Search

CAUSATIVE AND PASSIVE IN SAKHA: FOCUSING ON DOUBLE-ACCUSATIVE CAUSATIVE AND IMPERSONAL PASSIVE // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2013. Issue 2 (2). P. 16-28

This paper examines Sakha causative and passive, focusing on double-accusative causative and impersonal passive. With regard to Sakha causatives, it is pointed out that the case-marking of causee is related to the type of causation meant. Double-accusative causatives are possible in Sakha. Additionally, Sakha allows impersonal passives, which are derived from both transitive and intransitive clauses. The unexpressed agent in impersonal passives must be human. Double-accusative causative is impossible in most Turkic languages other than Sakha, but possible in almost all Tungusic languages. Therefore, it is highly probable that Sakha doubleaccusative causative has developed through contact with Tungusic languages. In contrast to double-accusative causatives, impersonal passives are not possible in Tungusic languages but found in other Turkic languages. Thus, it is unlikely that Sakha impersonal passives have developed through language contact.

Keywords: Sakha, valence, double-accusative causative, impersonal passive, language contact

PROPRIETIVE AFFIXES IN THE LANGUAGES OF NORTHEASTERN EURASIA: AN OVERVIEW // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2014. Issue 1 (3). P. 9-14

In Northeastern Eurasia, there are languages that do not have a possession verb ‘have’, and instead use affixation to express the possessive relation. This overview article provides an introduction to the following papers on the proprietive affixes of five languages of Northern Eurasia. The proprietives of the five languages under discussion share some semantic characteristics. They often denote not only simple possession or ownership, but also possession with a special connotation such as specialty or plenty of the possessee or ‘possession at that very moment.’ The proprietives of the five languages have morphosyntactic idiosyncrasy that ordinal derivational suffixes do not. Though the proprietives are basically derivational affixes, the base nouns may still have their autonomy. The five languages have also the abessive forms. Although the abessives are semantically contrastive to the proprietives, morphosyntactically they are not always symmetrical to the proprietives.

Keywords: Possession, proprietive, cohesive possession, abessive

THE SAKHA PROPRIETIVE SUFFIX -LEEX // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. 2014. Issue 1 (3). P. 23-34

This paper examines morphosyntactic and semantic characteristics of the proprietive suffix -LEEX of Sakha (Yakut). The suffix -LEEX is highly productive and has a wide-ranged usage: the resultant form functions as adnominal phrases or predicates (i. e., predicative possession) as well as noun phrases or adverbials. Semantically, the suffix -LEEX denotes not only simple possession, but often implies special connotation. When the base nouns is human, the proprietive expresses kinship relation, accompaniment, or approximate plural. When the base is a concrete noun, the proprietive often denotes ‘possession at that very moment’ as well as simple possession. When the base is an abstract noun, the proprietive denotes either a person characterized by that noun or a permanent or temporary property of humans or things. The proprietive construction may overlap the comitative construction or the existential construction. Although the proprietive suffix -LEEX has been described as an adjective-deriving suffix in the literature, this suffix shows some idiosyncrasy that ordinal derivational suffixes do not have. For example, suffixation after a plural suffix or directly to a verbal noun is possible with the suffix -LEEX. In addition, the paper examines the morphosyntactic characteristics of the abessive that is semantically contrastive but is not always symmetrical to the proprietive.

Keywords: Sakha, possession, proprietive, lexical integrity, abessive