Discussion:Pronom objet direct après le verbe ‘avoir’

De Arbres
Aller à : navigation, rechercher


ternes/groix:

(1) "alternance selon la place du participe à Groix": I think this is only a morphophonological alternation according to whether the clitic is or is not the ultima of the prosodic word which constitutes the domain of accentuation. Certainly Ternes analyses it as allomorphy.

(2) "cette stratégie prépositionnelle concerne autrement uniquement": A ajouter: 3rd person O is coded by a-forms also in remaining analytic tenses under negation, but optionally (unlike in imperative & perfect under negation, where it is so coded obligatorily, i.e. exactly where in positives it would be coded by an enclitic).

--Wade (discussion) 11 août 2018 à 13:49 (CEST)

source de l'analyse d'un passage de Sainte-Barbe

--Wade (discussion) 1 juillet 2018 à 11:19 (CEST): Question about B.S. Barbe enclitic sequence es te hy ... guelet...: Whose analysis is it? Dornlevr krennvrezhoneg? If so what does it say is the verbal form, es (=ach eus?)? Older analysis (Loth, Chrestomathie) seems to have been es te = ez tehe (i.e. tefe), so te is not enclitic.

--MJ. (discussion) 2 juillet 2018 à 10:55 (CEST): The traduction provided is from Pennaod (1969), whose main data provides from Hemon. Dornlevr Krennvrezhoneg is Pennaod (1964).

--Wade (discussion) 8 juillet 2018 à 12:14 (CEST): Yes, but does Pennaod give just a translation, or does he explicitly analyse the form? i.e. is it Penaod's analysis that te is a doubling enclitic and so es is 2SG of HAVE (ac'h eus? the text does not otherwise spell eus as es, but as eux!) -- in contrast to Loth's analysis where te is the root, not the enclitic = tehe (es te = az tehe, az tefe, like en defe, en devehe, ho pe).

--MJ. (discussion) 9 juillet 2018 à 22:18 (CEST): Thanks for asking. I don't remember. I will check once I regain acess to the source.


terminologie

--Jadé Loïc 28 novembre 2013 à 09:57 (CET) Dans cet article se côtoient "pronoms objets" et "pronoms objet". Un choix s'impose.

--MJ. 16 décembre 2013 à 11:32 (CET): OK. Va pour pronoms objet puisque j'ai par ailleurs systématisé pronoms écho.