From: clary@meteo.fr (Olivier CLARY)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cases vs. Adverbs (was: -ze and -the in Attic Greek)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:53:55 GMT

Though I am not a linguist at all, I could perhaps remark on the subject of
Hungarian, since I happen to know Hungarian, at least better than English.
My apologies if my comments come late, I get Usenet news with some delay.

In article <8913@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

> 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.

All Hungarian suffixes can be analyzed as the product of the evolution of
postpositions with usually a dissociation into two forms for the purposes
of vowel harmony, except some which are of unknown origin (eg. plural -k),
and very few which are considered the continuation of finno-ugrian suffixes:
-n       "on",
-va'/ve' "(changed) to",
-ul/u~l "at (in some spatial adverbs), in (a language), -ly (eg. bad qualities)"
and I do not think there are any more.

So they are really separated postpositions, but the strong link with the
preceding word, which determines their vowel form when several forms exist,
explains why they are written as a suffix.

> <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").

If a "case" is anything at the end of an adjective/noun relating it to
a verb, there are many more (this is not an exhaustive list):
   accusative -t of course,
   -ke'nt           "as a...",
   -nke'nt          "every (eg. 2 days), for each (eg.  person)",
   -szer/szo~r/szor "(eg. three) times",
   -stul/stu~l      "with (even)...",
   -kor             "at (a time)",
   etc., etc.
Just as English has many prepositions.

> [...]
> < 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."

-e'rt does mean "because of" in some very common words:
   mie'rt             ("because of what?")              "why?"
      from which evolved: mert                          "because"
   aze'rt A, mert B   ("A because of that: because B")  "A because B"
   eze'rt             ("because of this")               "this is why..."
otherwise it means purpose, "in order to get...":
   fizet A-e'rt       ("to pay in order to get A")      "to pay (sthg) for A"
   megy A-e'rt        ("to go in order to get A")       "to go and fetch A"
   ima'dkozik A-e'rt  ("to pray in view of A")          "to pray for A"

> <-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 suppose "no true genitive" means that the Hungarian genitive is the
absence of a mark, -nak/nek being used only when the word bears a stress
or is determined by another genitive. Which does not mean that a genitive
identical to or derived from another case is not a real genitive.

> <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.

I have heard that rumour too and it explains the present situation:
i, i' and e' are front vowels, but they are back vowels in a few mono-
syllabic words. So they are not a separate class of "neutral" vowels,
they are either back or front. Suffixes with i and i', and a few
suffixes with e', have only one form, which means vowel harmony accepts
them with all classes of vowels, but this happens with other vowels when
the process of dissociation into two forms for vowel harmony has not yet
taken place: cf. -kor above. So in such suffixes they can be viewed either
as neutral and obeying harmony, or as not obeying harmony. In the specific
case of -e'rt, its older form, used in religious context (e'rettu~nk =
e'rtu~nk "for us") seems to show it is the past participle e'rett of
e'rik "to ripen" / e'r "to reach", which evolved into a meaning of purpose,
so it would always have been a front vowel e' like -e-, and it just would
not have developped yet an a' counterpart to obey vowel harmony.

By the way, -va'/ve', "(changed) to", does have two forms.

> [...]
> ---- --- -- -  Long Live the Rose and the Heather!  - -- --- ----
Honni soit qui mal y pense. :-)
> Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
Olivier Clary   (clary@meteo.fr)