Oldal 22 [22]
EUROPEAN PARTITIVES IN COMPARISON
d.*Közül-ük/*E — diákok közül kettő-jük-kel beszéltem.
from-3PL this student.pL Írom two-3PL-INS speak.PST.1SG
Intended to mean: ‘I spoke with two of them / these students?
The picture in other Uralic languages is basically similar, but there are many
differences. For instance, (9) shows that the three strategies are mutually exclusive
in Hungarian: the superset cannot be overtly represented in a construction
where the subset is inflected for it (9d). Mari, another Uralic language spoken
in Europe, is much more tolerant in this respect: the proper partitive relationship
can be marked simultaneously by means of two (10b) or even all the three (10c)
of the structures or strategies available (10).
(10) Mari (Finno-Ugric, Volgaic)
[..]
a. Kokyt-so dene kutyrenam.
two[noM]-3sG with speak.psT2.1sG
b. Nunyn koklaste kokyt-$o dene kutyrenam.
they.GEN among two-3SG[NOM] with speak.psT2.1sG
c. Nunyn koklasty-st kokyt-so dene kutyrenam.
they.GEN among-3PL two-3SG[NOM] with speak.PST2.15G
‘[Twenty students took the exam.] I spoke with two of them? (Elena
Vedernikova, pers. comm.)
Another notable difference between Hungarian and Mari lies in the fact that
Hungarian proper partitives exhibit regular possessive agreement, while in
Mari, a default 3" singular possessive marker (-SE, -ZE, -Z) is used, irrespective
of the fact that the superset that it is associated with is inherently plural. This
invariable 3" person singular marker can be associated in colloquial speech
even with 1‘ and 2" person plural pronominal supersets, as in (11). All in all,
it seems that the 3" singular possessive suffix in Mari has gained a new func¬
tion as a marker of proper partitivity and in these constructions it does not
behave as a regular possessive suffix anymore.”°
(11) Mari (Finno-Ugric, Volgaic)
[...]
Kokyt-so provalitl-en-na.
two-3SG[NOM] fail-2PST-1PL
‘[We took the exam.] Two of us failed! (Elena Vedernikova, pers. comm.)
> Töth et al.: Possessive partitive strategies.
26 Ibid.
+ 20 +