Discussion:L'objet
généralisations sur l'antéposition d'un pronom objet en a-
--Wade (discussion) 3 mars 2021 à 08:17 (CET): "Les pronoms objets incorporés dans des prépositions, de type ac'hanon, anezhi ne peuvent être antéposés en zone préverbale qu'en trégorrois."
What are our sources for this ?
At the moment, I find Stephens 1982: 2.6.3 on Treg., who does not cite anyone, and Schapansky 1996: 3.2 on it would seem from the context the Van. of Guemene, who also does not cite anyone and also argues that the restriction holds even of a + NP partitive subjects and objects in Van.
But all these examples fail to include doubling enclitics, unlike Hewitt's, naturally so for Stephens, because 3rd person doubling enclitics to prepositional suffixes are limited in some areas that seem to include Treg., though not in Vann., and I don't know at the moment about current L.
But the page on the "pronoms echo" says, I cite:
"Le trégorrois permet d'antéposer un pronom objet incorporé dans une préposition pour les personnes 1 et 2. Un pronom écho est alors possible (Gros 1984:119: Ahanout-te a dapan, emezañ). L'asymétrie 1/2 vs. 3 personne sur l'objet focal préverbal est indépendant du pronom écho (contra Hewitt 2001)."
What does this mean ? Does Gros give examples of preposing without echo pronouns, Ahanout a dapan? Or does he say that preposing of 3rd person is impossible even with an echoic, *Anean-han a dapan, or something like that ? That would be strange, unless he has anean-han, gantan-han in the first place... And is whatever Gros says really contra Hewitt, who only asserts one restriction, "Avec emphase en position initiale, pour la 1e et 2e personne, il faut ajouter le pronom" when fronting the a-form -- I guess it really would be contra if Gros gives, Ahanout a dapan.
So do we have any reason to think that "ahanout-te a(?)/e(?) welan" is impossible in Leon or Guemene, or even "anezho-int ..." in those varieties that allow doubling here in the first place ? And if that is possible, maybe we could even see what the rannig looks like in those varieties that keep the distinction at least in mutation -- which includes both Leon and Guemene.
- --MJ. (discussion) 3 mars 2021 à 21:56 (CET): Pour comprendre la ou les questions, je vais d'abord référencer ces mentions et réécrire les géneralisations sur les données. On verra ensuite les données qui manquent. La source de Stephens est elle-même, comme locutrice native du trégorrois.
--Wade (discussion) 4 mars 2021 à 06:38 (CET)Ok, great, let's do it piece by piece... So the next step is to incorporate to the present page the data from the page on pronoms echo and clarify them:
(x) "Le trégorrois permet d'antéposer un pronom objet incorporé dans une préposition pour les personnes 1 et 2. Un pronom écho est alors possible (Gros 1984:119: Ahanout-te a dapan, emezañ). L'asymétrie 1/2 vs. 3 personne sur l'objet focal préverbal est indépendant du pronom écho (contra Hewitt 2001)."
(i) In citation (x), Gros confirms Hewitt for "ahanout-te" on the present page, so it would be good to cite Gros along with Hewitt on the present page (and on the echoics page).
The next step is to understand the meaning of "contra Hewitt 2001" in (x). How does Gros differ from Hewitt ? Does he say that you can have "Ahanout a dapan", without the echoic -te ? That would contradict Hewitt. Or does he say that you can have "Anean-hen a dapan", in 3rd person ? That would supplement but not contradict Hewitt. Or does he say that you can have "Anean a dapan"? That would probably contradict Hewitt's intention but not text.
Clarfying this will also resolve the tension between the present page, "Leur focalisation apparaît par la présence d'un pronom écho pour les personnes 1 et 2", and the echo page cited in (x) "Un pronom écho est alors possible": is an echoic required, or not, or is this unknown ?
question sur les ditransitifs
- [LJ/12/12] Dans le chapitre "ditransitifs", le cas du breton diffère-t-il de l'anglais ?
- I gave him the book = Je lui ai donné le livre = Roet am eus al levr dezhañ ?
