Abstract

This article appeared in a special issue of Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics that was dedicated to Estonian. The article did not appear online until 2019, but the journal listed the publication date as 2018. I contacted the journal to clarify, but they haven't responded yet. For this submission, I went with 2018.

Highlights

  • In Estonian, some objects of verbs show an alternation in case-marking that seems to be conditioned by morphological number

  • If we maintain that all morphological genitive are identical in Estonian, it becomes much less clear how we could account for the case-marking patterns of Estonian pseudopartitives

  • I showed that Estonian pseudopartitives have a unique accusative form: a genitive N1 with a partitive N2

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In Estonian, some objects of verbs show an alternation in case-marking that seems to be conditioned by morphological number. The alternative viewpoint, which has been the standard view in Estonian linguistics (e.g., it is represented in the normative standard grammars by Erelt et al 1993, 2000 and in the recent descriptive work on Estonian syntax (Erelt & Metslang 2017)) since at least Saareste (1926), is that there is no accusative case in Estonian, and these objects are assigned genitive case when singular and nominative case when plural This view is assumed or explicitly argued for by Miljan (2008), Miljan & Cann (2013), and Nemvalts (1996). As both of the arguments turn on the behavior of elements marked with genitive case in Estonian, I begin with a brief discussion of contexts utilizing genitive case in Estonian

Genitive case in Estonian
Estonian pseudopartitives have a unique accusative form
Partitive and matching case patterns
Syntactic context determines genitive pseudopartitive case-marking
Paths to an analysis
No accusative leads to a ranking paradox
Estonian pseudopartitives: summary
The inanimate relative pronoun mis
Interim summary
Non-autonomous accusative in Distributed Morphology
An analysis with Impoverishment
Without Impoverishment
A loose end: accusative numerals never show morphological genitive
Analysis summary and familial comparison
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.