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 SVOfixed word order free word orderfused thematic and separate thematic and discourse roles

discourse rolesnon-finite subordinationfinite subordinationclause-final clause-initial complementizer complementizerno articles articlesverbal agreement with verbal agreement with

topical object definitene objectdifferential object marking 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 HungarianKhanty: strict SOV, with unmarked object

(1) a. (luw) juwan re:sk-əs he Ivan hit- PAST.3SG ‘He hit Ivan.’

b. juwan xoj-na re:sk-əs-a Ivan who-LOC hit-PAST-PASS.3SG‘Who was Ivan hit by?’

Old Hungarian non-finites: sporadicunmarked objects strict SOV

Adverbial participial clauses(2) [ợ è gondoluan] yme vrnac angala he this thinking lo Lord’s angel

ièlenec nèki appeared 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 m g [ˉ ǫ kǫntosǫ feluènni ]

not turn-SUBJ-3SG back he gown-3SG-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-3SG-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-3SG-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-3PL-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-3PL-ACC

es hayoyokat] kóweteek hewtet and boat-3PL-ACC followed him

The fast decline of unmarked objects:

Codexes: tokens unmarked Os token/unm.O

Jókai C. a1370: 22 733 42 540Munich C. a1416: 69 589 78 892Apor C. a1416: 22 118 18 1382Vienna C. a1416: 54 423 24 2268Jordánszky C.

a1516: 200 185 16 12 511

Fossilized OV structures with unmarked O in Modern Hungarian:

(9)a. szava tartó ember word-3SG-ø keeping man ‘a man keeping his word’ Mi tévő legyek? what-ø doing be-1SG ‘What shall I be doing?’b. esze vesztett ember, mind-3SG-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: independentsubject, 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-2SG to I forest-LOC walk-PART-1SG

‘While you were sleeping I went to the forest.’(11)

Ne zegyenletek [alamyznaert men-tett-ek-et ] (OH)not be.ashamed-2PL alms-for go-PART-2PL-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-3SG ’The sun having risen, they burned.’

(Munich C. a. 1416)

(13) Mykoron az nap fel tamadot wolna, when the sun up rise-PERF-3SG be-PAST meg swte ewket

PRT burn-PAST.3SG 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: 486Jordánszky C. a. 1516: 322Károli 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-1PL

‘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-1SG-INESS meet-PAST-1SG with-3SG

‘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-1SG horse

‘the horse which I sold’OH:

(17) Es ueged az [nek d z rz -tt-em] o o o Coronat and take the you-DAT obtain-PART-1SG 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): 225Jordánszky C. (a. 1516): 314Károli Bible (1590): 330

Semi-productive gap relativization in Modern Hungarian:

(17)a. az [anyám sütö-tt-e] kenyér the mother-1SG baked-PART-3SG bread ‘the bread which my mother baked’

b. egy [tanár-ok vezet-t-e] vetélkedő a teacher-s administer-PART-3SG quiz ‘a quiz which teachers administered’

Only lexical subject, and 3SG agreement.

Ugric and OH: clause-final interrogative particle

(18)a. tit χujew-ä here sleep.1PL-Q

’Do we sleep here?’ (Mansi)

b. nèηem tǒttε ù.tot-á wife-1SG 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-3PL 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

’Are you Elias?’ (Munich C., John 1,21)

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-3PL Q eg 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.3SG reindeer Ivan-by kill-PAST-PASS.3SG

‘Ivan killed a reindeer.’ ‘The reindeer was killed by Ivan’

(24)a. Ku rit tu-s b. Ku rit tu-s-t

man boat take-PAST.3SG man boat take-PAST-OBJ.3SG‘The man took a boat.’ ‘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-3SG-with together kill-IMP-DEF.2PL

‘and kill the mother together with her sweet son’

(27) qui vleben tart-ø chudaltus fio-t who lap-3SG-in hold-INDEF.3SG 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-1SG where come-PAST.3SG‘Where did this man come from?

(23) öän-øm jål-ääl-ääl-øn. (Eastern Mansi)I-1SG down-kill-IMP-OBJ.2SG ‘Kill me!’

(24) Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2SG on.purpose bring-PAST-OBJ.1SG 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 mi-nk-et ti-tek-et I-1SG you-2SG we-1PL-ACCyoupl-2PL-ACC

(26) a hülyé-je, a zsugori-ja the stupid-3SG the mean-3SG

‘the stupid one’ ‘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-1SG ‘I killed this reindeer.’

b. What did you do with this reindeer?ma tam kalaη we:l-s-e:mI this reindeer kill-PAST-OBJ.1SG‘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.3SG

‘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.INDEF3SG 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 ifit is higher in the animacy hierarchy than

the subject agreeing with the same verb. (31) Animacy hierarchy

1SG > 1PL > 2SG > 2PL > 3SG > 3PL

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 1st and 2nd person objects

(32) Vera ʌüw-at wū-ʌ-təɣ. (Eastern Khanty)Vera she-ACC know-PRS-OBJ.3SG‘Vera knows her.’

(33)a. ʌüw mān-t /nüŋ-at wū-ʌ. he I-ACC /you-ACC see-PRS.3SG‘He sees me/you.’

b. mā nüŋ-at wū-ʌ-əm. I you-ACC see-PRS-1SG

‘I see/know youSG.’ (Csepregi p.c.)

Strong IAC also in Tundra Nenets (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011):

(34) Wanya syita ladə◦-da.John he. ACC hit- OBJ.3SG’John hit him.’

(35) Wanya syiqm◦/syit◦ ladə◦ /*ladə◦-da John I.ACC/you.ACC hit.3SG/hit-

OBJ.3S ’John hit me/you.’

Inverse Agreement Constraintin Hungarian

Verbal agreement with 3rd person objects; no agreement with 1st/2nd person objects:(37)

a. János lát-ja-Ø őt/őket.John see-OBJ-3SG him/them

b. János lát-Ø engem/minket.John see-3SG me/us

c. János lát-Ø téged/titeket.John see-3SG yousg/youpl

A weak (relativized) constraint:

S3 < O2: (38) Ő lát-Ø téged. he see-3SG you.ACC

S1 > O2: (39) Én lát-l-ak téged. I see-2OBJ-1SG you.

S3 < O1: (40) Ő lát engem. he see.3SG me

S2 < O1: (41) Te lát-sz engem. you see-2SG you.ACC

A weak (relativized) constraint: S1SG > O1PL: O-V agr(8)a. Én minket ajánl-om /*ajánl-ok.

I us recommend-OBJ.1SG/recommend-1SG‘I recommend us.’

S2SG > O2PL: O-V agr

b. Te titeket ajánl-od /*ajánl-asz? youSG youPL-2PL-ACC recommend-OBJ-2SG/rec.-2SG

‘Do youSG recommend you guys?

A weak (relativized) constraint : S1PL > O1SG: no O-V agr(42)a. Mi engem választ-unk/*választ-ju-k.

we me elect-1PL /elect-OBJ-1PL‘We elect me.’

S2PL > O2SG: no O-V agr b. Ti téged választo-tok/*választ-já-tok?

youPL youSG elect- 2SG /elect-OBJ-2SG‘Do you guys elect youSG?

(43) Animacy Hierarchy (Hungarian) 1PL

1SG > 2SG > 2PL > 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.1SG‘I can’t find the door.’

An Inverse Object Marking Constraint:

1st and 2nd person objects are caseless:

(46) öän-øm jål-ääl-ääl-øn. I-1SG down-kill-IMP-OBJ.2SG ‘Kill me!’

(47)Om nää-n jorøl tảt-øs-løm tøg. I you-2SG on.purpose bring-PAST-OBJ.1SGhere‘I brought you here on purpose.’ (Eastern Mansi)

Objects anchored to a 1st/2nd person possessor are caseless:

(48) ääk-øn komøly woåxtl-øs-løn! uncle-2SG how leave- PAST-OBJ.2SG ‘How could you leave your uncle!’ (E Mansi)

Hungarian: generalized object marking;surviving Inverse Object Marking Constraint

No accusative -t on SG1,2 objects:(49) SG1: eng-em vs. PL1:mi-nk-et

I-POSS1SG we-POSS1PL-ACC

SG2: tég-ed PL2:ti-tek-et you-POSS2SG youPL- POSS2PL-ACC

SG3: ő-t ’ PL3:ő-k-et(s)he-ACC (s)he- PL-ACC

If O has a 1SG or 2SG possessor, the accusative -t is optional:

(50) Összetörték az autó-m(-at) /autó-d(-at). broke-3PL the car- POSS1SG(-ACC)/POSS2SG(-ACC)

‘They broke my car/your car.’

Parallels:Ugric: Old Hungarian

SOV with uncasemarked O relics of SOV with uncasemarked Ofixed word order relics of fixed word ordernon-finite subordination non-finite subordinationclause-final a relic of a clause-final complementizers

complementizerno articles almost no articlesdetermination by possessive relics of determination by poss.

agr. morphemes agr. morphemesverbal agreement with relics of verbal agreement

topical objects with topical objectsdifferential object marking relics of differential object marking