Seite 32 [32]
OCR
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 NonPossessive 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 +
