LetCausatives and (A)symmetricdat‐nomConstructions

Abstract

The verb láta ‘let/make’ in Icelandic provides a unique opportunity to understand the behavior of symmetric versus asymmetric dat‐nom constructions, as well as the nature of nominative‐accusative case alternations. In this paper, we take a close look at láta and examine a set of cases where dat‐nom verbs are embedded under láta, resulting in the otherwise nominative object becoming accusative in some cases and remaining nominative in others. We propose that phase extension of an Appl head underlies both the availability of accusative in an embedded dat‐nom verb and the possibility of A‐moving a nominative object past the dative to the subject position. We further hypothesize that the base‐generated position of the verbal root in the syntax underlies the lexical difference between symmetric and asymmetric dat‐nom verbs.

Non-nominative subjects in Latin and Ancient Greek

“…Barðdal 2023: §3). Such an analysis has been suggested for Dat˗Nom verbs in Modern Icelandic (Bernódusson 1982;Jónsson 1997Jónsson -1998Barðdal 2001a;Rott 2013;Wood & Sigurðsson 2014;Barðdal, Eythórsson & Dewey 2019;Somers & Barðdal 2022), Modern Faroese (Barnes 1986) and Modern German (Eythórsson & Barðdal 2005;Barðdal, Eythórsson & Dewey 2019). The same analysis has also been suggested for Old and Early Middle English (Allen 1995) and the history of the Scandinavian languages (Barðdal 1998).…”

The rise and fall of a person-case constraint in Breton

“…2). φ-inert, transparenta nd quirky inherent case all seem available with inflectional obliques (for revealing variation within/across Icelandic and German, Barðdal andEythórsson 2006, Wood andSigurðsson 2014;Greek, Michelioudakis 2015;Basque, Fernández and Ortiz de Urbina 2009: 3.3), and quirky vs. transparent seems independent of exponence (e.g. with case-number Φ-quirky inherent case behaves as a (pro)nominal with no number and a person that interferes as ½ but controls as 3, or as human-logophoric 3 in systems that make this distinction among 3s.…”

Frá skiptisögn til ósamhverfrar aukafallssagnar: Um 'líka' í fornu máli

“…Þágufallsnefnifallssögnum má í grófum dráttum skipta í tvennt í nútímamáli eftir rökliðagerð þeirra: Annars vegar eru þetta ósamhverfar sagnir (e. asymmetric verbs) þar sem eingöngu þágufallsliður inn getur faerst í frumlagssaetið og hins vegar samhverfar sagnir (e. symmetric verbs), oftast kallaðar skiptisagnir (e. alternating verbs), þar sem hvor liður um sig getur faerst í frumlagssaeti. 3 Í ( 5)-( 6) er sýnt með já/neispurningu (umröðun sagnar og frumlags) að henta og falla í 3 Rétt eins og Wood og Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (2014) fylgjum við McGinnis 2008 (sjá einnig rit sem þar er vísað til) þegar við notum hugtökin samhverfar og ósamhverfar sagnir. Hugtakið skiptisagnir (og enska heitið alternating verbs eða alternating predicates) er hins vegar líklega útbreiddara - Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson (1997-1998, 2003, Jóhanna Barðdal (2001) og Þórhallur Eyþórsson og Jóhanna Barðdal (2005) nota það hugtak t.a.m.…”

“…18 Formgerðirnar tvaer eiga einnig að skýra hvers vegna svo oft er haegt að sleppa þágu fallsliðnum með skiptisögnum, sbr. Þetta hentar og Þetta naegir(Wood og Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson 2014). Við fjöllum ekki um það hér; sjá einnig mót bárur JóhönnuBarðdal, Þórhalls Eyþórssonar og Dewey (2014).…”