Old Hungarian Halfway between Ugric and Modern Hungarian

Old Hungarian: Halfway between Ugric and Modern Hungarian Katalin É. Kiss CIFU XII, August 19, 2015

Why is the Uralic origin of Hungarian doubted by many? Because the main evidence is allegedly only a handful of regular sound correspondences and reconstructed words. Syntax: fundamental differences

Differences: Ugric: Hungarian: SOV fixed word order fused thematic and discourse roles non-finite subordination clause-final complementizer no articles verbal agreement with topical object differential object marking SVO free word order separate thematic and discourse roles finite subordination clause-initial complementizer articles verbal agreement with definitene object general object marking

Claim: The first Old Hungarian documents (1200 -1500 AD) still have remnants of the Ugric syntactic patterns; Hungarian must have lost its Ugric syntactic traits in the late Proto-Hungarian period (500 -900) and /or the early Old Hungarian period (900 -1200).

Ugric type remnants in early Old Hungarian Khanty: strict SOV, with unmarked object (1) a. (luw) juwan re: sk-əs he Ivan hit- PAST. 3 SG ‘He hit Ivan. ’ b. juwan xoj-na re: sk-əs-a Ivan who-LOC hit-PAST-PASS. 3 SG ‘Who was Ivan hit by? ’

Old Hungarian non-finites: sporadic unmarked objects strict SOV Adverbial participial clauses (2) [ợ è gondoluan] yme vrnac angala he this thinking lo Lord’s angel ièlenec appeared nèki him ’while he was thinking this, lo, the Lord’s angel appeared to him. ’ (Munich C. a. 1416)

OH: SOV with unmarked object in non-finites Infinitival clauses: (3) ne fordo’l’lon mˉg [ǫ kǫntosǫ feluènni ] not turn-SUBJ-3 SG back he gown-3 SG-ø put. on-INF ‘he should not turn back to put on his gown’ (Munich C. a. 1416) Present participial clauses: (4) Kiral lèuèli irokat king letters-3 SG-ø writing-PL-ACC ‘those writing the king’s letters’ (Vienna C. a. 1416)

OH: SOV with unmarked object in non-finites Perfect participial clauses (5) Agyad meg ymmar [bewne zantnak] give-IMP back now sin-3 SG-ø repented-DAT ‘give it back now to that who has repented his sin’ (Jókai C. a. 1370) Predicative participial clauses (6) ky zent fferenczet lewlteuala [egyhaz feprette] who St Francis-ACC found church-ø sweeping ‘who found St Francis sweeping the church’ (Jókai C. a. 1370)

OH: accusative marking VO order: (7) Munich C. (a. 1416) Matthew 4, 20: Azoc [legottan haloioc meg haguā] kǫuetec ǫtet they immediately net-3 PL-ø off leaving followed him ‘Leaving their net immediately, they followed him’ (8) Jordánszky C. (a. 1516): Azok kedyg [legottan el hagywan haloyokat] they however immediately off leaving net-3 PL-ACC es hayoyokat] kóweteek hewtet and boat-3 PL-ACC followed him

The fast decline of unmarked objects: Codexes: tokens unmarked Os token/unm. O Jókai C. a 1370: 22 733 42 540 Munich C. a 1416: 69 589 78 892 Apor C. a 1416: 22 118 1382 Vienna C. a 1416: 54 423 24 2268 Jordánszky C. a 1516: 200 185 16 12 511

Fossilized OV structures with unmarked O in Modern Hungarian: (9) a. szava tartó ember word-3 SG-ø keeping man ‘a man keeping his word’ Mi tévő legyek? what-ø doing be-1 SG ‘What shall I be doing? ’ b. esze vesztett ember, mind-3 SG-ø lost ‘ man ‘a man having lost his mind’ c. kalap levéve hat-ø off-taking ‘taking off the hat’

Ugric and OH non-finite clauses: independent subject, S-V agreement, possessive inflection (10) [naŋ o: l-t-e: n e: lti] ma u: r-na yax-s-ǝ-m (Khanty) you sleep-PART-2 SG to I forest-LOC walk-PART-1 SG ‘While you were sleeping I went to the forest. ’ (11) Ne zegyenletek [alamyznaert men-tett-ek-et ] (OH) not be. ashamed-2 PL alms-for go-PART-2 PL-ACC ‘don’t be ashamed of asking for alms’ (Jokai C. 1370)

The decline of non-finite subordination: (12) [Nap kedig felkèluē] meg hèuọlėnc sun COORD rising PRT burned-PAST-3 SG ’The sun having risen, they burned. ’ (Munich C. a. 1416) (13) Mykoron az nap fel tamadot wolna, when the sun up rise-PERF-3 SG be-PAST meg swte ewket PRT burn-PAST. 3 SG them ’When the sun had risen, it burned them. ’ (Gábor Pesthi, Novum Testamentum 1536)

Decreasing number of non-finite adverbial clauses Number of -ván/vén clauses in St Matthew: Munich C. a. 1416: 486 Jordánszky C. a. 1516: 322 Károli Bible 1590: 286

Surviving non-finites with possessive inflection in Modern Hungarian Inflected infinitival complements of impersonal predicates: (14) Nem kell/fontos [haza men-n-ünk] not needs/important home go-INF-1 PL ‘We need not go home/It’s not important for us to go home’ Inflected gerund: (15) [Hazafelé men-t-em-ben] találkoz-t-am vele. homewards go-PART-1 SG-INESS meet-PAST-1 SG with-3 SG ‘While going home I met him. ’

Ugric and OH relativization: gap strategy, non-finite prehead relative Khanty: (16) [(mä) tini-m-äm] loγ I sell-PART-1 SG horse ‘the horse which I sold’ OH: (17) Es ueg ed az [neko d zo rzo -tt-em] Coronat and take the you-DAT obtain-PART-1 SG crown-ACC ‘and take the crown which I obtained for you’ (Kazinczy C. 1526)

OH: decreasing of gap relativization; increasing number of relative pronouns Number of the relative pronouns who, what, which in St. Matthew’s Gospel: Munich C. (a. 1416): 225 Jordánszky C. (a. 1516): 314 Károli Bible (1590): 330

Semi-productive gap relativization in Modern Hungarian: (17)a. az [anyám sütö-tt-e] kenyér the mother-1 SG baked-PART-3 SG bread ‘the bread which my mother baked’ b. egy [tanár-ok vezet-t-e] vetélkedő a teacher-s administer-PART-3 SG quiz ‘a quiz which teachers administered’ Only lexical subject, and 3 SG agreement.

Ugric and OH: clause-final interrogative particle (18)a. tit χujew-ä here sleep. 1 PL-Q ’Do we sleep here? ’ (Mansi) b. nèηem tǒttε ù. tot-á wife-1 SG there was-Q ’Was my wife there? ’ (Khanty)

Ugric and OH: clause-final interrogative particle OH: sporadic clause-final e: (19) Nemdè kèt vèrèbec adatnac eģ-fel penz-en ė? not two sparrows give-PASS-3 PL one-half coin-on Q ’Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? ’ (Munich C. , Matthew 10, 29) Emerging V-adjoined e: (20) Il’l’es vag ė tè? Elias are Q you

Middle/Mod. Hungarian: -e adjoined to the V (or to a preverbal element) Jordánszky C. (a 1516) (21) Nem de ket verebek adatnak ee not two sparrows give-PASS-3 PL Q eǵ ffel penzen? one half coin-on (22) yllyes vagy ee the? Elias are Q you

Ugric: no article; definiteness inferred from position, O-V agreement, meaning etc. (23) (Khanty) a. Juwan kalaŋ we: l-əs b. Kalaŋ juwan-na we: l-s-a Ivan reindeer kill-PAST. 3 SG reindeer Ivan-by kill-PAST-PASS. 3 SG ‘Ivan killed a reindeer. ’ ‘The reindeer was killed by Ivan’ (24) a. Ku rit tu-s man boat take-PAST. 3 SG ‘The man took a boat. ’ b. Ku rit tu-s-t man boat take-PAST-OBJ. 3 SG ‘The man took the boat. ’

OH: definiteness derived from meaning, O -V agreement, position, etc. (25) vylag nem vallót oly czudas emberek-eth world not had such wonderful people-ACC ‘the world did not have such wonderful people’ (26) anyath ezes fyaal egembelu ullye-tuk mother sweet son-3 SG-with together kill-IMP-DEF. 2 PL ‘and kill the mother together with her sweet son’ (27) qui vleben tart-ø chudaltus fio-t who lap-3 SG-in hold-INDEF. 3 SG wonderful son-ACC ‘who is holding a wonderful son on her lap’

The growing proportion of the definite article in OH between 1370 -1526 (Egedi 2015)

Ugric: determination/anchoring by a possessive suffix (Nikolaeva 2002): (22) tam hu: j-e: m xal’ṡa joxt-ǝs? (Khanty) this man-1 SG where come-PAST. 3 SG ‘Where did this man come from? (23) öän-øm I-1 SG ‘Kill me!’ jål-ääl-øn. (Eastern Mansi) down-kill-IMP-OBJ. 2 SG (24) Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2 SG on. purpose bring-PAST-OBJ. 1 SG here ‘I brought you here on purpose. ’ (Eastern Mansi)

Relics of determination/anchoring by a possessive suffix in OH/Mod. H: (25) eng-em tég-ed I-1 SG you-2 SG mi-nk-et ti-tek-et we-1 PL-ACCyoupl-2 PL-ACC (26) a hülyé-je, the stupid-3 SG ‘the stupid one’ a zsugori-ja the mean-3 SG ‘the mean one’

Ugric: differential O-V agreement elicited by topical objects Nikolaeva (1999, 2001, Dalrymple&Nikolaeva 2011): O-V agreement in Khanty iff the O is topic: (27)a. What happened? ma tam kalaη we: l-s-əm I this reindeer kill-PAST-1 SG ‘I killed this reindeer. ’ b. What did you do with this reindeer? ma tam kalaη we: l-s-e: m I this reindeer kill-PAST-OBJ. 1 SG ‘I killed this reindeer. ’

OH, MH: differential O-V agreement elicited by definite objects Evidence that it was originally O-V agreement elicited by topical objects: (i) Givón (1975): Topical O - V agreement is often reanalyzed as definite O - V-agreement (e. g. , in various Bantu languages)

(ii) In OH, def. /indef. conjugation sporadically still determined by the discourse status of O: Topical indefinite O with definite conjugation: (28) Kit Amasias kiral auag pap gakorta getre-tt-e whom Amasias king or priest often torture-PAST-DEF. 3 SG ‘whom king or priest Amasias often tortured’ (Vienna C. 1416) Non-topical definite O with indefinite conjugation: (29) Es ottan ve-n ysteny malaztnak latasatt and there take-PAST. INDEF 3 SG divine grace-DAT sight-POSS-ACC ‘and there he took the sight of God’s grace’ (Jókai C. 1370)

(iii) Hungarian has preserved the Inverse Agreement Constraint on topical O – V agr. (30) Inverse Agreement Constraint (Comrie 1980) An object cannot elicit verbal agreement if it is higher in the animacy hierarchy than the subject agreeing with the same verb. (31) Animacy hierarchy 1 SG > 1 PL > 2 SG > 2 PL > 3 SG > 3 PL

The Inverse Agreement Constraint constrains the topicalizability of objects Nikolaeva (2001): The primary topic in Ob-Ugric is the subject. A topical object is always a secondary topic. Animacy Hierarchy = Topicality Hierarchy (36) Inverse Agreement = Inverse Topicality Constraint A secondary topic cannot be more topical than the primary topic of the same clause. An object more topical than the subject of the same clause can only be construed as a focus.

Strong IAC in Eastern Khanty, Samoyedic: no agreement with 1 st and 2 nd person objects (32) Vera ʌüw-at wū-ʌ-təɣ. (Eastern Khanty) Vera she-ACC know-PRS-OBJ. 3 SG ‘Vera knows her. ’ (33)a. ʌüw mān-t /nüŋ-at he I-ACC /you-ACC ‘He sees me/you. ’ wū-ʌ. see-PRS. 3 SG b. mā nüŋ-at wū-ʌ-əm. I you-ACC see-PRS-1 SG ‘I see/know you. SG. ’ (Csepregi p. c. )

Strong IAC also in Tundra Nenets (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011): (34) Wanya syita ladə◦-da. John he. ACC hit- OBJ. 3 SG ’John hit him. ’ (35) Wanya syiqm◦/syit◦ ladə◦ /*ladə◦-da John I. ACC/you. ACC hit. 3 SG/hit- OBJ. 3 S ’John hit me/you. ’

Inverse Agreement Constraint in Hungarian Verbal agreement with 3 rd person objects; no agreement with 1 st/2 nd person objects: (37) a. János John b. János John c. János John lát-ja-Ø őt/őket. see-OBJ-3 SG him/them lát-Ø engem/minket. see-3 SG me/us lát-Ø téged/titeket. see-3 SG yousg/youpl

A weak (relativized) constraint: S 3 < O 2: (38) Ő he lát-Ø see-3 SG téged. you. ACC S 1 > O 2: (39) Én I lát-l-ak see-2 OBJ-1 SG téged. you. S 3 < O 1: (40) Ő he lát see. 3 SG engem. me S 2 < O 1: (41) Te lát-sz you see-2 SG engem. you. ACC

A weak (relativized) constraint: S 1 SG > O 1 PL: O-V agr (8)a. Én minket ajánl-om /*ajánl-ok. I us recommend-OBJ. 1 SG/recommend-1 SG ‘I recommend us. ’ S 2 SG > O 2 PL: O-V agr b. Te titeket ajánl-od /*ajánl-asz? you. SG you. PL-2 PL-ACC recommend-OBJ-2 SG/rec. -2 SG ‘Do you. SG recommend you guys?

A weak (relativized) constraint : S 1 PL > O 1 SG: no O-V agr (42)a. Mi engem választ-unk/*választ-ju-k. we me elect-1 PL /elect-OBJ-1 PL ‘We elect me. ’ S 2 PL > O 2 SG: no O-V agr b. Ti téged választo-tok/*választ-já-tok? you. PL you. SG elect- 2 SG /elect-OBJ-2 SG ‘Do you guys elect you. SG?

(43) Animacy Hierarchy (Hungarian) 1 PL 1 SG > 2 PL > 3 speaker participant non-participant (44) Inverse Agreement Constraint (Hungarian) An O agreeing with a verb must be lower in the animacy hierarchy than the S, unless both S and O represent the lowest level of the animacy hierarchy.

Differential object marking in Easterm Mansi Eastern Mansi: O case-marked iff secondary topic: (45) a. kom jowt-nyõõl wø-s man bow-arrow take-PAST ‘The man took a bow and an arrow’ b. õõw-mø öät kont-iiløm door-ACC NEG find-OBJ. 1 SG ‘I can’t find the door. ’

An Inverse Object Marking Constraint: 1 st and 2 nd person objects are caseless: (46) öän-øm jål-ääl-øn. I-1 SG down-kill-IMP-OBJ. 2 SG ‘Kill me!’ (47) Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2 SG on. purpose bring-PAST-OBJ. 1 SG here ‘I brought you here on purpose. ’ (Eastern Mansi)

Objects anchored to a 1 st/2 nd person possessor are caseless: (48) ääk-øn komøly woåxtl-øs-løn! uncle-2 SG how leave- PAST-OBJ. 2 SG ‘How could you leave your uncle!’ (E Mansi)

Hungarian: generalized object marking; surviving Inverse Object Marking Constraint No accusative -t on SG 1, 2 objects: (49) SG 1: eng-em vs. PL 1: mi-nk-et I-POSS 1 SG we-POSS 1 PL-ACC SG 2: tég-ed you-POSS 2 SG PL 2: SG 3: PL 3: ő-t ’ (s)he-ACC ti-tek-et you. PL- POSS 2 PL-ACC ő-k-et (s)he- PL-ACC

If O has a 1 SG or 2 SG possessor, the accusative -t is optional: (50) Összetörték az autó-m(-at) /autó-d(-at). broke-3 PL the car- POSS 1 SG (-ACC)/POSS 2 SG(-ACC) ‘They broke my car/your car. ’

Ugric: Parallels: Old Hungarian SOV with uncasemarked O relics of SOV with uncasemarked O fixed word order relics of fixed word order non-finite subordination clause-final a relic of a clause-final complementizers complementizer no articles almost no articles determination by possessive relics of determination by poss. agr. morphemes verbal agreement with relics of verbal agreement topical objects with topical objects differential object marking relics of differential object marking