5

The OP focused on one peculiarity of Japanese pronouns: they can be qualified. One can note that in English 'me' rather than 'I' would be qualified and if there is any conjugation it will be in the 3rd person, whereas in Japanese the qualification would not thus disrupt the sentence. ('Mini me' and '20-years-old me' refer to another version of me, especially ...


4

One argument against the "Japanese are not pronouns" thesis. Usually, the definition of "pronoun" refers to the function of the pronoun as a substitute for nouns and NPs, but it doesn't define its combinatorial possibilities. Some online dictionaries definitions: The Online Dictionary of Language Terminology (odlt.com): A word that can be used as a ...


4

The answer to the question will likely vary from grammarian to grammarian. My short answer is that distribution is a necessary condition for identifying nominals and morphological criteria, e.g. plural -s, are sufficient. To be classified as a nominal, a given token of a lexical item must be able to appear in a position that is associated with nominals. In ...


3

Russian actually presents a curious example here: on the one hand, as Dominik Lukes pointed out above, it lost the original Slavic vocative case save for a few remnants, but it's also innovated a vocative form entirely unrelated to the original one. It's highly colloquial and only exists for a single paradigm — if it can even be called a paradigm, because it'...


3

Vocative is problematic because it's not even clear, it should be considered a case since it plays a discursive rather than syntactic role (although you could make an outside case for the syntax by saying it marks it as not nominative or accusative). In Indo-European languages with preserved vocative morphology, it is generally considered to be part of the ...


3

It seems the use of x in -axъ is thought to be related to the "ruki" law. However, becasue this is not the usual context for the application of this sound law, it is supposed that some kind of analogy caused the original *s sound to develop to [x] in this ending. As Atamiri's answer mentions, some evidence that the locative plural originally had the ...


2

-asъ changed to -axъ in this context, it’s a pretty known fact in historical Slavonic linguistics. Note that -s- can still be found in modern Lithuanian in plural locatives.


2

What you are looking for is probably the singular term, i.e. a term that inherently refers to an object, see here. On the other hand, following Frege, we have predicates (or functions) denoting concepts, and propositions that refer to truth-values (which are thought as two really existing object: the Truth and the False). Note that Frege's intention was to ...


2

Givon does seem a little unclear here. I think he needs to allow for the traditional predicate nominal. In "She is a teacher", "is a teacher" means "teaches" -- it's a predicate, not a reference. In the other cases of non-referentials he's concerned with, a nominal which would ordinarily refer fails to refer to something in our real world because it's in ...


2

I think the most important part is this sentence: One of the most sensitive cross-linguistic tests for modality involves the referential behavior of NPs under various modal scopes (see Ch. 10). The canonical clause isn't construed as being under modal scopes: The unmarked clause-type in language - the main, declarative, affirmative clause - has, by ...


2

There is no real linguistic definition of a “pronoun”. Grammatically, however, words that are often called “pronouns” in Japanese behave in an identical distribution to any other normal noun. But, there are a couple of words in Japanese, specifically those whose nominal form ends on /-re/, such as /sore/, /ware/, /kare/, which distribute slightly differently ...


2

The terminology is most commonly used in Sino-Tibetan, Japanese and Korean contexts. I suggest taking a look at this (warning: gigantic volume, probably a good idea to find an electronic version if you have access to one): Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K., & Wrona, J. (Eds.). (2011). Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological ...


2

In Russian, instrumental case applies only for past/future tenses, never for present tense (if by "copula" we mean "to be" only; Ukrainian, on the other hand, allows it in present tense as well, but I think it's an influence from Polish). I suspect copula+INSTR could arise from interference with other static verbs of "being", where instrumental is normal, ...


1

Like interjections and topics, vocatives occur only in root sentences (in the sense pioneered by Emonds). A root sentence is, approximately, (1) an independent, free-standing clause, or (2) a clause conjoined with a root sentence, or (3) a sentence complement to a verb of direct or indirect quotation. For instance, (1) "O Lord, he is stupid!", but *"That O ...


1

To begin with, it might be a Circum-Baltic areal feature we could call marked predicative construction (as opposed to the unmarked/less marked nominative/accusative), as the following source suggests: On the marking of predicate nominals in Baltic. Whether the Slavic languages were the first ones to acquire this construction, which later spread further, I'm ...


1

The question worth asking here is, how "instrumental" is the Slavic instrumental really? "Instrumental" is just a name that grammarians gave it, after its most common usage; but I don't think the pre-literate speakers of Proto-Slavic would think of it as a case for expressing instrumentality. To them, it just was what it was. The case for instruments and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible