Featured Linguist!

Jost Gippert: Our Featured Linguist!

"Buenos dias", "buenas noches" -- this was the first words in a foreign language I heard in my life, as a three-year old boy growing up in developing post-war Western Germany, where the first gastarbeiters had arrived from Spain. Fascinated by the strange sounds, I tried to get to know some more languages, the only opportunity being TV courses of English and French -- there was no foreign language education for pre-teen school children in Germany yet in those days. Read more



Donate Now | Visit the Fund Drive Homepage

Amount Raised:

$34674

Still Needed:

$40326

Can anyone overtake Syntax in the Subfield Challenge ?

Grad School Challenge Leader: University of Washington


Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

What is English? And Why Should We Care?

By: Tim William Machan

To find some answers Tim Machan explores the language's present and past, and looks ahead to its futures among the one and a half billion people who speak it. His search is fascinating and important, for definitions of English have influenced education and law in many countries and helped shape the identities of those who live in them.


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Medical Writing in Early Modern English

Edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Paivi Pahta

This volume provides a new perspective on the evolution of the special language of medicine, based on the electronic corpus of Early Modern English Medical Texts, containing over two million words of medical writing from 1500 to 1700.


Summary Details


Query:   Proximate/obviative
Author:  Janez Oresnik
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Syntax

Summary:   The following query was posted in LINGUIST 10.720:

As is well known, some languages, notably some American Indian
languages, discriminate two kinds of verbal third person, namely the
proximate and the obviative. One can compare the Latin iste vir and
ille vir 'that man'.

A constructed Latin example would be iste vir curri-X versus ille vir
curri-Y for 'that man run-s', where X and Y represent different
desinences on the finite verb.

What happens if the proximate and the obviative are coordinated within
the subject NP? Does the finite verb take the desinence corresponding
to the proximate or to the obviative? I refer again to the theoretical
Latin example: iste vir et ille vir curri-Z; what shape does -Z take?

What category wins if the subject contains the proximate/obviative AND
the first or the second person? Latin: iste vir et ego curri-Z; ille
vir et tu curri-Z.

Is the proximate or the obviative the less marked category of the two?


Via Wayles Browne I have received replies to the above query which -
printed - comprise 35 sheets of paper (including some repetition of
the same mail)! The replies can be summarized as follows:

Several respondents point out that the comparison with the constructed
Latin examples is questionable, seeing that some languages can express
iste vir and ille vir in the proximate as well as in the obviative.

Several respondents point out that, in some languages at least, for
pragmatic reasons, the coordination of a proximate and an obviative
within an NP does not obtain.

The respondents unanimously express the belief that the proximate is
the less marked third person, and the obviative the more marked third
person. If a language does have NP's conjoining a proximate and an
obviative, such an NP as subject triggers verbal agreement with the
proximate.

The respondents point out that any third person conjoined with a first
person will be first person plural. Any third person conjoined with a
second person will be second person plural. Obviative third persons do
not get conjoined in this way.

Several respondents have mentioned other related phenomena, mostly
meant as caveats, which will not be summarized here. Several
respondents suggest suitable literature about the phenomena under
discussion.

I have summarized only those aspects of the replies that are relevant to my
basic problem, which is: Does verbal agreement with a subject NP (containing
two different conjoined verbal persons, say a first and a third person) work
one way if a language possesses two third verbal persons (say a proximate
and an obviative), and in another way if a language possesses just one
third verbal person? The replies that have reached me through LINGUIST show
that no such difference exists, barring the specific behavour of the
obviative, which behaviour influences verbal agreement indirectly only.

My cordial thanks for everybody's kind help.

Janez Oresnik, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Europe.

LL Issue: 10.826
Date Posted: 04-Jun-1999
Original Query: Read original query


Back

Sums main page