ESTONIAN ACADEMY
PUBLISHERS
eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
PUBLISHED
SINCE 1965
 
Linguistica Uralica cover
Linguistica Uralica
ISSN 1736-7506 (Electronic)
ISSN 0868-4731 (Print)

Use of the Nominative of Samoyedic Substantives as Instances of Object and Attribute; pp. 119-126

Full article in PDF format | doi:10.3176/lu.2009.2.03

Author
Ago Künnap

Abstract
The objective of this article is to present observations on the use of the nominative of Samoyedic substantives as instances of object and attribute. Namely, thanks to N. M. Tereçsçcenko’s Samoyedologic scholarship, her views that (1) in (Tundra) Nenets, Enets and Selkup, the nominative object can only be definite and (2) Nganasan and Selkup cannot have a nominative attribute of the possessive declension have widely spread. Both of these viewpoints are prevailingly erroneous. Samoyedic languages commonly use three cases for the direct object: (*)m-accusative, unmarked nominative and rarely (*)n-genitive. We are interested in the nominative: can it be only a definite object in some Samoyedic languages. In such cases in Samoyedic where nominative marking is common, there is obviously no reason at all to speak about definiteness/indefiniteness of an object. The case ending of substantival attributes in Samoyedic languages is a genitive suffix, as a general rule. However, rather a large number of exceptions to that attribute genitiveness general rule of Samoyedic are known to exist. It is necessary to consider the so called Turkic II izafet construction, in which case the attribute consists of the nominative form (mainly with the possessive suffix), occurring both in Nganasan and Selkup.
References

Havas, F. 2008, Unmarked Object in the Uralic Languages. A Diachronic Typological Approach. - LU XLIV, 1-33.

Honti, L. 2008, Mi az izafet? (Egy kis búvárkodás a terminológiai zavarosbam). - Ünnepi írások Havas Ferenc tiszteletére, Budapest (Urálisztikai Tanulmányok 18), 291-311.

Joki, A. J. 1944, Kai Donners Kamassisches Wörterbuch nebst Sprachproben und Hauptzügen der Grammatik, Helsinki.

Wickman, B. 1955, The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages, Uppsala-Wiesbaden (UUÅ 1955 6).

Bekker E. G. 1978, Kategorija padezha v sel'kupskom jazyke, Tomsk.

Bekker E. G., Alitkina L. A., Bykonja V. V., Il'jashenko I. A. 1995, Morfologija sel'kupskogo jazyka. Juzhnye dialekty I, Tomsk.

Kim A. A. 1986, Sposoby vyrazhenija posessivnosti v samodijskih jazykah. - Jazyki narodov Severa Sibiri (sbornik nautshnyh trudov), Novosibirsk, 51-60.

Kuznecova A. I., Helimskij E. A., Grushkina E. B. 1980, Otsherki po sel'kupskomu jazyku. Tazovskij dialekt I, Moskva.

Tereshtshenko N. M. 1973, Sintaksis samodijskih jazykov, Leningrad.

Tereshtshenko N. M. 1974, Osobennosti upotreblenija padezhnyh form v samodijskih jazykah. - Sklonenie i sprjazhenie v paleoaziatskih i samodijskih jazykah, Leningrad, 233-242.

Tereshtshenko N. M. 1979, Nganasanskij jazyk, Leningrad.
Back to Issue