From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cases vs. Adverbs (was: -ze and -the in Attic Greek)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:33:17 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Apr7.182853.19191@cis.ohio-state.edu> schuyler@violin.cis.ohio-state.edu (Carlton Schuyler) writes:
<I wonder what the Hungarian "case" suffixes are, then?

I call them postpositions.

<There are nine which are spacial (toward, at, and away from surfaces,
<enclosed spaces, and points in space), plus a dative, instrumental,
<and other ones which I don't know the name of ("for the sake
<of"/"because of", "into"/"becoming").

I don't recognise the first one.  The second one is called translative.

<Anyhow, the interesting thing
<about these "cases" is that some vowel harmonize with their noun,
<while the two last ones listed do not, so that they may even be
<considered to be separate words, I suppose.

I don't see why all of them can't be considered to be separate words.

<  Example:
<
<	az alma'e'rt   "because of / for the apple"
<	a ko~nyveke'rt "because of / for the books"
<
<	az alma'nak    "to/of the apple"
<        a ko~nyveknek  "to/of the books"
<
<-(V)n is the case meaning "on the surface of", and -e'rt means
<"because of / for",

It doesn't mean `because of'.  It means `for' as in "come for sthg."
(to take it, that is) or "drink for sthg."

<-nak/nek is the dative suffix (which also
<functions as genitive sometimes; there is no true genitive in
<Hungarian, hence the "/of").

I'll pretend not to have seen the expression "true genitive", or else
I'd have to lit the flame torch again.

<I'm wondering is perhaps this [sc. the fact that "-e1rt" doesn't
<vowel harmonise with the preceding word - I.D.]
<is evidence that the -e'rt suffix is
<somehow different from the rest of the case suffixes (the -ve' suffix,
<meaning into/becoming, does the same thing as -e'rt, that is, does not
<harmonize.)

No, Carl, I must disappoint you.  It just happens that there are a few
vowels which are neutral with respect to frontness for the purposes of
vowel harmony.  These vowels are "i", "i1" and "e1" (except when it
comes up as the front counterpart of "a1"; see below).

Rumour has it that a neutral vowel is actually a pair of proto-vowels
which started being pronounced alike at some point.

<By the way, although -e'rt and -ve' are the only two noun suffixes
<which contain [e'],

They are not.  There is the possessive form "-e1", for example.

<there are verb suffixes which contain [e'] which
<_do_ harmonize ([e']'s back counterpart in these cases is [a']),

There also are verb suffixes where "e1" doesn't harmonise ("-ne1k",
1SgSb present conditional; "-je1k", 1SgSb imperative), and noun
suffixes where it does ("-na1l/-ne1l", adessive (general location)).

<so I
<don't think that a phonological explanation suffices to explain the
<failure to harmonize, unless we say that -e'rt and -ve' contain
<[e'] underlyingly, while the verb suffixes contain [a'] or something
<which becomes [a'] ...)

Or it could be a diachronic phonological explanation.  Maybe at some
earlier stage the postposition "e1rt" had two distinct forms too, say,
"e1rt" after back and "e3rt" after front vowels, but then the speakers
ceased to distinguish between "e1" and "e3", after which "e1rt" didn't
harmonise with the preceding word anymore.
-- 
---- --- -- -  Long Live the Rose and the Heather!  - -- --- ----
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK