1. Anne Tamm SLE 43RD ANNUAL MEETING, VILNIUS, 2 - 5 SEPTEMBER 2010 SLE workshop Partitives, Vilnius, September 4th, 2010

2. 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, DAM Definiteness effects, telicity, and partitive arguments Case on non-finites and verb stems

3. Semantics and morphology: a ”partitive” mismatch Several 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).

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

5. Language-specific morphological partitives While 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)

6. Karelian ”partitive infinitives” Keittä-miä pada musten-i. cook-M_NMLZ_PTV pot[NOM] blacken-3S.PST ’Cooking caused the pot turn black.’ (Karelian)

7. Sami comparative constructions (Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 65)

8. Sami number phrases 7+ (Inari Sami, Toivonen 2003: 66)

9. Rich case systems Uralic 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).

10. Partitive in the case paradigm Morphological partitives: (Baltic)-Finnic Skolt and Inari Sami ---------------------- Semantic partitives: Almost all Uralic cases have one or more cases for ”separation”

11. Partitive and no source case: Sami (Toivonen 2003: 36)

12. Partitive and source cases: Est Nominative book raamat Genitive of a book raamatu Partitive (of) a book raamatu-t Illative into the book raamatu-sse Inessive in a book raamatu-s Elative from (inside) a bookraamatu-st Allative onto a bookraamatu-le Adessive on a bookraamatu-l Ablative from the bookraamatu-lt Translative in(to), as a bookraamatu-ks Terminative until a bookraamatu-ni Essive as a bookraamatu-na Abessive without a bookraamatu-ta Comitative with a bookraamatu-ga

13. No partitive, Source cases (U) 1. Nominatives’ik 2. Genitives’ik-len 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez 4. Ablatives’ik-les’ 5. Datives’ik-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn 10. Illatives’ik-e 11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminatives’ik-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximative s’ik-lan’ Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

14. Source cases in rich paradigms Komi 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.

15. Source cases in poor paradigms Tundra 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)

16. No partitive, no separative (Kh) (Ruttkay 2003:20)

17. Source cases: ablative, elative, delative, egressive, and exessive Ablative (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

18. Uralic semantic partitive: elative, ablative In 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

19. SemP, elative Elative 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)

20. 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 pohárbor det/oneglass[nom]wine[nom] ’a glass of wine’ (Hungarian)

21. SemP: elative, MorphP: partitive Estonian 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)

22. True SemP and aspect Evett a pizzá-ból. eat.3 S DEF pizza- ELA ‘She ate some of the pizza.’ Meg-ette a pizzá-t. TELIC-eat.3 S DEF pizza- ACC ‘She ate up the pizza.’ *Meg-ette a pizzá-ból. TELIC-eat.3 S DEF pizza- ELA (‘She ate up of the pizza.’) (Hungarian)

23. MorphP Mari sõi (seda) pitsa-t. Mari ate this.ptvpizza-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-tevett. pizza- ACC eat.3 S ‘She was eating pizza.’ (Hu unbounded) The Hungarian elative is a real semantic partitive. Bare nouns compare to other Uralic zero marked bare nouns.

24. Udm.: acc. SemP, unmarked/acc n'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-ACCpiece[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.)

25. Komi, elative SemP, unmarked/acc Курчч-инянь-сьыс тор. bite-1s.pastbread-elapiece[acc] ’I have bitten some bread.’ Няньсёй-и. bread [acc] eat-1sg/past ‘I was eating bread, I ate some bread.’ Сёй-инянь-сö. eat-1sg/pastbread-acc.def ‘I ate the bread (some of the bread).’ (Nikolay Kuznetsov, p.c.)

26. 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)

27. Case-marked non-finite verb forms Partitives 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.

28. Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations 1. Nominatives’ikmyn-on (verb+n+case) 2. Genitives’ik-len myn-on-len (verb+n+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-on-ez 4. Ablatives’ik-les’ myn-on-les’ 5. Datives’ik-ly myn-on-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-on-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn myn-on-yn 10. Illatives’ik-e myn-on-e 11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t) 12. Terminatives’ik-oz’ myn-on-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximative s’ik-lan’ Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

29. Case on m-nominalizations 1. Nominatives’ik myn-em (verb+m+case) 2. Genitives’ik-len myn-em-len (verb+m+len) 3. Accusatives’ik/s’ik-ez myn-em-ez 4. Ablatives’ik-les’ myn-em-les’ 5. Datives’ik-ly myn-em-ly 6. Adessives’ik-len 7. Instrumental s’ik-en myn-em-en 8. Abessives’ik-tek 9. Inessives’ik-yn myn-em-yn 10. Illatives’ik-e myn-em-e 11. Elatives’ik-ys’(t) myn-em-ys’ 12. Terminatives’ik-oz’ myn-em-oz’ 13. Egressives’ik-ys’en 14. Prolatives’ik-eti 15. Approximative s’ik-lan’ Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

30. 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.’

31. The participle becomes an object - a uditory evidence is partial Mari kuulisJürit MaryheardG.ptv koju tulevat. homecome-pers.pres.ptcp.partitive ‘Mary heard George come home.’ (Est)

32. Visual evidence is not partial Mari nägi Jürit MarysawJ.part kojutule-mas. homecome-m_inessive ‘Mary saw George coming home.’ (Est)

33. Epistemic modality and the partiality of evidence FULL EVIDENCE Incomplete EVIDENCE NO PARTITIVE EVIDENTIAL PARTITIVE EVIDENTIAL

34. Summary There 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 DOM Definiteness effects, telicity, and partitive arguments Case on non-finites and verb stems