को as dative subject but not a Recipient/Experiencer [various scene roles↝Recipient]
aryamanarora opened this issue · comments
- मुझको फ़ुर्सत है।
I-DAT leisure be-PRS
"I have free time/I'm free." - मुझको काम है।
I-DAT work be-PRS
"I have work/I'm busy." - मुझको बहुत वक़्त लगा।
I-DAT much time feel-PRF
"I took a lot of time."
All these seem to be stretching the limits of Experiencer↝Recipient. Can you experience the passage of time? lots of work => experience of being busy?
Sentences from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/41448/Hindi_Ko.pdf?sequence=2 btw
#8 actually may be under this.
मेरे दोस्त को अपनी भेड़ लेकर गए छः साल हो चुके हैं
I-GEN friend DAT self-GEN sheep take-CONJ go-PRF six years be pass-PRF be-PRS
Six years have passed since my friend, taking his sheep, went away.
It's perfectly native but it makes no sense that that is DAT! But yes this is in fact a dative subject who is experiencing the passage of time.
After thinking about the "It took me time/Time passed to me" type sentences, those are Theme↝Recipient. Theme because the predicate indicates the passage of time (which has the precedent of Theme in the English guidelines, e.g. my life) and Recipient because it is a dative subject.
However, there are still issues that remain in regards to the non-Recipient-y possessive constructions, such as the first two examples in the top post.
Another example:
लोगों को यह जानने का हक़ है।
people-OBL DAT this know-OBL GEN right be-PRS
People have the right to know this.
From UD query for _ <nsubj _ >case को (dative subjects). So it seems को can further mark some instances of abstract possession? It seems like "right", "work" are treated semantically the same way as "need", "want" as something being experienced.
_ <nsubj NOUN >case को
अमेरिका को ऐतराज़ नहीं है।
America DAT objection not be-PRS
America has no objection.
दलों को कोई शिकायत है।
parties DAT some complaint be-PRS
The parties have some kind of complaint.
माँग को कांग्रेस का समर्थन है।
demand DAT Congress GEN support be-PRS
The demand has the Congress party's support.
दम्पति को कोई संतान नहीं थी।
couple DAT any offspring not be-PRS
The couple did not have any children.
Here is what I have decided, having looked at Khan (2009)'s discussion of historical dative possession in Old Hindi/Urdu and Arora and Subbarao (2004)'s discussion of the dative in Dakkhini:
- Nouns of cognition or emotion such as "objection" or "complaint" will have Experiencer↝Recipient. This is quite straightforward, one can experience dissatisfaction or aversion to something, leading to a complaint.
- Nouns such as "support" or "benefit" (लाभ/फ़ायदा) will have Beneficiary↝Recipient. This label has been used in the Little Prince annotation for "dedicated to" so there is some precedent. Of course, support and benefit are abstract so one cannot literally receive them, hence Beneficiary.
- Nouns such as "right" or "ability" or "work" will have Gestalt↝Recipient. In terms of scene role, these don't indicate any receiving (or motion at all) actually, since they use the copula.
- Nouns such as "children" (which seems to be a fossilized expression from back when there were several competing postpositions for social relations) will have SocialRel↝Recipient. One interpretation is that the parents "receive" children, and that is why other social relations aren't included in this postposition. However, Old Hindi/Urdu seems not have had this restriction so it's iffy.