Origins of ACC

[So Haleza Grise]

I'm thinking of ways a noun marker (either a clitic or affix) designating "object" (either direct or indirect) can originate.

A few ideas I can think of: -

• an accusative pronoun;
  a demonstrative or deictic marker;
  a preposition/postposition;
  a verbal object affix.

Are there any other ways that an "accusative" morpheme could develop? Are there any good examples that people can think of?

[zompist]

Sure: from a verb, like Mandarin bǎ, original meaning 'grasp'.

Or an article. German has this-- the definite article tells case and gender even if the noun does not.

[Αυτοβοτα]

It could come from an animacy marker. Who knows, the PIE masculine vs. neuter from animate vs. inanimate could have led to the inanimate marker being borrowed as an accusative onto the masculine/animate, hence why they're identical.

[k1234567890y]

It seems that the accusative marker can also develop from adpositions(and adpositions can develop from verbs(or nouns) )

I have never learned Spanish, but I have read the wikipedia article about differential object marking, and it seems that in Spanish, the preposition a ("to") has also become a mark for direct objects when the direct object is an animate noun(examples taken from wikipedia):

Pedro besó a Lucía. = Peter kissed Lucy.(the preposition a is required in this case, as "Lucy" is a human being)

Pedro vio (a) la gata. = Peter saw the (female) cat.(the preposition a can be used here, but it is optional in this case, as "cat" is something animate and is not a human being)

but

Pedro besó el retrato. = Peter kissed the picture.(the preposition a cannot be used in this case, as "picture" is something inanimate)

[WeepingElf]

It seems that the accusative marker can also develop from adpositions(and adpositions can develop from verbs(or nouns) )

I have never learned Spanish, but I have read the wikipedia article about differential object marking, and it seems that in Spanish, the preposition a ("to") has also become a mark for direct objects when the direct object is an animate noun(examples taken from wikipedia):

Pedro besó a Lucía. = Peter kissed Lucy.(the preposition a is required in this case, as "Lucy" is a human being)

Pedro vio (a) la gata. = Peter saw the (female) cat.(the preposition a can be used here, but it is optional in this case, as "cat" is something animate and is not a human being)

but

Pedro besó el retrato. = Peter kissed the picture.(the preposition a cannot be used in this case, as "picture" is something inanimate)

Yes, exactly that. There is a parallel development in Bengali, which has an animate accusative -ke which is ultimately from PIE *kʷoi 'whom (dative)'. Both Spanish and Bengali thus turned a dative marker into an animate accusative marker.

[k1234567890y]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

[Pole, the]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

[k1234567890y]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

ok thank you

[linguoboy]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

ok thank you

You can see the process at work in contemporary Spanish. Originally, a personal was only used with human objects (thus the name). It has since spread (optionally) to non-human animates, but the criteria vary by speaker. It seems its most common when the animal is "personalised" in some way (such as a pet) and is unidiomatic with those which are unlikely to be perceived affectionately and/or individually (such as insects and other vermin).

[So Haleza Grise]

There is a parallel development in Bengali, which has an animate accusative -ke which is ultimately from PIE *kʷoi 'whom (dative)'. Both Spanish and Bengali thus turned a dative marker into an animate accusative marker.

Does Bengali still distinguish datives?

[k1234567890y]

Subject: Origins of ACC

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

ok thank you

You can see the process at work in contemporary Spanish. Originally, a personal was only used with human objects (thus the name). It has since spread (optionally) to non-human animates, but the criteria vary by speaker. It seems its most common when the animal is "personalised" in some way (such as a pet) and is unidiomatic with those which are unlikely to be perceived affectionately and/or individually (such as insects and other vermin).

Thank you for your information

It seems that analogy is a good way to develop an universal accusative marker....

[----]

Analogy is a very common mechanism of all kinds of linguistic change.

[So Haleza Grise]

It seems that analogy is a good way to develop an universal accusative marker....

"Analogy", narrowly defined, is really the only way you develop a general rule (e.g. "use X to mark accusative"). It's probably more useful to talk in terms of "reanalysis" - instead of a rule that a marks indirect object, it becomes reanalysed as X marking either direct or indirect object.

[So Haleza Grise]

Sure: from a verb, like Mandarin bǎ, original meaning 'grasp'.

Or an article. German has this-- the definite article tells case and gender even if the noun does not.

Thank you - the verb in particular is a fun idea to play around with.

[WeepingElf]

There is a parallel development in Bengali, which has an animate accusative -ke which is ultimately from PIE *kʷoi 'whom (dative)'. Both Spanish and Bengali thus turned a dative marker into an animate accusative marker.

Does Bengali still distinguish datives?

According to Wikipedia, not. Hence, the -ke case, which marks both direct and indirect objects, is called the objective. With inanimate nouns, the objective form is the same as the nominative.

[Pole, the]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

ok thank you

You can see the process at work in contemporary Spanish. Originally, a personal was only used with human objects (thus the name). It has since spread (optionally) to non-human animates, but the criteria vary by speaker. It seems its most common when the animal is "personalised" in some way (such as a pet) and is unidiomatic with those which are unlikely to be perceived affectionately and/or individually (such as insects and other vermin).

Also, in Polish, some recent borrowings like e-mail, SMS, e-book are more likely to be inflected along the masculine animate paradigm (with Acc. identical to Gen.) even though their native counterparts would be inflected like inanimates (Acc. identical to Nom.).

Similarly, penis and its synonyms tend to be animate even though other body parts don't.

[So Haleza Grise]

Similarly, penis and its synonyms tend to be animate even though other body parts don't.

I remember hearing in one of my lectures about an Australian language (not sure which one exactly but I am pretty sure it was Jingulu) with a four-gender system: masculine, feminine, vegetable, neuter. It has penis in the vegetable gender because the prototypical member of that class is gourd-shaped and it generally contains long, thin objects.

[Imralu]

Romanian is similar to Spanish in also using a preposition, in this case pe, which also means 'on', to introduce animate objects.

German Sign Language (DGS), there is a sign usually glossed PAM (Personal Agreement Marker), which I have been glossing as TRANS here, which fills a gap in the grammar. The personal pronouns, which are simple pointing signs, can only be used for subjects, not for objects. Animate objects, when they are pronominal, can only be indicated by verbal agreement. When the verb in the sentence is unable to do this, as many verbs do not have the possibility of agreement, PAM is added. It is essentially an auxiliary, rather than a set of object pronouns, but it fills the role of object pronouns. For example, "I love you" is PRO-1 LOVE PAM-2. It is also usually used in a sentence where the object is a noun but animate and specific, but it is usually separated from the object in the sentence, as in {WOMAN DEM-3}topic PRO-1 KNOW PAM-3 ('I know that woman')

In DGS, this sign has grammaticalised from the sign PERSON. Catalan Sign Language has an almost identical auxiliary which also developed from PERSON and although I haven't seen it mentioned, I've also seen it in Swedish Sign Language and, I think, also Czech Sign Language. In Dutch Sign Language, there is a similar auxiliary derived from GO-TO. Taiwanese Sign Language has two, one from SEE and one from MEET. A whole bunch of sign languages have one derived from pronouns.

More information than you will ever likely need, and in English.

[Šọ̈́gala]

You can see the process at work in contemporary Spanish. Originally, a personal was only used with human objects (thus the name). It has since spread (optionally) to non-human animates, but the criteria vary by speaker. It seems its most common when the animal is "personalised" in some way (such as a pet) and is unidiomatic with those which are unlikely to be perceived affectionately and/or individually (such as insects and other vermin).

Are there grammatical sentences in Spanish which employ "a" twice, once as a dative marker and as an animate accusative marker (on the theme)?

Google Translate thinks so. It translates "I gave the puppy to Evo Morales" as "Le di al cachorro a Evo Morales" (al = a + el). Obviously, animates (and people especially) are rare as the theme of dar. Not sure if there are other ditransitive verbs that take animate themes more often.

[Imralu]

Obviously, animates (and people especially) are rare as the theme of dar.

Not a slave trader, I see ...

[zompist]

FWIW, my wife (native speaker of Spanish) would say "Vi a Bonzo" (Bonzo being a pet), but "Di Bonzo a Evo Morales". But maybe the kids these days say it differently.

[TaylorS]

Thank you, WeepingElf

however, there's another question, how can an accusative marker spread to every word regardless of the definiteness or animacy? by analogy?

Yes.

ok thank you

You can see the process at work in contemporary Spanish. Originally, a personal was only used with human objects (thus the name). It has since spread (optionally) to non-human animates, but the criteria vary by speaker. It seems its most common when the animal is "personalised" in some way (such as a pet) and is unidiomatic with those which are unlikely to be perceived affectionately and/or individually (such as insects and other vermin).

I find it fascinating that we are seeing the development of a new accusative marker in a major Western European language after having lacking such marking for over 1500 years!

[TaylorS]

Similarly, penis and its synonyms tend to be animate even though other body parts don't.

Probably because it has a mind of it's own?