Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 104. kötet (2007)

Tanulmányok - Honti László: A birtoklás kifejezésének eszközei az uráli nyelvekben szinkrón és diakrón szempontból [Expressions of possession in Uralic : synchronic and a diachronic aspects] 7

A birtoklás kifejezésének eszközei az uráli nyelvekben szinkrón és diakrón szempontból* This paper investigates the forms of expression, the morphological constructions and the diachronic emergence of habitive (or existential-possessive: 'somebody has something') and possessive nominal ('somebody's something') constructions in Uralic. The former manifests itself in complete sentences, the latter often in phrases. 1. In Uralic languages two types of sentence-level constructions are used for the expression of possessive relation: (a) the possession is the subject and the possessor is a nominal expression with case marking, which can be either adverbial (lative, locative or ablative) or grammatical (nominative, genitive or dative), or a postposition with a locative function follows the possessor, (b) the word denoting the possession is the object of a verb meaning 'have'. 2. In possessive nominal phrases the possessor is either marked for nominative or for genitive (or just possibly locative, or is followed by a locative postposition), the possession is either suffixed with a person marker or not. In Uralic - much like in Indo-European -there is no original verb 'to have', these languages mostly use habitive constructions involving the verb '(not) to be' to this day. In possessive constructions, unless they involve a pronominal possessor, most Uralic languages mark the possessive relation (also) on the word denoting the possession with the 3Sg person marker (this is compulsory in Hungarian, but not in Balto-Finnic or Saami, and in the rest of the family this marking is optional). The Uralic construction in which the possession is (also) marked, and which several scholars refer to with the term izafet borrowed from Turkic linguistics, used to be attributed to contact with Turkic languages. The present paper argues that it is an internal development probably datable to the Proto-Uralic period.Habitive constructions involving the verb 'to be' used to be explained from contact with Indo-European, izafet constructions from contact with Turkic. This paper gives a survey of the relevant Uralic constructions and estimates the probability of the effect of Uralic-Indo-European and Uralic-Turkic contact; it is argued that these constructions emerged independently in the three families. Bevezetés Az alábbiakban a 'valakinek van valamije' és a 'valaki(nek a) valamije' jelentésű habitív vagy predikatív és a birtokviszonyt kifejező birtokos jelzős uráli A Magyar Tudományos Akadémián 2004. december 6-án tartott, „Uráli birtokos szerkezetek" című székfoglaló előadás átdolgozott és bővített változata. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 104. 7-56.