| # | Search | Downloads | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The paper presents 19 new etymologies and 1 addition to an existing etymology that bring together Samoyedic languages with Evenki. In most cases they presuppose borrowing from Evenki or some its earlier form into Proto-Samoyedic or separate Samoyedic languages, especially Nganasan; 2 etymologies propose borrowing into Evenki from a Samoyedic dialect close to Tundra Nenets. The etymologies under discussion are: TM sōl- ‘mix’ > ? PS *sVl- > *tålå- > Ngan tolu- ‘be mixed’; Ev. kawri(kī) > ? Nen. χăŕei̯, En. koriˀo, Ngan. kəriˀə ‘pole for driving reindeer’; Ev. malŋa ~ PSS məlkə ‘hornless reindeer’; Ev. mə̄ nə̄ - > ? Nen. meneq-, Ngan. mintə- ‘live settled, without wandering’; Ev. čātā > Ngan. satu ‘clay’, En. seδuo, seδui, Ngan. satüə ‘live coals’; Ev. kirka ~ En. kirkaa, Ngan. kirkaˀa ‘short-wooled dog’; Ev. ebej > Nen. abej, En. aboj etc., Ngan əbəj ‘exclamation of fright; frightful; powerful’; Ev. kiri ‘dirt; disgusting’ > ? Ngan. kur ‘rubbish’, kir ‘fly’; Ev. ūďa > Ngan. ŋuə(ďəə) ‘trace, footprint’; Ev. nika > Ngan. ńükü ‘little one’; Ev. činə ‘tree disease, witches’ broom’ > Ngan. sənə (huaa) ‘(tree) with a bare trunk and a thick crown’; Ev. hońo, həńə > Ngan. hoj ‘chink’; Ev. činə-kə̄ > ? Selk. suə̑ nə̠ , En. sanike, Ngan. soni̮, sonali̮ə ‘seagull’; Ev. ūkə̄ ŋ > ? En. uxo-seri, Ngan. uku-ďari̮ ‘loon’; Ev. ugučak ‘saddle reindeer’ > Ngan. uučakə ‘saddle’; Ev. ulikta > Ngan. uľikta ‘dried meat’; Ev. uŋtrə(wūn) ‘shaving-brush’ > ? Selk. umtə/untə ‘beard’, Ev. ude, Ngan. untiə ‘pubis’; Ev. -mō > Ngan. -mə, emphatic suffix; Ev. lamba ‘spoon, scoop etc.’ Nen. lămba; Ev. ďēlar ‘white (reindeer)’ ? North-Sam. jälä ‘day; bright’ Keywords: etymology, Samoyedic languages, Tungusic languages, Evenki, Nganasan, Enets, Nenets | 2383 | ||||
| 2 | Nganasan, like several other Uralic languages, uses a range of possessive constructions. With a pronominal possessor, which is often omitted, possession is marked by possessive affixes on the possessee. If overt, the pronoun appears in a syncretic nominative/genitive/accusative form: unlike nouns, personal pronouns do not distinguish these cases. With a nominal possessor, the noun usually takes the genitive, while the possessee remains unmarked. Head marking is also possible with nominal possessors when the possessor is the topic and the possessee is in focus. Finally, Nganasan has double-marked constructions, with marking on both the dependent (possessor) and the head (possessee). Since personal pronouns do not distinguish nominative and genitive forms, double marking can be identified only with nominal possessors; alternatively, head-marked and double-marked constructions can be regarded as indistinguishable with pronominal possessors. This article examines doublemarked possessive constructions. It shows that double marking can express contrast, with the contrastively focused element occurring within either the topic or the comment. Contrast is understood broadly here, encompassing clarification and the addition of a new element to a known set of objects. Double marking can also signal a topic shift or the reactivation of a temporarily backgrounded topic. The combination of contrast and topic shift or reactivation in a single construction is not typologically unique. In Nganasan, double marking may iconically express the discourse prominence or special emphasis assigned to these constructions. The study draws on the glossed portion of the INEL Nganasan Corpus, comprising approximately 220,000 word forms. Keywords: Nganasan, possessive construction, contrast, topic, comment, topic shift, topic reactivation | 6 | ||||
Search by Author
