1
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Linguistics
1136 readers
22 users here now
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
- Instance rules apply.
- Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
- Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
- Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
- Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
- Have fun!
Related communities:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just as additional info, as this doesn't answer your question (sorry!):
I've seen constructions like this popping up in other languages, under different names. In Portuguese for example it's called "pronome de interesse" (pronoun of interest) or "dativo ético" (ethical dative). Often used alongside commands, like this:
I've tagged 1 = the ethic dative, 2 = the indirect object, and 3 = the direct object. Since the verb (contar, to tell) already got its two objects, that ⟨me⟩ cannot be an object requirement of the verb.
It's typically associated with informal speech, but attested across multiple dialects (see e.g. this and this). And apparently it backtracks all the way into Latin.
German and Ancient Greek also show the same phenomenon.
Based on that I'd probably guess that what you're seeing in English is the leftover of some really old feature, so it'll probably surface across multiple dialects, even if Dixie English sticks with it a bit more.