Page 32 [32]
EUROPEAN PARTITIVES IN COMPARISON
(even if possessive suffixes are the explicit focus of research),’”* pronouns or
quantifiers often miss a discussion on the pure partitives (canonical partitives)
as they are discussed in typological-functional or formal approaches.
Consequently, we are referring readers to some more theoretically oriented
sources” for more comprehensive information on proper partitives.*
Although pseudo- and proper (pure, canonical) partitives clearly differ in
syntactic and semantic terms, even in languages with full-fledged partitive
morphological cases, elatives and partitives may be used interchangeably in
various structures, such as some types of interrogative sentences.*!
The partitive case in Finnic and Saamic languages is notable for its extensive
range of meanings, having evolved to encompass various extended interpretations
and uses. A chapter on case in Uralic could be extended to encompass
morphological forms that have evolved from a partitive morphological case in
future comprehensive works.” Where partitive is diachronically part of another
form could also merit more discussion in languages where the forms are present.
For instance, the chapter on evidentiality could mention the semantic connection
between the Estonian and South Estonian evidential verb forms being based
on a partitive form. As semantic and formal links between evidentiality,
epistemicity, and partitive phenomena have been attested in various languages,
Uralic data are likely to be relevant.** One of the conspicuous features of Finnic
78 Gwen Eva Janda: “Northern Mansi Possessive Suffixes in Non-Possessive Function”. Journal of
Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 6:2 (2015), 243-58. https://doi.org/10.12697/
jeful.2015.6.2.10; Kari Fraurud: Possessives with extensive use: A source of definite articles? in
I. Baron — M. Herslund — F. Sorensen: Dimensions of Possession, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2001, 243-267; Doris Gerland: “Definitely Not Possessed? Possessives with Non¬
Possessive Function”, in T. Gamerschlag — D. Gerland — R. Osswald — W. Petersen (eds.), Frames
and Concept Types. Applications in Language and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Springer, 2014,
269-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_12; Irina Nikolaeva: Possessive Affıxes in
the Pragmatic Structuring of the Utterance: Evidence from Uralic, in Suihkonen, P. — Comrie,
B. (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken
in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of Papers. Izevsk and Leipzig: Udmurt State
University and Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2003, 130-45.
See Koptjevskaja Tamm’s works for partitives in many Uralic languages, and also person and
possessive marking as part of proper partitive constructions in E. Kiss, E. Kiss, Tanczos and
Toth et al.
Katalin E. Kiss: Possessive Agreement; Katalin E. Kiss — Orsolya Tanczos: From Possessor
Agreement to Object Marking; Toth et al.: Possessive partitive strategies.
Renate Pajusalu: Multiple Motivations for Meaning of an Elative Wh-Construction in Estonian.
Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2006 (10:4), 324-340. https://doi.
org/10.3176/tr.2006.4.02; Toth et al.: Possessive partitive strategies.
Seppo Kittila - Johanna Laakso — Jussi Ylikoski: Case, in M. Bakrö-Nagy - J. Laakso — E.
Skribnik (eds.): The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, Ist ed., United Kingdom, Oxford
University Press, 2022, 879-893. https://doi.org/10.1093/os0/9780198767664.003.0044
Silvia Luraghi - Giovanna Albonico: Evidential functions of the partitive with verbs that
indicate acquisition of knowledge: a comparison of Erzya and Ancient Greek, PARTE workshop
15-17 September 2022, Hungary Budapest, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
a
©
00
S
00
e
00
S
+30 +