15

The only theory I know is that prepositions were originally adverbial in nature, and unbound. My professor of historical grammar of Greek suggested this. The idea is that it went something like this: There was the house. Mother was already in. (Adverbial 'prepositions' aren't even always bound in English.) Father came in through the front door. Mother ...


8

According to 'A history of the Korean language' (p 271) the Korean subject particle ka is a recent development in that language, not being attested at all until the sixteenth century, and probably not in common use until the 18th century and thereafter. This means we can rule out the possibility that it is cognate with the Japanese ga (ie they are not ...


7

Your analysis is correct - the typical criterion is whether or not the affix/particle seems to act as part of the word it attaches to. When nice phonological demonstrations like vowel harmony aren't available, prosody is the next recourse. If prosody isn't helpful, you're pretty much left with an open question - you have to reason from the rest of the ...


6

ἆρα is considered to be cognate with the interrogative particle in Baltic languages (Latvian ar, Lithuanian aȓ). Persian āyā does not have a known ancestor in Old or Middle Persian. In early New Persian it does occur, alongside ay اى with the same function. From the viewpoint of regular sound correspondence, any connection with ἆρα is quite out of the ...


6

In interlinear glosses, I think PTC or PTCL are most commonly used to abbreviate "particle". PRT or PART are sometimes used too, but should rather be avoided due to confusion with "preterite" and "participle", respectively. But the name actually doesn't matter that much given that you provide a list of the abbreviations that you used with their intended ...


6

Very few of the case markers you are asking about have any kind of an accepted etymology. Most of the time, it's because we just don't have any evidence to go on. Generally, they all share their functions and forms throughout the Japonic languages, so we have no real evidence to call them anything other than what they were, even going back to Proto-Japonic ...


6

The Japanese case marker =ga (a post-clitic), was not originally a subject marker. We can easily see this in the Ryūkyūan languages, related to Japanese, as well as historically attested forms. It's important to keep in mind that standard Japanese is actually fairly innovative when compared to other Japonic languages, both historical and modern. Originally, ...


5

It turns out, "parts of speech" are one of those formalisms that's taught in all the schools, but isn't always useful when you start looking closer. Fundamentally, "part of speech" is a word's role in the syntax. "Walk" and "run" and "go" and "travel" all act pretty much the same, syntactically, so it makes sense to say "all of these things are Verbs, and ...


5

Finnish has particle words for "yes": "Kyllä" (formal) and "joo", "juu", "jep" (very colloquial), but no such words for "no". However, one generally responds to questions with an echo response (as in Irish, Latin, Chinese and Japanese). For negative responses, the negation verb en/et/ei/enme/ette/eivät is used (conjugated for person and number). e.g. ...


5

Concerning discourse markers: Maynard, Senko (1993) "Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language" (John Benjamins Publishing Company) is seminal work. Newer work can be found in Onodera, Noriko O. (2004): Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis (John Benjamins Publishing). Check out the ...


5

"Particles" in Japanese are actually a fairly diverse class of words. Some things which are traditionally called particles are suffixes. For instance, the representative plural marker, -tachi is very closely bound to the noun it attaches to--not even core argument case markers like =ga or =o can interrupt it. Other things traditionally called particles, ...


4

In addition to the criteria in Sjiveru's answer, syntactic criteria are also important for distinguishing affixes from adpositions (or determiners, or any other syntactic class whose function might be equivalent to that of affixes; but I'll focus on adpositions here). Affixes attach at the word level, while adpositions attach at the phrase level. If what ...


4

Things are called particles when they undergo the rule Particle Shift. "Particle" is an ad hoc POS made up to fill the need for a notation to use to describe when the rule works. It is not a happy event when a syntactician has to invent a new special category just to make his rules work, but what can one do? Anyone with a better idea should bring it forth ...


4

I emailed Fei Xia and she said that MSP simply means miscallenous particles. I don't think it actually means anything more special, like "modal structural particle," or otherwise. Page 17 of the attached file is what you put on the question already.


3

According to Daijisen and Daijirin, the particle い i derives from particle や ya or よ yo. Apparently it was introduced in Early Modern Japanese.


3

I was there in the rural areas and they used the particles among each other as well. A lot of standard phrases wouldn't even sound right without it - like Kop Kun Kaa/Kap. Also, it is used intensively in flirting - the women pronouncing the Kaa in an overtly feminine way if they are in a playful mood. While the men, with or without flirt intentions, try to ...


3

English future tense is a separate word, as in "he will be here". English only distinguishes past/non-past with morphology; all other TAM distinctions use auxiliaries. Latin also lacks certain tenses in its morphology, and uses periphrasis (sequences of multiple words) to fill in the gaps. In these cases, the tense distinctions are marked with auxiliaries: ...


3

Well, I explained the why it's useful in your other question so if you're asking about the process as curiousdannii said, that is you are asking about the grammaticalisation cycle, I could explain a little about the process. Latin has a rich case system allowing free word order which is used as as a discourse marker; words encoding new or salient ...


3

This video from Youtube, Stories behind Polite Endings in Thai ครับ/ค่ะ and Lao, answers all of your questions. Let me write down some excerpts from there: The polite particles came from legacy words of master/servant relations. As you know, social status and relationship of people in a conversation impacts on the style of such conversation; Does Lao ...


3

In standard average European languages and also in classical Latin and Greek, there is no new part of speech for a modifier of an adjective or adverb, it is just an adverb. I don't know whether there are languages having "adadjectives" that are different from adverbs.


3

Aymara and Quechua have both topic and focus markers. There's a paper on the pragmatic suffixes in Aymara with a detailed explanation and many examples: Homola, Petr, and Matt Coler. 2013. “Pragmatic Structures in Aymara.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics, edited by Eva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes, and Leo Wanner, 98–...


3

The following illustrates my second answer to this question, which is that "particles" have no part of speech. Earlier descriptions of subcategorization In that first generation of great young desriptivists from MIT, Robert Lees gave arbitrary and artificial category symbols to express restrictions that tree neighbors place on heads. I'm not sure I've got ...


3

There are similar particles in Mandarin Chinese (de). Persian ezafe is also a similar process.


2

There’s no difference, as you put it, since particles are mainly prepositions. "Particle" is not a distinct word category (part of speech) as such, but a term used for certain words that have the distinctive property of being able to be positioned between the verb and its direct object. Huddleston & Pullum describe particles as complements which can ...


2

Another word widely heard in Laos when they want to make a sentence more polite, I hear "ໂດຍ" or "ໂດຍຂ້ານ້ອຍ". After asking some friends who speak Lao as a mothertongue, they always use "ໂດย", the shorten form of "ໂດຍຂ້ານ້ອຍ" which is older and more polite, with people in general but prefer using "ເຈົ້າ" with people in higher age and rank, additionally for ...


2

First, I am going to address Tangurena's answer (I don't have enough reputation to add a comment). Your claim of Japan occupying Korea for 1600 years is very misleading to say the least. Japan occupied Korea during 1910 - 1945. It is a such a shame to Koreans that they call it as 경술국치 (pronounced as Kyung-Sool-Gook-Chi), meaning national shame in the year of ...


2

In one paper, Hirano analyzes Tagalog "ay" as being a topic marker. It's traditionally treated as an inversion marker. If that is true, there are a few more Philippine languages (Sambalic languages, Aklanon, and some Cordilleran languages) with such topic markers. Bashiic, a group of Austronesian languages in Northern Philippines, are analyzed as having ...


2

I just now discovered that Wikipedia has an article "Topic marker". While that article currently makes no mention of Mayan or Austronesian languages, it devotes an entire section to Classical Chinese. The suffix 者 zhe is similar to the Japanese は wa, but is used very sporadically in Classic Chinese and used only when an author wants to emphasize the ...


2

While Shirane follows the traditional grammarian's account (in this as in everything else), according to linguist Bjarke Frellesvig's A History of the Japanese Language, the non-perfective, connective -te already existed in Old Japanese. In this analysis, there is then no evidence to say that the connective -te (also called a "gerund") is a later derivation ...


2

PIE *h2(e)r or *ar- 'thus, so' is the PIE root. Don't think though the Persian word derives from it. Phrygian has ἔρα which is a cognate to the Greek ἆρα.


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