(Udmurt)
SAPossPVtype
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.
| (1) | mon | solen | lykt-em-ez-ly | tuž | šumpot-i. |
|---|
| I | (s)he.GEN | come‑NMLZ‑3SG‑DAT | very | be_glad‑PST.1SG |
| ’I was very glad that (s)he came.’ (Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 228) |
| (2) | dyšetiś-len | dyšetskiś-jos-ly | urok-jos-yz | tros | pol | valekt-em-ez |
|---|
| teacher‑GEN | student‑PL‑DAT | lesson‑PL‑ACC | many | times | explain‑NMLZ‑3SG |
| umoj | val. |
| good | be.PST |
| ’It was good that the teacher explained the lesson to the students many times.’ (Y. S.) | |
| (3) | dyšetiś-leś | dyšetskiś-jos-ly | urok-jos-yz | tros | pol |
|---|
| teacher‑ABL | student‑PL‑DAT | lesson‑PL‑ACC | many | times |
| valekt-em-ze | vań-zy | tod-o. |
| explain‑NMLZ‑3SG.ACC | every‑3PL | know‑3PL |
| ’Everybody knows that the teacher explained the lesson to the students many times.’ (Georgieva 2018: 49) | |
| (4) | kuźо_inmar-len | lykton-ez | mate | vu-e. |
|---|
| god‑GEN | come‑3SG | near.ILL | arrive‑3SG |
| ’God’s coming is near.’ (UdmCorp.) |
| (5) | peťa-len | vyľ | korka-ze | pukt-on-ez | kema | myn-e | ńi. |
|---|
| Petya‑GEN | new | house‑3SG.ACC | build‑NMLZ‑3SG | long | go‑3SG | already |
| ’Petya has been building his new house for a long time.’ (Georgieva 2018: 51) |
| (6) | peťa-leś | vyľ | korka-ze | pukt-on-ze | vań-zy | tod-o | ńi. |
|---|
| Petya‑ABL | new | house‑3SG.ACC | build‑NMLZ‑3SG | every‑3PL | know‑3PL | already |
| ’Everybody knows that Petya has been building his new house for a long time.’ (Y. S) |
| (7) | tolon | maša | no | peťa | buskeľ-zy-leś | kućapi | | | |
|---|
| yesterday | Masha | and | Petya | neighbour‑3PL‑ABL | puppy | |
| baśt-em-zy | śaryś | veraśk-i-zy. |
| buy‑NMLZ‑3PL | about | talk‑PST‑3PL |
| ’Yesterday Masha and Petya were talking about having bought a puppy from the neighbours.’ (Georgieva 2018: 54) |
| (8) | tolon | maša | no | peťa | buskeľ-zy-leś | kućapi | | | |
|---|
| yesterday | Masha | and | Petya | neighbour‑3PL‑ABL | puppy | |
| baśt-on-zy | śaryś | veraśk-i-zy. |
| buy‑NMLZ‑3PL | about | talk‑PST‑3PL |
| ’Yesterday Masha and Petya were talking about buying a puppy from the neighbours (in the future).’ (Georgieva 2018: 54) |
| (9) | ćaklaśk-on-jos |
|---|
| watch‑NMLZ‑PL |
| ‘(repeated) watching, survelliance’ (Georgieva 2018: 50) |
In Udmurt, the participle forming suffixes -(o)n and -(e)m can have a nominalizer role (Georgieva 2008: 48–57), in which case the derived forms essentially function as action nominals (for more on the action nominal role of the participle forming suffix -(e)m and the suffix -on deriving deverbal nouns see e.g. Keľmakov – Hännikäinen 2008: 228, 202). The S argument in an action nominal construction has genitive case (1), (4). The A argument is also in genitive case if the whole action nominal is nominative (2), (5), but if it is accusative, the A argument is ablative (3), (6), however, this is a property of possessive constructions in general and not the result of nominalization. The P argument can be marked (2)–(3), (5)–(6) or unmarked (7)–(8), which again characterizes Udmurt P arguments in general; it is not confined to action nominals. The temporal reference of the two suffixes may also differ: forms with the -(e)m suffix tend to have a past interpretation (7) as opposed to the ones with -(o)n (8) (cf. Georgieva 2018: 49, 54), in line with the past participle function of the suffix -(e)m (Bartens 2000: 235–236). However, when combined with verbs of perception, the past interpretation is not obligatory, at least in the Besermyan dialect (9) (Serdobolskaya et al. 2012: 29–30). Both -(e)m, and -(o)n can take case and possessive person suffixes, and unlike -(e)m, forms with -(o)n can also have a plural marker (3) (Georgieva 2018: 48–50). Forms with -(e)m in general have fewer nominal properties, leading to claims according to which they cannot be considered nominalizations (l. Dékány – Tánczos 2017, Georgieva 2018: 49). Whether these forms can be considered action nominals is therefore subject for further research.
Author: Laura Horváth
[🠐 back]
