THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN* LÄSZLO ANTAL 1. One of the features peculiar to Hungarian - though found in some other languages too - is that the noun can assume possessive personal in- flexions. However, the phonemic series represented by the types kezem (= my hand; hand = kez), hazam (= my house; house = haz), kezeim (= my hands), hazaim (== my houses) etc., show a great variety of mor- phemic distribution. Different views have been held by different authors and in different ages as to the problem of which part should be assigned to the stem and which to the suffix, and - in the case of more than one thing possessed - which segment denotes the plural. The problem was further complicated by the fact that the morphemic status of the "aux- iliary vowel" was far from precisely defined. We shall see later that some grammarians have treated this vowel as an independent element, others have relegated it to the stem and still others to the suffix. I propose in this paper to reconsider the main opinions held on this question and to attempt to formulate a theory which, it is hoped, is based on more con- sistent arguments. I shall, therefore, adopt the following procedure: firstly, I shall con- sider the morphemic status of the auxiliary vowel; secondly, I shall survey the better known views of grammarians with regard to the pos- sessive inflexion of nouns; and thirdly, I propose to put forward my own views. Here, it must first be decided where to separate the different morphemes in the types hazam, kezem, hazaim, kezeim, etc.; then it must be determined which of the segments - the results of the division - are alternants of the same morpheme. However, before this, we shall have to touch upon the question of the auxiliary vowel. 2. The definition of the status of the auxiliary vowel is a key problem * This paper is a revised and enlarged version of my article "On the Possessive Form of the Hungarian Noun", published in General Linguistics, V, No. 2, pp. 39-46. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Authenticated | 139.184.30.135 Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
Transcript
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THEHUNGARIAN NOUN*
LÄSZLO ANTAL
1. One of the features peculiar to Hungarian - though found in some otherlanguages too - is that the noun can assume possessive personal in-flexions. However, the phonemic series represented by the types kezem(= my hand; hand = kez), hazam (= my house; house = haz), kezeim(= my hands), hazaim (== my houses) etc., show a great variety of mor-phemic distribution. Different views have been held by different authorsand in different ages as to the problem of which part should be assignedto the stem and which to the suffix, and - in the case of more than onething possessed - which segment denotes the plural. The problem wasfurther complicated by the fact that the morphemic status of the "aux-iliary vowel" was far from precisely defined. We shall see later that somegrammarians have treated this vowel as an independent element, othershave relegated it to the stem and still others to the suffix. I propose inthis paper to reconsider the main opinions held on this question and toattempt to formulate a theory which, it is hoped, is based on more con-sistent arguments.
I shall, therefore, adopt the following procedure: firstly, I shall con-sider the morphemic status of the auxiliary vowel; secondly, I shallsurvey the better known views of grammarians with regard to the pos-sessive inflexion of nouns; and thirdly, I propose to put forward my ownviews. Here, it must first be decided where to separate the differentmorphemes in the types hazam, kezem, hazaim, kezeim, etc.; then it mustbe determined which of the segments - the results of the division - arealternants of the same morpheme. However, before this, we shall haveto touch upon the question of the auxiliary vowel.
2. The definition of the status of the auxiliary vowel is a key problem
* This paper is a revised and enlarged version of my article "On the Possessive Formof the Hungarian Noun", published in General Linguistics, V, No. 2, pp. 39-46.
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 51
in Hungarian morphology. It is quite evident that the whole structure ofstems and suffixes depends on where the auxiliary vowel is to be assigned.There are three possible alternatives: a) the auxiliary vowel belongs tothe stem; b) it is an independent morpheme; c) it is a part of the suffix.To give examples of each: a) haza-m; b) haz-a-m; c) haz-am.
a) The auxiliary vowel cannot be a part of the stem, because it fre-quently occurs not only between the stem and the suffix but also betweenthe plural suffix and the following case suffix. If only the following formsoccurred in Hungarian: hazat (= house, ace.), kezet (= hand, ace.), etc.,then the problem would be debatable. However, there are forms such ashazakat (= houses, ace.), kezeket (= hands, ace.), etc. Given that theauxiliary vowel belongs to the stem, the morphemic subdivision shouldin the latter cases follow the pattern haza-ka-t, keze-ke-t. This methodof subdivision would be justifiable only if the nominative plural werehazaka, kezeke. However, the correct form is: hazak, kezek. In otherwords, the a or e segments, respectively, appear only when they are fol-lowed by t or by some other suffix. Consequently, the auxiliary vowelafter the plural suffix k does not belong to this suffix but forms part ofthe following suffix. Now, if it does not belong to the stem in the plural,then it cannot do so in the singular either.
b) Can the auxiliary vowel be an independent morpheme? Accordingto many grammarians the correct subdivision of the forms hazam andkezem is into haz-a-m and kez-e-m, respectively. The roots are, therefore,kar and kez, m is the possessive suffix and a and e are the auxiliary vowels.This subdivision is usually explained in two ways. Firstly, it can bemaintained - as it has been by some authors - that the forms quotedconsist of two morphemes and one phoneme. It goes without sayingthat this view cannot be upheld. If we analyse a sequence of phonemesfrom a morphemic point of view, every phoneme in the sequence mustbelong to some morpheme or, if this is not the case, it must constitute anindependent morpheme in itself. However, according to the view quotedabove, the auxiliary vowel should be regarded as something which isneither a morpheme in itself nor belongs to another morpheme. It isabsurd, when making an analysis, to have to deal with both morphemes andphonemes at the same level. Therefore, the subdivision haz-a-m andkez-e-m is only correct if we can prove that a and e are morphemes. Letus see whether we can do this.
On the subject of morphemic division Harris states the following:"A phonemic sequence, say /ruwmsr/ in That's our roomer, may containmore than one morphemic segment if and only if one part of the sequence
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
52 LÄSZLO ANTAL
occurs without another part, in the same total environment: /ruwm/also occurs in That's our room; /or/ also occurs in That's our recorder."1
Accordingly, we can say of the phoneme sequence hazam that it consistsof more than one morpheme, because one part of it /haz/ occurs in thesame environment without the other; for example, Ez a hazam nagy(= This house of mine is great) and Ez a haz nagy (= This houseis great). Furthermore, -am occurs without haz; for example, Ez alabam nagy(= This foot of mine is great; lab = foot). We notice there-fore that haz occurs without -am and -am occurs without haz but thata never occurs without the m. This clearly shows that the a is notan independent morpheme but, together with the com, nstitutes an -ammorpheme.
All this is perfectly clear. It is a typical example of the rules of morphe-mic analysis. Any university freshman will grasp it in a few minutes andrealize how obvious it is. Unfortunately, this does not apply to everyone.A. Sauvageot has, for instance, found it difficult to get a clear idea ofwhat a morpheme is. With regard to a previous article of mine, he putsthe following naive question: "L'intervention d'une nouvelle entite entrele phoneme et le mot est-elle justifiee?"2 Under these circumstances, itis not to be wondered at that Sauvageot is an ardent believer in theauxiliary vowel and fails to see that if the auxiliary vowel is not an in-dependent morpheme - and we have seen that it cannot be one - it mustparforce belong to another morpheme, either to the one preceding it orto the one following it. All this does not worry Sauvageot, and, insteadof giving the matter further consideration, he takes his revenge on Bloom-field and Harris in these words: "Je sais bien que ce qui tourmente M. L.Antal, c'est qui'il ne croit pas pouvoir donner le nom de morpheme ä lavoyelle de liaison. Mais pourquoi pas? Parce que cela ne lui parait pascorrespondre aux definitions donnees par Bloomfield ou Harris? Tantpis alors pour ces definitions, si elles ne cadrent pas avec les faits dümentconstates."3 In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that Sauva-geot should study the writings of Bloomfield and Harris and to under-stand them before undertaking to criticise them.
c) Since the auxiliary vowel can neither belong to the stem nor forman independent morpheme, it must be a part of the following suffix. Itis thus justifiable to speak in Hungarian of stem and alternating suffixes
1 Harris, Z. S., Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1955), p. 158.2 Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 1961, Fasc. 2, p. 330.8 Ibid., p. 334.
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 53
rather than of stem, alternating auxiliary vowels and constant suffixes.We can set it out as follows:
3. New let us survey the various views put forward by different authorson the morphemic division of the possessive paradigmatic patterns ofthe Hungarian noun.
SIMONYI I
Zsigmond Simonyi, the eminent Hungarian authority on grammar in anearly stage of his career, put forward the theory of the "stem vowel".In accordance with this he sets out the possessive form of the noun inthe following manner, in one of his early grammar books :4
Later, Simonyi discarded his own view that the auxiliary vowel was apart of the stem. In his monumental grammar5 written at the end of thelast century, we find the following picture:4 Magyar nyelvtan tanodai s maganhasznälatra [Hungarian Grammar for Schools andPrivate Use], (Budapest, 1880).6 Tüzetes magyar nyelvtan [Hungarian Grammar in Detail] (Budapest, 1895).
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
On pp. 68 ff. in the above-quoted work of Lotz a new segmentation isoffered. In the singular it is identical with the earlier method of division(vide Lotz I), while in the plural the division agrees with that of Simonyi's.Thus:
haz-amhaz-ai-m
(my house) etc.(my houses) etc.
kez-emkez-ei-m
(my hand) etc.(my hands) etc.
Das ungarische Sprachsystem (Stockholm, 1939).
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 55
It should be noted that the second solution of Lotz is identical with theview generally accepted today.
HALL
In R. A. Hall's Hungarian grammar7 we are surprised to find that theauthor has reverted to the theory of the separate auxiliary vowel, isolatingit not only in the third person singular but even in the plural as follows:
With regard to this division and Hall's grammar in general, Bergslandcorrectly stated: 'One of the most striking features of the book is indeedthe extensive use of the concept 'auxiliary vowel'. In order to leave azero-ending and /k/ as the invariable possessive suffixes on the thirdperson singular and plural, respectively, the author applies this term notonly to the /o/ of forms like /dolgok/ 'things', /dolgom/ 'my thing' but,for example, also to the /a/ of /dolga/ 'his thing', /dolgaim/ 'my things',/dolgai/ 'his things', /dolgaik/ 'their things' and the /u/ of /dolguk/'their thing'."8 Hall replied to this comment in a short article, in whichhe wrote: "But what of the vowel that follows the noun and precedes thepersonal possessive and plural suffixes? We can consider it as one ofthree things: (a) part of the suffix; (b) part of the noun; (c) a separateelement (the name does not matter, whether 'auxiliary vowel' or anythingelse). Choice (a) will involve us in numerous difficulties, because we will7 Hungarian Grammar (= Supplement to Language, Vol. 20, No. 4) (Baltimore, 1944).8 Bergsland, K., Review of Hall's Hungarian Grammar, in Lingua, IV (1954-1955),p. 108.
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
56 L SZLO ANTAL
have to set up many allomorphs, e.g. /-uk/~/-k/ for the third personplural possessive suffix, etc. Choice (b) likewise demands the establish-ment of many allomorphs, e.g. /dolog/~/dolga-/~/dolgo-/~/dolgu-/;if, with Bergsland, we set up a 'non-possessive' and a 'possessive' nounstem, we get considerable overlapping, which is, in addition, quite irre-gular.
There remains the third possibility, that of treating this vowel as aseparate item, though of course it would be 'an empty morph'."9
As we have seen, it is the "empty morph", i.e. the independence of theauxiliary vowel, which is the weakest point in Hall's argument. I there-fore agree partly with Ebeling: "The opposition dolgo- : dolgu- is reflectedin the meaning. Since the element -o- occurs also in dolgom 'my thing',etc., it is definitely deprived of any meaning, and consequently not amorpheme. But -w- clearly conveys the idea 'possession'. So dolgok ismorphemically dolog + k 'plural thing', while dolguk consists of threemorphemes dolog + u + k 'plural possessor's thing'. As this discussionshows, I deny the existence of 'empty morphs' which are neither syntacticnor lexical indices."10
I must point out at this juncture that it cannot be correct to dividedolguk into dolog + u + k. The -w- never occurs without -k- or -nk-(e.g. dolgunk = Our thing'), whereas -k and -nk can occur without -u-.Furthermore, a comparison of the forms dolgok and dolguk in thisisolated way does not give any indication of the morphemic division ofthese forms. The comparison can only show that these forms differ asphonemic sequences, and it is the o-u opposition which constitutes thedifference. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this is that οand Μ are different phonemes in Hungarian, since there are utterances,clearly distinguished by native speakers, which differ only with regard tothese two phonemes. To conclude solely on the basis of this fact that uor ο both are different and independent morphemes would be like com-paring the phonemic sequences bud and bug in English and concludingthat d and g are different and independent morphemes.
4. Let us now make a brief survey of the foregoing main types of division,first reviewing the singular.
It has been shown why Simonyi's first attempt, that is, the division intohaza-m, cannot be right. The incorrectness of Simonyi's second solution9 Remarks on Bergsland's Review of Hall, "Hungarian Grammar", Lingua, V (1955-1956), p. 299.10 Ebeling, C. L., Linguistic Units (The Hague, 1960), p. 124.
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 57
and that of Hall, that is, a segmentation of the type haz-a-m, has alsobeen pointed out.
On the other hand, Lotz's method of division of the singular is correctand enjoys wide acceptance today.
The problem becomes more complicated when we consider the plural.Here, we have three rival suggestions. On the one hand, we have Simo-nyi's and Lotz's second solution, according to which the division haz-ai-m is said to be correct; on the other hand, we have Lotz's first sugges-tion which favours the segmentation haz-aim\ finally, we have Hall'sview that the morphemic structure can be divided into haz-a-i-m. Thuswe have
a) haz-ai-mb) haz-aimc) haz-a-i-m
If we were to accept a), this would mean that the plural ending itogether with the possessive personal suffix has the following variants:
, ei, jai and jeL However, since / itself is - in a way which has not yetbeen clarified - a variant of the non-possessive plural ending -k, thesystem of variants for the Hungarian plural ending could be set out asfollows:
K: -k -i-ai•ei-jai-jei
But the segments ai, ei and jai, jei cannot be regarded as indivisible. Inrespect of haza - hazai (his house - his houses), keze - kezei (his hand - hishands), karja - karjai (his arm - his arms) andföldje -földjei (his land -his lands), existing parallels in the language itself clearly point to theircomposite nature. Thus, in the phonemic sequence hazaim, the followingmorphemic divisions are found:
a) One morphemic division separates the parts ai and m. This isshown by the juxtaposition of hazai - hazaim (his houses - my houses)and hazaim - hazaid (my houses - thy houses).
b) There is one morphemic division between the parts a and im. Thisis seen in the juxtaposition of haza - hazaim (his house - my houses).
c) There is one morphemic boundary between haz and aim. This isseen in the juxtaposition of haz - hazaim (house - my houses).
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
58 LÄSZLO ANTAL
Thus, in the phonemic sequence of hazaim we find the segments haz +a + i + m. It follows from this that neither the haz-ai-m not the haz-aimdivision can be right.
Up to this point, it would appear that division c), that is, Hall's divisioninto haz-a-i-m, is correct, but, here, further difficulties are encountered.Hall separates four elements from the phenomic sequence, but only threeof these seem to be independent morphemes. The segment a, by reasonof both its distribution and its meaning, cannot qualify as an independentmorpheme, whereas the analysis just carried out has shown that anothermorpheme occurs before and after it. Thus only one solution remains,which is to regard the phonemic sequence hazaim as the sum of the partshazam + i, accepting, at the same time, that the morpheme -am has lostits continuity owing to the infixing of the plural ending i. Nevertheless,it has retained its morphemic status as a discontinuous -a-m morpheme.Discontinuous morphemes are not infrequent in some languages, notablyArabic.
We, therefore, have to accept that when a noun with a possessivesuffix, e.g. kezem (my hand), adds an i to signify "of things possessed"e.g. kezeim (my hands), this means that discontinuous morphemes alsooccur in Hungarian. The existence of this unusual category is borne outby two facts. I have already referred to both of these. The first is thecomplex character of the segments ai, ei a,ndjai,jei9 and the second is theimpossibility of the independence of the auxiliary vowel. If the auxiliaryvowel could be an independent morpheme, Hall's solution would beabove criticism. In view of these two facts, however, it would be best toset out the possessive forms of the Hungarian noun as follows:
haz-am (my house) etc. kez-em (my hand) etc.haz-ad kez-edhaz-a kez-ehaz-unk (our house) etc. kez-ünk (our hand) etc.haz-atok kez-etekhaz-uk kez-uk
haz-a-i-m (my houses) etc. kez-e-i-m (my hands) etc.
haz-a-i-d kez-e-i-d
haz-a-i kez-e-i
haz-a-i-nk (our houses) etc. kez-e-i-nk (our hands) etc.
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 59
haz~a-i-tok
haz-a-i-k
kez-e-i-tek
kez-e-i-k
kar-ja-i-m (my arms) etc.
kar-ja-i-d
kar-ja-i
kar-ja-i-nk (our arms) etc.
kar-ja-i-tok
kar-ja-i-k
fold-je-i-m (my lands) etc.
fold-je-i-d
fold-je-i
fold-je-i-nk (our lands) etc.
fold-je-i-tek
fold-je+k
This system has a further advantage over that of Hall's, which becomesevident when we remember that Hall assumes that there are three mor-phemes present in Hungarian nouns ending in a vowel when there ismore than one thing possessed (e.g. keve-i-m — my sheaves, keve = sheaf)and four morphemes in nouns with consonantal stems (e.g. kar-ja-i-m).
If, on the other hand, we assume the existence of discontinuous mor-phemes, both vocalic and consonantal stem nouns have an equal numberof morphemes.
With regard to Hungarian possessive suffixes, we have the followingalternants:
1st Person Singular:(my rose; rose = rozsd)(my house \ house =· haz)(my hand; hand = kez)(my age; age = kor)(my skin; skin = bor)(my houses)(my hands)
-ja-m e.g. karjaim (my arms; arm = kar)-je-m e.g. földjeim (my lands)
2d Person Singular:-d e.g. rozsad (thy rose)-ad e.g. hazad (thy house)-ed e.g. kezed (thy hand)
-m-am-em-om-om-a-m-e-m
e.g. rozsame.g. hazame.g. kezeme.g. korome.g. böröme.g. hazaime.g. kezeim
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
60 LÄSZLO ANTAL
-od-öd-a-d-e-d-ja-d-je-d
e.g. korode.g. böröde.g. hazaide.g. kezeide.g. karjaide.g. földjeid
3rd Person Singular:-a e.g. haza (his or her house)-e e.g. keze (his or her hand)-ja e.g. karja (his or her arm)-je e.g. földje (his or her land)
In the case of the plural of things possessed, the four alternants of the thirdperson singular remain unchanged and the plural suffix follows them.1st Person Plural:
-nk e.g. rozsank (our rose)-unk e.g. hazunk (our house)-unk e.g. kezünk (our hand)-a-nk e.g. hazaink (our houses)-e-nk e.g. kezeink (our hands)-ja-nk e.g. karjaink (our arms)-je-nk e.g. földjeink (our lands)
2d Person Plural:-tok e.g. rozsatok (your rose)-tek e.g. kevetek (your sheaf)-tök e.g. gyürütök (your ring, ring ==· gyürü)-atok e.g. hazatok (your house)-etek e.g. kezetek (your hand)-ötök e.g. börötök (your skin)-a-tok e.g. hazaitok (your houses)-e-tek e.g. kezeitek (your hands)-ja-tok e.g. karjaitok (your arms)-je-tek e.g. földjeitek (your lands)
3rd Person Plural:-uk e.g. hazuk (their house)-ük e.g. kezük (their hand)-juk e.g. karjuk (their arm)
Brought to you by | University of SussexAuthenticated | 139.184.30.135
Download Date | 8/19/12 6:09 PM
THE POSSESSIVE FORM OF THE HUNGARIAN NOUN 61
-jilk-a-k-e-k-ja-k-je-k
e.g. földjüke.g. hazaike.g. kezeike.g. karjaike.g. földjeik
