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... »)
 
Ligne 6 : Ligne 6 :
  
 
--[[Utilisateur:Wade|Wade]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Wade|discussion]]) 22 mars 2017 à 13:04 (CET)
 
--[[Utilisateur:Wade|Wade]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Wade|discussion]]) 22 mars 2017 à 13:04 (CET)
 +
 +
Sujet indefini prenegation
 +
 +
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 fareañ 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 eman 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]]) 24 mars 2017 à 12:29 (CET)

Version du 24 mars 2017 à 12:29

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 en-unan - être sans conscience": na as infinitival negation?)

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

Sujet indefini prenegation

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 fareañ 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 eman 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).

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