Атрибутивные показатели в андийском языке: клитики или аффиксы?
Russian subjunctive is expressed by an analytical form which consists of subjunctive particle by (b) and past indicative or infinitive or a few predicative adverbs and adjectives. The subjunctive particle is an enclitic. It often merges with subordinate conjunctions, which yields words functioning as conjunctions and containing the subjunctive particle. Historically, the particle by in conjunctions can be traced back to the marker of subjunctive. Synchronically, however, the group is not homogenous. The aim of the paper is to find out which of the conjunctions with by should be considered as containing the marker of subjunctive, and test whether the particle can or can not be separated from the conjunction. Four criteria are used. The first and the second, namely, (a) the forms available in the subordinate clause with the conjunction and (b) the possibility of repetition of the particle by with the second predicate shows that comparative conjunctions do not synchronically contain the subjunctive marker. The third and fourth criteria, namely (c) the omission of the particle by and (d) its ability to be separated from the conjunction by another words give different results.
This paper discusses preposition (P) omission under sluicing (John talked with someone but I don’t know _ who) and the ability of P to take a clitic pronoun as a complement (We talked about’im), correlated with P-stranding (the ability of P to stay in situ when its complement undergoes movement, Who are you talking with_?) through generalizations that were proposed in Merchant (2001) and Abels (2003a,b) respectively. These studies establish Pstranding as a necessary condition for both phenomena, but I show that the correlations may stem instead from the ability of Ps to project independent Prosodic Words in the P-stranding languages.
Im Beitrag wird die Regelung der Abfolge von althochdeutschen schwachbetonten Wörtern ProNom.> ProRefl.> ProDat.> ProAkk.> ProGen.> (Adv) behandelt, die den Sequenzbeschränkungen für Klitika sehr nahe steht. An Beispielsätzen aus Otfrid wird das Zusammenspiel der Faktoren aufgedeckt, die das widersprüchliche Verhalten der Blockmitspieler und Schwankungen in der Wortstellung beeinflussen (phonetisch abgeschwächt ~ phonetisch gewichtig /gereimt, desemantisiert ~ vollwertig beziehungsweise fokussiert, kasusgerechte Abfolge ~ Abfolge nach semantischen Rollen u.a.). Die althochdeutschen Sequenzbeschränkungen werden als eine Etappe der Grammatikalisierung von Vollwörtern zu Klitika eingeordnet, die einen Einblick in die möglichen Mechanismen des diachronen Wandels liefert.
The paper provides evidence for the existence of endoclitics in Andi, a Nakh-Daghestanian language of the Avar-Andic branch spoken in the Republic of Daghestan, Russia. In Andi, the additive marker (‘also’) and the intensifying marker (‘even, at all’) behave as enclitics on various types of hosts and as endoclitics when they occur on negative verb forms. In the latter case, the additive and intensifying markers break up the word form and appear before the negation marker. I argue that both the additive and the intensifier are clitics, especially in view of their highly promiscuous attachment. I also show that negative verb forms are morphologically synthetic, so the additive and the intensifier are genuine endoclitics, i.e. clitics that occur inside morphological words. In addition I provide a few parallels for the unusual morphosyntactic behaviour of additive and intensifying clitics in some other Nakh-Daghestanian languages as well as in some languages of Northern Eurasia. Although in these cases the corresponding markers do not qualify as endoclitics proper, the available data hint at a cross-linguistic tendency towards word-internal placement of morphemes with meanings like ‘also’, ‘even’ or ‘only’.