Discussion:Emañ : Différence entre versions

De Arbres
Aller à : navigation, rechercher
(Page créée avec « Re sujet défini: Dévri (dico Merser) donne sous "III. La forme emañ", des exx aves des sujets formellement indéfinis. (Also note right after these exx, "na vezan mui... »)
 
(Sujet indefini prenegation)
 
(6 révisions intermédiaires par 2 utilisateurs non affichées)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
Re sujet défini:
+
=== sujet défini ===
  
 +
--[[Utilisateur:Wade|Wade]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Wade|discussion]]) 22 mars 2017 à 13:04 (CET)
 +
:
 
Dévri (dico Merser) donne sous "III. La forme emañ", des exx aves des sujets formellement indéfinis.
 
Dévri (dico Merser) donne sous "III. La forme emañ", des exx aves des sujets formellement indéfinis.
  
(Also note right after these exx, "na vezan mui en-unan - être sans conscience": na as infinitival negation?)
+
: --[[Utilisateur:Mjouitteau|MJ.]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Mjouitteau|discussion]]) 27 mars 2017 à 11:05 (CEST): OK for (1879) [[BMN.]] 289 ''e pe seurt stad ema <u>unan ac'hanoc'h</u>''.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
(Also note right after these exx, "na vezañ mui en-unan - être sans conscience": na as infinitival negation?)
 +
 
 +
: --[[Utilisateur:Mjouitteau|MJ.]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Mjouitteau|discussion]]) 27 mars 2017 à 11:05 (CEST): Yes. I reported this example uneder ''[[ne, na]]''.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Sujet indefini prenegation ===
 +
 
 +
--[[Utilisateur:Wade|Wade]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Wade|discussion]]) 24 mars 2017 à 12:29 (CET):
 +
 
 +
Consider the following ex of indefinite subject with emañ if prenegation:
 +
 
 +
''Met va c’halon c’houllo / Zo chomet pell toc’hor./ Ha remed ebet n’edo kavet / Evit va fareañ.''
 +
http://www.breizh.net/anjela/barzhonegou/39.php
 +
 
 +
The relevant contrast is with:
 +
 
 +
''(evit pareañ va c'halon) n'ema/edo kavet remet ebet''
 +
 
 +
which by standard descriptions is supposed to be out, i.e. like:
 +
 
 +
''an deiz war lerc'h emañ kavet an/*un den marv er park''.
 +
 
 +
If the contrast is real, it does not matter if the passive is "impersonal" or not, since both prenegation and postverbal subjects should allow the same option of personal/impersonal passives.
 +
 
 +
Theoretically, if pre-negation subjects with ''emañ'' can be indefinite while postverbal ones in the same structure cannot, the prenegation ones do not seem to derive by [[movement]] from the postverbal ones but rather by base-generation ([[broad subjects]]).
  
--[[Utilisateur:Wade|Wade]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Wade|discussion]]) 22 mars 2017 à 13:04 (CET)
+
: --[[Utilisateur:Mjouitteau|MJ.]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Mjouitteau|discussion]]) 27 mars 2017 à 11:45 (CEST): Thanks. I have added this example too. It is possible that semanticaly different forms of ''emañ'' demonstrate different syntactic behavior with respect to their subject.

Version actuelle datée du 27 mars 2017 à 10:45

sujet défini

--Wade (discussion) 22 mars 2017 à 13:04 (CET)

Dévri (dico Merser) donne sous "III. La forme emañ", des exx aves des sujets formellement indéfinis.

--MJ. (discussion) 27 mars 2017 à 11:05 (CEST): OK for (1879) BMN. 289 e pe seurt stad ema unan ac'hanoc'h.


(Also note right after these exx, "na vezañ mui en-unan - être sans conscience": na as infinitival negation?)

--MJ. (discussion) 27 mars 2017 à 11:05 (CEST): Yes. I reported this example uneder ne, na.


Sujet indefini prenegation

--Wade (discussion) 24 mars 2017 à 12:29 (CET):

Consider the following ex of indefinite subject with emañ if prenegation:

Met va c’halon c’houllo / Zo chomet pell toc’hor./ Ha remed ebet n’edo kavet / Evit va fareañ. http://www.breizh.net/anjela/barzhonegou/39.php

The relevant contrast is with:

(evit pareañ va c'halon) n'ema/edo kavet remet ebet

which by standard descriptions is supposed to be out, i.e. like:

an deiz war lerc'h emañ kavet an/*un den marv er park.

If the contrast is real, it does not matter if the passive is "impersonal" or not, since both prenegation and postverbal subjects should allow the same option of personal/impersonal passives.

Theoretically, if pre-negation subjects with emañ can be indefinite while postverbal ones in the same structure cannot, the prenegation ones do not seem to derive by movement from the postverbal ones but rather by base-generation (broad subjects).

--MJ. (discussion) 27 mars 2017 à 11:45 (CEST): Thanks. I have added this example too. It is possible that semanticaly different forms of emañ demonstrate different syntactic behavior with respect to their subject.