Cover not available
Part of
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 181–212

Chapter 8
Case marking of predicative possession in Vedic

The genitive, the dative, the locative

| University of Bergen
| Ghent University
Possession is an abstract domain of human conceptualization whose expression may be based on different cognitive structures. Heine (1997) identifies a small set of basic conceptual patterns that express predicative possession across the languages of the world. Vedic has three of these patterns exemplified by (i) a genitive construction (with a genitive possessor), (ii) a dative construction (with a dative possessor, a nominative possessee, and a form of ‘be’), and (iii) a locative construction (with a locative possessor and a form of ‘be’). In later stages of the language, the three constructions reduce to one and the structure with the genitive becomes the conventional expression for possession. Despite the importance of the Vedic data for shedding light on the Indo-European linguistic expression of possession, the situation in Vedic has not received proper attention. In this article, we describe and analyze the three early Vedic constructions, their syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties, showing that the locative construction is the most marginal of the three, the genitive construction conveys a possessee-oriented relation and is the canonical expression for possession, while the dative construction, expressing a possessor-oriented relation, is a multifunctional construction of which possession is only one of its possible meanings. We further show that claims in the literature that the dative experiencer construction developed from the dative possessive construction are not confirmed by the situation in Vedic.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The notion of possession
    • 2.1The possessive relation
    • 2.2Predicative possession: Have- vs belong- relation
  • 3.Expression of possession in Early Vedic
    • 3.1The genitive construction and ‘canonical’ possession
      • 3.1.1 ‘genitive + ásti’
      • 3.1.2 ‘genitive + bhávati’
    • 3.2The dative construction
      • 3.2.1 ‘dative + ásti’
      • 3.2.2 ‘dative + bhávati’
      • 3.2.3The dative construction: An affected referent in a target domain
    • 3.3The locative construction: A spatial metaphor for possession
    • 3.4Clitic personal pronouns: An ambiguous area for the grammar of possession
    • 3.5The interaction between the genitive, the dative and the locative
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.200.08dan
References (59)
References
Baldi, Pierluigi & Nuti, Andrea. 2010. Possession. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 239–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001a. The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47–70.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach [Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap A 57]. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Focus on Germanic Typology, Werner Abraham (ed.), 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1): 60–79.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2012. ‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Dewey, Tonya Kim. 2014. Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93: 50–101.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B. & McGillivray, Barbara. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3): 511–547.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, Irène. 2001. Possession in noun phrases: A functional analysis. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 115–130.Google Scholar
Baron, Irène, Herslund, Michael, Sørensen, Finn (eds). 2001. Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. “Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In Problèmes de Linguistique générale, 140–148. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benvenuto, Maria Carmela & Pompeo, Flavia. 2012. Expressions of predicative possession in Ancient Greek: “εἶναι plus dative” and “εἶναι plus genitive constructions. AION – Annali del Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e Comparati 1: 77–104.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. Machtelt. 1983. Genitive and dative possessors in Latin. In Advances in Functional Grammar, Simon C. Dik (ed.), 55–91. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2001. Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 275–290.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band: Lehre von der Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
Bugenhagen, Robert D. 1986. Possession in Mangap-Mbula: Its syntax and semantics. Oceanic Linguistics 25: 124–166.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1978. Existential, locative, and possessive construction. In Universals of Human Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 85–126. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In The Projection of Arguments; Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 1–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Johnson, Cynthia A. & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2018. Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1): 45–92.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold. 1869. Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen Dativ. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 18(2): 81–106Google Scholar
. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Elizarenkova, Tatyana. 1995. The possessivity in the Rigveda. Cracow Indological Studies 1: 109–119.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2011. Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(3): 307–326.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaedicke, Carl. 1880. Der Akkusativ im Veda. Breslau: Koebner.Google Scholar
Geldner, Karl Friedrich. 1951. Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen. Erster Teil. Erster bis vierter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1951. Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen, Zweiter Teil: Fünfter bis achter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1951. Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen, Dritter Teil: Neunter bis zehnter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
. 1887. Rig-Veda. Übersetzt und mit kritischen und erläuternden anmerkungen versehen von Hermann Grassmann, Zweiter Teil. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, Michael & Baron, Irène. 2001. Introduction: Dimensions of possession. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 1–27.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 2007. Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Ṛgveda. Würzburg: Institut für Altertumswissenschaften Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. <[URL]>
Hopkins, E. Washburn. 1906. The Vedic dative reconsidered. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 37: 87–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1907. Aspects of the Vedic dative. Journal of the American Oriental Society 28: 360–406.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2003. Strategies of clausal possession. Contrastive Cognitive Linguistics 3(2): 1–34.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3(4): 390–396.Google Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1910. Vedic Grammar. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
. [1916]1993. A Vedic Grammar for Students. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. 1999. La significazione del possesso in latino. Il tipo MIHI EST ALIQUID come manifestazione della transitività ridotta. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 84: 44–66.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1859. A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature So Far as it Illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Nuti, Andrea. 2005. Possessive sentences in Early Latin: Dative vs. genitive constructions. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 27(2): 145–173.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1961. Grammaire Sanscrite. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1973. Zum Problem der sprachlichen Possessivität. Folia Linguistica 6: 231–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob Samuel. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2004. Funzioni semantiche e pragmatiche nelle strategie di possesso dell’ antico Indico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 89(1): 41–83.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1967. Remarks on the genitive. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his 70th birthday, Vol III, 2191–2198. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. [1889]1955. Sanskrit Grammar: Including Both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ilioaia, Mihaela
2024. Constructing Meaning: Historical Changes in mihi est and habeo Constructions in Romanian. Languages 9:2 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2021. Pathways to split ergativity. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Friedman, Victor A. & Brian D. Joseph
2018. Chapter 2. Non-nominative and depersonalized subjects in the Balkans. In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.