The Independent Partitive as an Eastern Circum-Baltic isogloss

Abstract

The paper claims that the independent partitive case in Finnic languages and the independent partitive genitive case in Baltic and East Slavic (henceforth: ip(g)) show considerable correlations that cannot be accounted for but by language contact. Given that both the ip(g) in Baltic and East Slavic as well as the ip(g) in Finnic are inherited from the respective proto-languages, the paper also offers a methodological discussion of how inherited categories may also be shown to be subject to language contact. A typologically not infrequent category must be individualized on the basis of a list of properties. Thus, 13 semantic and 5 morphosyntactic properties have been discussed. While the study reveals that in general the ip(g) is or was subject to intensive language contact, there is no common hotbed for all properties analysed and different properties have different hotbeds and are distinct with respect to their geographical distribution and entrenchment. North Russian and Finnic show the greatest degree of correspondence as, e.g., the aspectuality related functions of the ip(g) or the morphological distinction between the possession (sensu lato) and the partitive-related functions are concerned. Here, Finnic is the donor language. However, other properties such as the semantic and syntactic merger of the acc and ip(g) marking must have spread from Russian to Finnic and, to some extent, Baltic. Similarly, the genitive/partitive-under-negation probably developed first in Baltic and Slavic and spread then into Finnic, since preconditions for this rule are already found in the ancient Indo-European languages. Finnic, however, preserves this rule best.

Syntactic variation in ‘need’-constructions in Estonian dialects

“…Although these languages belong to different language families, many morphosyntactic similarities have been attested among them (see e.g. Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001; Vaba 2011; Seržant 2012, 2015a, b; Klaas-Lang & Norvik 2014).…”

Partitive subjects in Estonian dialects

“…However, such uses also confirm that PSs are not used for introducing central discourse topics: non-count nouns expressing substance or abstract relations do not typically rise to discourse topics; they rather provide background information and are used only locally in the discourse. Discourse backgroundedness has been argued to be one of the typical features of PS/partitive genitive in Circum-Baltic languages (Seržant 2015) and it seems to be a property of Estonian PSs as well. The obligatory use of PSs in negation has been seen as one of the most important features of existentials, and it is often regarded as the main formal criterion for defining existentials in Estonian (Nemvalts 2000).…”

“…Its origin has been a matter of discussion for many researchers; generally, it has been connected to the similar phenomenon in Baltic and Slavic languages, where it is called the independent genitive or partitive-genitive (Larjavaara 1991, Larsson 2001, Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli 2001, Bjarnadóttir and De Smit 2013, Seržant 2015. The alternation is attested in all Baltic-Finnic languages, Latvian, Lithuanian, Latgalian, Russian (esp.…”

“…North-Russian), i.e. in Eastern Circum-Baltic languages, and is an areal feature (Seržant 2015). Its use is much more restricted in other Slavic languages that do not belong to the Circum-Baltic core area, such as Polish, Czech, and Sorbian (Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli 2001: 660).…”

Contact-induced change in the languages of Europe: The rise and development of partitive cases and determiners in Finnic and Basque

“…Notably, though, reference grammars disagree on whether the Basque partitive should be regarded as a case or as a determiner, as discussed further on. In recent research, much attention has been paid to similarities in the use and function of the Finnic partitive case and the partitive genitive of the Balto-Slavic languages (Bjarnadóttir and de Smit 2013;Seržant 2015). The Basque partitive case/determiner has also been the subject of recent research (e. g., Etxeberria 2014a; Ariztimuño 2014), but not especially focused on language contact.…”