Predicative possession in Permic. (preprint) (original) (raw)
Related papers
2019
This article studies syntactic, semantic and discursive properties of non-subordinate (main) clauses conveying possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Turkic, the concept of possession is typically encoded by clauses based on existential predicates. The language-specific and crosslinguistic properties of two predicate types, {bar} and {bol}, will be contrastively surveyed. As for the marking of possessor in clauses containing {bar}, three patterns will be described, one of which is a contact-induced structure restricted to Turkic varieties in Iran. As a multifunctional verb, {bol} can convey, among other things, dynamic or static possession. The results indicate that the clauses based on the static possession marker {bol} are more operative in Kipchak languages and in Turkmen (East Oghuz), than in West Oghuz languages. It will further be shown that the structures based on {bar} or the static marker {bol} typically exhibit discourse-related distribution in the respective languages.
A Theory and Typology of Possession in Ob-Yenissei Languages.
The paper outlines the on-going study of possession in Ob-Yenissei languages. The languages of the project represent the endangered indigenous idioms belonging to diverse language families and united in the study by their areal affiliation with the posited linguistic area delimited by Ob and Yenissei river basins in Western Siberia. The analysis stems from extended original and legacy fieldwork data, and addresses the key morphosyntactic and semantic features of possession within a contemporary theoretical and methodological framework, functional-cognitive grammar. The study pursues to integrate data and analysis into modern debates regarding possession from areal Siberian, genetic Uralic and wider typological perspective.
Representation of possessiveness in the verbs of languages of different systems
Revista EntreLinguas, 2021
Possessiveness at a certain stage of development could be expressed by the forms of personal pronouns. In many languages, verbs with special indicators of belonging, which are possessive, enclitic forms of personal pronouns, form possessive conjugation. The material identity of the considered indicators in verbs and nouns shows their common origin. As the noun and the verb differentiated, these single formants were subjected to splitting: in the nouns they remained in a personal possessive meaning, and in the verbs they began to express subject-object relations. The present article contributes to the development of general linguistics and is of interest to researchers of the theory and typology of languages.
Predicative possession in South Saami
The goal of this master's thesis is to describe the domain of predicative possession in South Saami, a Finno-Ugric language spoken in Sweden and Norway. Data has been elicited from native speakers of South Saami, and the analysis has been carried out within a general functional-typological framework. In South Saami, four different predicative possessive constructions are used: (1) a habeo-verb construc¬tion, (2a) a genitive possessive without copula, (2b) a genitive possessive with copula, and (3) a locational possessive. The latter is not described in the grammars. The have-possessive and the genitive possessives occur frequently and are used to encode all notions of possession. The use of the locational possessive is restricted to inanimate possessors. Distri¬bution of the constructions varies among the speakers. Examples for the have-possessive construction present the greatest structural variation. The four possessive constructions are set within a typological context.
Possessive Constructions in the Obdorsk Dialect of the Khanty Language
Linguistica Uralica, 2018
The paper presents an analysis of the structural types of possessive constructions in the Obdorsk dialect of Khanty. It is shown that in this dialect the concept of possession is encoded by means of adnominal and predicative possessive constructions of differing structural types. Adnominal possessive constructions can be built according to five structural models with an explicit or implicit possessor, in four of which the head is marked with a possessive suffix. Predicative possessive constructions can be built with the verbs 'have', 'be', 'not to be' and 'remain'. The canonical possessive construction is transitive, with both the possessor and possessed uncoded. Predicative esse-constructions are less frequent and may incorporate a marked possessed.
The expression of predicative Possession in Lithuanian (STUF 66:4, 2014, 354-377)
The object of this paper are the linguistic means used in Lithuanian to express predicative Posses-sion. The possessive constructions are individuated and described, as along with the semantic con-straints that favour or disfavour their use. It is claimed that the evidence provided in this paper con-firms what ČINČLEJ (1990) stated: Lithuanian should be considered as occupying a transitional posi-tion between the have- and the be- languages, contra ISAČENKO (1974), who considered it as a pure have-language. The role that language contact may have played in determining the Lithuanian way of expressing Possession is also considered.
Nominalization and Possession in Formosan Languages
PhD Dissertation of Rice University, 2016
This dissertation investigates nominalization and possession in Formosan languages from a functional-typological perspective, where nominalization is a metonymic process of creating denoting expressions. Verbal-based and nominal-based nominalization are each the topic of the two primary parts of this study. Special attention is paid to nominalizations lacking a lexical status, covering constructions traditionally called relativization and possession.
This contribution deals with the linguistic expression of possession in Kukama-Kukamiria and examines potential correlations between possessive semantic relations (Heine 1997, Stassen 2009, Barker 2011) and construction types. Kukama-Kukamiria, a language spoken in the Amazon of Peru, does not have lexical verbs such as ‘have’, ‘belong,’ or a copula to predicate possession. Although the language does not have a dedicated possessive construction, possession can be inferred from several constructions, four of which are the focus of this paper.