Discussion:Pronom objet direct après le verbe 'avoir'

De Arbres


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

--MJ. (discussion) 29 août 2018 à 14:13 (CEST): I've integrated that. Thanks.

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

--MJ. (discussion) 29 août 2018 à 14:13 (CEST): ? I don't understand.

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.


--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.