adding meaning to indo-aryan aspectual adverbials ``then

Adding meaning to Indo-Aryanaspectual adverbials “then” and “again”

(with comparison to Hungarian)

Benjamin Slade and Aniko Csirmaz

Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of Utah

23rd International Conference on Historical LinguisticsSan Antonio, Texas

Logical Vocabulary & Logical Change workshop3 August 2016

B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 1 / 52

Aspectual particles

1 Aspectual particles

2 Phir/Pheri

3 Additive particles & phir/pheri

4 Crosslinguistic comparisons - Hungarian &c.

5 Historical developments

6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs

8 Additional materialsAdditional Hungarian Diachronic dataMore on other treatments


Aspectual particles

Overview

Discuss various meanings of Hindi phir & Nepali pheri ‘then’, ‘again’,[‘(concessive) still’]Propose a template definition shared by the meaningscomparison with Hungarian (and beyond)


Aspectual particles

Hindi phir, Nepali pheri

Hindi(1) Ram

Ramphirthen/again

sosleep

gaya.went

“Ram slept then/again.”

Nepali

(2) BirendraBirendra

pherithen/again

sutyo.slept

“Birendra slept then/again.”


Aspectual particles

Hindi phir bhı, Nepali pheri pani

Hindi(3) Shyam

Shyamgun. d. avillain

hai;is,

phirthen/again

bhıtoo

meramy

dostfriend

hai.is

“Shyam’s a villain; stillconc he’s my friend.”

Nepali

(4) Pherithen/again

panitoo

timroyour

tasbirimage

˜akha.maeye.in

ae.rahancha.come.continues

“Stillconc your image keeps coming into my eyes.”


Phir/Pheri


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs



Phir/Pheri

Some Adverbials in Hindi & Nepali

Hindi Nepali Meaningtab tab(a) “then (at that time)”

tailephir pheri “then (after that)”

tab(a) pachiphir pheri “again” (repetitive, restituitive)phir se(dobara)

abhı bhı aile samma temporal/continuityab tak ajha(i) (pani) “still”

aile paniphir bhı pheri pani concessive/adversative

tai pani “still”tarai panira pani

bhı pani additive & scalar(-additive)particle “also”/“even”

Table: Hindi & Nepali “pieces”B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 5 / 52

Phir/Pheri

(Ordering) phir/pheri “then”

Hindi(5) Ram-ne

Ram-ergkhanafood

khaeat

liya.took.

VahHe/she

phirthen

sosleep

gaya.went

“Ram ate food. Then he slept.”

Nepali

(6) Birendra-leBirendra-erg

bhatfood

kha-i-diyo.eat-abs-gave.

UHe/she

pherithen

sutyo.slept

“Birendra ate food. Then he slept.”


Phir/Pheri

(Ordering) phir/pheri “then” defined

phir “then”:

λTλtλeλP :∃t∗∃e∗∃Q

Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) &Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) ∈ FA(P(e, t, . . . )) &t∗ ≺ t &t, t∗ ∈ T

.P(e, t, . . . )

phir/pheri combines with an ordered scale of times T, a time t, aneventuality e, and a saturated predicate P, and asserts that there is aP eventuality e at time tP inherits the specifications of saturated predicate, so might appearin fuller form as e.g. sleep(e∗, t∗, John) & in(e∗, kitchen)presupposes that there is another eventuality e∗ of Q which occurs attime t∗, and that t∗ precedes talternatives will vary depending on exactly what subconstituent isfocussed (e.g. the VP); e.g. = {John snored, John drooled, Johnwalked about, John slept, . . . }


Phir/Pheri

(Ordering) phir/pheri “then” tree

vP

then vP

subevent vP

subjectv VP

subevent VP

V object


Phir/Pheri

Relational adverbials and focus

The focus alternatives are of course determined by what is focussed(see Rooth 1985, 1992)E.g. John [woke up]F , Then he [got dressed]F , Then he [had ashower]F , Then [Mary]F had one, . . .


Phir/Pheri

(Repetitive) phir/pheri “again”

Hindi

(7) Ram-neRam-erg

bat.an-kobutton-dat

dabapush

diya.gave.

KuchSomething

nahınot

hua.became.

Us-nehe/she-erg

phir (se)again

bat.an-kobutton-dat

dabapush

diya.gave.

“Ram pushed the button. Nothing happened. He pushed the buttonagain.”

Nepali

(8) Birendra-leBirendra-erg

bat.an-laıbutton-dat

daba-i-diyo.push-abs-gave.

KeWhat

panialso/even

bhaena.became.neg.

Us-lehe/she-erg

pheriagain

bat.an-laıbutton-dat

daba-i-diyo.push-abs-gave.

“Birendra pushed the button. Nothing happened. He pushed the buttonagain.”


Phir/Pheri

Repetitives

phir (se), pheri :


Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) &Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) ∈ FA(P(e, t, . . . )) &t∗ ≺ t &t, t∗ ∈ T

.P(e, t, . . . )

Identical to temporal ordering “then”, except that the time variable(rather than some other constituent) is under focus, and so thealternatives will vary in terms of temporal specificatione.g. FAs might include {John woke at t1, John woke at t2, Johnwoke at t3, . . . }


Phir/Pheri

(Repetitive) phir/pheri “then” trees 1

Again, repetitivevP

again vP

subevent vP

subjectv VP

subevent VP

V object


Phir/Pheri

(Repetitive) phir/pheri “then” trees 2

Again, restitutivevP

subevent vP

subjectv VP

again VP

subevent VP

V object


Phir/Pheri

Generalised template for phir/pheri

Template

λSλxλeλP :∃x∗∃e∗∃Q

Q(e∗, x∗, . . . ) &Q(e∗, x∗, . . . ) ∈ FA(P(e, x , . . . )) &x∗R x &x , x∗ ∈ S

.P(e, x , . . . )

P,Q are (saturated) predicatesx , x∗ are scalar entities (times, degrees, &c.)e, e∗ are eventuality variablesR is a relation (e.g. ≺,�,∝, &c.)S is a scaleFA is a set of focus alternatives to P(e, x) which differ in terms ofvariation of elements under focus, which may include times, degrees,or subconstituents &c. (assuming ‘transparency’ of the event variable)


Additive particles & phir/pheri


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs




Concessive “still”

Recall from above: for the “concessive still” sense, both Hindi & Nepalicombine the temporal phir/pheri with a particle, Hindi bhı, Nepali pani

Hindi(9) Shyam

Shyamgun. d. avillain

hai;is,

phirthen/again

bhıtoo

meramy

dostfriend

hai.is

“Shyam’s a villain; stillconc he’s my friend.”

Nepali

(10) Pherithen/again

panitoo

timroyour

tasbirimage

˜akha.maeye.in

ae.rahancha.come.continues

“Stilltemp your image keeps coming into my eyes.”



Additive particles in Hindi and Nepali

The particles which show up in the “concessive still” in Hindi & Nepali,bhı & pani, are members of the µ-type (< Japanese mo) which appear inuniversal & conjunctive environments (see Szabolcsi 2010,2015,Slade 2011, Mitrovic 2014, amongst other; cf. Reichenbach 1947)

Japanese Dravidian Sinhala Nepali Hindi Hungarianµ-series mo um t pani bhı is,

mind

Table: µ series in select languages



Examples of bhı and pani as µ

Hindi

(11) RamRam

bhıalso/even

mardie

gayawent

“Ram died too.”/“Even Ram died.”(12) Ram

Rambhıalso

ShyamShyam

bhıalso

. . .

. . .“Both Ram and Shyam”

Nepali

(13) RamRam

panieven/also

maryodied

“Ram died too.”/“Even Ram died.”(14) Ram

Rampanialso

ShyamShyam

panialso

. . .

. . .“Both Ram and Shyam”



Examples of bhı and pani as µ (cont.)

Hindi

(15) KoıSomeone

bhıalso/even

nahınot

aya.came.

“No-one came.”(16) Jo

rel.probhıalso/even

lar.kıgirl

vah˜athere

khar.ıstanding

hai,is,

vahhe/she

merımy

dostfriend

hogıbe.fut

“Whichever girl is standing there will be my friend.”

Nepali

(17) MaI

kahilesometimes

panieven/also

raksialcohol

piudinadrink.neg

“I never drink alcohol.”(18) Jo

who.rel.proaecame

panieven/also

hunchais

“Whoever comes, it is all right.”B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 18 / 52


‘Concessive/adversative’ phir bhı/pheri pani

Concessive

λSλwλeλP:

∃e∗

∃Q∃e′

∃R∃W cg⊆W

R(e′,w ,... ) &Q(e∗,... )∈FA(P(e,... )) &Σ({Λ(w′)|R(e∗,w′)∧P(e,w′)∧w′∈W cg}) <

Σ({Λ(w′′)|R(e∗,w′′)∧Q(e,w′′)∧w′′∈W cg})

Σ({Λ(w′)|R(e∗,w′)∧P(e,w′)∧w′∈W cg}),

Σ({Λ(w′′)|R(e∗,w′′)∧Q(e,w′′)∧w′′∈W cg})∈S

.P(e,w ,... )

W cg is the set of world consistent with the common groundbecause verum is focussed, FA(P(e)) = {P(e),¬P(e)}Λ(w ′) = likelihood of w ′Σ({Λ(w ′)| . . . }) is the aggregate of the likelihood of every world in a particular set. Thusboth the number of worlds in the set and the individual likelihood of each particular worldaffects the result.S is an ordering of real numbersSo here the overall likeliness of the worlds in which both the presupposed ‘frame-setting’eventuality and the eventuality in question both occur is lower than the overall likelinessof the worlds in which the ‘frame-setting’ eventuality occurs but the eventuality inquestion does notFAs = {p,¬p}B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 19 / 52


Concessive treeAspP

Concessive.still AspP

event AspP

Perf/Imperf vP

subevent vP

subjectv VP

subevent VP

V object



Concessive

This sense is rather different from the “templatic” phir/pheriUnsurprising given the additional element bhı, paniThe additive bhı/pani seems to correlate with the additionalpresupposition of a “framing” eventualityAlso note the complexity of scalar elements (summation of likelihoodover sets of worlds)


Crosslinguistic comparisons - Hungarian &c.


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs




Comparison of (a subset of) Hungarian, Hindi, Nepalitemporal adverbials

Hungarian Hindi Nepali Meaningmegint phir pheri repetitive,ismet phir se restituitivemeg (mindig) abhı bhı aile samma temporal/continuity

ab tak ajha(i) (pani) “still”aile pani

megis phir bhı pheri pani concessive/adversativeakkor is tai pani “still”is bhı pani additive particle “also”



Repetitives in Hungarian

The Hungarian repetitives are etymologically connected to meg viameg :

(19) FeriF-nom

megintagain

//

ismetagain

ivottdrank

egyone

palinkat.palinka-acc

‘Feri drank a palinka again.’



Concessive megis

Concessive interpretation

(20) Barthough

fogyokurazott,diet.V.past,3sg

FeriF-nom

megisstill

evettate

zsıroskenyeret.lard-adj.bread-acc

‘Even though he was on a diet, Feri still ate some bread with lard.’



Additives in Hungarian

Like Hindi phir bhı, Nepali pheri pani, Hungarian megis contains anadditive particle

(21) JanosJ.

isalso

jott.came.

“John came too.”(22) Janos

J.isalso

(es)(and)

MariM.

isalso

. . .

. . .“Both John and Mary”



Scalar additive

Scalar component from ‘meg’, additive from ‘is’.

(23) Mindenkieveryone-nom

zsıroskenyeretlard-adj.bread-acc

kert.asked.

Megstill

FeriF-nom

*(is)too

zsıroskenyeretlard-adj.bread-acc

kert.asked

‘Everyone asked for some bread with lard. Even Feri asked forsome bread with lard.’



Another ordering relation in Hungarian

Hungarian meg has (amongst other uses) a temporal ordering use,which interestingly is the inverse of the relation in the Indo-Aryanordering phir, pheriEvent e associated with P precedes another event e∗

(24) Megstill

epıtettbuilt

egyone

hazathouse-acc

(mielottbefore

megmeg

halt)died

‘He built a house (before he died)’



Hungarian inverse ordering

meg “(inverse) then; before that”:


Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) &Q(e∗, t∗, . . . ) ∈ FA(P(e, t, . . . )) &t∗ � t &t, t∗ ∈ T

.P(e, t, . . . )

FAs, e.g. = {He built a cabin, He sneezed, He walked about, Hedied. . . }



Other stills in Hungarian

comparative

(25) Ezthis

egyone

nagybig

labda.ball

(Azthat

nagyobb.)bigger

Esand

azthat

megstill

nagyobb.bigger

‘This is a big ball. (That one is bigger.) And that one is stillbigger.’

S-marginality [standard-marginality] (vs. “comparative” C-marginality)

(26) SopronSopron-nom

megstill

MagyarorszagonHungary-on

van.is

‘Sopron is still in Hungary.’ (‘true’ marginality)(27) Ez

thisathe

ruhadress

draga.expensive

Azthat

athe

ruhadress

istoo

//

#megstill

draga.expensive

‘This dress is expensive. That dress is expensive too / stillexpensive.’ (comparative marginality, only ok if temporal meg)



Comparison of Hungarian, Hindi, Nepali, German

Hungarian Hindi Nepali German Meaningakkor tab tab(a) da “then (at that time)”

taileaz (u)tan phir pheri dann “then (after that)”

tab(a) pachimeg — — — “before that”megint phir pheri wieder repetitive,ismet phir se restituitiveujra (dobara). . .meg (mindig) abhı bhı aile samma noch temporal/continuity

ab tak ajha(i) (pani) “still”aile pani

megis phir bhı pheri pani noch concessive/adversativeakkor is tai pani “still”

tarai panira pani

meg . . . is bhı pani sogar scalar(-additive)particle “even”

is bhı pani auch additive particle “also”


Historical developments


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs





HindiHindi phir “then, again” is related to Hindi phirna “to turn”, which derivesfrom a reconstructed Old Indo-Aryan *phirati “moves, wanders, turns”, cp.Prakrit phiraı “goes, returns” (Turner 1966: #9078)

Kutchi Gujarati (Patel-Grosz & Beck 2014)Pacho “again (repet. & restit.) & back” < OIA. *pasca- “hinder part”(much like English back) [Turner 1966: #7990]

cp. Hindi vapas “back” (no repetitive senses (yet)), loanword from Persian,with the pas part being cognate with *pasca- [Platts 1884:1171]

Cp. English againAgain originally meant “back, in the opposite direction” OE ongean: “He sceafþa mid Dam scylde, Dæt se sceaft tobærst, and þæt spere sprengde, þæt hitsprang ongean.” [“He shoved then with shield so the shaft burst — the spearbroke and sprang back.”](Battle of Maldon 137)



Sanskrit punar api

Nepali paniderives from Sanskrit punar api “even again; again too; moreover; also” (Turner1966:#8274)

Sanskrit punar api

(28) ks.iptothrown

’yamthis

mandaradrih.Mandara

punaragain

apieven/also

bhavatalord.instr

ves.t.yatamsuitable-be-whirled

vasukeVasuki.voc

’bdhauocean.loc

“Let this Mount Mandara, thrown into the ocean, again be twirled by thee, OVasuki.” [Can. d. ısataka of Ban. a 59.1]



Sanskrit punarSkt. punar polysemous consistent with templatic analysis:

(29) hitv´ayaabandon.conv

avadyamimperfection.acc

punaragain

astamhome.acc

´ato

ihicome.impv

“Having cast off imperfection, come home again.” [R. gveda X.14.8c](30) Punar

again/backagamyacome.conv

nis.adhanNishadha

naleNala.loc

sarvamall.acc

nyavedayatknow.caus.impf.past.3sg

“Having returned back to Nishadha, [the goose] made all known to Nala.” [Nala I.32](31) sr.n.u

listen.impvpunah.again/back

“Listen still/further!”(32) Punar

againcaand

raman. ıyes.upleasant.loc.pl

vanes.uforests.loc.pl

upavanes.ugroves.loc.pl

caand

DamayantyaDamayanti.instr

sahawith

NaloNala.nom

vijaharawandering-for-pleasure

amaropamah. .like-immortals.

“Moreover (?), Nala with Damayanti, like immortals, was always wandering about forpleasure in pleasant forests and groves.” [Nala V.44]

(33) arthaih.wealth.instr

samcayavanaccumulated-wealth-person

arthanwealth.acc

prapnotiobtains

kiyadlittle

adbhutam,wonder,

mayame.instr

punarstill

vinawithout

evaemph

arthamwealth

laks.mıh.Laxmi

asaditasit.caus.impf.fem

puraformerly

“It is little wonder that someone who has inherited wealth should obtain wealth by usingwealth; still I achieved prosperity long ago without any wealth to start with.”[Kathasaritsagara XXIII.1–2]B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 33 / 52


Old English

Old English eftSimilar “polysemy” is also found in earlier English eft:

(34) Efterwardafterward

meone

sselshall

þernethis

metefood

eftagain

chyewechew

aseas

þethe

oxeox

þet...that. . .

“Afterward one shall chew this food again like the oxthat. . . (CMAYENBI111.2146 — from Gergel et al. 2016)[repetitive reading]

(35) þonethat.acc

monman

eftafterwards

onin

CentKent

forbærnde.burned.

“That man was afterwards burned in Kent.” [Anglo-Saxon Chron.ann. 685 (Parker MS.) ]



Origins of Repetitives in Hungarian

Hungarian meg appears in a number of different senses (temporal “still”, additive“still”, &c.)meg derives from the particle meg (Zaicz 2006), which could mean “again”:

(36) (Muncheni kodex, 1466)esand

tondid

megagain

ugylike.that

“and he did again like that” (?)

Both megint, ismet are derived from meg(with an additional additive for ismet)Meg originally had the interpretation of ‘back’ (Zaicz 2006)

(37) ‘Back’ (Muncheni kodex, 1466)nenot

mennenekwent.3pl

megmeg

Herodeshez,Herod-to

masdifferent

utonroad-on

fordulanakturned.3pl

megmeg

othey

orszagukbacountry.pos.3pl-to“They didn’t return to Herod, they returned on a different road to theircountry.”



Further echoes of additives:

Even in German, the form noch “still” historically contains an additiveparticle (as Hungarian is, Hindi bhı, Nepali pani):

German noch < PGmc. *nuh < PIE *nu- “now” plus the PIE additiveparticle *-kwe (Pokorny 1959)


Other accounts


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs



Other accounts

Other accounts

Michaelis 1993, Ippolito 2007, Beck 2016 on various senses of still(among others)Focus of papers: no morphological relevance, no templatic definitionConcern (Michaelis 1993): aspectual restrictions

Morphological facts (also later), role of additive particles


Other accounts

Other accounts: abutment

Abutment in temporal interpretationFor others, abutment survives in other interpretations, e.g. themarginality senseNo necessary abutment relation (e.g. comparative, C-marginality,perhaps also just an implicature in S-marginality)


Other accounts

Other accounts: temporal implicature

Beck 2016: temporal implicature with temporal stillIt’s still raining implicates that it won’t be raining in the future (Beck)This dress is still expensive: no necessary entailment, presuppositionor entailment that it will be cheaper at a later time


Conclusion & refs


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs



Conclusion & refs

Temporal Adverbials - Different Scales, Relations, Foci

Item Scale Relation Focus Identity ofScale/Focus

“temporal” still time ∝ time yes“temporal additive” time ≺ time yesstill“marginality” still degrees � individuals no“concessive” still likelihood < verum noagain time ≺ time yesthen time ≺ non-time element no


Conclusion & refs

Summary

templatic relation between various senses of temporal/relationaladverbsovertly manifested in morphology in some languagesuse of templatic definitions elsewhere

P elements fluid between spatial, temporal realms, &c., e.g.:“30 and above”, “above average”, “X is above Y” (inhierarchy/organisation), “see above” (ordering in a text), &c.“under the table”, “under 30 inches”, “under 2 hours”, “undercontract”, &.

can explain historical relationships (e.g. in Hungarian), ormorphologically-connected paradigms of adverbs


Conclusion & refs

Remaining problems

more fully work out syntax and compositional accounte.g. explain precise contribution of additives in forming “concessivestill”

for bhı/pani, ambiguous between additive, and scalar-additive, possibleexplanation is clearer (scalar additives typical rank according tolikelihood)but Hungarian is seems to be a plain additive (unless it was similarlyambiguous at an earlier stage)


Conclusion & refs

ReferencesBeck, S. 2005. There and back again: a semantic analysis, JoS 22:3–51Beck, S. 2016. Discourse related readings of scalar particles. SALT26Benko, L. 1991. A magyar nyelv torteneti nyelvtana. Budapest: Akademiai KiadoGergel, R., Blumel, A., & Kopf, M. 2016. . . . Notes from a Dying Adverb. PENN39Horn, L. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even, CLS 5:98–107Ippolito, M. 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. NLS 15(1)Kayne, R. 2016. The unicity of there and the definiteness effect. Ms., New York Uni.Klein, W. 2007. About the German particles schon & noch. Ms., Max PlanckKrifka, M. 1998. Additive particles under stress, SALT VIII, 92–110Michaelis, L. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within 3 scalar models: . . . polysemy of . . . still. JoS 10Mitrovic, M. 2014. Morphosyntactic atoms. . . Uni. of Cambridge PhDPatel-Grosz, P. & Beck, S. 2014. Revisiting again . . . Gujarati. Sinn & Bedeutung 18Platts, J.T. 1884. A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, & English. London: W.H. AllenPokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, Bern: FranckeReichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: MacmillanRooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus, UMass PhDRooth, M. 1992. Theory of focus interpretation, NLS 1:75–116Slade, B. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries. . . . Urbana: UIll PhDSzabolcsi, A. 2010. Quantification, Cambridge: CUPSzabolcsi, A. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? L & P 38:159–204Turner, R.L. 1962–6. A compar. dict. of Indo-Aryan langs. London: RoutlegeZaicz, G. (ed) 2006. Etimologiai szotar [Etymological dictionary]. Budapest: Tinta KiadoZimmermann, M. 2017. Scalar particles . . . in . . . Vietnamese. IATL2015Hungarian Generative Diachronic Syntax (http://corpus.nytud.hu/hgds-dev/en-intro.html)


Additional materials


2 Phir/Pheri




6 Other accounts

7 Conclusion & refs



Additional materials

Temporal/aspectual still treeAspP

Temporal.still AspP

event AspP

Imperf vP

subevent vP

subjectv VP

subevent VP

V objectB Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 44 / 52

Additional materials Additional Hungarian Diachronic data

meg as repetitive

(38) (Muncheni kodex, 1466)

esand

tondid

megagain

ugylike.that

“and he did again like that” (?)(39) (Szabolcs Viadala 1476)

nagybig

bussad

jonhhal?-with

meg-visszaterenekagain-back.returned

“they returned again with big sad ?”

(40) esmeg (Jakob kodex, 1440)

adjadgive.imp

esmeg (=ismet)again

ennekemme

“give it to me again”B Slade & A Csirmaz (Uni. of Utah) Indo-Aryan aspectual adverbs ICHL23(LVLC) : San Antonio 45 / 52


Other repetitives

(41) ismet (Muncheni kodex, 1466)

ismetismet

mondomsay.1sg

tinektekyou.pl-to

‘I say to you again’(42) megint (Jordanszky kodex, 1516-19)

esand

kiwho

szent,saint

szenteltessekblessed.imp

megintmegint

‘and that who is a saint should be blessed again’



Meg as still

(43) Temporal meg (Becsi kodex, 1430-60)

Megmeg

negyvenforty

napokdays

vannakare

‘There are still forty days’(44) Concessive megis (Bod kodex, first half of 16th c)

debut

megismegis

tobbetmore-acc

akarwant

valahad

bırniahave.inf

‘but still he wanted to have more’



Additives

(45) Additive (Birk kodex, 1474)

Ohe

rajtaon

isis

konyorultokmercy.V.2pl

‘You(pl) have mercy on him as well’(46) Scalar additive (Muncheni kodex, 1466)

megmeg

tiyou.pl

isis

ertelemreason

nelkulwithout

vagytok-eare.2pl Q

‘Whether even you are without reason’(47) Additive (Birk kodex, 1474)

nenot

csakonly

szatokmouth.poss.2pl

etket,food-acc

debut

megmeg

fuletekear.poss.2pl

istoo

bevegyein.take.imp

hallgassahear.imp

istennekgod-dat

igejetword.poss-acc

‘Let not only your mouth take in food, but also your ears take in and hearGod’s word’


Additional materials More on other treatments

Misc. Remarks on Previous Accounts

Michaelis (1993)Examines three senses of English still with reference to diachronicdevelopment (temporal, marginality, concessive)Posits for each of the 3 that still denotes the existence of effectivelyidentical elements at two contiguous scalar lociThe more advanced locus is asserted, the less advanced presupposedScales may differ (times, worlds, rankings along property scale)Nb: problematic claim about homogeneity of contiguityrequirement



Misc. Remarks on Previous Accounts (cont.)

Ippolito (2007)Examines English still and already, discussing aspectual/temporal,marginality, concessive uses (relating these to additive particles, scalarparticles, and exclusive particles), also investigating againAlso notes focussing of time variable for (temporal) still & againComplex interactions of adverbials with aspectual headsIn some cases definitions perhaps overspecified

Concessive still : requires worlds considered to be maximally similar toevaluation worldArgues that concessive involves presupposition that the set of worlds inwhich the framing proposition (John studied all night) and theproposition at issue ((still) he failed the exam) are both true are lesslikely the worlds in which the framing proposition is not true but theproposition at issue is true - which seems incorrect



Misc. Remarks on Previous Accounts (cont.)

Beck (2016)Focuses on German noch & English still, in various senses, includingtemporal, marginal, and various “discourse”-related (though notconcessive)Also posits common core/template, but which like Michaelis’sproblematically posits contiguity (=abutment) for all sensesAlso explores implicatures

Beck suggests that temporal noch/still carries implicature that 6 P willhold in future (explain oddity of John’s still dead)In actuality, implicature seems to involve 6 P being true in someaccessible world (John is still annoying)



Vietnamese

(48) TanTan.top,1

thıprt

tha˙m chı

scal1.7m1.7m

cungadd

nhay quajump

‘Tan can even jump 1.7m.’ [Zimmermann 2017: 141]

tha˙

m chı. . . cung is reminiscent of the meg . . . is of HungarianZimmerman (2017) argues that tha

˙m chı is a scalar(-additive) particle

and cung is an additiveHowever, the contexts for the Vietnamese examples seem to largelyinvolve a contrastive topic in addition to the scalar-additive and thusapparently differ from HungarianFurther, Zimmermann (2017: 140) notes that cung sometimes alsoappears to bear a scalar reading even without the scalar tha

˙m chı


adding meaning to indo-aryan aspectual adverbials ``then

Documents