Discussion:Ordres à objet préverbal

De Arbres
Révision datée du 23 mars 2022 à 09:09 par Mjouitteau (discussion | contributions) (Remplacement de texte — « ...' » par « ... ' »)
(diff) ← Version précédente | Voir la version actuelle (diff) | Version suivante → (diff)


--Wade (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 16:19 (CET): NOTE 1

ex. 3: in bas-vannetais, the 1PL of HAVE like ni boa is special because it is ambiguous between ni hor boa and hor boa elsewhere: ni can be both a proclitic and satisfy the V2 requirement, in direct contrast to other subjects which keep the distinction me em boa vs. X em boa (see Cheveau, thesis; Crahe, thesis, including key data * ni ni boa and contrasts with initial ni boa vs. other person/numbers). So Un taolad bourrapl ni boa gwraet... can in fact be OV, i.e. = standard ur taolad hor boa... , rather than ur taolad ni hor boa... .

--MJ. (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 18:05 (CET): Thanks. I have set this example aside.

George (1990) in an important contrastive study of Middle Cornish & Middle Breton poetry, showing that whereas in MC, OSV... became possible if S was a pronoun and therefore that the pronoun had like become a proclitic, in MB texts of the same date these orders are systematically missing. This is broadly true of MB texts like "trois poemes": apparent OSV is very frequent, but always seems to involve a resumptive.

--MJ. (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 18:05 (CET): I have added reference to this work.


--Wade (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 16:19 (CET): NOTE 2

section morphologie at the beginning: Jannig Stephen's thesis is an earlier study noting the impossibility of object a-forms preverbally and the use of independent pronouns instead.

--MJ. (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 17:11 (CET): Thanks. I have added this reference to her work (p.81). Her example however is only third person, so she could have it OK with other persons.
More on this is on ARBRES here: A#distribution.

lecture focale

--Wade (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 16:19 (CET): NOTE 3

section structure informationelle, ex. 3-4: recent work has emphasised the need to distinguish idioms from collocations, only the former barred from being focalised: see esp. Larson 2017 in LI and ms. "Idioms, Collocations, and Structure" by Benjamin Bruening, as well as Fellbaum's contribution to the HSK handbook of Semantics 2011. By their argumentation, an-er "idioms" in Breton would be collocations, with an er compositionally meaning "appearance"; at least in Seite's work who has various other such uses: e.g. pa veze warnom an er da veza skuizh (Ar march reizh).

--MJ. (discussion) 20 janvier 2019 à 18:00 (CET): Thanks. The full refs have been added.