Universal #122
Legacy number: 122
| Number | 122 |
| Original | If in a language the same verbal meaning is expressible either through a construction where a complement of the verb is in the Accusative or through a construction where the same complement is in an adverbial case and there is a meaning difference between two constructions, this semantic contrast will be either a contrast between a definite and an indefinite object, or a contrast between an object that is fully involved in the event and one that is partially involved, or a contrast between affected and non-affected participant. |
| Standardized | IF the same verbal meaning is expressible either through a construction where a complement of the verb is in the Accusative or through a construction where the same complement is in an adverbial case and there is a meaning difference between two constructions, THEN this semantic contrast will be either a contrast between a definite and an indefinite object, or a contrast between an object that is fully involved in the event and one that is partially involved, or a contrast between affected and non-affected participant. |
| Keywords | object, case, accusative, adverbial, definite, indefinite, involvement, affectedness |
| Domain | inflection, syntax, semantics |
| Type | no genuine implication; rather: provided that |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute? |
| Basis | English (W. Germanic, Indo-European), Hungarian (Ugric, Uralic), Kabardian (Circassian, Caucasian), Eskimo (Eskimo-Aleut), Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan, Australian), Amharic (W. Semitic, Afro-Asiatic) |
| Source | inferred from Moravcsik 1978a: 255, see also Anderson 1970, Jespersen 1954: 238 |
Discussion
Notes
In other words:Marking alternations on (direct) objects, with an accusative alternating with an adverbial case, can only reflect three kinds of semantic contrasts: definite vs. indefinite, wholly vs. partially involved, or affected vs. non-affected.Individually or in combination, these three parameters have often been shown to govern object marking; the claim here is that there are no others. Have Anderson and Jespersen made THIS claim?
Log in to join the discussion.
Marking alternations on (direct) objects, with an accusative alternating with an adverbial case, can only reflect three kinds of semantic contrasts: definite vs. indefinite, wholly vs. partially involved, or affected vs. non-affected.
Individually or in combination, these three parameters have often been shown to govern object marking; the claim here is that there are no others. Have Anderson and Jespersen made THIS claim?