Re: THEORY: "Quirky" Case -- "Quirky" Subjects and "Quirky" Objects

>I forgot to add my "signature" question about Ditransitives;
>
>3a) In ditransitive sentences, how many, and which, grammatical cases
>can be assigned to each of the core arguments --
>grammatical/syntactic subject, grammatical/syntactic direct object,
>grammatical/syntactic indirect object?
>3b) For each of the core arguments, which language holds the record
>for most grammatical cases assignable to that grammatical/syntactic
>role? And what is that record number?
>
>But in light of David's and Markus's answers, unless they
>misunderstood my question or are just wrong, it looks like the answer
>is going to be;
>1a) Any grammatical case can be assigned to the grammatical/syntactic
>subject.
>1b) Probably Estonian or Finnish or Hungarian or Turkish, or
>whichever language has the most grammatical cases.
I could describe the Finnish rections in detail:
certain auxiliries, like 'have to', 'usually do' etc. take genitive:
minun on mentävä pois, minun on tapana olla kesämökillä kesänä

These auxiliaries include: täytyy, on (+ particip I passive), pitää,
pitäisi, on pakko, tulee, ei tarvitse
which all mean 'has to', except the last one that means 'doesn't have to'.
None inflect for person, the object is in the Accusative II (== nominative),
except if there's a circumstance that causes the object to be partitive.

also
kannattaa, sopii, onnistuu, on syytä, on tapana, on määrä, tekee mieli,
kuuluu, on aika
pays off for, fits, succeeds, has reason to, usually does, is supposed to
do, makes mind (= wants to), is supposed to, has time to.

also, 'on + adjective'
minun on paras lähteä tänään
I.gen am best leave today
it's best for me to leave today

-lla-case  (adessuve)
to have:
minulla on auto
suomalaisilla on mahdollisuus/tilaisuus/lupa...
Finns have a possiblity/opportunity/allowance

but also
meille tulee tilaisuus
we will have an opportunity

elative, when something is perceived as something by someone
lapsista näyttää/tuntuu/vaikuttaa/kuulostaa kivalta tehdä lumiukko
kid-abs looks/seems/appears/sounds fun to make a snowman

partitive + lots of, what I'd term, mediopassive causatives:
häntä oksettaa/haluttaa/huvittaa infinitive (+object)
him(part) pukes-caus/wants-caus/entertains-caus to do something.

existential intransitive verbs can take partitive subjects:
ruokaa on rittävästi viikoksi
meitä oli viisi

subjects of certain 'translational' verbs is in the ablative:
minusta tulee opettaja
'from me comes teacher' -> I become a teacher

Objects in Finnish generally already differ between nom/acc/part (where
nom/acc collapse in plural) on syntactic/semantic grounds.
However, certain verbs take genitive (the first object of 'allow
someone<gen> to do something' and similar, although having other cases there
may carry other connotations). (Acc & gen are identical in singular).

>2a) Any grammatical case can be assigned to the grammatical/syntactic
>direct object.
>2b) Probably the same answer as 1b.
>3a) Any grammatical case can be assigned to the grammatical/syntactic
>indirect object.
>3b) Probably the same answer as 1b or 2b.
>
>(I kind of hope those aren't the answers;
>but I'm afraid David and Markus and Henrik /did/ understand my
>questions correctly, so ... oh, well ...)
One thing I'd like to add, is that verbs that require it's objects to take a
certain adposition are at least equally interesting.
Like English 'look for', 'look at', 'think of', ...


>Similar question for grammatical/syntactic Direct Object;
>and for grammatical/syntactic Indirect Object.
IIRC Russian has objects in every case but nominative and prepositional.
I suspect it's a near universal that more cases can appear as objects than
as subjects. Finnish leaves me wondering though. (Notice: the Finnish
examples I showed you don't pass all syntactical subjecthood tests).

>Are David and Markus saying that in "Quirky Case" languages, the
>grammatical/morphological case assigned to any core-argument nominal,
>is wholly semantically determined (by the lexical verb among other
>information), not ever just a function of the grammatical/syntactic
>role it has as a core-argument?
In Finnish, the usage of nom/acc/part is determined by semantic as well as
syntactic considerations.
In Swedish, the usage of på (+object) occasionally marks some kind of
intensification/persistance. I wouldn't be surprised if the usage of a case
would convey it instead. (Actually, Describing Morphosyntax, or so I've
heard, would class 'på' there a case.

>Incidentally, Markus; it was your conlang that inspired this question.
Cool :D

-- Markus

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/