(Komi-Permyak)

SAPossPVtype & Else

SAPossPVtype: The construction is of the possessive–accusative type. The verb becomes a noun, with S and A treated as its possessors and P retaining its accusative position.

Else: The language uses a specific strategy.

(1)nastauź-ö.
NastyasleepPRS.3SG
’Nastya is sleeping.’ (L. P.)

(2)nasta-lönuź-ömvöl-ibur.
NastyaGENsleepNMLZbePSTgood
’Nastya’s sleep was good.’ (L. P.)

(3)nastagiž-östaťja.
NastyawritePRS.3SGarticle
’Nastya is writing an article.’ (L. P.)

(4)nasta-önstaťjagiž-ömkyśś-i-sdyr.
NastyaINSarticlewriteNMLZlastPST3SGlong
’Writing the article took Nastya a long time.’ (L. P.)

(5)nasta-lönstaťjagiž-ömkyśś-i-sdyr.
NastyaGENarticlewriteNMLZlastPST3SGlong
’Writing Nastya’s article took a long time.’ (L. P.)
’Writing the article took Nastya a long time.’ (L. P.)

Komi-Permyak grammars usually do not accept nomen actionis as an independent category but consider it a part of the perfect participle paradigm (cf. Lobanova 2017, Ponomareva 2010). Bartens (2000), however, claims that nouns derived using the -öm suffix can be regarded as nomen actionis, given that they can occupy the subject position (2), (4)–(5).

The S argument of action nominal constructions appears in genitive case (2). The A argument of transitive verbs can be instrumental (4) or genitive (5), with the P argument retaining its original case marking, it cannot be genitive or any other different case form. In case the A argument is genitive (5), the construction is ambiguous (L. P.) This topic requires further research.

Author: Nikolett F. Gulyás


[🠐 back]