1. TAM/Negation by Cross-Categorial Case in Uralic ALT9, Hong Kong, July 21-25, 2011 Anne Tamm anne.tamm@unifi.it Central European University

3. Case (typically involves dependent Ns) Blake (2001: 1) defines case as an inflectional “system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads.”

4. Cross-Categorial Case (CCC) case as a TAM/negation marker Narrower focus in this talk: – case as part of non-finites – the partitive, the abessive, the spatial cases – Estonian

5. Blake (2001): Kalaw Lagaw Ya the comitative—habituality the ablative—yesterday past the locative—immediate past the dative-allative—incompletivity the ergative and the accusative—completivity

6. Nordlinger & Sadler (2004):Pitta Pitta objects of non-future tense clauses have an accusative marker –nha objects of future-tense clauses have the morpheme –ku as the accusative marker (Nordlinger and Sadler 2004:611)

7. Aikhenvald (2008): Manambu Aspect marked on the verb: OBJ/LOC Wun [de-ke-m]wukemar-e-m I he- LK - OBJ / LOC forget- LK - OBJ / LOC ‘I completely forgot him.’ (Aikhenvald 2008:587)

8. Adelaar and Muysken (2004): Quechua Accusative infinitive: Rima-y-taxalayu-ru-n. speak- INF - ACC begin- PRF -3 S ‘He began to speak.’ (Adelaar and Muysken [2004: 226] in Spencer [2009: 189])

9. Recapitulation: nominal marking on V (bare stems) on nominal arguments and verbs, TAM marking function on nominal arguments, but in the function of TAM marking on nonfinites that have reduced nominal properties

10. Number of cases at wals.info

12. 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 selection of languages in WALS on the map on Case by 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).

13. CASENOUNVERB: ‘to go’ 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 myny-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’ Udmurt: negation--abessive on verbs Source: Svetlana Edygarova, p.c.

14. Finnic aspect--two object cases Mari sõi pitsa-t. M ate pizza-PARTITIVE ‘Mary was eating the pizza.’ Mari sõi pitsa. M ate pizza.TOTAL ‘It was a pizza that Mary ate up.’

15. Aspect in general Telic - complete Atelic – incomplete NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

16. Hungarian aspectual particles and goal cases INTO: Réka be-ment az épület-be. RINTO-go-3s.pstdef building-INTO ‘Réka entered the building.’ (”into-went”) ONTO: Ágnes rá-lépett a sajt-ra. A ONTO-step-3s.pstdef cheese-ONTO ‘Agnes stepped on cheese.’ (”on-stepped”)

17. productivepartitiveprtcpl-vat-vat-infinitive productive...-da -t-infinitive Historicalinstructive-da... Gerundive Historical, productive-s, inessive-da-desGerundive Historical, productive-ta, abessive-ma-mataAbessive of the m-infinitive Artificial, productive-ks, translative-ma-maksTranslative of the m-infinitive Dialectal, Finnish-Livonian-lt, ablative-ma(-malt)Ablative of the m-infinitive Dialectal-l(a), adessive-ma-mallaAdessive of the m-infinitive Coast dialectal-le, allative-ma-malleAllative of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-st, elative-ma-mastElative of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-s, inessive-ma-masInessive of the m-infinitive Historical, productive-, illative-ma Illative of the m-infinitive (supine) Diachronic statusCaseNMLZ form FormName

18. Estonian cross-categorial case – illative and elative are linked to situation bounding (and not yet the possibility of the future or the past) – inessive – the absentive and the progressive (Tommola 2000, De Groot 2000, Metslang 1994) – abessive – negation (Hamari 2009) – partitive - aspect, epistemic modality and evidentiality (Tamm 2009, Campbell 1991, Aikhenvald 2004, Erelt, Metslang&Pajusalu 2007)

19. Ma lähe-n Hong Kongi I[nom] go-1sg HK.illative ‘I am going to Hong Kong.’ Goal: noun

20. Ma lähe-n uju-ma. I[nom] go-1sg swim-m_illative ‘I am going swimming, I am going to swim.’ (# I’m gonna swim, I will swim.) Goal: non-finite

21. Ma olen Hong Kongi-s. I[nom] be-1sg HK-inessive ‘I am in Hong Kong.’ Location: noun

22. Ma olen uju-mas. I[nom] be-1s swim-m_inessive ‘I am off swimming.’ (# I am swimming – progressive) Location: non-finite

23. Ma tule-n Hong Kongi-st. I[nom] come-1s HK-elative ‘I am coming from Hong Kong.’ Source: noun

24. Ma tule-n uju-mast. I[nom] come-1s swim-m_elative ‘I am coming from swimming.’ (# Je viens de nager – I have just swum.) Source: non-finite

25. Ma ole-n programmi-ta. I[nom] be-1s program-abessive ‘I don’t have a/the program, I am without a/the program, I lack the program.’ Ma ole-n registreeri-mata. I[nom] be-1s register-m_abessive ‘I have not done my registration.’ Abessive: negation

27. The shared semantics of the partitives Partitive marking No partitive marking NPIncomplete object Complete object TelicityIncomplete event Complete event Epistemic modality Incomplete evidence Complete evidence

28. Is this just a snowman or Father Frost’s agent of influence? Allegedly, he has asked Father Frost to give 15 degrees below zero! ole-va-t be-personal present participle - partitive

29. Mari ole-vatKGB agent. M be-PART.EVID kgb agent ‘Allegedly/reportedly, Mary is a KGB agent.’ Mari on KGB agent. M be.3.s KGB agent ‘Mary is a KGB agent.’ Evidentiality

30. Finnic Verb-Nominalizer-Case: Diachronic composition process V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] V [[Verb-[NMLZ]-CASE]] V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] Verb-[NMLZ-CASE] V (+ nominalizer + nominal marking  non- finite or TAM verbal marking)

31. Nominal C vs CCC Systems with CCC paradigms are complemented by rich nominal case paradigms, but the reverse does not hold. The correspondences display cross-linguistic regularity although there are variations in the CCC inventories (abessive, translative, inessive). Cases in the paradigms are not identical: e.g., the Finnish abessive appears as a CCC but is infrequent as nominal case. Some cases (e.g., essive) are associated with various constraints that prevent them from appearing freely with nominalizations.

32. Nominalization scale A language may contain CCCs that appear with items that are located at different parts of the nominalization scale. The degree of nominalization of the base plays a role in the structure of CCC hierarchies and grammaticalization: the abessive may combine with the verb stem, while many other cases combine with various nominalizations in Udmurt. Since CCCs tend to be related to specific functional domains, they form hierarchies that diverge from the nominal ones (abessive, locatives are higher up on the implicational scale). If the degree of nominalization of the base verb is higher in a system containing several possibilities on the nominalization scale, then the cross-categorial and nominal case paradigms tend to be more similar. nom acc/erg gen dat loc abl/inst other (Blake 2001: 156)

33. CCC, nominalization, TAM+neg Several generalizations can be established that cover CCCs and infinitival adpositions (e.g., the Indo- European prepositional infinitives). In a case system with several goal markers, the more frequent ‘infinitives’ are based on the illative (Finnic) or translative (Selkup) instead of the earlier attested allative. The fact that abessive and translative (purposive) combine more readily with stems connects with the predictions of the frequency hierarchy established for Romance infinitives ([purposive>abessive> …] Schulte (2007)).

34. CCC, Uralic examples CCCs are rarely markers of prototypical predicate categories but have retained much of their nominal core semantics. In addition to their idiosyncratic morphosyntactic constraints, CCCs impose semantic and pragmatic constraints on their environment. Those constraints may be strikingly similar cross-linguistically. Spatial cases tend to give rise to tense-aspect marking, comitatives to Aktionsart (intensification, habituality), and abessives to negation.

35. Cross-categorial case Typical nominal or originally nominal marking appearing on other categories or encoding grammatical information typically associated with predicates.

37. Completely=ACC, LOC, ERG He-ERG ate (one complete) pizza-ACC/LOC He ERG/LOC/ACC-ate the pizza He completely-ate the pizza

38. Verb-NMLZ-CASE V [[Verb-NMLZ]-CASE] V [Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]] Verb-[NMLZ-CASE]

39. Source:Larsson 2005, slide 45 The share in the number of speakers

40. Udmurt: case on n-nominalizations 1. Nominatives’ik myn-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.

41. 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.

42. FU Source cases ablative, elative, partitive, delative, egressive, exessive 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) Delative (Hungarian) denotes movement from the surface (e.g., from (the top of) the house) 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). Partitive (Finnic, Sámi languages) denotes "of, from, out of something" (the identity condition with the source matter). Genitive-ablative (Komi) source of information, resource

43. Some manure, too

44. Affectedness of the incremental theme and the object case Incremental theme argument totally affected Incremental theme argument partially affected NO PARTITIVE PARTITIVE

45. The whole pizza is in the oven! But Eugenio’s action is incomplete. Eugenio pani pitsa-t ahju. E[nom] put-past3spizza-ptv oven.ill ‘Eugenio is putting the pizza in the oven.’

46. Abessive negation: modal constraints/presuppositions #Kivist voodion tege-mata. stone- ELA bed[ NOM ] be.3 S make- M _ ABE ‘The stone bed has not been made.’ #Marmorkujuon söö-mata. marble.statue[ NOM ] be.3 S eat- M _ ABE ‘The marble statue has not eaten.’

47. An MDS map based on the WALS by Michael Cysouw