Split-ergativity in Hittite

Goedegebuure, Petra

doi:10.1515/za-2012-0015

Cited by 22 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The status of the "ergative" anza/antes [pl] ending is one of the most prominent debate around Hittite grammar: if it is all internal to lexicon we are in a derivational morphology area [16], [17], while if it is syntactically motivated we are fronting with a true split ergative system [10], [18]. Other relevant studies [5,[19][20][21] are somewhat in the middle between the two hypotheses. The aim of the sequent section is to explain Hittite split as a Feature driven split, totally in syntactic workspace.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some notes on split ergativity in Hittite

Petolicchio

2019

Linguistic Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hittite grammar is characterized by a morphosyntactic split that affects the behaviour of the inflectional classes of Noun phrases (DPs). While a singular neuter transitive subject is marked by /-anza/suffix, commons DPs end with an /-š/mark. In addition, intransitive neuter subjects and neuter objects pattern in the same way, marked by /-ø/, while in commons the object role is marked by an /-n/ ending, which distinguishes it from the subjects. The aim of this paper is to investigate over a possible definition of split ergativity in the Hittite grammar.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some notes on split ergativity in Hittite

Petolicchio

2019

Linguistic Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Neogrammarian model is thus confronted with comparative evidentiary problems. It is definitively not true that all attested old IE languages are of the nominative- accusative type, because Hittite is a gender-based split-ergative language (see Table 3; Goedegebuure 2013;Hoffner & Melchert 2008;Yakubovich 2011). 3 As illustrated in Table 3, neuter nouns in the Hittite language take the ergative case for A and the absolutive (labelled 'nominative') for P = S. Garrett (1997) demonstrates that not all the intransitive verbs are compatible with third person S clitics in Hittite.…”

Section: The Nominative-accusative Neogrammarian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alignment Change and the Emergence of the Thematic Conjugation from Proto‐Indo‐European to Indo‐European: A Wedding of Hypotheses*

Pooth

Orqueda

2021

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our paper addresses the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) case and alignment system and questions the hypothesis that PIE had nominative-accusative alignment. We argue that the rise of split-gender ergativity in Anatolian was prompted by the fact that proto-neuter nouns like *d oru were not used in A-function before Proto-Anatolian (Yakubovich 2011). Our first hypothesis is that neuter nouns changed their alignment to S = P = A only after the separation of the Anatolian branch. We further reassess the theory of 'protomiddle' origin of the thematic conjugation (Watkins 1969;Jasanoff 1998). We propose a wedding of hypotheses by combining the idea of alignment change with this theory. This includes the reconstruction of a PIE antipassive construction, as recently outlined by Pooth et al. (2019). The scenario implies that PIE had semantic alignment, and that the voice opposition was triggered by prototypical agency and transitivity in semantic terms (Pooth 2011;Pooth et al. 2019). INTRODUCTION Research question, aims, methods, structureRegarding the linguistic reconstruction of morphological and syntactic categories of Proto-Indo-European (henceforth PIE) two major hypotheses are still controversially discussed within our field. These are: (1) PIE had a case-marking and alignment system of a type that was different from the Greek and Sanskrit nominative-accusative alignment (Uhlenbeck 1901, Pedersen 1907, Kortlandt 1983, Willi 2018, 2. There was a middle (or 'protomiddle') to active shift in a period before the IE languages, and the bh arati/φέqx conjugation and ḫiconjugation go back to protomiddle forms (Watkins 1969, Jasanoff 2003. Up to the present day, no attempt has been made to combine these two hypotheses. However, we believe that a combination strengthens their explanatory value. Our major aim is to show that the genesis of nominative-accusative alignment and the rise of new active (or 'neo-active') verb forms with protomiddle morphology (viz. the Anatolian ḫiconjugation, the perfect, and the IE thematic *The elaboration of parts of this paper was supported by the European Research Council EVALISA grant ID 313461 (PI J ohanna Barðdal) and by the ANID-FONDECYT research grant #11170045. We thank the anonymous reviewers and the former editor for valuable comments. We also express our gratitude to Jay H. Jasanoff and Simon Fries.

show abstract

“…Some specifics of Garrett's (1990) proposal (e.g., the exact nature of the purported instrumental/ablative marker) are not uncontroversial; see Goedegebuure () and the references therein.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment

Zúñiga

2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With morphological and syntactic argument properties, some arguments behave alike (i.e., they align with each other) while others do not. Such alignment patterns have received significant attention in the literature, but claims as to their origin and development are sometimes difficult to assess, due to scant actual data. This paper surveys the main hypotheses proposed in early and recent work on the topic, focusing on alignment type change and on major alignment types (ergativity, accusativity, and split intransitivity) of morphological properties, with some remarks on syntactic properties. The survey shows that alignment type change may often occur when clauses denoting low transitivity are reanalyzed as clauses of either higher or lower syntactic valency, sometimes even introducing a partition in the verbal lexicon (occasionally being conditioned by semantic, pragmatic, or structural factors), or are extended from low‐transitivity predicates to most bivalent predicates. Lastly, alignment type change can be either functionally motivated or not.

show abstract

Split-ergativity in Hittite

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Some notes on split ergativity in Hittite

Some notes on split ergativity in Hittite

Alignment Change and the Emergence of the Thematic Conjugation from Proto‐Indo‐European to Indo‐European: A Wedding of Hypotheses*

The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About