Modalitate-markatzaileak: partikula modalak ote dira euskarazko partikula modalak? [Marcadores de modalidad: ¿son realmente las partículas modales del vasco partículas modales?]

IF 0.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Fontes Linguae Vasconum Pub Date : 2021-12-17 DOI:10.35462/flv132.9

Sergio Monforte

{"title":"Modalitate-markatzaileak: partikula modalak ote dira euskarazko partikula modalak? [Marcadores de modalidad: ¿son realmente las partículas modales del vasco partículas modales?]","authors":"Sergio Monforte","doi":"10.35462/flv132.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work critically analyses the particles that are usually considered modal in Bascolo-gy, considering their separate behaviour in comparison to the elements that typological-ly have received the same denomination. For this, two morphosyntactic properties have been analysed: a) if they must merge with another component and b) if they can appear in embedded contexts. As for Basque, I have concluded that traditional modal particles (ahal, bide, ei, omen and ote) behave as enclitic modal markers. However, others func-tion in a similar way to the prototypical modal particles, specifically morphologically independent speech act operators: bada, baina, berriz, gero, ordea and eastern ote.\n\nLan honetan euskalaritzan partikula modaltzat hartu ohi direnak modu kritikoan az-tertu dira tipologikoki izendapen bera duten elementuen ondoan aldea ikusita. Bi pro-pietate morfosintaktikori erreparatu zaie: a) ea beste osagai bati atxiki behar dioten eta b) ea mendeko testuinguruetan ager daitezkeen. Euskarari begira, tradizioko partikula modalek (ahal, bide, ei, omen eta ote) markatzaile modal enklitikoen moduan jokatzen dutela ondorioztatu dut. Hala ere, beste batzuek partikula modal prototipikoen antze-ko jokabidea dute; hau da, hizketa-ekintzaren operatzaile morfologikoki beregainak dira: bada, baina, berriz, gero, ordea eta ekialdeko ote hain zuzen.","PeriodicalId":32721,"journal":{"name":"Fontes Linguae Vasconum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fontes Linguae Vasconum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35462/flv132.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work critically analyses the particles that are usually considered modal in Bascolo-gy, considering their separate behaviour in comparison to the elements that typological-ly have received the same denomination. For this, two morphosyntactic properties have been analysed: a) if they must merge with another component and b) if they can appear in embedded contexts. As for Basque, I have concluded that traditional modal particles (ahal, bide, ei, omen and ote) behave as enclitic modal markers. However, others func-tion in a similar way to the prototypical modal particles, specifically morphologically independent speech act operators: bada, baina, berriz, gero, ordea and eastern ote. Lan honetan euskalaritzan partikula modaltzat hartu ohi direnak modu kritikoan az-tertu dira tipologikoki izendapen bera duten elementuen ondoan aldea ikusita. Bi pro-pietate morfosintaktikori erreparatu zaie: a) ea beste osagai bati atxiki behar dioten eta b) ea mendeko testuinguruetan ager daitezkeen. Euskarari begira, tradizioko partikula modalek (ahal, bide, ei, omen eta ote) markatzaile modal enklitikoen moduan jokatzen dutela ondorioztatu dut. Hala ere, beste batzuek partikula modal prototipikoen antze-ko jokabidea dute; hau da, hizketa-ekintzaren operatzaile morfologikoki beregainak dira: bada, baina, berriz, gero, ordea eta ekialdeko ote hain zuzen.

查看原文本刊更多论文

调制解调器标记：模式细节是否为支持模式？[Boroom模型标记：？实际上是现代波浪光中最小的粒子？]

这项工作批判性地分析了在Bascolo gy中通常被认为是模态的粒子，考虑到它们与在类型上错误地获得相同名称的元素相比的单独行为。为此，分析了两个形态句法特性：a）它们是否必须与另一个成分合并；b）它们是否可以出现在嵌入的上下文中。至于巴斯克语，我已经得出结论，传统的语气词（ahal、bid、ei、omen和ote）表现为附言语气标记。然而，其他人的功能与原型语气词相似，特别是形态独立的言语行为操作符：是的，但同样，无论是当时还是东方。在这项工作中，那些被用来形成颗粒物模型的人被具有相同类型名称的元素严重扭曲了。我认为，这是一个错误：a）最好是在第二天之前进行测试，b）最好是每天进行测试。看看媒体，我得出结论，传统的模态细节（可能性、路径等）以通谕模型标记的形式发挥作用。然而，其他人的行为与模型原型相同；从形态上讲，这是语言活动的运算符，但不管它是真是假。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Fontes Linguae Vasconum Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

15 weeks