Search
| # | Search | Downloads | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | This article deals with the phenomenon of Differential Object marking in Iron Ossetic. We consider the main factors underlying the choice of DO marking and the animate and referential properties of DOs. In terms of animacy, we show that the basic opposition is that of human vs. non-human animates (while non-animate only marginally takes the genitive, as shown in the literature on Ossetic). Lexical classes of non-human animate, such as animals vs. insects vs. birds vs. amphibians, are irrelevant for DO marking. Some specific lexemes show behavior characteristic of other lexical classes: the lexeme šəvɜllon ‘child’ submits to the DOM rules for non-humans, and the lexeme foš ‘livestock’ behaves like a non-animate, i.e., it rarely takes the genitive in DO position. The nouns denoting groups of people (škond ‘staff,’ k’laš ‘school class’) also behave like non-animate persons. The reference types are subject to different restrictions for human and non-human animates. For human animates, genitive marking is obligatory for reference types that presuppose the existence of the referent in the listener’s mind (from the speaker’s point of view), either concrete (definite) or abstract (e.g., attributive). The nominative is just as possible for other reference types as the genitive. The marking of non-human animate DOs is described using a scale of the relative frequency of the genitive and the nominative: DOs with negative polarity > definite specific/non-specific (attributive) DOs > negative free DOs > indefinite specific known generic DOs > indefinite specific unknown and non-specific DOs Keywords: differential object marking, direct object, Ossetic, Iranian languages, referentiality, animacy | 516 | ||||