Semantic and morphological partitives in the

Uralic languagesAnne Tamm

SLE 43RD ANNUAL MEETING, VILNIUS, 2 - 5 SEPTEMBER 2010

SLE workshop Partitives, Vilnius, September 4th, 2010

What is special about the Uralic partitives?Having many languages with the partitive: the

variation across the Finnic languages in ”what the partitive is used for” – the semantic partitive > partitive TAM semantics distinction

Embeddedness in rich case systems: the multitude of Source (separative) cases and a mismatch between partitive semantics and semantic partitives

The interaction between TAM and the partitive Aspectual DOM, DSM, DAMDefiniteness effects, telicity, and partitive argumentsCase on non-finites and verb stems

Semantics and morphology: a ”partitive” mismatchSeveral Uralic languages have cases that are referred

to as ”partitive”.The semantics of these cases diverges from the

generally assumed notion of ”partitive”.

It is useful to distinguish between ”semantic partitives” (and cases that express it) and ”morphological partitives” (and the semantics they express).

Morphological PTV

Semantic

SemP

The partitive semantics corresponds to "part/amount-of-N", referring to a part or quantity out of a group or amount of substance.

Language-specific morphological partitivesWhile the semantic partitive has fixed

semantic properties, the morphological partitive cases have developed their own specific semantics and pragmatics in each Uralic language where the case appears. Karelian: the cause partitive ”infinitives”Inari Sami: after numbers 7+Inari Sami: with comparatives (than

someone/something)

Karelian ”partitive infinitives”

Keittä-miä pada musten-i.

cook-M_NMLZ_PTV pot[NOM] blacken-

3S.PST’Cooking caused the pot turn black.’

(Karelian)

Sami comparative constructions

(Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 65)

Sami number phrases 7+

(Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 66)

Rich case systemsUralic languages are typically characterized by rich case

systems with approximately 10 members, and many have case systems of approximately 15 or 20 cases.

According to the WALS map of Iggesen (2008), there are 24 languages with more than 10 cases. The following languages have more than 10 cases in

WALS: Awa Pit, Basque, Brahui, Chukchi, Epena Pedee, Estonian, Evenki, Finnish, Gooniyandi, Hamtai, Hungarian, Hunzib, Ingush, Kayardild, Ket, Lak, Lezgian, Martuthunira, Mordvin (Erzya), Nez Perce, Nunggubuyu, Pitjantjatjara, Toda, Udmurt.

Five of those listed are Uralic (Erzya Mordvin, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Udmurt).

Partitive in the case paradigmMorphological partitives:(Baltic)-FinnicSkolt and Inari Sami

----------------------Semantic partitives: Almost all Uralic cases have one or more cases

for ”separation”

Partitive and no source case: Sami

(Toivonen 2003: 36)

Partitive and source cases: EstNominative book raamatGenitive of a book raamatuPartitive (of) a book raamatu-tIllative into the book raamatu-sseInessive in a book raamatu-sElative from (inside) a book raamatu-stAllative onto a book raamatu-leAdessive on a book raamatu-lAblative from the book raamatu-ltTranslative in(to), as a book raamatu-ksTerminative until a book raamatu-niEssive as a book raamatu-naAbessive without a book raamatu-taComitative with a book raamatu-ga

No partitive, Source cases (U)1. Nominative s’ik2. Genitive s’ik-len3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn10. Illative s’ik-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Source cases in rich paradigmsKomi has 18 cases (Riese 1998: 268), nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, approximative, genitive/ablative, inessive, elative, ablative, terminative, instrumental, egressive, caritive, adverbial, prolative 1 and 2, consecutive, comitative.

Source cases in poor paradigmsTundra Nenets 7 (Salminen 1998: 537), nominative,

accusative, genitive, dative, locative, ablative, prosecutive. (the suggested Proto-Samoyedic inventory, Janhunen 1998: 469)

Kamas 7 (Szimoncsics 1998: 585-586), nominative, accusative, genitive, lative, locative, ablative, instrumental

Selkup 13 (Helimski 1998: 560-561), nominative, accusative, genitive, instrumental, co-ordinative, caritive, translative, dative/allative, illative, locative, elative, prolative, vocative

Nganasan 8-11 (Helimski 1998: 496), nominative (= absolute form), accusative, genitive, lative (= dative, or dative-lative), locative (=locative/instructive), elative (=ablative), prolative (=prosecutive)

No partitive, no separative (Kh)

(Ruttkay 2003:20)

Source cases: ablative, elative, delative, egressive, and exessiveAblative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Mansi,

Vepsian, Votic, etc) denotes movement away from something (e.g., away from the house)

Elative (Erzya, Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Lule Sámi, Pite Sámi, Votic, etc) denotes "out of something" (e.g., out of the house).

Delative (Hungarian) denotes movement from the surface (e.g., from (the top of) the house)

Egressive (Veps, Udmurt) marking the beginning of a movement or time (e.g., beginning from the house)

Exessive (Karelian, Ingrian, Livonian, Votic, Estonian, etc ) transition away from a state (from a house)

Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

Uralic semantic partitive: elative, ablativeIn the Uralic languages, the semantic partitive is

generally expressed by the elative case. If there is no dedicated elative case, then the

semantic partitive is expressed by the ablative.The morphological partitive is more characteristic

of pseudopartitive constructions.Pseudopartitive constructions are expressed

predominantly via juxtaposition.It is not clear at this stage if all Uralic languages

have any partitive constructions with the structure N-measure – N-substance

SemP, elativeElative denotes movement from a container,

ablative - movement away from something, delative – movement from a surface.

gyerekeimből a legfiatalabb child-PL.1PX-ELA the youngest ’the youngest of my children’

(Hungarian)

Juxtaposition (pseudo-partitives)Many Uralic languages express pseudo-

partitives with juxtaposition (N and W Sami, Hungarian, Mari, Mordvinian, Komi, Udmurt (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001:555)).

egy pohár bor det/one glass[nom]

wine[nom] ’a glass of wine’ (Hungarian)

SemP: elative, MorphP: partitiveEstonian semantic partitive is typically

realized by elative; only the pseudo-partitive is realized with the partitive case-marking.

noorim mu laste-st youngest my child.PL-ELA ’the youngest of my children’klaas veini glass[NOM] wine.PTV’a glass of wine’ (Estonian)

True SemP and aspectEvett a pizzá-ból.eat.3S DEFpizza-ELA‘She ate some of the pizza.’

Meg-ette a pizzá-t.TELIC-eat.3S DEF pizza-ACC‘She ate up the pizza.’

*Meg-ette a pizzá-ból.TELIC-eat.3S DEF pizza-ELA(‘She ate up of the pizza.’) (Hungarian)

MorphP Mari sõi (seda) pitsa-t. Mari ate this.ptv pizza-PTV‘Mary was eating (this) pizza.’ (Est unbounded)

Mari sõi pitsa / ??pitsa-t (ära). Mari ate pizza.ACC pizza-PTV up‘Mary ate a pizza (up).’ (Est bounded)

Pizzá-t evett.pizza-ACC eat.3S‘She was eating pizza.’ (Hu unbounded)The Hungarian elative is a real semantic partitive.Bare nouns compare to other Uralic zero marked bare nouns.

Udm.: acc. SemP, unmarked/accn'an' s'i-i (odig judes) bread[ACC] eat-INF (one[ACC] piece[ACC]) ‘to eat (a piece of) bread.’

n'an'-ez judes s'i-i bread-ACC piece[ACC] eat-INF ‘to eat a piece of this bread.’

n'an'-ez s'i-i bread-ACC eat-INF ‘to eat (a piece of) this bread up.’(Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.)

Komi, elative SemP, unmarked/accКурчч-и нянь-сьыс тор.bite-1s.past bread-ela piece[acc]’I have bitten some bread.’Нянь сёй-и.bread [acc] eat-1sg/past‘I was eating bread, I ate some bread.’Сёй-и нянь-сö.eat-1sg/past bread-acc.def‘I ate the bread (some of the bread).’ (Nikolay Kuznetsov, p.c.)

Affectedness of the incremental theme and the object case

Incremental theme argument totally affected

Incremental theme argument

partially affected

Accusative

ELATIVE Hu__PARTITIVE Est

Unmarked (Hu,K,U)

Case-marked non-finite verb formsPartitives and source cases appear on non-finites.

Non-finite forms frequently originate from case-marked non-finite verb forms, which are complements originally but develop further into base predicates of larger predicate complexes.

These complexes develop case-related semantics and TAM meanings.

Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations1. Nominative s’ik myn-on (verb+n+case) 2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-on-len (verb+n+len) 3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-on-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-on-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-on-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-on-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-on-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t)12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-on-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Case on m-nominalizations1. Nominative s’ik myn-em (verb+m+case)2. Genitive s’ik-len myn-em-len (verb+m+len)3. Accusative s’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez4. Ablative s’ik-les’ myn-em-les’5. Dative s’ik-ly myn-em-ly6. Adessive s’ik-len7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-em-en8. Abessive s’ik-tek9. Inessive s’ik-yn myn-em-yn10. Illative s’ik-e myn-em-e11. Elative s’ik-ys’(t) myn-em-ys’12. Terminative s’ik-oz’ myn-em-oz’13. Egressive s’ik-ys’en14. Prolative s’ik-eti15. Approximative s’ik-lan’

Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

Spatial prepositions+infinitives(1) Je viens de manger.

‘I have just eaten.’(2) I go to eat.(3) Jan is aan het eten.

‘John is eating.’(4) *I come from eat.(5) Je vais manger.

‘I am going to eat.’

The participle becomes an object - auditory evidence is partialMari kuulis Jürit Mary heard G.ptv

koju tulevat. home come-pers.pres.ptcp.partitive

‘Mary heard George come home.’ (Est)

Visual evidence is not partialMari nägi JüritMary sawJ.part

koju tule-mas. home come-m_inessive‘Mary saw George coming home.’ (Est)

Epistemic modality and the partiality of evidence

FULL EVIDENCE

Incomplete EVIDENCE

NO PARTITIVEEVIDENTIAL

PARTITIVEEVIDENTIAL

SummaryThere are many Source (separative) cases.There is a mismatch between semantic and

morphological partitives.The interaction between TAM, definiteness,

and the partitive can be observed in many areas. Aspectual DOMDefiniteness effects, telicity, and partitive

argumentsCase on non-finites and verb stems