Re: THEORY: Non-nom Subj & Nom Obj -- Quirky OVS Word Order Or Quirky Case?

Hi!

tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...> writes:
>...
> [HENRIK'S LAST NAME IS THEILING; SORRY I MIS-SPELLED IT]
Thanks for noting.

[That was already in my collection of wrong spellings -- you're not
the first. :-)]

>...
> I hope that didn't delay your answer, if you have one.
It didn't -- I had no good one.  I'd have answered: it's usually
analysed like a dative case subject, so quirky case.  I'll give
you a longer answer now, maybe you come to similar conclusions
as I did.

It's still a funny phenomenon and I'd like to understand it better,
especially would like to know whether there is a formal definition of
'subject' (maybe with special emphasis on German and Icelandic).  I
tend to avoid that term, since I don't know exactly what it means.

Anyway, using some tests, you can check that the status of the
nominative object is different from a nominative subject, namely by
checking whether it can be referred back to in a coordinated clause
from an ellipsis.  IIRC, it was Markus who mentioned this a few days
ago.  Usually:

a) Ich trinke Bier und []  esse Wurst
   NOM        ACC      NOM      ACC.
   I   drink  beer and [] eat  sausage
   'I'm drinking beer and [I] am eating sausage.'

(Gap marked with [].)

In the second clause, the (nominative) subject is the same as in the
first clause and can be dropped.  Order does not matter, but
subjecthood + case does (as we saw earlier, subjecthood alone is not
enough in German):

b) Bier trinke ich und []  esse Wurst.
   ACC         NOM     NOM       ACC
   'It's beer I'm drinking and [I] eat sausage.'

As an important test later, I'd note here that ellipsis on objects
is ungrammatical:

a') *Ich trinke Bier und []   sieht der Mann.
     NOM        ACC      ACC        NOM
    *'I trink beer and the man sees [beer]'.

b') *Bier trinke ich und []  sieht der Mann.
     ACC         NOM     ACC       NOM
    *'Beer is what I drink and the man sees [it]'.

or  *Bier trinke ich und der Mann sieht [].
     ACC         NOM     NOM            ACC
     -"-

This also works with datives, btw:

a2) Ich entsage dem Wein und []  trinke Bier.
    NOM         DAT          NOM        ACC.
    I   abdicate the wine and [] drink beer.
    'I abdicate the wine and [I] drink beer (instead).'

b2) Dem Wein entsage ich und [] trinke Bier.
    DAT              NOM               ACC

a2') *Ich entsage dem Wein und der Mann spricht []  zu.
      NOM         DAT          NOM              DAT
     *'I abdicate the wine and the man does justice to [the wine].'

     Again, dative ellipsis does not work here.

Again,  word order doesn't matter in the second
clause either:

a2'') *Ich entsage dem Wein und [] spricht der Mann zu.
       NOM         DAT          DAT        NOM

b2'') *Dem Wein entsage ich und [] spricht der Mann zu.
       DAT              NOM     DAT        NOM

And with genitives:

a3) Ich harre des Mannes und [] friere.
    NOM       GEN
    I   wait  the man and [] am_cold.
    'I'm waiting for the man and [I] am cold.'

b3) Des Mannes harre ich und [] friere.
    GEN              NOM

a3') <give me a second verb that takes a genitive object and
      I'll give you a sentence in return.>


That's the 'normal' cases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's use the quirky case examples and check whether they behave
the same:

c) Mir schmeckt das Bier.
   DAT          NOM
   I   like     the beer.

Technically, the case assignment is like the first clause in b2).  But
still, it's different: the difference is that you *cannot* drop 'the
beer' in a coordinated clause that would have it is nominative:

d) *Mir schmeckt   das Bier und []  fällt um.
    DAT            NOM          NOM
    I   like[food] the beer and     falls___
   *'I like the beer and it falls.'

That's ungrammatical.  So 'Bier' is probably does not have the same
function in the first clause, since then you'd probably predict that
sentence to be grammatical.  This is in constrast to c).

You must use a pronoun to make it grammatical:

d2) Mir schmeckt   das Bier und es fällt um.
    DAT like[food]             'it'

But interestingly, you can use a gap for 'mir':

d') Mir schmeckt   das Bier und gefällt der Raum.
    DAT            NOM                  NOM
    I   like[food] the beer and like    the room.

This is in contrast to a2') etc.  Again, it shows that this is
different.

But OTOH, for some strange reason, if 'beer' is in front, it *does*
become grammatical with an ellipsis, too:

e)  Das Bier schmeckt mir und []  fällt um.
    NOM               DAT     NOM

Now this is funny. :-)


Let's check whether it is animacy that matters:

f)  Der Bus überfährt   den Mann und []  bremst.
    NOM                 ACC          NOM
    The bus drives_over the man  and     brakes.

    OK.

g)  Den Mann überfährt der Bus und []  bremst.
    ACC                NOM         NOM

    OK.

So animacy probably doesn't do much here in German.


Whatever all this tells you about German.


*I* interpret it as a clear indication that it's an instance of quirky
case of the subject and not quirky word order.  The rule being in
German that the *subject* can be elided in a coordinated clause if it
is in the same case, but regardless of what case exactly it is in.
OTOH, non-subject arguments cannot be elided, again, regardless of
the case, nominative included *unless* they are in initial position.
Funny rules, but that's what the examples show.

Further, for a subject, the sentence initial position seems to be the
default, unmarked order, so you could mistake it has quirky word order
for subjects in dative case, but it still behaves differently.

And I understand that the case equality constraint does not exist
in Icelandic: the subject can be elided from a coordinated clause even
if in a different case.


HTH??

**Henrik

Replies