Knowledge base · source

Dal Corso 2025

Dal Corso, Elia (2025). The mixed nominative-neutral-inverse morphological alignment of Sakhalin Ainu.

db.aynu.org/2025-dal-corso-elia-the-mixed-nominative-neutral-inverse-morphological-alignment-of-sakhalin-ainu prior-analysis sakhalin text held locally OCR pdftotext-pieces: 37 leaves, 0 with a printed page

Chapters citing this source

Sentences of the first edition citing this source

1. The competing system-wide analyses — tripartite, hierarchical, inverse — are sharpened by Sakhalin work: Dal Corso rejects a tripartite component for Sakhalin in favour of a mixed nominative–neutral–inverse account, while warning that the diachrony may not carry over to Hokkaido ‹contested›. 187–188, 200, 213 Architecture of the Personal-Affix System: The Four Persons and the S/A/O Paradigms
2. Its diachronic status is more open: most treatments assume an earlier S/A≠O distinction was lost, while Satō's reported 2024 position treats neutrality as original — a strategy of empathy or deferred agency never preceded by a subject/object split ‹contested›. 194–195 First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
3. Their historical relationship — including whether Hokkaido un= and the Sakhalin counterpart in= are cognates of the exclusive O or of the indefinite O — is part of the broader alignment debate and is pursued in ‹contested›. §2.3 First-Person Plural and the Clusivity Question (ci=/=as, un=)
4. Dal Corso applies the label "fourth person" to the cognate Sakhalin AN-series by word form, while his diachronic reanalysis — which rejects the tripartite component for Sakhalin and treats the cognate system as mixed nominative–neutral–inverse — is explicitly cautioned as inapplicable to Hokkaido ; ‹contested›. 187–188, 200, 213 The Indefinite/Fourth Person: Forms, Reference, and Agent-Defocusing
5. Sakhalin, proposing a mixed nominative-neutral-inverse analysis, and explicitly cautions that his diachrony and hierarchical account may not apply to Hokkaido ‹contested›. 187–188, 200, 213 The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
6. He dismisses the tripartite component for Sakhalin by arguing that the S and A forms sharing common origin belong to a nominative sub-system rather than tripartite cells, while the fourth-person or participant-referentiality-mismatch dimension is analysed as inverse . 187, 207, 213 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
7. He is explicit that this diachrony may not extend to Ainu as a whole and that the hierarchical analysis may not apply to Hokkaido ‹contested›. 188, 200 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
8. Sakhalin treats the same dimension as a referential hierarchy of speech-act participants, but explicitly limits that analysis to Sakhalin data ‹contested›. 196–200 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
9. Sakhalin, explicitly limited by its author to that variety . 187–188, 213 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
10. Whether the positional contrast that grounds the tripartite label (prefix for A, suffix for S) warrants a tripartite classification or is better captured diachronically, as Dal Corso proposes for ‹SA›, is a live disagreement ‹contested›. 207, 213 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
11. The origin of second-person neutrality — whether it reflects an original non-distinction or a lost S/A≠O pattern — is unresolved; Satō (2024, as reported by Dal Corso) argues for the original account, while most earlier work assumes a later merger ‹contested›. 194–195 Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
12. HK grammars report no cognate suffix in this structural position; Dal Corso's alignment study traces the SA morpheme to a grammaticalized pronoun and argues that the SA system encodes a richer nominal-tracking morphology than any Hokkaido variety. no page A Glossed Sakhalin (Enciw) Text with Hokkaido Contrast