References
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany,
NY:State University
of New York Press.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:
Foris
Haspelmath, M. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Johannessen, J.B. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination.
Linguistic Inquiry 27.
661-676.
Kornfilt, J. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in
Turkish. PhD
thesis, Harvard University.
http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als1998/liber717.html[28/10/2016 3:57:31 PM]