How the accusative became the relative: a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship?

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

How the accusative became the relative : a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship? / Fortescue, Michael David.

In: Journal of Historical Linguistics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2016, p. 72-92.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Fortescue, MD 2016, 'How the accusative became the relative: a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship?', Journal of Historical Linguistics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 72-92. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for

APA

Fortescue, M. D. (2016). How the accusative became the relative: a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship? Journal of Historical Linguistics, 6(1), 72-92. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for

Vancouver

Fortescue MD. How the accusative became the relative: a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship? Journal of Historical Linguistics. 2016;6(1):72-92. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for

Author

Fortescue, Michael David. / How the accusative became the relative : a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship?. In: Journal of Historical Linguistics. 2016 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 72-92.

Bibtex

@article{2369b25ff48046aba5fbee21117af926,
title = "How the accusative became the relative: a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship?",
abstract = "The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis of a genetic link between Eskimo-Aleut and the Uralic languages is now reaching its second centenary. Two major problems with its advancement since Bergsland{\textquoteright}s (1959) summary of its status are addressed in this article. The first of these is the lack of an obvious correlate of the ubiquitous Eskimo-Aleut (EA) relative case marker -m in Uralic; the other is the lack of an m-initial first person singular morpheme in EA to correlate with that of the Uralic languages. That the EA singular genitive/relative marker -m — as well as the instrumental/accusative singular -mək based on it — might be cognate with Uralic singular accusative -m was suggested already by Sauvageot (1953), but no firm conclusion on the matter has since been reached. This has remained a tantalizing possibility, despite the conflicting semantics. However, the remarkable morphosyntactic parallels between Eskimo-Aleut and Samoyedic in particular have grown more apparent with recent publications. A solution is proposed, linking the emergence of ergativity in the Eskimo-Aleut family with a reanalysis of the original nominative-accusative case marking system.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Eskimo-Aleut, Samoyedic, genetic affiliation ",
author = "Fortescue, {Michael David}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "72--92",
journal = "Journal of Historical Linguistics",
issn = "2210-2116",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - How the accusative became the relative

T2 - a Samoyedic key to the Eskimo-Uralic relationship?

AU - Fortescue, Michael David

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis of a genetic link between Eskimo-Aleut and the Uralic languages is now reaching its second centenary. Two major problems with its advancement since Bergsland’s (1959) summary of its status are addressed in this article. The first of these is the lack of an obvious correlate of the ubiquitous Eskimo-Aleut (EA) relative case marker -m in Uralic; the other is the lack of an m-initial first person singular morpheme in EA to correlate with that of the Uralic languages. That the EA singular genitive/relative marker -m — as well as the instrumental/accusative singular -mək based on it — might be cognate with Uralic singular accusative -m was suggested already by Sauvageot (1953), but no firm conclusion on the matter has since been reached. This has remained a tantalizing possibility, despite the conflicting semantics. However, the remarkable morphosyntactic parallels between Eskimo-Aleut and Samoyedic in particular have grown more apparent with recent publications. A solution is proposed, linking the emergence of ergativity in the Eskimo-Aleut family with a reanalysis of the original nominative-accusative case marking system.

AB - The Eskimo-Uralic hypothesis of a genetic link between Eskimo-Aleut and the Uralic languages is now reaching its second centenary. Two major problems with its advancement since Bergsland’s (1959) summary of its status are addressed in this article. The first of these is the lack of an obvious correlate of the ubiquitous Eskimo-Aleut (EA) relative case marker -m in Uralic; the other is the lack of an m-initial first person singular morpheme in EA to correlate with that of the Uralic languages. That the EA singular genitive/relative marker -m — as well as the instrumental/accusative singular -mək based on it — might be cognate with Uralic singular accusative -m was suggested already by Sauvageot (1953), but no firm conclusion on the matter has since been reached. This has remained a tantalizing possibility, despite the conflicting semantics. However, the remarkable morphosyntactic parallels between Eskimo-Aleut and Samoyedic in particular have grown more apparent with recent publications. A solution is proposed, linking the emergence of ergativity in the Eskimo-Aleut family with a reanalysis of the original nominative-accusative case marking system.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Eskimo-Aleut, Samoyedic, genetic affiliation

U2 - 10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for

DO - 10.1075/jhl.6.1.03for

M3 - Journal article

VL - 6

SP - 72

EP - 92

JO - Journal of Historical Linguistics

JF - Journal of Historical Linguistics

SN - 2210-2116

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 166283031