Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Richard W]

In the case of English, we see in everyday English a "subjective accusative" in the place of the "subjective genitive" (e.g. "If it weren't for me setting up the firewall this Windows box'd be full of worms by now.")

At the very least, there's also the attraction of the preposition, with a nod at the alternative form "If it weren't for me, who set up the firewall, this Windows box'd be full of worms by now."

[Travis B.]

In the case of English, we see in everyday English a "subjective accusative" in the place of the "subjective genitive" (e.g. "If it weren't for me setting up the firewall this Windows box'd be full of worms by now.")

At the very least, there's also the attraction of the preposition, with a nod at the alternative form "If it weren't for me, who set up the firewall, this Windows box'd be full of worms by now."

But consider this sentence: "Me setting up the firewall was necessary since our Windows boxes would be full of worms otherwise". In formal English it would be "My setting up the firewall was necessary since our Windows boxes would be full of worms otherwise", but specifically note that *"I setting up the firewall was necessary since our Windows boxes would be full of worms otherwise" is ungrammatical regardless of register.

[zompist]

[…] my point is that both English and French are generalizing the default pronoun— making it more default, as it were.

Well, my definition of ‘default pronoun’ was precisely that it is generalised. So wouldn’t this just be a circular argument?

Not if the language has changed. I don't know enough about Old French and Old English to say how or when, though. But Latin, so far as I know, didn't generalize its object pronouns that way.

Wait, Spanish has both disjunctive pronouns and nominative pronouns?

Yes, exactly parallel to French:

je / me / moi
yo / me / mí

But the usage is different.

Another difference I just remembered: comparatives.

English: You're taller than me.
French: Tu es plus haut que moi.
Spanish: Eres mas alto que yo.

[bradrn]

[…] my point is that both English and French are generalizing the default pronoun— making it more default, as it were.

Well, my definition of ‘default pronoun’ was precisely that it is generalised. So wouldn’t this just be a circular argument?

Not if the language has changed. I don't know enough about Old French and Old English to say how or when, though. But Latin, so far as I know, didn't generalize its object pronouns that way.

Because in Latin, the ‘default’ pronouns were instead the subject ones! Which is precisely the usual situation for a nominative-accusative alignment, where the nominative case is ‘unmarked’ (to use the usual terminology).

Wait, Spanish has both disjunctive pronouns and nominative pronouns?

Yes, exactly parallel to French:

je / me / moi
yo / me / mí

But the usage is different.

Hmm… Wikipedia calls that last series ‘prepositional’, which to me suggests that their usage is highly restricted, and far from being a generic ‘default’ form like the French pronouns are.

[zompist]

Because in Latin, the ‘default’ pronouns were instead the subject ones! Which is precisely the usual situation for a nominative-accusative alignment, where the nominative case is ‘unmarked’ (to use the usual terminology).

Now that strikes me as circular. I'm no expert on Latin syntax, but what's default about ego? It doesn't appear much at all (since Latin is pro-drop).

Yes, exactly parallel to French:

je / me / moi
yo / me / mí

But the usage is different.

Hmm… Wikipedia calls that last series ‘prepositional’, which to me suggests that their usage is highly restricted, and far from being a generic ‘default’ form like the French pronouns are.

Yes, that's what I've been saying.

Both series are derived from Latin mē, the disjunctive pronouns from stressed forms, the object forms from unstressed.

[bradrn]

Because in Latin, the ‘default’ pronouns were instead the subject ones! Which is precisely the usual situation for a nominative-accusative alignment, where the nominative case is ‘unmarked’ (to use the usual terminology).

Now that strikes me as circular. I'm no expert on Latin syntax, but what's default about ego? It doesn't appear much at all (since Latin is pro-drop).

Well, Latin is a bit different yet again, because it has case-marking on all nouns, not just pronouns. So I was a bit sloppy in singling out ‘default pronouns’ specifically — it’s just a default case, which is the nominative.

But it’s fair enough to accuse me of circularity: I’m no expert on Latin either. So let’s do this more rigorously, and compare it to my list of criteria (plus the others mentioned since)

• Citation form: nominative, straightforwardly.
• After prepositions: either the accusative or the ablative is licensed by the preposition, but never the nominative.
• Topicalisation: not sure, but word order is famously free, and I suspect Latin simply uses whichever case corresponds to its position in the argument structure. (Even addressed people get their own case, namely the vocative.)
• Copula: both nouns are in the nominative.
• Conjunctions: not sure, but I believe it makes no difference to the case-marking.
• Non-finite forms: unsure.

The main conclusion that can be drawn here is that Latin case-marking generally corresponds to the role of the noun in the sentence. This doesn’t leave much room for a ‘default’ case at all.

However, the nominative is used with the copula and as the citation form. It’s worth noting that these are two positions where marked-nominative languages quite consistently use the accusative (Handschuh 2014), so they’re good signals of which case is the default.

[hwhatting]

[*] After prepositions: either the accusative or the ablative is licensed by the preposition, but never the nominative.

There are also prepositions requiring the genitive and dative, just for completeness - this doesn't affect the point you want to make.

[*] Topicalisation: not sure, but word order is famously free, and I suspect Latin simply uses whichever case corresponds to its position in the argument structure.

Correct.

[*] Conjunctions: not sure, but I believe it makes no difference to the case-marking.

Correct.

Non-finite forms: unsure

What are you unsure about here?

[bradrn]

Non-finite forms: unsure

What are you unsure about here?

Which constructions exist, which cases are used with them, and the extent to which they matter.

[hwhatting]

Non-finite forms: unsure

What are you unsure about here?

Which constructions exist, which cases are used with them, and the extent to which they matter.

You mean things like the AcI or the absolute ablative?

[bradrn]

What are you unsure about here?

Which constructions exist, which cases are used with them, and the extent to which they matter.

You mean things like the AcI or the absolute ablative?

Don’t know what the ‘AcI’ is, but not really like the absolute ablative: rather, which case is used for the arguments of the non-finite verb itself.

[WeepingElf]

Which constructions exist, which cases are used with them, and the extent to which they matter.

You mean things like the AcI or the absolute ablative?

Don’t know what the ‘AcI’ is, but not really like the absolute ablative: rather, which case is used for the arguments of the non-finite verb itself.

AcI is accusativus cum infinitivo, as in Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

[hwhatting]

Don’t know what the ‘AcI’ is, but not really like the absolute ablative: rather, which case is used for the arguments of the non-finite verb itself.

For participles, the subject or a participle construction is in whatever case is required by its role in the clause the construction is embedded in; the other arguments are in the same cases they would be with finite verbs:
Puella dat pauperi pecuniam.
Girl-NOM give-3SG.PRES poor-M.SG.DAT money-ACC.
The girl gives money to the poor man.
Amo puellam dantem pauperi pecuniam.
Love-1SG.PRES.ACT girl-ACC give-PRTC.PRES.ACT.SG.ACC poor-M.SG.DAT money-ACC.
I love the girl giving money to the poor man.
Puella dans pauperi pecuniam a me amatur.
Girl-NOM give-PRTC.PRES.ACT.SG.NOM poor-M.SG.DAT money-ACC from 1SG.ABL love-3SG.PRES.PASS.
The girl giving money to the poor man is loved by me.

The subject of a verb in the infinitive can either be in the nominative (NcI) or in the accusative (AcI). Both are equivalents to object sentences in English; the AcI depends from active verbs, the NcI from passive verbs:
AcI:
Puellam pauperi pecuniam dare puto.
girl-ACC poor-M.SG.DAT money-ACC give-INF believe-1SG.PRES.ACT
I belive that the girl gives money to the poor man.
NcI:
Puella pauperi pecuniam dare putatur.
girl-NOM poor-M.SG.DAT money-ACC give-INF believe-3SG.PRES.PASS
The girl is believed to give money to the poor.
So again, the case of the subject of the infinite form is triggered by its role in the clause in which the infinite construction is embedded; It's either construed as the object or the subject of the verb of belief / statement / observation.

AFAIK, the gerundium doesn't have overt subjects, but I might be missing something here. The subject of a verb in the gerundivum is expressed in the Dative:
Hoc opus mihi perficiendum est
that-N.SG.NOM work-SG.NOM 1SG-DAT complete-GER.N.SG.NOM is.
That work is to be completed by me. (Lit: that work is completeable*) to me.)
*) -able is not an exact equivalent.

So it's basically like English, although English has less overt case marking. That's partially due to common inheritance from PIE, and partially to English copying a lot of these infinite constructions from Latin.

[bradrn]

This is an interesting article reviewing some attempts to use sound change appliers in linguistic research: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108758666.003. It’s a niche thing, but apparently it’s been done.

[WeepingElf]

This is an interesting article reviewing some attempts to use sound change appliers in linguistic research: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108758666.003. It’s a niche thing, but apparently it’s been done.

Yes, and it mentions our SCAs in passing

[bradrn]

This is an interesting article reviewing some attempts to use sound change appliers in linguistic research: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108758666.003. It’s a niche thing, but apparently it’s been done.

Yes, and it mentions our SCAs in passing

Indeed it does… I wish he’d gone into more detail on the differences between SCAs for conlanging and for linguistics. I get the impression that, as principled as the linguists’ ones are, ours are considerably more ergonomic.

[Raphael]

How did the Scottish Lowlands come to speak Lowlands Scots, given that this apparently happened a while before Scotland started to be governed from London?

[Travis B.]

How did the Scottish Lowlands come to speak Lowlands Scots, given that this apparently happened a while before Scotland started to be governed from London?

Old English was spoken in the Scottish Lowlands, and Middle Scots just evolved from Old English there.

[Richard W]

Old English was spoken in the Scottish Lowlands, and Middle Scots just evolved from Old English there.

There was also significant migration from England significantly after the Norman conquest from as far south as the English midlands, and I've seen a claim of significant Danish immigration, though that might be a description of the origin of the immigrants from England. At any rate, it was more than just the survival of the English of Lothian. After the conquest of Lothian from Northumbria, Gaelic apparently made significant inroads.

[zompist]

Wait, Spanish has both disjunctive pronouns and nominative pronouns?

Yes, exactly parallel to French:

je / me / moi
yo / me / mí

But the usage is different.

I have to correct the above. This is why doing syntax as a non-native is perilous.

Not long after writing that Spanish doesn't use Constituent Dislocation, I picked up a book of cartoons on my bookshelf, named ¡A mi no me grite! which means "Nobody shouts at me", with disjunctive a mi emphasizing the ordinary acc/dat me.

It's still done much less than in colloquial French, but it is possible,

[Raphael]

How did the Scottish Lowlands come to speak Lowlands Scots, given that this apparently happened a while before Scotland started to be governed from London?

Old English was spoken in the Scottish Lowlands, and Middle Scots just evolved from Old English there.

What I was wondering was how Old English had ended up in the Scottish Lowlands in the first place.