Abstract
Impersonal constructions holding a complement both in dative and genitive are attested in Greek with a few verbs, which share the property of expressing the interests or the needs of human beings. These constructions, which occur in several ancient Indo- European languages, are documented in the post- Homeric period in the case of Greek. In the opposite, personal constructions, which appear more recently in other languages, are already documented in Greek since Homer’s times. The dative in the impersonal construction refers to human entities, codes the Experiencer and it is also the topic. These properties, which are close to those of the prototypical subject, seem to allow the dative to show some subject-like syntactic behaviour. In fact, we will argue that the dative in the impersonal construction behaves as a semi-subject, i. e. a verbal complement which, regardless of its coding, does have a set of properties that are typically associated with the subject in Greek. As well as the complement in dative, the complement in genitive in the impersonal construction exhibits a syntactic behaviour similar to the subject. However, the genitive does not follow the same patterns the dative does in the impersonal construction.
Highlights
Impersonal constructions holding a complement both in dative and genitive are attested in Greek with a few verbs, which share the property of expressing the interests or the needs of human beings
The dative in the impersonal construction refers to human entities, codes the Experiencer and it is the topic
These properties, which are close to those of the prototypical subject, seem to allow the dative to show some subject-like syntactic behaviour
Summary
Al igual que en las restantes lenguas indoeuropeas con marcadores de caso, el sujeto de predicados verbales personales se codifica en nominativo. El genitivo empleado en las construcciones impersonales de algunos verbos de sentimiento y de necesidad presenta también un comportamiento como semisujeto, ya que, además de caracterizarse por algunas propiedades semánticas, pragmáticas y sintácticas presentes en el sujeto, admite la aposición y la coordinación con estructuras completivas a las que la theoria recepta atribuye esta función11:. Como acabamos de ver, la designación de referentes humanos y la expresión del Experimentador son características propias del sujeto prototípico, cabe preguntarse si, junto a estos rasgos de orden designativo y semántico, el complemento en dativo presenta también rasgos de orden pragmático o sintáctico cercanos a los del sujeto. En el caso de falta de coincidencia entre los rasgos del dativo y del genitivo, se habrá de determinar cuál de los dos complementos presenta una mayor proximidad al sujeto prototípico de construcciones personales y qué factores condicionan este hecho
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
