Luraghi & Kittilä: Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers

1

Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers

Silvia Luraghi, University of Pavia

Seppo Kittilä, University of Helsinki

Abstract

Partitive cases constitutes a rather heterogeneous category. They may be defined formally, when the

notion is confined primarily to languages with a dedicated partitive case, such as Finnish and

Basque. From a functional perspective, in turn, also other languages may have morphemes that

express the same function, e.g. other cases (such as the genitive in several Indo-European

languages) or other formal means (adpositions, verbal cross-reference etc.). Functionally, partitive

case markers can be used to express an array of functions. Typically, they are related to expression

partiality or indefiniteness, but often also to lower transitivity. What is most notable is that there is

no link between partitive cases and a specific grammatical relation: partitive cases can code subjects

and direct objects; in addition, they may code adverbials and appear with adpositions in some

languages. Formal and functional properties of partitive case markers are discussed thoroughly in

this paper from a cross-linguistic perspective. The paper also includes a discussion of the diachrony

of partitive case markers.

Keywords: Partitive case, partitive genitive, indefinitness, low transitivity, part-whole relation

2

1. Introduction

As noted in the introduction, partitive case markers are understood in this book as markers that are

related to the partial meaning, covering also functions such as the expression of indefiniteness and

partial affectedness. This definition is also employed in this chapter. As will become clear, the

notion is not associated with a specific grammatical relation, e.g. partitive object: in is typical for

the cases reviewed in this book to occur with both subjects and objects, and even with certain

adverbials. In this sense, partitives differ from other cases, whose typical function is to signal

grammatical relations (see Blake 2001:1).

Partitive case markers display a wide range of variation cross-liguistically, both in form and in

functions. In the first place, they can be defined both formally and functionally. Following formal

definitions of partitive, we are dealing with languages that have a dedicated partitive case that is

used for coding some specific meanings, such as partial affectedness, indefiniteness, non-telicity

(see below for a more detailed discussion). Examples include languages such as Finnish and Basque

that are well-known for their partitive case. Functional definitions apply to languages that use some

other case form (frequently the genitive) for expressing meanings which are similar to those

expressed by partitive cases in the first type of languages. This kind of partitive is found, for

example, in Ancient Greek and many Slavic languages. In the second place, this array of formally

and functionally defined cases can express a variety of functions across languages, and display

semantic differences. The functions expressed by partitive cases include an obvious quantitative

component, partly related to, or deriving from part-whole relationships, indefiniteness, low or non-

referentiality. In addition, in many languages partitive cases are somehow related to lower

transitivity and/or imperfective aspect. Of these, the expression of quantitativity is among the most

frequent functions of partitive cases across languages.

Partitive case markers are typically highly polysemous: this makes it not an easy task to

3

define their primary functions across languages. With some of the functions, the partitiveness (i.e.

the expression of some sort of „partiality‟) cannot be straightforwardly identified, although a

functional link may be found. As is often the case, diachrony sheds some light on the common

features of partitive case markers. When considered diachronically, most partitive case markers

appear to share a common origin. Indeed, they most often originate in partitive constructions, and,

as we show in section 4, they share a common development, leading them to express meanings that

range from partial quantification to indefiniteness. However, the Oceanic languages offer evidence

for a different origin and different developments, as we also argue in section 4.

Let us start by considering the Finnish partitive case. Among its other numerous functions, the

partitive case can indicate an indefinite number of items (with plural nouns), or an unbounded

quantity of a certain referent (with singular nouns or mass noun), as in:

Finnish (personal knowledge)

(1.) a. naise-t tul-i-vat kotiin

woman-PL come-PST-3PL home:ILL

„The women came home.‟

b. nais-i-a tul-i kotiin

woman-PL-PAR come-PST.3SG home:ILL

„Some (of the) women came home.‟

(2.) a. Aino sö-i leivä-n

Aino eat-PST.3SG bread-ACC

„Aino ate the (whole) bread.‟

b. Aino sö-i leipä-ä

Aino eat-PST.3SG bread-PAR

„Aino ate (some of the) bread.‟

4

In (1b), the Finnish partitive expresses indefiniteness; the group of women in question is not known

in the context. In favorable conditions, the construction may also be related to a part-whole

relationship. This would be possible, for example, in a context where someone is asking whether all

the women (we had been talking about) came, but the answer is that only some of them (i.e., a part)

arrived (see further section 3.2.). In (2), as in (1), accusative vs. partitive variation is connected in

the first place with definiteness. In addition, it can also indicate whether the whole bread or only a

part of it has been eaten, that is, it can indicate a part-whole relation. As expected, the accusative is

used when the whole bread has been consumed, while the partitive indicates that only a part of the

bread has been affected by the given event. The whole-part-reading becomes prominent if we

emphasize the definiteness of the bread by adding a demonstrative like tämän/tätä

(this:ACC/this:PAR) to the clause; if this is not the case, the indefinite reading is more prominent.

Indeed, as noted in the Introduction, the part-whole relation is unambiguously indicated by the

elative case, rather than by the partitive (see the discussion concerning examples (3)-(5) in the

Introduction to this volume).1 Of the two meanings that the Finnish partitive has in (1b), only the

indefiniteness meaning is common to all languages treated in this book. The part-whole meaning is

also present in some other languages, though not in all. In addition, partitives may have a variety of

other functions, as will be discussed below.

The goal of this chapter is to give a cross-linguistic overview of partitive case markers from a

formal, functional and diachronic perspective. The chapter is largely based on the data retrieved

from the other chapters in the volume. This has the consequence that some languages are better

represented than others. The chapter does therefore not aim at presenting any statistical data on the

examined phenomena, but its goal is to give an overview of the partitive markers in the world‟s

languages based on the languages we have data for. First, a typology of the mechanisms employed 1 The examples in (2) may also have other readings, e.g. (2b) „Aino was eating the bread (when something happened)‟

which are not relevant here.

5

for partitive coding will be proposed. This will be followed by a thorough functional typology of

partitive markers based on the functions partitive markers express across languages. In section 4,

the diachrony of the partitive markers will be discussed.

2. Formal typology of partitive markers

In this section, we discuss the formal means that languages use for coding partitive meanings.

Indeed, besides case endings partitive meanings can be coded in several other ways, though

marginally. In the first place, languages that have no morphological case can use adpositions in

their place. In addition, other languages have partitive clitics or partitive articles, and even partitive

verbal affixes, as we illustrate below.

2.1. Case markers

Languages in which partitive meanings are expressed by case can be divided into two groups, based

on whether they have a dedicated partitive case, or whether another case form is used for expressing

partitive meanings. Finnish, Estonian and Basque are well-known for their partitive cases.

Examples are found in (3)-(4) (the relevant elements appear in bold face):

Finnish (personal knowledge):

(3.) Aino ju-o mehu-a

Aino drink-PST.3SG juice-PAR

„Aino is drinking (some) juice.‟

Basque (from Etxeberria, this volume)

6

(4.) Goxoki-rik nahi al duzu?

candy-PAR want Q AUX

„Do you want any candy?‟

Partitive markers typically contrast with nominative/accusative/absolutive markers in

languages that express partitives by cases. Finnish and Basque have a distinct case form labeled as

partitive, whose primary function is to express partitive meanings. Typically, partitive cases are not

directly connected with the encoding of a specific grammatical relation. This is most clear in

Finnish, in which the partitive case can occur with direct objects, as in (2), with subjects of

unaccusative verbs as in (1), and even, occasionally, with subjects of transitive verbs, as in example

(5):

Finnish (Tuomas Huumo p.c.)

(5.) Use-i-ta ihmis-i-ä odott-i satee-ssa bussi-a.

Many-PAR-PL person-PAR-PL wait-PST.3SG rain-INE bus-PAR

„Many people were waiting for the bus in the rain.‟

Thus, in this group of languages, the partitive marker, being a case ending, shares the

morphological distribution of case endings. This means that it cannot co-occur with other case

endings, even though it is not connected with a specific grammatical relation (in some languages, it

can even mark adverbials).

In the second type of languages, another case form (typically the genitive) is associated with

expressing partitive meanings in addition to its basic function. This is the case in many ancient and

modern Indo-European languages, in which the genitive is used as a partitive. Example (6) is from

Avestan, and contains a partitive genitive subject; in example (7) from Ancient Greek we find a

7

partitive genitive object:

Avestan (from Dahl, this volume)

(6.) uruuaranąm zairi.gaonanąm zaramaパm paiti zəmāδa

plants:GEN yellow.coloured:GEN spring:ACC again earth:ABL

uzuxšiieiti

grow.forth:PRS.3.SG

„Yellow-colored plants grow forth again across the earth in the spring.‟ (Avestan, Yašt 7.4)

Ancient Greek (Arist. HA 612a24)

(7.) he dè khelōnパ hótan ékheōs phágçi epesthíei

ART.NOM PTC turtle when snake:GEN eat:SBJV.PRS.3SG eat:PRS.3SG

tパn oríganon

ART.ACC oregano:ACC

„In case they eat snake, turtles take oregano (as an antidote).‟

Modern Russian takes a position in between the two groups, as it features a second genitive,

which is lexically restricted, and mainly functions as a partitive. Note that with nouns that only have

one genitive, the latter can also function as a partitive, as shown in examples (8)-(9):

Russian (adapted from Daniel, this volume)

(8.) Ja že xotel vypit’ soku

1SG PTC want:PST.IMPV.SG drink:INF.PFV juice:GEN2

„I wanted to drink some juice.‟

Russian (personal knowledge)

(9.) Ja vypil vody

1SG drink:PST.PFV.M.SG water:GEN

8

„I drank (some) water.‟

The noun sok „juice‟ in (8) has two genitive forms: soka, the normal genitive of masculine nouns,

and soku, the second genitive (see Daniel, this volume). The word voda „water‟ in (9) only has one

genitive, vody. The meaning expressed by the two genitives in the examples is the same, that is,

they indicate an indefinite quantity: „some juice‟, „some water‟. As in the other Indo-European

languages, the partitive genitive can occur as an object or as a subject. The extent to which the

partitive genitive can function as subject varies from language to language: in Russian, Avestan,

Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek and Lithuanian it only occurs with intransitive (possibly

unaccusative) verbs. In addition, only in Ancient Greek do partitive subjects trigger number

agreement with the verb, while in the other languages they do not. In spite of some restrictions,

however, it remains remarkable that the partitive genitive is not connected with a specific

grammatical relation (subject or object). Its semantic component, partly involving indefiniteness,

overrides grammatical relations.

In the languages of the second group, and to a large extent also in Russian, the genitive case

can be contextually understood as functioning as a partitive. Thus, it not only shares the distribution

of other case markers, but also has a two-fold function: as a true genitive it indicates nominal

modification, and semantic roles of nominal modifiers (typically possessor), while as a partitive it

indicates various notions connected with partitives cross-linguistically, which we discuss further in

section 3.

2.2. Adpositions

Closely related to genuine case markers are adpositions. No languages among those treated in this

book have adpositions that function in the same way as the Finnish partitive case, and can also

9

indicate indefiniteness. A possible example of a preposition which is in the process of becoming an

indefinite marker, and derives from a partitive construction, is Dutch van in so-called „faded

partitives‟. Consider example (10):

Dutch (De Hoop 1998: 194)

(10.) Er lagen van die dikke boeken

there lay:PRS.3PL of DEM.PL thick:PL book:PL

op de tafel

on ART table

„Some thick books lay on the table.‟

According to Zwart (1987), the effect of van in this construction is to cancel the meaning of the

determiner die „those‟, so that the phrase van die boeken functions as a bare plural. De Hoop (1998)

discusses some differences between what she calls „faded‟ partitives, i.e. partitives whose original

meaning is „fading away‟ toward the meaning of indefiniteness, and bare plurals. As her

conclusions are most interesting if set in the framework of the diachronic development of

indefiniteness markers from partitive constructions, we will leave the issue for the time being and

return to it in section 4. Here, it is important to remark that faded partitives described in the

literature always co-occur with demonstrative determiners. Thus, even in this case, one cannot say

that the partitive-indefinite meaning is expressed by the preposition alone.

The Romance languages feature so-called „partitive articles‟, a combination of the preposition

which also expresses genitive meanings (French de, Italian di) and the definite article. This type of

lexical item has undergone complete transcategorization and must be considered an indefinite

article synchronically, with little connection left to the partitive meaning. However, the same

complex of preposition plus article can still have prepositional usage: for this reason we start by

10

giving some examples in this section, but will discuss them in the next. Let us consider examples

(11)-(12):

Italian (personal knowledge)

(11.) La casa dei ragazzi

ART.F.SG home of+ART.M.PL boys

„The boys‟ home.‟

(12.) Mangio dei panini

eat:PRS.1SG of+ART.M.PL sandwiches

„I eat some sandwiches.‟

In (11), the form dei, which consists of the preposition di and the plural masculine form of the

definite article il has a genitive function, as it indicates nominal dependency: the noun ragazzi

modifies the head la casa. Semantically, dei ragazzi indicates a possessor NP. In (12), on the other

hand, dei is an indefinite plural article. In spite of formal identity, the distribution of indefinite

„partitive‟ articles is not the same as the distribution of primary prepositions, as we show in the next

section.

2.3. Articles

According to Budd (this volume) “some Oceanic languages have separate partitive markers for

singular and plural reference, for example Central Pacific languages often have rich paradigms of

articles and the Samoan forms se, ni, and sina shown above are an example of this.” An example is

given in (13):

11

Samoan (from Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 265, quoted in Budd, this volume)

(13.) ‘aumai sina wai

bring ART.PAR.SG water

„Bring a little water.‟

As mentioned in section 2.2, some Romance varieties, notably French and Italian, feature so-

called partitive articles, which are formed with the genitive preposition plus the definite article.

Diachronically, such articles can be shown to have originated within partitive constructions (see

Carlier and Lamiroy, this volume, and below, section 4). For this reason, the name „partitive article‟

is still used, even though these articles have little left to do with partitivity. In addition, in spite of

being analyzable as containing a primary preposition, partitive articles do not share the distribution

of primary prepositions. Primary prepositions normally do not co-occur with each other in French

and Italian: one cannot combine di, a, da, and con in Italian for example. However, primary

prepositions co-occur with the partitive article, as in (14):

Italian (personal knowledge)

(14.) Ho condito l’ insalata con

have:PRS.1SG dress:PTCP.PST.SG ART.F.SG salad with

dell’ olio di oliva

of:ART.M.SG oil of olive

„I dressed the salad with olive oil.‟

Thus, transcategorization is complete in the case of the complex di (or de in French) plus definite

article, even though the same complex still also functions as true preposition as shown in (11).

In Classical Greek, the partitive genitive may or may not co-occur with definite articles.

12

Limited to direct objects of consumption verbs, there seems to be a semantic difference connected

with this type of variation: the definite article occurs in partitive constructions, while the indefinite

interpretation of the partitive genitive is possible when no definite article occurs, as shown by

examples (15)-(16) (see Napoli 2010):

Ancient Greek (Hdt. 1.73.6; 2.37.18–19)

(15.) Kuaxárパs kaì hoi pareóntes daitumónes

Cyaxares:NOM and ART.NOM.PL be.present:PTCP.PRS.NOM.PL guest:NOM.PL

tôn kreôn toútōn epásanto

ART.GEN.PL flesh:GEN.PL DEM.GEN.PL eat:AOR.MID .3PL

„Cyaxares and the guests who were with him ate of that flesh.‟

(16.) ikhthú ōn dè oú sphi éxesti pásasthai

fish:GEN.PL PTC NEG 3PL.DAT may:PRS.3SG eat:INF.AOR

„They may not eat fish.‟

Note however that, in the case of partitive genitive subjects, things apparently work the other way

around, as the indefinite reading seems to be connected with the occurrence of the definite article,

as shown in (17):

Ancient Greek (Arist. HA 513a.9)

(17.) eisì dè kaì tôn perì phúsin hoi toiaútパn mèn ouk

be:3SG PTC and ART.GEN.PL about nature:ACC ART.NOM.PL such:ACC PTC NEG

epragmateúthパsan akribologían perì tâs phlébas

labor:AOR.3PL precision:ACC about ART.ACC.PL vein:ACC.PL

„There are also scientists who have not investigated the veins with so much accuracy.‟

13

2.4. Verbal morphology

In the preceding sections, we have examined languages in which partitive coding is related to

nouns. There are also languages in which partitive meanings are associated with the verb. An

example is provided in (18) by Paamese, where the verbal affix –tei appears in the verb for

expressing a partitive meaning:

Paamese (from Crowley 1982:145, quoted in Budd, this volume)

(18.) Ma-ani-tei raise

eat:1SG.IMM .PAR rice

„I‟d like to eat some rice‟

The Estonian modus obliquus provides us with another example, where the partitive marker

as such is attached to the verb, in this case for expressing hearsay evidentiality:

Estonian (Tamm, this volume)

(19.) a. Mari tule-b.

Mary come-3SG

„Mary will come.‟

b. Mari tule-va-t.

Mary come-PRS.PTCP-PAR

„Allegedly/reportedly, Mary will come.‟

c. Mari armasta-b Jaanus-t.

Mary love:PRS-3SG Janus-PAR

14

„Mary loves John.‟

The marker attached to the verb in (19b) is formally identical to the partitive marker that appears on

nouns, as shown in (19c). This kind of extension seems to be very rare cross-linguistically (Estonian

is the only example we have come across). We return to the possible semantic motivation for this

extension below, section 3.5.

Finally, partitive subjects can bring about special patterns of indexation. In Balto-Finnic

languages, such as Finnish and Estonian, verbal agreement is different with nominative and

partitive subjects. The verb agrees in person and number only with nominative subjects, as the

examples in (20) show:


(20.) a. poja-t tule-vat

boy-NOM.PL come-3PL

„The boys are coming.‟

b. poik-i-a tule-e (* tulevat)

boy-PL-PAR come-3SG

„(Some) boys are coming.‟

In (20a), the verb appears in the third person plural form, because the subject is also in third person

plural form (in colloquial speech, the verb may also appear in the third person singular form in

(20a)). In (20b), in turn, the verb is in the third person singular form, even though the subject is in

plural. The third person singular form can be seen as the least marked or default form, because the

verb appears in this form, for example, also with weather verbs and in existential constructions. It is

in order to note that the lack of verbal agreement is not the primary way of expressing partitiveness

15

in Finnish, as it is related to existential subjects in general. In example (21), an existential subject in

the nominative plural occurs with a singular verb form:

Finnish (personal knowldge)

(21.) Pöydä-llä on shakkinappula-t

table-ADE be:PRS.3SG chessmen-NOM.PL

„There are chessmen [a ste of them] on the table.‟

However, lack of verbal agreement is obligatory with partitive subjects.

A connection between lack of agreement and existential subjects is common across languages.

Among languages surveyed in this book, for example, evidence is provided by Ancient Greek. As

shown in Conti and Luraghi (this volume: 17-19), in Classical Greek partitive genitive subjects

usually trigger agreement with the verb, but existential predicates in the singular may occasionally

co-occur with partitive genitive plural subjects. Note, however, that this is not connected with

partitiveness, as lack of agreement in similar contexts can also occur with nominative subjects, in

much the same way as in Finnish:

Ancient Greek (Xen. Hell. 7.5.17)

(22.) tôn dè polemiōn ên hoùs

ART.GEN.PL PTC enemy:GEN.PL be:IMPF.3SG REL.ACC.PL

hupospóndous apédosan

under.truce:ACC.PL return:AOR.3PL

„And there were some of the enemies, who they returned under a truce.‟

Ancient Greek (Hdt. 7.34.4)

(23.) ésti dè heptà stádioi

16

be:PRS.3SG PTC seven stadia:NOM.PL

ex Abúdou es tḕn apantíon

from Abydos:GEN to ART.ACC opposite.shore:ACC

„There are seven stadia between Abydos and the opposite shore.‟

In (22) the subject tôn polemiōn „enemies‟ is in the partitive genitive, whereas the subject of (23)

heptà stádioi „seven stadia‟ appears in the nominative. Both NPs are plural, but in both sentences

the verb (existential „be‟) is in the third person singular, thus showing that the trigger of non-

agreement is existentiality, rather than case.

3. Functional typology of partitives

In the previous section, formal means used to express partitive meanings were briefly discussed. In

this section, we proceed to examining the functions partitive markers code across the languages

treated in this volume.

3.1. Indefiniteness and non-referentiality

Partitive markers reviewed in this book all express indefiniteness, at least to some extent. When

expressing indefiniteness, the partitive marking a direct object typically contrasts with the

accusative (or the absolutive depending on the basic alignment of the language), which appears if

the reference is to a well-defined and definite set of entities, or to a complete entity. A typical

example is found in (24):

17

(24.) a. opettaja näk-i lapse-t

teacher:NOM see-3SG.PST child-PL.NOM

„The teacher saw the children‟

b. opettaja näk-i laps-i-a

teacher:NOM see-3SG.PST child-PL-PAR

„The teacher saw some children.‟

Example (24b) can simply indicate indefiniteness and unspecificity: the teacher saw some not

previously identified children. Instead, a possible reading of (24a) is that all of the children in a

specific group (that may, for example, have been the topic of conversation previously) have been

seen (see also Larjavaara 1991: 377 for a similar remark). This reading can be emphasized by

adding the quantifier kaikki („all‟, i.e. kaikki lapset „all the children-PL-NOM‟) to the sentence.

Besides the indefinite unspecific reading, example (24b) can refer to a situation where a specific

group of children is also thought of, but in which only a part of the children in that group have been

spotted. Thus, it can be indefinite specific. This reading becomes more evident if we add a sentence

like mutta ei kaikkia heistä („but not all of them‟) to (24b).

Let us now consider example (25):


(25.) äiti hake-e poja-t /poik-i-a

mother pick.up-3SG.PRS boy-ACC.PL /boy-PL-PAR

„The mother will pick up the boys / some (of the) boys.‟

With the accusative, (25) means that the mother will pick up a specific group of boys that has been

established earlier and that is activated in the discourse. With the partitive, in turn, but the identity

18

of the boys to be picked up is not specified and the reference is thus indefinite. The function of the

partitively marked object is therefore more to specify the class of its referent leaving the exact

identity out. Indefiniteness is rather directly related to other partiality meanings reviewed in the next

sections. When the whole group of potential entities is not referred to, it is no longer clear which

members of the group have been mentioned, and the reference is thus indefinite.

As briefly noted above, in (25) the class the object represents is more important than its exact

identity. This is even more pronounced in the case of abstract nouns, as in (26):


(26.) Aino juo limsa-a, muttei vissy-ä

Aino drink:PRS.3SG soft.drink-PAR but.not mineral.water-PAR

„Aino drinks soft drinks, but not mineral water‟

In (26), the function of the object is only to specify the class of the beverage Aino drinks, or does

not drink, but the reference is not to a definite set of soft drinks or mineral water. The partitively

coded object is therefore best seen as non-referential. The use of the accusative would render the

expression referential and definite in (26). This is true of abstract nouns: a count noun object can be

accusative and indefinite, as in Ostin auton „I bought a car-ACC‟. Note however that in this case we

have a specific (and thus referential) indefinite, rather than a non-referential expression as in (26). A

non-referential reading may be coined for the accusative in a sentence like (26) only with adverbials

that make the construction in question generic in nature.2 It is worth noting in this context that a

similar (yet functionally reverse) case is attested in Russian, where the genitive emphasizes

2 Remarkably, this may be more true of singular objects than of plural ones, where the NOM can also have a non-

specific reading: Sihteeri lajittelee kirjeet ‟The secretary sorts [the] letters‟ = any letters arriving at any time, as opposed

to Sihteeri lajittelee kirjeitä [PAR] ‟the secretary is sorting [the/some] letters‟, but the PAR version can also have a

reading similar to (26): ‟the secretary‟s job is to sort letters‟, as plurals behave like mass nouns in many ways.

19

quantity, while the accusative denotes a class (see Paykin and Van Peteghem 2002).

Indefinites are often held to be referential if they are specific, and non-referential if they are

non-specific. However, the possible readings of the Finnish partitive support a more complex, three-

fold distinction, whereby non-specific indefinites are further divided into two different categories. In

ths first one, we have indefinites that do not refer to a previously identified set, but to a certain

quantity, while in the second we have expressions that indicate a class, and not a quantity. Compare

English „I drink wine‟ (non-ref.) vs. „I drank some wine‟ (indef., but not necessarily specific, i.e. not

necessarily belonging to a previously identified quantity). Similar cases attested in other languages,

such as Russian, give further support to the three-fold distinction outlined above. In Russian the

partitive genitive typically gives rise to indefinite readings that can either refer to a specific quantity

(from a previously identified whole), or to a non-specific quantity, as shown in (27a, b)which does

not refer to a previously identified entity/set of entitities, as shown in (27a).

Russian (courtesy K. Paykin)

(27.) a. ja uže poel tvoego supa

1SG.NOM already eat:PST POSS.2SG.GEN soup:GEN

„I already partook of your soup.‟

b. muz kupil piroga s malinoj

husband:NOM buy:PST cake:GEN with raspberry:INST

„My husband bought some cake with raspberry.‟

If Russian needs to stress the class, it uses the accusative case, which also gives an indefinite

non-specific reading, but does not stress quantity:

Russian (courtesy K. Paykin)

20

(28.) ja ljublju pirog s malinoj

1SG.NOM like:PRS.1SG cake:ACC with raspberry:INST

„I like raspberry cake”

Thus, the partitive genitive in Russian only covers a part of the meanings covered by the Finnish

partitive. Summarizing, we have:

TABLE 1. Case and (in)definiteness in Finnish and Russian3

INDEFINITE SPECIFIC INDEFINITE

NON-SPECIFIC

(QUANTITY READING)

INDEFINITE

NON-SPECIFIC

(CLASS READING)

DEFINITE

FINNISH ACCUSATIVE - - - +

PARTITIVE + + + -

RUSSIAN ACCUSATIVE - - + +

GENITIVE + + - -

Indefiniteness is one of the meanings associated with partitives also in existential

constructions. Two examples are provided in (29) and (30):

Estonian (from Tamm, this volume)

(29.) Taigna sees on pipar-t

batter.GEN in be:PRS.3SG pepper-PAR

„There is (some) pepper in the batter.‟


3 With the term „quantity‟ in this table we refer to unbounded quantity. Note further that the position of the accusative

as only definite refers to mass nouns and to plurals. In the case of singular count nouns, the accusative can have an

indefinite specific reading, or even non-specific indefinite, as in Liisa haluaa tavata miljonäärin „Liisa wants to meet a

millionaire-ACC‟ (implaying that any millionaire will do); see Vilkuna 1992.

21

(30.) Bada atzerritar-rik Donostian!

yes.is foreigner:PAR Donostia.in

„There are foreigners in Donostia!‟

The functional link between indefiniteness and existential constructions is easily accounted

for. The function of existential constructions is to refer to the existence of an entity at a specified

location. The entity referred to is either introduced by an existential construction or the class of the

entity, not its identity is more important, which makes the reference indefinite. For example, in (29),

the fact that there is some pepper in the batter is more important than the exact identity of the

pepper; it is not relevant whether the pepper has been mentioned previously or not. If the identity of

the given entity is known, it is typically the topic of conversation and we then have a locative

construction, where the given entity functions as subject or topic. This difference is manifest also in

English in constructions such as there is a book on the table (existential construction) vs. the book

is on the table (locative construction). Definiteness (or rather the lack of it) is especially true of

predicate adjectives, which in Finnish copular constructions are marked with the partitive if the

subject is a mass noun or a plural, as in (31):

Finnish

(31.) a Tee on musta-a.

tea:NOM be:PRS.3SG black-PAR

„The tea is black.‟

b. Pöytä on musta.

table.NOM be:PRS.3SG black.NOM

„The table is black.‟

c Pöydä-t o-vat must-i-a.

22

table-PL be-3PL black-PL-PAR

„The tables are black.‟

In (31a), nominative would be rather infelicitous, if it is possible at all, while in (31b), the partitive

would yield a rather ungrammatical construction. In (31c), in turn, both are possible, even though

partitive coding of the predicate adjective seems more natural. Note that here the use of the partitive

on the predicate noun reflects a property of the subject (denoting a mass noun or an unbounded

quantity of countable entities), and obviously not of the predicate noun itself, which, being an

adjective, predcates a quality of the subject and is per se non-referential.

3.2. ‘Part of’-meanings in partitive constructions

In some languages, partitive case markers are also used in partitive constructions, or when

indicating a part-whole relation. As discussed in the Introduction and in section 1 of this chapter,

this is partly the case for the Finnish partitive; in addition, the partitive genitive of several Indo-

European languages also occurs in partitive constructions. Indeed, in various languages the usage in

partitive constructions seems to be the starting point from which partitive case markers originated.

We discuss this issue thoroughly in section 4.

However, the connection between partitive markers, partitive constructions, and part-whole

relations is not universal. In other languages, such as Basque and Oceanic, partitives occur in such

constructions to different extents. In Basque, the partitive case does not occur either in

pseudopartitive or in partitive constructions. Consider examples (32)-(34):

Basque (courtesy Borja Aritzimuño)

(32.) Tarta zati bat

23

cake piece one

„A piece of (a) cake.‟

(33.) Tarta horren zati bat

cake that:GEN piece one

„A piece of that cake.‟

(34.) Tarta horretatik zati bat

cake that:ABL piece one

„A piece of that cake.‟

In (32), the interpretation is unspecific, hence non-referential: this is a pseudopartitive construction,

similar to part-whole constructions with unspecific meaning; in (33) the reading is specific, and

again the construction is similar to part-whole constructions with specific meaning, as in ibai-ertz

(river-edge) „river bank‟ or in ibaiaren ertz (river:DET.GEN edge:DET) ‟the bank of the river‟. The

latter NPs are partitive constructions but, while the former features the genitive, the second is

formed with the ablative in -tik (archaic -rik), which is etymologically connected with the partitive

ending -(r)ik. Thus, the existence of some fossilized expressions and old attestations of a partitive-

like use of -(r)ik with some quantifiers, e.g. eskerrik asko [thank(s)-PAR many] „thank you (very

much), many thanks‟, lit. „a lot of thanks‟, might indicate that this suffix has been used in partitive

constructions at an unattested stage of the language (Borja Aritzimuño, p.c.).

In Oceanic languages, part-whole relations are expressed through the genitive case. Examples

are:

Bierebo (courtesy P. Budd)

(35.) Galgalnaviniada

Scale.na.fish

24

„Fish scale(s)‟

Lewo (from Early 1994:225)

(36.) lepas-ne-u na marua

side-POSS-1SG.P GEN right

„My right side.‟

This is quite distinct from the use of the so-called partitive particle ta, which indicates an indefinite

quantity of a referent, as in (37):

Bierebo (courtesy P. Budd)

(37.) Ne-saniada ta

1SG.S-eat.fish PAR

„I‟ll eat some fish.‟

Apparently, partitive constructions are not easily available in Oceanic. In Araki, for example, the

partitive marker is re, from an earlier *te (see section 4 for possible etymologies). According to

Alex François (p.c.), “there is no simple way to say „give me some of that cake‟, at least none using

a genitive construction of any sort. One would need a periphrasis such as „Cut that cake and give

me some.‟ The first object would not be marked with re since it is [+def][+spec]; the second object

would have re since it is [-spec]. The same would apply to something like „Buy these balloons and

give me one.‟: 'one' would be expressed by re, except that this /re/ is under-specified for number, so

the sentence would be ambiguous between give me one and give me some. It can be disambiguated

with a numeral following re.”

3.3. Numerals and quantifiers

25

Partitives accompany numerals in languages such as Finnish and Estonian. Moreover, in Basque,

they occur with certain quantifiers, such as „many‟, and in Finnish certain postpositions require

partitive. Consider (38) and (39):


(38.) kolme poika-a / sata euro-a / puolitoista vuot-ta

three boy-PAR / hundred Euro-PAR / one.and.a.half year-PAR

„Three boys/a hundred Euros/one and a half years.‟


(39.) Zeresan-ik asko / gizon-ik aski / lagun-ik franko

gossip-PAR many / man-PAR enough / friend-PAR many

„many gossiping / enough men / many friends.‟

Similarly, in Russian the genitive occurs in the same contexts, as shown in (40):


(40.) Pjat’ / mnogo jablok / sto / mnogo rublej

five many apple:GEN.PL hundred many rubl:GEN.PL

„Five/many apples / a hundred/many rubles.‟

The use of the partitive, or of the partitive genitive, with numerals is rather easily accounted

for, because numerals favor partitive constructions, as they choose a certain number of entities from

a whole. For example, „three boys‟ means „three entities from the whole (universal) group of boys‟.

Moreover, it seems that the use of the partitive with numerals follows quite naturally the

26

grammaticalization path of partitive from the ablative, i.e. „two boys‟ (partitive) originates from

„two of the boys‟ (ablative). Quantifiers are functionally close to numerals, and it comes thus as no

surprise that certain quantifiers also govern the partitive.

3.4. Negation and interrogatives

The use of partitives or partitive genitives with negation is also well-known and also widely studied

(see Miestamo, this volume for a more detailed discussion and references). Examples are given in

(41)-(43):

Estonian (Tuomas Huumo, p.c.)

(41.) Ta ei tap-nud mesilas-t

s/he NEG kill- CNG bee-PAR

„S/he did not kill the bee.‟


(42.) Maia-k ez du ardo-rik edan.

Maia-ERG NEG AUX wine-PAR drink

„Maia has not drunk wine.‟


(43.) Maria ne pila vina

Maria:NOM NEG drink:PST wine:GEN

„Maria didn‟t drink (any) wine.‟

Examples in (41)-(43) are negated sentences and their object thus appears in the partitive (or

genitive) case. The close relation of partitives and negation is rather easily accounted for. The

27

function of negation is, naturally, to state that the event/state referred to did not occur. This makes

the patient of negated clauses indefinite, because the reference is not to a specific entity, but rather

to any entity that corresponds semantically to the direct object referent. In other words, the

reference of the object in (41)-(43) is to any bee or any wine, not to a specific bee or portion of

wine. The function of the object argument is thus to specify the class of the entity not targeted by

the denoted event. Its function is thus very similar to that of the partitively coded object in (26).

Note that In Finnish and Estonian, the quantity is under the scope of negation and equals to

zero. The Finnic (bare) partitive of negation cannot express indefinite quantities only outside the

scope of negation such as „Some people did not come‟, as Vilkuna (1992) points out. Consider

example (44):

(44.) Viera-i-ta ei tul-lut

guest-PL-PAR NEG.3SG come-PTCP

„No guests came.‟

Vilkuna points out that if the partitive vieraita were not under the scope of negation, then the

reading would be „some guests did not come‟, but this is not the case - thus even clause-initial

negated partitive subjects are under the scope of negation and therefore non-referential.

Moreover, partitives are attested in interrogatives in certain languages:

Basque (from Exteberria, this volume)

(45.) Goxoki-rik nahi al duzu?

candy:PAR want Q AUX

„Do you want any candy?‟

Estonian (from Huumo and Lindström, this volume)

28

(46.) a. Kas su-l telefoni on?

Q 2SG.ADE telephone:PAR be:PRS.3SG

„Do you have a telephone?‟

b. Kas Renate-t on seal?

Q Renate:PAR be:PRS.3SG there

„Is Renate there?‟

The semantic connection between interrogatives and indefiniteness is also rather straightforward,

which explains the occurrence of cases such as (45) and (46). Indefiniteness is very evident in (45)

and (46a), where the reference is to any piece of candy or any telephone. The class of the entity

referred to is also here more important than its exact identity. Example in (46b) is more intriguing,

because proper names are inherently definite, but nevertheless partitive appears in (46b) as well. In

Finnish, partitive would normally not appear in (46b), but it is not ruled out here either. An

additional reading is that we are looking for someone named Renate, and anyone with that name

will do. Also otherwise the use of the partitive in interrogatives is more productive in Estonian than

in Finnish (see Huumo and Lindström, this volume for more details). This is, however, not the

context in which (46b) is used, which means that indefiniteness is not the triggering factor of

partitive use in (46b), even though its contribution to the use of partitive is very important in the

other cases.

3.5. Non-assertive modality

Closely related to the use of partitive cases with negations or interrogatives is its possible

occurrence with moods other than the indicative. Indeed, negative, interrogative and non-declarative

sentences share the common feature that they are not asserted. An example of partitive case with

29

non-assertive modality is represented by the usage of the partitive in the protasis of conditional

sentences in Basque, as shown in the following example:

Basque (from Ariztimuño, this volume)

(47.) Inon zorte txarr-ik izan baldin ba-du, Interlagos zirkuitu-an izan

anywhere luck bad-PAR have COND if-AUX .3SG.3SG Interlagos track-LOC have

du

AUX.3SG.3SG

„If he has had bad luck anywhere, he has had it in the Interlagos track.‟

In Estonian, as mentioned in section 2.4 above, the partitive suffix can be added to verbs to

give an evidential meaning. As already noted, in Estonian partitives also appear in questions, where

the source of information is also less direct than in declaratives, which may explain the use of the

partitive for coding hearsay evidentials. In both cases, we are dealing with something less directly

observable than with the accusative, for example.

Even in Finnish, partitives may have an irrealis flavor in some cases. For example, a partitive

sounds a bit more natural in the conditional mood, as in the examples below:


(48.) oli-si-ko sinu-lla tä-tä kirja-a?

have-COND-Q 2SG-ADESS this-PAR book-PAR

„Would you/do you happen to have this book?‟

In (48), the speaker is looking for a very specific book, which means that the use of the partitive is

not determined by indefiniteness. The nominative (which is the case of the possessum in Finnish

30

possessive constructions) is also possible in (48), but it seems a bit less probable than the partitive.

The use of the partitive adds a nuance of doubt to the question, i.e. the speaker does not have any

kind of evidence for the fact that the addressee would actually have the book s/he is asking for.

With the nominative, a similar expectation may be present. In the indicative, for its part, the

nominative is more felicitous, even though partitive cannot be ruled out. In other words, there is a

tendency for the partitive to be favored in the irrealis (conditional) mood, but this is not

grammatically required in any way. It is also important to bear in mind that this kind of mood-

conditioned variation between accusative and partitive is limited to interrogatives, it is not possible

in declarative clauses.

3.6. Imperfective aspect

One of the most important functions of partitives related directly to verbal meanings is illustrated by

aspect, which is associated with partitives in Finnish and Estonian. Also in this case, partitives are

in variation with the accusative case; partitive expresses imperfective aspect (and/or unbounded

activity), while the accusative is associated with perfective aspect (and/or bounded activities).

Consider (49):


(49.) a. Assistentti kirjoitt-i väitöskirja-n

Assistant:NOM write-PST.3SG dissertation-ACC

„The assistant wrote a dissertation.‟

b. Assistentti kirjoitt-i väitöskirja-a

Assistant:NOM write-PST.3SG dissertation-PAR

„The assistant was writing a dissertation.‟

31

Finnish lacks aspect as a verbal category, but with some transitive verbs allowing an accusative

object aspect can be expressed by case.4 Accusative case is associated with perfective aspect and

completed events; the reading of (49a) is that the dissertation in question was finished. In (49b), for

its part, aspect is imperfective, which means that the activity in question was not finished.

A somewhat different example of an aspectual variation is illustrated in (50):

Estonian (from Metslang, this volume)

(50.) a. Ost-si-me oma tehnika / masina-d Austria-st.

buy-PST.1PL our technology:GEN / machine-NOM.PL Austria-ELA

„We bought our technology/machines from from Austria.‟

b. Osta-me Austria-st tehnika-t / masina-id

buy-PRS.1PL Austria-ELA technology-PAR.SG / machine-PAR.PL

„We are buying technology/machines from Austria.‟

In (50), both aspect and quantity are relevant to object coding. In (50a), aspect and quantity are

bounded (according to the terminology Metslang is using), because of which the object appears in

the genitive or in the nominative (the latter is possible and also obligatory in the plural). In (50b), in

turn, the aspect and quantity are unbounded, and the object thus appears in the partitive. Differently

from (49) the event in (50b) is not necessarily uncompleted, but it rather refers to a habitual event

(see also (51)). This habitual reading is possible also in Finnish (see Huumo 2010 for a more

detailed discussion); with the accusative the sentence would get a „continuously all‟ (Huumo 2010:

99) reading meaning that we always buy our technology from Austria. An example of the partitive

in a habitual construction is found in (51): 4 It is interesting to note that in Russian, the variation in the object coding is not sensitive to aspect, as shown by Paykin

(this volume). Aspect is marked primarily on the verb in Russian, and nominal marking has no special relevance.

32


(51.) a. Matti maala-a talo-n

Matti paint-PRS.3SG house-ACC

„Matti is painting a/the house.‟

b. Matti maala-a talo-ja

Matti paint-PRS.3SG house-PAR.PL

„Matti paints houses (e.g. as his profession).‟

In (51a), Matti has finished painting a specific (definite or indefinite) house that is known in the

context, which makes the NP in question referential and motivates the use of the accusative.

Example (51b), in the reading given in the translation, does not refer to a concrete event, but to a

habitually occurring event that we are not witnessing as we speak. Notably, (51b) is also lower in

transitivity, as the direct object is non-referential (see Gerstner-Link 1998 for a more detailed

discussion of the lower transitivity of habituals). Non-referentiaity is also relevant to the use of the

partitive in this case.

3.7. Low transitivity

Aspect, discussed in the previous section, is also directly related to transitivity, as has been shown,

for example, by Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252). Perfective aspect (and thus successfully

completed events) is related to high transitivity and imperfective aspect (on-going events, or events

that were not completed successfully) to lower transitivity. Partitive coding is also in many other

ways associated with lower degrees of transitivity. Partitives, for example, appear with many low

transitivity-predicates in languages such as Finnish and Estonian, in which case there is no

33

aspectual alternation with the accusative, while the partitive genitive occurs with certain low

transitivity verbs in Ancient Greek and Indo-Aryan languages. In this section, the use of partitives

as markers of lower transitivity is discussed in more detail. The discussed cases include

partial/lower affectedness, the already noted use of partitives with many low transitivity-predicates,

and lower degrees of agency.

3.7.1. Partial/lower affectedness

Partial affectedness means in the present context that only a part of an entity is affected, as opposed

to the whole entity. The affected part can be thoroughly affected, but affectedness concerns only

this part of the entity in question. Examples are (8) and (9) from Russian, (15), (52b) from Vedic,

(53) from Finnish and (54a) from Ancient Greek:

Vedic (from Dahl, this volume)

(52.) a. ápaḥ sómam. ástam indra prá yāhi

drink:AOR.2SG soma:ACC home:ACC Indra:VOC go:IMP.2SG

„You have drunk the soma. Go home, Indra!‟ (RV III 53.6)

b. arvāṅ éhi sómakamaṃ tvā āhur

hither come:IMP.2SG soma.lover:ACC 2SG.ACC say:PRF.3PL

ayáṃ sutás tásya pibā mádāya

this:NOM juice:NOM it:GEN drink:IMP.2SG inebriation:DAT

„Come hither! They say you are a lover of soma. This is the juice. Drink

of it to inebriation.‟ (RV I 104.9)


(53.) a. Lapsi sö-i kaku-n / kakku-a

34

child:NOM eat.PST.3SG cake-ACC / cake-PAR

„The child ate the cake/ some cake.‟

b. Opettaja maala-si talo-n / talo-a

teacher:NOM paint-PST.3SG house-ACC / house-PAR

„The teacher painted the house/a part of the house.‟

Ancient Greek (Thuc. 1.30.2; 5.31.3)

(54.) a. pleúsantes es Leukáda tḕn Korinthíōn apoikían

sail:PTCP.PRS.NOM.PL to Leucas:ACC ART.ACC Corinthian:GEN.PL colony:ACC

tês gês étemon

ART.GEN land:GENravage:AOR.3PL

„Sailing to Leucas, the colony of the Corinthians, they ravaged part of the country.‟;

b. hoi バleîoi ... Lepreatōn tḕn gên étemon

ART.NOM.PL Elean:NOM.PL Lepreate:GEN.PL ART.ACC land:ACC ravage:AOR.3PL

„The Eleans ravaged the land of the Lepreates.‟

The examples (52) and in (53a) cointain verbs of consumption. In (53a), the use of the accusative

indicates that the whole cake was eaten, while the partitive is used when only a piece was

consumed. In (52a), reference is made to a bounded quantitiy of soma, while in (52b) it is said that

an unspecified quantity of soma must be drunk up to the achievement of a certain state (a verb of

consumption also occurs in (15)). In (53b), the accusative is used when the whole house has been

painted, while the partitive appears when only a part of the house has been affected by the painting

event. In both cases, the affected part has been thoroughly affected (i.e. the given piece of cake has

been fully consumed and the part of the house in question has been fully painted), but the difference

to total affectedness follows from the fact that the whole entity has not been targeted and the rest

remains unaffected. Similarly, in (54a) it is said that only a part of the country has been ravaged,

35

while the accusative in (54b) indicates that the whole referent has been affected.

Partial affectedness is especially connected with direct objects that are incremental themes.

An example is provided in (55):


(55.) Vahtimestari lämmitt-i luentosali-n / luentosali-a

Janitor:NOM heat-PST.3SG lecture.hall-ACC / lecture.hall-PAR

„The janitor heated the lecture room completely/lecture room somewhat.‟

Example in (55) illustrates a rather clear instance where an entity as a whole is affected, but the

overall degree of affectedness varies according to which of the two cases is used. Accusative occurs

if the lecture hall has been completely heated and the temperature has reached the desired level,

while the use of the partitive means that the lecture hall has become somewhat warmer than it was,

but the temperature aimed at has not yet been reached. In other words, the lecture hall undergoes a

more radical change-of-state in the former case. The reading that only a part of the lecture hall has

been heated is perhaps possible, but it is far less likely than in (55).

The partitive may also have the reading that the agent failed to complete the event s/he

attempted. Examples from Ancient Greek and from Finnish are given in (56)-(58) (see also Dahl,

this volume, for similar cases in Indo-Aryan languages).

Ancient Greek (Hom. Il . 23.805; Il . 6.466).)

(56.) hoppóterós ke phthêisin orexámenos khróa kalón

INDF.NOM.SG PTC overtake:SBJV.AOR.3SG reach:AOR.PTCP.NOM flesh:ACC fair:ACC

„Which of the two will first reach the other's fair flesh.‟

(57.) hṑs eipṑn hou paidòs oréxato phaídimos Héktōr

36

so say:AOR.3SG 3SG.GEN child:GEN reach:AOR.3SG glorious:NOM Hector:NOM

„So saying, glorious Hector tried to reach his boy.‟


(58.) Mestästäjä ampu-i linnu-n / lintu-a

hunter:NOM shoot-3SG.PAST bird-ACC / bird-PAR

„The hunter shot a bird/at a bird.‟

In (56) and (57) the verb orégein „reach‟ occurs once with the accusative and once with the

genitive. While in (56) the accusative indicates that the fighter will try to actually reach each other

with their weapons, in (57) the genitive indicates that the father only stretched out his arms to reach

his boy, but was not able to actually reach him (the following context says that the boys moved

back scared by the father‟s weapons). In (58), the accusative codes, expectedly, an event where the

hunter successfully shoots (and hits) the bird thus causing its death. With the partitive, the

construction has two (likely) readings. The first of these is a lower affectedness reading very similar

to that in (58); the hunter shot a bird, but only wounded it, i.e. the degree of affectedness is lower

than if the bird had been killed. The other possible reading, relevant in this context, is that the

hunter tried to shoot the bird, but missed. In this case, the hunter fails to complete the event s/he

was aiming at, because the bird has not been hit and killed. The use of the accusative cannot yield

this reading. In Indo-Aryan languages, the use of the genitive as an object marker with a partitive

meaning is related to underspecification of the change of state feature, and the use of the partitive

with subject may yield a conative-like reading meaning that the subject referent is attempting to

perform an action (Dahl, this volume).

3.7.2. Use with low transitivity predicates

37

Thus far, cases have been examined in which the partitive has been related (primarily) to a low

degree of affectedness. In such cases, the partitive varies with the accusative and its function is thus

to underline a decrease in affectedness that would otherwise not be inferable. In this section, we

examine cases in which the partitive appears with predicates ranking inherently lower for

transitivity. What is important in the present context is that all these verbs are low transitivity

predicates, which do not indicate a change of state.

In Finnish, for example, typical examples of verbs taking partitive objects include mental

verbs or verbs of cognition and experience, as in (59):


(59.) a. Lapsi rakasta-a äiti-ä-än

child:NOM love-PRS.3SG mother-PAR-POSS.3SG

„The child loves his/her mother.‟

b. Henkilö ajattele-e kesä-ä

person:NOM think-PRS.3SG summer-PAR

„A person is thinking about the summer.‟

Verbs rakastaa („love‟) and ajatella („think‟) normally govern the partitive in Finnish, the only

exception being resultative constructions (see Introduction). In this respect, they differ from many

of the other verbs examined thus far which allow variation between partitive and accusative. The

obligatory partitive coding may be claimed to follow from the inherently low (semantic) transitivity

associated with the verbs, for example in the spirit of Hopper and Thompson (1980). Verbs

governing partitive only denote events that do not involve a canonical agent or a saliently affected

patient, which explains their infelicity with the accusative that can be seen as a marker of high

transitivity. Similar examples to those are attested also in Estonian (see Metslang, this volume) and

38

Indo-Aryan (see Dahl, this volume).

Verbs of emotion and perception frequently take the partitive genitive in Ancient Greek as

well. The verb „love‟ érasthai, for example, always takes a genitive stimulus, as shown in (60):

Ancient Greek (Hom.Il. 16.182)

(60.) tês dè kratùs argeïphóntēs ērásat(o)

DEM.GEN.SG.F PTC mighty:NOM slayer.of.Argus:NOM love:AOR.3SG

„Mighty Hermes loved her.‟

With some other low transitivity verbs, the genitive can alternate with the accusative in Ancinet

Greek, but no semantic difference is detectable. This is the case with akoúein „hear‟ in (61) (see

further Conti and Luraghi, this volume):

Ancient Greek (Hom. Od. 12.265-266)

(61.) mukパthmoû t’ パkousa boôn aulizomenáōn oiôn

lowing:GEN PTC hear:AOR.1SG cow:GEN.PL lodge:PTCP.PRS.GEN.PL sheep:GEN.PL

te blパkhパn

PTC bleating:ACC

„I heard the lowing of the cattle lying (in the courtyard) and the bleating of the sheep.‟

3.7.3. Lower degree of agency

In 3.7.1.and 3.7.2., cases were discussed in which the use of partitives is somehow related to a

lower degree of affectedness .The mirror image of this is attested in languages, where partitives

may also mark a decrease in agency. An example is (62b):

39


(62.) a. Aino laula-a

Aino sing-PRS.3SG

„Aino is singing.‟

b. Aino-a laula-tta-a

Aino-PAR sing-CAUS-PRS.3SG

„Aino feels like singing.‟

Example (62a) is a normal intransitive construction, where the subject referent performs an act of

singing willfully and on purpose. In (62b), in turn the only participant available feels an urge to

sing, but is not necessarily singing, when (62b) is uttered. The degree of agency associated with the

agent participant is thus lower than in (62a).

A lower degree of agency is also reflected in what Kempf (2007:98ff) has labeled “the

partitivus of a weakened activity”. Tabakowska (this volume) discusses the alternation between the

accusative and the partitive genitive in Polish in cases in which no partitivity seems to be involeved.

Compare the following examples:

Polish (from Tabakowska, this volume)

(63.) a. Panie, wysłuchaj nasze modlitwy

Lord:VOC hear:IMP.2SG our:ACC.PL prayers:ACC.PL

b. Panie, wysłuchaj naszych modlitw

Lord:VOC hear:IMP.2SG our:GEN.PL prayers:GEN.PL

„Lord, hear our prayers.‟

40

The meaning of the two sentences is the same, but the degree of agency differs. As Tabakowska

remarks, “while the wysłuchać + Nominal:GEN construction implies an interpretation in terms of

low involvement of the agent in an event, the wysłuchać + N:ACC evokes the “holistic”

interpretation, involving full engagement in an activity or/and its all-embracing character.”

Partitive or genitive NPs can also function as non-canonical subjects of so-called impersonal

constructions in some languages. In Finnish, the partitive NP in such constructions indicates the

experiences, as in (64):


(64.) a. minu-a hävettä-ä

1SG-PAR feel.ashamed-PRS.3SG

„I feel ashamed.‟

b. minu-a janotta-a

1SG-PAR be.thirsty-PRS.3SG

„I am thirsty.‟

Examples in (64) are rather similar to those in (62). However, the relevant difference between (62)

and (64) is that examples in (64) lack an agentive counterpart, and their predicates refer to

inherently uncontrollable events (or rather states). Examples in (64) can thus be seen as instances of

impersonal constructions, and their only participant appears obligatorily in the partitive.

In Ancient Greek, some impersonal constructions feature dative experiencers and nominative

or genitive stimuli. Genitive stimuli share some features of subjects, and can qualify as non-

canonical subjects. An example is given in (65):

Ancient Greek (Hom.Od. 9.19-20)

41

(65.) eím’ Oduseùs Laertiádパs, hòs …

be:PRS.1SG Odysseus:NOM.SG son.of.Laertes:NOM.SGREL.NOM.SG

ánthrṓpoisi mélō ...

man:DAT.PL care:PRS.1SG

„I am Odysseus, son of Laertes, of great interest to men.‟

3.8. Other uses

So far, the most typical functions partitives have across languages have been illustrated and

discussed. We end the functional typology by discussing some other, sporadic uses that are harder

to classify under one heading than the functions examined thus far. The examined functions include

the use of partitives with certain postpositions, and the use of partitives in adverbial functions.

In Finnish, the partitive and the genitive are the cases typically governed by adpositions. The

use of the partitive becomes very understandable especially if we consider the variation between

genitive and partitive with so-called bipositions (illustrated in (66b)) that can function both as

prepositions and postpositions. Aspect (among other things) is also relevant to this variation. In

(66b), the partitive appears in the prepositional construction, whose meaning is „all over the

city/around the city‟. The combination genitive + ympäri, in turn, appears in

sentences/constructions coding boundedness, such as „he ran around the city‟ (he circled the city).

In other words, partitive is also here associated with unboundedness.


(66.) a. minu-a vastaan / Turku-a kohti

1sG-PAR against / Turku-PAR towards

„Against me/towards Turku.‟

42

b. ympäri kaupunki-a / kaupungi-n ympäri

around city-PAR / city-GEN around

„Around in the city, all over the city/around the city.‟

In Homeric Greek, the partitive genitive also occurs with prepositions. It indicates a single

path, rather than multiple path, as indicated by the accusative. Examples are:

Ancient Greek (Hom. Il. 13.202-204; Il . 17.283)

(67.) kephalēn d’ hapalês apò deirês kópsen Oïliádēs ...

head:ACC PTC tender:GEN from neck:GEN cut:AOR.3SG son.of.O.:NOM

hêke dé min sphairēdòn helixámenos di’

throw:AOR.3SGPTC 3SG.ACC like.a.ball roll:PTCP.AOR.MID .NOM through

homílou

crowd:GEN

„The son of Oïleus cut the head from the tender neck, and with a swing he sent it rolling

through the throng like a ball.‟

(68.) helixámenos dià bēssas

turn:PTCP.AOR.MID.NOM through glen:ACC.PL

„(A wild boar) turning around through the glens.‟

As noted in Conti and Luraghi (this volume) “in (67) and (68) the same verb form, helixámenos,

indicates two different types of motion. The head of the champion in (67), cut off from his neck,

rolls on itself along a straight trajectory inside an area defined by the crowd: here, the genitive

landmark is a surface which can be divided into parts. Hence, the trajectory can be traced down.

The wild boar in (68), instead, runs around in different directions among the glens. The accusative

43

landmark does not allow for precise tracking of the trajector, and movement is performed at

random.”

Finally, partitives have a number of adverbial functions across languages and they are used

for coding, for example, causal and spatial meanings. Examples from Finnish are given in (69) (see

also Ariztimuño López, this volume, for similar cases in Basque and Conti and Luraghi, this

volume, for Ancient Greek):


(69.) a. hän tek-i se-n ilkeyt-tä-än

s/he do-PST.3SG it-ACC nastiness-PAR-POSS.3SG

„S/he did it out of nastiness.‟

b. hän on suku-a minu-lle

s/he be:PRS.3SG family-PAR 1SG-ALL

„S/he is of my family.‟

c. Ville tule-e koto-a

Ville come-PRS.3SG home-PAR

„Ville comes from home.‟

In (69), partitives express different kinds of adverbial functions, such as causal (a) and spatial

meanings (c), and they may also appear in so-called inclusion clauses functionally resembling

predicate nominals.). All of the examples in (69) manifest the spatial origins (a separative case) of

the Finnish partitive rather well. The spatial origin is most evident in (69c), where the partitive is

still used in a separative function; kotoa is one of the lexicalized uses of the old partitive meaning

still present in the modern language. In (69a), the original semantics is also rather manifest, because

the denoted event may be said to originate from nastiness, and ablative (or a similar

44

case/adposition) could be used to express this function in languages without partitive. Finally, in

(69b), the referent of the subject comes from my family, which also underlines the spatial origin of

the partitive.

In Basque, the adverbial usage of partitives possibly goes back to its origin as an ablative. It is

still presevred in a small set of adverbs, listed in (70):

Basque (from Aritzimuño, this volume)

(70.) alde-rik alde : „from one side to the other, right through‟

esku-rik esku : „from hand to hand, hand in hand‟

herri-rik herri : „from town to town‟

egun-ik egun : „day by day, from day to day‟

In Ancient Greek, the partitive genitive occurs in some time adverbials, such as nuktós (night:GEN)

„at night‟, and, limited to Homer, in space adverbial as well, in which it indicates locative (see

further Conti and Luraghi, this volume).

3.9. Semantic map of partitives

We aim at describing the meaning of partitive morphemes as a radial category (see Lakoff 1987,

Nikiforidou 1991), and map more and less central meanings onto semantic space, in order to come

up with a semantic map that shows the relations among the different functions of partitives and their

position relative to each other (on semantic maps see the discussion in the 2010 issue of Linguistic

Discovery). The likelihood of such semantic map will be tested with the diachronic data discussed

in part (b). A central area in the semantics of partitives is shared by partitive constructions in the

sense of Koptjevskja-Tamm (2006; see also Tamm, this volume); the semantic map and the radial

45

category provided for the description of the functions of partitives will be shown to account for this

polysemy.

FIGURE 2. A semantic map of partitive case meanings

evidentiality

negation

non-referentiality non-assertive modality

imperfective aspect

part-whole relation low involvement low transitivity

partial involvement

indefiniteness

4. The origin of partitives and their possible evolution

So far, we have discussed partitives across languages from a rather purely synchronic perspective.

In this section, we will take a look at origin of partitives and their possible grammaticalization

paths. In sections 4.1 and 4.2, we will focus on the formal development of partitives, while in 4.3

the focus will be the functional changes necessary for the emergence of partitives. Formal and

functional development cannot be completely separated from each other, because formal changes

(apart from pure sound changes) are typically functionally/semantically motivated. However, the

two aspects are examined separately in this section for making a more detailed discussion possible.

46

4.1. From ablative or genitive to partitive

Partitives are often seen to originate from ablatives (or separative cases in more general terms) or

genitives (see Heine and Kuteva 2002: 32-33). This path is rather manifest, for example, for Finnic

languages and Basque. The Finnic partitive originates from the Finnic-Mordvinian separative

(„away from‟) case, which was used as a rudimentary partial object, but also as a kind o f partitive

attribute. (The separative case as such may be older, and ultimately go back to Proto-Uralic, but its

grammaticalization shows in the Finnic-Saami-Mordvin branches.) The separative (and in more

general terms, spatial) origins of the partitive are very visible in many of its uses in the modern

language, as the examples discussed in this paper have shown. The most evident of these is the

„part-of‟-meaning that is a clear case of separation. The other uses of the partitive are also

motivated by this function of the partitive (Larjavaara 1991: 401-2).

Similar to Finnic, the partitive case ending also originated from a former ablative in Basque.

As shown in Aritzimuño (this volume), the partitive is an allomorph of the present ablative: the two

case forms became differentiated at a pre-literary stage when, according to Aritzimuño, the features

of number and definiteness in spatial cases had not yet emerged. At a later stage, the partitive

remained indefinite, while the ablative acquired definiteness and singular number. This

development is partly different from Finnic: in Finnic, the older ablative case lost its local function,

while in Basque two distinct cases were created. Notably, in neither language we find simply the

extension to a new meaning (partitive) that accompanies the old one (ablative): no ablative-partitive

polysemy arises either in Baltic or in Basque. In the former case, an ablative case marker loses the

local function and becomes a partitive, while in the latter allomorphs are exploited to convey the

two different meanings, thus becoming different case markers.

Another interesting development, partly similar to Basque, is found in Russian. In this

language, a number of second declension nouns feature the so-called second genitive, which is

47

partly used in partitive contexts (see Daniel, this volume). The morpheme involved was in origin

the genitive ending of the -u declesion, which later merged with consonant stems (second

declension). Some of the former -u stems preserved the older genitve, while also acquiring the new

one; in addition, the second genitive ending spread to some other nouns that were not older -u

stems. Remarkably, the second genitive can only partly be viewed as a dedicated partitive: as shown

in Daniel (this volume), it also appears outside partitive contexts. Moreover, nouns that do not have

the second genitive feature the regular genitive in partitive contexts. Comparative data further show

that the genitive already functioned as a partitive before the second genitive was created (indeed,

this function of the genitive was inherited from Proto-indo-European). Thus, as we discuss in more

detail below, the development in Russian and other Indo-European languages is different from the

developments illustrated above for Finnic and Basque, in that partitive is one of the meanings of the

genitive case, and genitive cases generally speaking allow synchronic polysemy, contrary to

ablative cases, as we have shown above.

From the point of view of the morphology, the Russian development can be seen as an

instance of exaptation (see Lass 1990). The -u stem genitive, which had lost its function following

the disappearance of the inflectional class to which it belonged, was so to speak re-cycled, and

acquired a new function, for which there was previously no dedicated morpheme.

The extension of genitive cases to partitive meanings is typical of the Indo-European

languages. In some of them, one might think of development parallel to Basque and Finnic, and

based on an earlier ablative, as ablatives often also constitute the source for genitives. However, this

does not seem to be the case: indeed, in Indo-European languages in which the genitive and the

ablative have different endings (e.g.Latin and Indo-Aryan), the partitive function is typical of the

genitive, rather than of the ablative.

Remarkably, there is a fundamental difference between Balto-Finnic and Basque on the one

hand, and Indo-European languages (including Romance) on the other in the development of the

48

partitive. Balto-Finnic languages and Basque have an independent partitive, which historically

derives from an ablative, but no longer functions as an ablative (apart from some lexicalized uses,

such as (49c), and a genitive, which is formally and functionally distinct from the partitive. Indo-

European languages, for their part, have a genitive which functions as a partitive, and moreover

many of these languages have an independent ablative distinct from the partitive. This is illustrated

below:

Type a. Balto-Finnic, Basque: partitive ≠ genitive ≠ ablative

Type b. Indo-Aryan, Latin, Italian: partitive = genitive ≠ ablative

Type c. Ancient Greek, French: partitive=genitive=ablative (the original situation was as type

b)).

The above list seems to indicate that, even though partitives can historically originate from

ablatives, synchronically they tend to be distinct, unless they also merge with the genitive. Indeed,

the type ablative = partitive ≠ genitive is not attested in any of the languages we have data for.This

could also mean that there are two separate sources for partitives, namely ablatives and genitives

(see also Moravcsik 1978, Heine and Kuteva 2002). In the first case, the two meanings appear to be

incompatible, if they do not also include genitive. In the second case, the two meanings tend to co-

exist.

In this respect, the development from Latin to Romance is of particular interest. Among the

Romance languages, French and Italian feature so-called partitive articles, which originated from

Late Latin partitive construction (see section 4.3.4). The development shows interesting differences

in the two languages. Latin had a genitive case that expressed both partitive and genitive meanings.

It also had a separate ablative case, which indicated source especially with prepositions. The most

used source preposition with the ablative case in Classical Latin was ab. In Late Latin, de took over

49

as the marker of source with the ablative case. Later still, cases were lost, and de developed into a

marker of genitive as well, while retaining the function of marking ablative. In Proto-Romance, a

prepositional phrase with de expressed the genitive and the ablative; it also occurred in patitive

constructions (see the discussion of examples (71)-(74) below). French has retained the Proto-

Romance system, while Italian features two different prepositions: di (from de) is used for the

genitive and also occurs in the partitive article, while da (from de ab) is used for the ablative.

What seems to have happened when Late Latin started losing its case system and the genitive

was replaced by a prepositional phrase is an extension of the ablative preposition de to all functions

of the genitive, not only a separate change from ablative to partitive. Then, when the two functions,

genitive and ablative, became distinct again in Italian, the partitive meaning remained with the

genitive, as it was in origin in Classical Latin.

4.2. Oceanic developments

The diachronic paths for the creation of partitive morphemes in Oceanic is not as easy to indicate as

those described in section 4.1. The most likely reconstruction connects the partitive marker with the

ending that marked the undergoer of intransitive verbs in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. According to

Ross (p.c.), all these languages showed ergative alignment. The S and the O appeared in the

absolutive, and the A in the genitive. The O of a regular ergative clause could only be definite.

However, antipassive intransitive verbs indicating activity (as in „I am eating‟) could also take an

undergoer argument. The latter was indefinite (non-referential), and was marked as an oblique. In

various Oceanic languages, the partitive morpheme is apparently descended from the Proto-Oceanic

* ta, which comes from the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *ta, used for marking such indefinite

undergoers. This ending has often been labelled accusative. As these languages have a separate

genitive ending (the same ending of the ergative case, in those that have preserved ergative

50

alignment), and because the genitive ending occurs in part-whole constructions (see section 3.2),one

can have the puzzling impression that the opposition between the genitive and the accusative works

contrarywise in Oceanic. However, once the origin of the morpheme *ta is taken into account, the

picture becomes clearer: this was not the marker of the definite, referential direct object, as the

accusative is (at least in one of its possible functions) in the languages we discussed in the previous

section. Concerning the more remote origin of *ta, it apparently goes back to some local oblique,

but not necessarily an ablative. Indeed, some Polynesian languages provide evidence for the

locative preposition i in partitive constructions, as shown in (71)-(72):

Tongan (from Clark 1973: 600)

(71.) Na’e kai ’a e ika ’e he tamasi’i.

PST eat ABS REF fish ERG REF boy

„The boy ate (up) a fish.‟

(72.) Na’e kai ’a e tamasi’i ’ i he ika.

PST eat ABS REF boy in REF fish

„The boy ate some of a fish.‟

Another, completely different grammaticalization path attested in some Polynesian languages

is the numeral „one‟ (Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *esa)that may develop into an indefinite marker and

further into a partitive morpheme. The relation between the numeral one and indefiniteness is

known also in other languages, so this grammaticalization path is also rather understandable.

In addition, even motion verbs in serial verb languages can develop into partitive markers:

due to the documented connection between partitives and ablatives, this development is not

surprising. Indeed, the Basque partitive might ultimately go back to the verb *din (Modern Basque

jin), „come from‟, as arguend in Aritzimuño (this volume). Note that following this reconstruction,

51

the connection between the verb and the partitive case is not direct, as the verb root gave origin to

the ablative case marker. Only at a later time, an allomorph of this case ending was reanalyzed as

the partitive case ending.

A direct connection between a verb and a partitive marker might be attested in Oceanic.

According to Budd (this volume) a possible explanation for the presence of post-verbal partitive

forms in some Vanuatu languages connects partitive markers with verbs: “Bierebo ja seems likely

to be an accreted form of gicha, a variant form which occurs in some more conservative dialects of

the language. In turn, gicha can be diachronically analysed as gi-cha, where gi is a serial verb

meaning „take time‟ which is still productive in the contemporary language and cha is perhaps a

phonologically-conditioned variant of ta. What seems likely here then, is that a modified serial verb

with a literal meaning of „take a little time‟ has developed into a more general VP partitive meaning

„do a little‟. It remains to be seen whether this analysis would be valid for other Vanuatu languages

with VP partitives.”

4.3. Semantic/functional development

4.3.1. Cases as prototypical categories

In section 4.1 we have highlighted the affinity of partitive cases with genitives and ablatives.

Diachronically, the development from a genitive or an ablative to a partitive case starts within

partitive constructions, as we will show in section 4.4. In this setion, we briefly discuss the semantic

motivation that links genitives, ablatives and partitives to one another.

As is well known, case markers are best described as polysemous categories, which express

meanings that are interconnected in a complex manner. A very suitable way to concieve of case

meaning is in terms of protypical categories, in which each meaning is directly connected only with

a small set of other meanings. The meaning of the genitive has been described in such a manner by

52

Nikiforidou (1991), who refers to it as an instance of structured polysemy. As basic for the

category, Nikiforidou indicates the possessor meaning. The partitive meaning is readily derived

from it by the metaphor „Wholes are possessors of their parts‟, which operates pervasively in

languages. Nikiforidou further explains the cross-linguistically comparatively frequent polysemy of

genitive and ablative through a metaphor by which „Wholes are origins.‟ This metaphor connects

the source (ablative) meaning directly with the part-whole meaning. Note however that, according

to Nikiforidou, the metaphor operates in the direction that goes from the partitive to the ablative,

and not the other way around. In the diachronic survey in 4.1, we found extensive evidence for the

extension of ablatives to partitives, without an intervening genitive (i.e. possessive) meaning. Thus,

it appears the the metaphor involved can work in both directions.

In section 4.3 we also described a less frequent spatial source for partitives, locatives, found

in some Polynesian languages. The semantic motivation for this extension can be conceived as

based on a variant of the container metaphor, such as „Wholes are containers, and parts are entities

contained.‟ Based on this metaphor, a locative indicates that only a part of what is in a container is

affected by the relevant event.

Summarizing, the follwing metaphors can be singled out as responsible for the extansion of

other case markers to partitive:

a. Genitive to partitive --> Wholes are possessors, Parts are entities possessed

b. Ablative to partitive --> Wholes are origins, Parts originate from wholes

c. Locative to partitive --> Wholes are containers, Parts are entities contained

The part-whole relation appears to be relevant to all the above metaphors. In the next section, we

describe an attested case of the historical change that led from the expression of a part-whole

relation to a partitive case marker and later to an indefinite article.

53

4.4.2. Late Latin partitive constructions

The construction out of which partitives originate occurs in Late Latin, as shown in the following

examples:5

Latin (New Testament)

(73.) et misit ad agricolas in tempore servum ut

and send:PRF.3SG to peasant:ACC.PL in time:ABL servant:ACC for

ab agricolis acciperet de fructu vineae

from peasant:ABL.PL collect:SBJV.IMPF.3SG from fruit:ABL vineyard:GEN

„At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the

vineyard.‟ (Mark 12,2)

(74.) dicit eis Iesus adferte de

say:PRS.3SG 3PL.DAT. Jesus:NOM bring:IMP.PRS.3PL from

piscibus quos prendidistis nunc

fish:ABL.PL REL.ACC.PL catch:PRF.2PL now

„Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught!”‟ (John 21,10)

(75.) et ipse in nobis quoniam de Spiritu suo

and 3SG.NOM in 1PL.ABL because from spirit:ABL POSS.3SG.ABL

dedit nobis

give:PRF.3SG 1PL.DAT

„[We know that we live in him] and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.‟

5 The Greek Bible, which has been the main source for the Latin translation, also contains a few genitive subjects; they

are sometimes regarded as due to Hebrew influence, even though Classical Greek did have genitive (partitive) subjects,

as we will see below (see also Conti 2010 fn. 3 and Luraghi forthcoming for discussion). They are variously translated

into Latin with the nominative or with a prepositional phrase with ex. I am leaving aside the issue of translation here.

54

(John 4,13)

(76.) probet autem se ipsum homo et sic

examine:SBJV.3SG indeed REFL.ACC self:ACC man:NOM and so

de pane illo edat et de calice bibat

from bread:ABL DEM.ABL eat:SBJV.PRS.3SG and from cup:ABL drink:SBJV.PRS.3SG

„A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of/from the cup.‟

(Corinthians 11.28).

The above examples contain a variety of different types of noun that function as source in the

partitive construction: a mass noun in (73), a plural counts in (74), an abstract noun in (75) and a

singular count in (76) (in fact, pane „bread‟ could also be regarded as a mass noun, compare fructu

„fruit‟ in (73)). The last example also indicates that the source meaning was clearly expressed by

this construction: indeed, the second de phrase, de calice is ambiguous between a partitive („of that

cup‟, with cup metonymically understood as its content), and a source reading („from that cup‟).

The Latin examples all contain partitive constructions, implying that the de phrase indicates a

specific referent, a part of which is affected by the state of affairs, and do not have a possible

indefinite interpretation, as grammaticalized partitives can have to varying extents. This is shown,

among other things, by the fact that they are all accompanied by some type of determiner or

modifier that identifies the specific referent. Thus, de piscibus in (74) means „some of those specific

fish‟, and could not possibly mean „some (indefinite) fish‟, as Italian dei pesci or French des

poissons normally mean.

As the examples show, this construction typically occurs in the place of a direct object: as

already remarked, it indicates that a part of a referent undergoes the process, possibly a change of

state, indicated by the verb. As often noted, the partitive construction indicates partial affectedness:

crucially, however, at this stage partial affectedness does not coincide with a low degree of

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=lvb&bk=53&ch=11&l=28&f=s#x

55

affectedness. To the contrary, the part of the referent which undergoes the effects of the state of

affairs may be affected to any degree, including high, as it can undergo a change of state: typically,

partitive expressions occur with verbs of ingestion, which imply that the referent of the direct object

is consumed.

4.3.3. From partitive construction to indefiniteness and low transitivity

Different inferences may arise from the occurrence of a partitive construction in the place of a direct

object, which can be represented as in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2: Inferences arising from the partitive construction

PARTITIVE

“A PART OF A REFERENT UNDERGOES THE EFFECTS OF AN ACTION/PROCESS”

ACTION/PROCESS IS PARTIAL ONLY A PART OF A REFERENT IS INVOLVED

EVENT UNBOUNDED PART INVOLVED NOT SPECIFIED

LOW TRANSITIVITY INDEFINITENESS

In one case, the fact that only a part of a referent is affected gives rise to the implicature that

affectedness is partial (i.e. the feature of partiality is profiled): this leads to the use of the partitive in

low transitivity contexts. Low transitivity may be understood in various manners, including as

implying imperfectivity, as in Finnish, or non-assertivity, as in Basque.

The other implicature, represented on the right branch of Figure 1, arises from the same

notion, but leads to an indefinite interpretation, according to which “a non-specified quantity is

56

necessarily non-uniquely identifiable to the hearer.” (Carlier 2007: 27). In this latter case, it is the

feature of non-specificity which is profiled and eventually gains relevance. A further step in

grammaticalization and semantic change is achieved when such pragmatic implicatures become

more prominent than the original notion out of which they originated (see Traugott, Dasher 2002

and Traugott 2003: 635). These two clines of grammaticalization coexist to varying extents in the

languages with grammaticalized partitives that are treated in this book. It needs to be stressed that

affectedness is not a property connected with a certain grammatical relation (e.g. direct object).

Rather, it is a semantic property: accordingly, even though partitives seem to originate from

partitive constructions that occur in the place of direct objects, they may extend to other syntactic

positions, as they in fact do.

Indefiniteness is also compatible with the semantics of „part of‟.6 As noted above,

indefiniteness becomes one of the natural readings for a group of entities taken from a (specified)

whole. The removed part is less definite than the specified whole, which explains the use of

(original) separative cases for expressing indefiniteness. The indefiniteness is especially evident

when the whole is a universal set of all possible referents of the noun in question. Next, partial

affectedness is also rather directly explainable by separation. Similarly to taking a part of a whole, a

part of an affected entity is chosen, whose affectedness is specified. Lower degree of affectedness is

a logical next step following from this, because in this case the whole entity has been only partially

affected, which is intimately related to imperfective aspect (a „part of the verb‟ is affected). These

uses pave the way for the use of partitives with low transitivity-predicates; not only lower degree of

affectedness is relevant, but rather the lower transitivity in general. Finally, the use with negation

follows naturally from the low transitivity uses, because in negation, affected entities are

completely missing. In brief, partitives undergo a grammaticalization process that leads them to lose

their primary case marking function and take over other functions: indicate indefiniteness, degrees 6 The earlier Finnish tradition tried to separate strictly quantity and definiteness, thus creating confusion. The analysis

give here is in line with more recent acconts such as VIlkuna (1992).

57

of affectedness, imperfective aspect. All of these semantic shifts are, however, understandable in

light of their original semantics.

4.3.4. Structural development

As shown in section 4.3.3, partitive constructions start developing the meanings connected to

partitive cases when they function as direct objects. However, virtually all languages described in

this book show the possible usage of partitive cases for subjects too, although to a limited extent. In

general, partitive subjects occur with unaccusative verbs, and they are frequently found in

existential clauses. It is a well-known fact that subjects of unaccusative verbs share direct object

properties: hance, the extension of partitive arguments to such arguments is consistent with other of

their chracteristic features. Subjects of existentials also share some typical features of direct objects:

they are not topical, as they introduce new participants into the discourse.

In Finnish, as we have shown in section 3.1 above, partitive subjects, which express

indiefiniteness productively, are largely limited to existential clauses or to unaccusative. In addition,

they are used with some transitive verbs that do not indicate change of state, especially if there is an

existential implication. Recently, however, an ongoing change has been reported, whereby partitive

subjects are being extended to change-of-state verbs, with no existential implication, and tend to

convey simple indefiniteness (Vilkuna 1989: 260). Apparently, the Finnish partitive is undergoing a

further step in grammaticalization, similar to the Romance partitive when it turned into an article.

Such extension is having the effect that partitive subjects are extending to all types of verb, in very

much the same way as nominative subjects. Still, the fact that partitive subjects are „real‟ subjects

has been questioned (see Sand, Campbell 2001: 266-269 for discussion and references therein; cf.

also Helasvuo and Huumo 2010). Notably, partitive subjects, contrary to nominative, do not trigger

verb agreement, but are always accompanied by third person singular verbs. However, syntactic test

seem to indicate subjecthood also in the case of partitive, as shown in example (77):

58

Finnish (from Sands and Campbell 2001: 167)

(77.) Tuli miehiä ja naisia ja tekivät

come:PST.3SG man:PAR.PL and woman:PAR.PL and make:PST.3PL

tupasiaan kaikille rinteille

cabin.PAR.PL.POSS3PL all.ALL .PL slope.ALL .PL

„There came men and women and they made their cabins on all the hillsides.‟

Example (77) contains two coordinated sentences; the first one features a partitive subject (miehiä

ja naisia„men and women‟) and a verb in the third person singular (tuli „(there) came‟); the second

has no overt subject: the elliptical subject refers to the partitive NP of the preceding sentence, and

the verb is in the third person plural. This indicates that the partitive NP in the first sentence does

indeed have subject properties.7

The fact that agreement with the verb has not (yet?) developed may be taken as a

consequence of the behavior-before-coding principle (Haspelmath 2010): in very much the same

way as in Romance, the partitive started out marking objects, then extended to subject starting from

existential clauses and unaccusative verbs, and is presently gaining further ground in its extension

to all types of verb and its function of indicating indefiniteness. Unlike the Romance partitive, the

Finnish partitive has acquired behavioral properties of subjects, such as null-anaphora control

(although to a limited extent), but not coding properties, among which verb agreement. Similar to

the Finnish (and Estonian) partitive, partitive genitive subjects do not trigger verb agreement in

most Indo-European languages in which they occur, such as Russian (see Paykin, this volume) and

Indo-Iranic (see Dahl, this volume). An exception is Ancient Greek, in which genitive plural

7 It myust be noted that, even though Campbell and Sands have found this example in their corpus, example (77) is

marginal for some speakers of Finnish.

59

partitive subjects trigger agreement with the verb (see Conti and Luraghi, this volume).

At leat in Finnic languages and in Romance, partitives can also function as predicate nouns.

The relative chronology of the extension for direct object to subject and predicate noun is not clear,

as argued for Old French by Carlier and Lamiroy (this volume). In any case, the extension to

predicate noun may have started in contexts such as Finnish (69b) that we repeat for convenience:

(69.) b. hän on suku-a minu-lle

s/he be:PRS.3SG family-PAR 1SG-ALL

„S/he is of my family.‟

In this example, belonging (to a whole) and inclusion are indicated. As remarked, this is presumably

the historically oldest usage of the partitive in predicate nominals, where the „part of‟ meaning is

evident.

A different formal development of partitive case markers is their extension to verbs, attested

in Estonian. As we discussed in sections 2.4 and 3.5, verbs can take the partitive ending in this

language, and acquire an evidential meaning. Formally and semantically, the development can be

summarized as follows (see also Metslang, this volume):

a. “part of N”

b. “partof V” (N-obj has the morphological partitive marking)

c. (N-object is a non-finite, deverbal nominalization and partitive marked)

d. “indirect evidence” (V-nonfin (main predicate) has the morphological partitive formative)

e. “partof/incomplete evidence” (V-nonfin (main or embedded predicate) has the

morphological partitive formative)

f. “partof/incomplete evidence for the completion/completability of the event” (partitive

60

object case)

5. Conclusion

In this chapter, form, functions and development of partitive case markers have been discussed.

Dedicated partitive cases (such as those in Finnic languages and Basque) seem to be rather rare

cross-linguistically; even the usage of a different case, such as the genitive, is not especially

frequent, as it seems to be confined to Indo-European languages and to some Oceanic languages.

An important feature of partitive cases, or other cases used in the function of partitives, is

their possible occurrence with NPs that bear different grammatical relations. In this sense, partitive

cases are at odds with the definition of case in Blake (1994:1), that is „marking dependent nouns for

the type of relationship they bear to their heads‟ (see further the discussion in Luraghi 2009:243-

249). The reason for this is that partitive cases indicate other properties of the NPs they occur with,

notably indefiniteness, and low or partial affectedness, and that the indication of such properties

overrides the expression of grammatical relations. Often, indefiniteness is accompanied by non-

referentiality, as noted in sections 3.1 and 3.6.

As we have shown in this chapter, the above features of partitive case markers explain their

frequent occurrence in various contexts in which indefiniteness or non-referentiality are relevant,

such as under negation, with quantifiers, with non-assertive modality, in existential clauses, and so

on. In addition, partial affectedness may have a bearing on the interpretation of verbal aspect, and

convey an imperfective meaning, as in the Finnic languages.

Diachronically, partitive case markers originate either from separative cases or from

genitives; to a more limited extent, they can also apparently originate from locatives, as in some

Oceanic languages. Attested developments (mostly from the Indo-European languages) indicate that

61

partitive case markers originate inside partitive nominal constructions, in the sense of Koptjevsaja-

Tamm (2006). Partitive constructions appear as direct objects for example in Late Latin; they refer

to a part of a specific, already identified whole. From such constructions, two inferences can

originate, one leading to the indefiniteness meaning, and one to the implication of low affectedness.

Such acquired meanings of partitive cases make them suitable for the various contexts in which

they are found cross-linguistically.

62

References

Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: a Polynesian language of the Central Pacific.London: Routledge.

Carlier, Anne 2007. From Preposition to Article : The Grammaticalization of the French Partitive.

Studies in Language 31: 1-49.

Clark, Ross 1973. Transitivity and case in eastern Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12:559-

606.

Conti, Luz. 2010. Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei

impersonalen Konstruktionen, Historische Sprachwissenschaft 122:182-207.

Crowley, Terry. 1982. The Paamese language of Vanuatu. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

De Hoop, Helen. 1998. Partitivity. Glot International 3.pp. 3-10.

Gerstner-Link, Claudia. 1998. How transitive are habituals? Sprachtypologie und

Universalienforschung 51(4): 327-354.

Haspelmath, Martin 2010. The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change. In F.

Floricic (ed.) Mélanges Denis Creissels. Paris: Presses de L‟École Normale Supérieure.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa and Tuomas Huumo. 2010. Mikä subjekti on? [On the subject of subject in

Finnish]. Virittäjä 114(3): 165-194.

Hoeksema, J., ed., 1996, Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions.

Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language

56:251-299.

Huumo, Tuomas. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal

of Linguistics 46: 83-125.

Kempf, Zdzisław. 2007. Próba teorii przypadków. Część II. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu

63

Opolskiego.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. „A piece of the cake‟ and „a cup of tea‟: Partitive and pseudo-

partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Circum-Baltic Languages.

Volume 2: Grammar and Typology (Studies in Language Companion Series: 55), Östen Dahl

and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company, 523-568.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2006. Partitives, in K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Languages and

Linguistics, Second Edition, Oxford: Elsevier, 218–221.

Lakoff, Johan. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larjavaara, Matti. 1991. Aspektuaalisen objektin synty [The emergence of the aspectual object].

Virittäjä 95: 372-408.

Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of

Linguistics 26: 79-102.

Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming. Partitivi nel latino bibblico. In Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e

Applicata.

Mosel, Ulrike & Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian

University Press.

Napoli, Maria. 2010. The case for the partitive case: The contribution of Ancient Greek.

Transactions of the Philological Society 108/1, 15-40.

Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and

semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2): 149-206.

Paykin, Katia and Marleen Van Peteghem. 2002. Definiteness in a Language without Articles: a Case-

study of Russian. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 31: 97-112.

Sands, K. and Lyle Campbell. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In A.

Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, M. Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and

64

Objects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 251–305.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. J. Joseph and R. J. Janda

(eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 624–647.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free word order in Finnish: its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki:

Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Zwarts, F. (1987). Paradigmaloos van. TABU 17:184-192.

Luraghi & Kittilä: Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers

Documents

Transcript of Luraghi & Kittilä: Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers