I argue that case markers in Hungarian are best thought of as ‘fused postpositions’. There is no need to set up a separate syntactic or morphological [Case] attribute as such. Rather, we just need a morphological principle stating that nominals (including pronouns) have a special form, the traditional case form. In this respect Hungarian is crucially different from languages such as Latin (which requires both a morphological and a syntactic [Case] feature) or Finnish (which requires at least a syntactic [Case] feature). I discuss certain typological issues arising from this analysis, arguing that when grammarians refer to Hungarian ‘cases’, they are really referring to a rather more general notion of ‘canonical grammatical function markers on dependents’.
2018. Postsyntactic reordering in the Mari nominal domain. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:4 ► pp. 1089 ff.
Peyraube, Alain
2017. The Case System in Three Sinitic Languages of the Qinghai-Gansu Linguistic Area. In Languages and Genes in Northwestern China and Adjacent Regions, ► pp. 121 ff.
Peyraube, Alain
2018. On some endangered Sinitic languages spoken in Northwestern China. European Review 26:1 ► pp. 130 ff.
Arkadiev, Peter
2016. Vozmozhny li odnopadezhnyye sistemy?. In Znaki czy nie znaki? Tom 2,
OTOGURO, RYO
2016. <i>Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:1 ► pp. 202 ff.
Kenesei, István
2014. On a multifunctional derivational affix: Its use in relational adjectives or nominal modification and phrasal affixation in Hungarian. Word Structure 7:2 ► pp. 214 ff.
Spencer, Andrew J. & Gregory T. Stump
2013. Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31:4 ► pp. 1207 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.