Cover not available
Part of
Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State
Edited by Casper de Groot
[Typological Studies in Language 119] 2017
► pp. 261–281

Chapter 11
The Mari essive and its functional counterparts

This chapter presents an empirical study of forms and constructions in Mari, a language without an essive or translative case marker, where other Uralic languages may use the essive or translative. The description of the properties of these forms and constructions follows the linguistic questionnaire that captures the contexts in which essive and/or translative markers may occur in the Uralic languages. The study specifically investigates the opposition between permanent and impermanent state in non-verbal predications. The linguistic domains involved are non-verbal main predication, secondary predication, complementation, and manner, temporal, and circumstantial adverbial phrases. Finally, the syntactic position of elements marked by this form is discussed in relation to the position of focus constituents.
Keywords: Mari, depictive, instrumental case, impermanent state, non-verbal predication, focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2The case system
    • 1.3Sources
  • 2.Non-verbal predication
  • 3.Secondary predication
  • 4.Predicative complements
  • 5.Adverbials: Temporality
  • 6.Comparative and simile expressions
  • 7.Essive versus translative
  • 8.Word order
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.119.11saa
References (12)
References
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. Marin kielioppi [Hilfsmittel für das Studium der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen X]. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
Bartens, Raija. 1999. Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 232]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Bereczki, Gábor. 2002. A cseremisz nyelv történeti alaktana [Studies in Linguistics of the Volga-Region. Supplementum I]. Debrecen: University of Debrecen.Google Scholar
Galkin, Ivan. 1966. Istoričeskaja grammatika marijskogo jazyka. Morfologija, časť II. Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdateľstvo.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Schultze-Berndt, Eva F. 2005. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva F. Schultze-Berndt (eds), 1–67. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan [Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 370]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Savatkova, A. A. 2002. Gornoe narečie marijskogo jazyka [Bibliotheca Ceremissica, Tomus V]. Savariae: Berzsényi Dániel főiskola.Google Scholar
SMJa 1990–2005=Slovar’ marijskogo jazyka 1–10. Joškar-Ola: Marijskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
TS 1978=Tscheremissische Sätze gesammelt von Yrjö Wichmann [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 163], Alho Alhoniemi & Sirkka Saarinen (eds). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Učaev, Zinovij Vasil‘evič. 1982. Marij jylme. Ikymše užaš. Joškar-Ola: Marij kniga izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
. 1985. Marij jylme. Kokymše užaš. Joškar-Ola: Marij kniga izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2014. Kieliopin arvoituksia marissa ja saamessa. – Juuret marin murteissa, latvus yltää Uraliin . Juhlakirja Sirkka Saarisen 60-vuotispäiväksi 21.12.1954. [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 270], 415–432. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar