1. The present paper, on the basis of Hungarian synchronic relations, is concerned with some questions of the complex and far-reaching spectrum of problems that have arisen in the course of the historical development of the sentence.
The examination of the state of the language at a given time may afford us an opportunity to come to conclusions, since in a synchronic system there co-occur -- more archaic, more primitive and later, more advanced -- meanings and their corresponding forms as reflect several stages of the historical development of a given language.
Research that concludes historical connections from the systematic relations of the state is becoming more and more frequent in our days. The approach taking the unity of state and history as its starting-point is gaining ground in both international and Hungarian research, superseding the synchrony-diachrony dichotomy.
As far back as the beginning of our century, researching the systemic relations of the sentence, CH. BALLY and A. SECHEHAYE -- contrary to their Genevan mentor, SAUSSURE -- realised that several forms of the historical development of the sentence survive in the state, and may be explored by the analysis of synchronic data. (Cf. BALLY, LinguGén. 50--61; SECHEHAYE, Essai sur la structure logique de la phrase. Paris, 1926.)
2. This paper only deals with three sub-types of a single (so-called simple) sentence form, representing three stages of language development, which consists merely of a subject and a predicate:
a) the sub-type composed of a demonstrative particle and a content word having the structure of Pronomen + Nomen;
b) predicative structures made up of two content words structured as Nomen + Adiectivum, and Nomen + Verbum;
c) sentences presupposing the metaphoric use of nouns, i. e. sentences realising a full noun metaphor in the form of Nomen + Nomen.
The illustrations of these three sub-types are the following:
1) Ez rózsa. Az csillag. 'This [is a] rose.' 'That [is a] star.' 2) A rózsa piros. A csillag csillog. 'The rose [is] red.' 'The star twinkles.' 3) Arca rózsa. Szeme csillag. 'Face-his [is] rose.' 'Eye-his [is a] star.'
On the strength of my analyses, I am of the opinion that these three types of the simple sentence, which are so frequent and typical in the synchronic system of any language, are rooted in the same principle, and can be interpreted as different manifestations of the same basic principle. In all the three cases, there is an identifying predicative relation between the subject and the predicate of the sentence, although the sub-types represent various forms of identification both diachronically and synchronically.
In what follows I would like to prove that -- like the formation of content words -- both predicative constructions based on the original, proper meanings of words and sentences presupposing the metaphoric use of nouns identify themselves differently within the part and whole relation. My analyses show that these constructions can be interpreted as modifications of the invariant principle of pars pro toto and can be arranged according to the phases of development.
The study of sentences of this type also verifies the recognition that natural languages represent reality by approaching, from the particulars, the whole consisting of components: the parts can substitute the whole.
3. According to the majority of foreign and Hungarian linguists dealing with the formation and historical development of the sentence, the first utterances were the proto-sentences, monosyllabic sentence words, the so-called monorhemes expressing the still complex contents of consciousness. At a later stage in the development of the languages, bipolar dirhemes making up a predicative construction were formed by the conjunction of two monorhemes. The new whole -- the dirheme -- consisting of the synthesis of the two sentence words is the framework in which word and sentence, already sharply separated from each other, have their origins, and the two basic categories of languages, verb and noun, as well as their typical functions, predicate and subject are chrystallized. (Cf. PAUL, Prinz. 198--200; WUNDT, Spr. 239--44; SCHUHARDT--Brevier 209, 232; RIES, Was ist ein Satz? Beiträge zur Grundlegung der Syntax. III. Prag, 1931. 40--44; the above-mentioned works by BALLY and SECHAHAYE etc.; BÁRCZI, Bevezetés a nyelvtudományba. [An Introduction to Linguistics] 89; BERRáR, Magyar történeti mondattan. [Hungarian Historical Syntax] 10--11; BáRCZI -- BENKő -- BERRáR, A magyar nyelv története [The History of the Hungarian language] Bp., 1978. 185--91; BALáZS, Szintagmatizálódás és lexikalizálódás. [Syntagmatization and Lexicalization] SzótártTan. 79--98; PAIS, Két fejezet a mondattanból. [Two Chapters of Syntax] Bp., 1950; etc.)
On the basis of K. BÜHLER's language theory (Sprachtheorie. Jena, 1934) according to the way they relate to the denotations, the linguistic signs of the vocabulary can be divided into two groups:
a) demonstrative words (Zeigwörter) referring only to their denotations, playing a great part in individualising, and determining the utterances;
b) naming, or content words (Nennwörter) qualifying substances and arranging them into specific groups (contents).
It may have been a determinative factor in the formation of bipolar sentences that in the linguistic showing field the demonstrative words replacing or completing primitive showing gestures linked with the content words which were formed at a later phase of language development presupposing conceptual thinking.
From the given state of any natural language its evolution can be restructured: at the beginning phase demonstrative words establish contact with demonstrative words, and then through the construction demonstrative word + concept word more advanced structures consisting only of concept words are created. For example:
a) Mi ez? => b) Ez kutya. => c) A kutya ugat. 'What [is] this?' 'This [is a] dog.' 'The dog barks.'
Later, through the metaphorization of concept words, sentences, making use of the figurative meaning of words, enter this line, besides those based upon the original, proper meanings of words, e. g.:
d) Péter nagy kutya. e) Péter, ne ugass! 'Peter [is a] top dog.' 'Peter, don't bark!'
This line of development is also supported by data from the study of children's language.
4. These types of simple sentences can be interpreted as different representations of equivalence. How do the specific relations of part and whole structure appear?
By examining nominal sentences consisting of a demonstrative pronoun and a noun [Pr + N] like in the case of ez rózsa; az csillag sentence type it can be seen that the substance originally represented by the demonstrative word is identified with a content word and is classified or qualified. This is the way names are given. The change can be shown by the following analogical connection:
showing gesture <=> demonstrative particle: ez 'this'
showing gesture <=> content word: rózsa 'rose'
demonstrative particle + concept word: ez = rózsa
That is: [Pr + N] <=> [Pr = N]
Following from the synthetic nature of things arranged into concepts, any of their constituents -- dominant in a given relation -- can become the base, i. e. the motive for the nomination. Thus the rose got its name from one of its characteristics, its red colour.
The Hungarian word rózsa, which is of Indo-European origin (Cf. Lat rosa, Fr rose, Ger Rose Eng rose, etc.) in Old Hungarian had the meaning of 'red or reddish shades'. Consequently, rózsa could either be the original name of a red rose, or the flower itself was exclusively red at the beginning, and could only later have become the name of this flower type or of any other colour of the rose in this sub-type. Thus rózsa and its modern Indo-European equivalents must be etymologically related -- on the basis of the common feature of redness -- with Hun rőt 'red(dish), russety' , Ger rot 'red', röten 'to become red' , Fr rouge 'red' , Eng red, etc.
It is the dominant component (pars) that gives the name, but the name of the part represents the whole (totum), denoting it, making use of the pars pro toto principle, that is synecdoche. The motive for the denotation can be grasped in the case of words kutya 'dog' and csillag 'star' in a similar way. Csillag is a variant of the verb csillog 'twinkle, shine', so it received its name from the feature of 'shining, twinkling, glittering'. Kutya is a word derivated from the onomatopoetic sound man used to call the dogs, namely the characteristic sound of the dog became a denoting sign.
5. In the more developed sentences of [N + A], and [N + V] structures consisting only of concept words, a specific part and whole relationship between the subjects and the predicates can be discovered in their identifying predicative relation.
In sentences such as A rózsa piros and A csillag csillog the adjectives or verbs fulfilling predicative function emphasise and denote one of the constituents -- in many cases, of inherent features -- of the substances (concepts) expressed by the subject. It is characteristic of these subject-predicate constructions that the nominal or verbal predicates express the unchanging, essential characteristics, or basic functions of substances arising from their nature, and thus do not stand out in sharp contrast. For example, nominal sentences are:
a hó fehér
'the snow [is] white'
az éj fekete
'the night [is] black'
a méz édes
'the honey [is] sweet'
a fű zöld
'the grass [is] green'
az ember halandó
'the man [is] mortal'
a csiga lassú
'the snail [is] slow'
a vaj puha
'the butter [is] soft'
a hab könnyű
'the foam [is] light'
a tenger mély
'the sea [is] deep'
a vér vörös
'the blood [is] red'
a tűz piros
' the fire [is] red '
az ég kék
'the sky [is] blue'
a róka ravasz
'the fox [is] cunning'
a kő kemény
'the stone [is] hard'
a marha erős
'the ox [is] strong'
a grafit szürke
'the graphite [is] grey'
az erdő kerek
'the forest [is] round'
etc., or verbal sentences:
a szél fúj
'the wind blows'
a nap süt
'the sun shines'
a forrás fakad
'the source springs'
a víz árad
'the water rises'
a tű szúr
'the needle pricks'
a virág nyílik
'the needle pricks'
a ló nyerít
'the horse neighs'
a kutya ugat
'the dog barks'
a macska nyávog
'the cat meows'
a tűz ég
'the fire burns'
a madár repül
'the bird flies'
a kés vág
'the knife cuts'
a csillag csillog
'the star twinkles'
a vér ver
'the blood beats'
a szív dobog
'the heart beats'
az eső esik
'the rain falls'
a folyó folyik
'the river runs'
a nap kel
'the sun rises'
These sentences demonstrate that there really is no significant difference between the nominal and verbal types: adjectives in predicative position denote the inherent, natural, permanent, essential attributes of the concept expressed by the noun, while verbal predicates, accordingly, express the basic function of things: occurrence, motion, emission of sounds, and function.
5.1. It was in relations like these that W. PORZIG, the German linguist, one of the illustrious representatives of the field theory in the early 30s, discovered the smallest substantial and elementary connections of language. Studying relations of this kind, he developed a special concept of linguistic field. According to PORZIG, words in predicative function form the so-called elementary semantic fields (elementares Bedeutungsfeld) by attaching some lexical items within definite functions to themselves. In these elementary connections there exists a deep, necessary and unambiguous relation between the terms bearing an essential semantic relation (wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehung) to one another. The later, more developed formations of language can be traced back to these elementary relations. Namely, the items can break away from their original, natural connections, thus forming metaphoric meanings. These new connections and meanings are in force only if correlated with the original ones, and can be understood on the basis of their correlation to them. PORZIG is of the opinion that there is an implicative (einbegreifend) connection between the members of elementary semantic fields: the verb or adjective in predicative function nominates some aspect, i. e. component of a thing expressed by the noun.
Of the relation between the essential semantic and etymological connections PORZIG says the following: among some of the items bearing an essential semantic relation there can be etymologically related ones as well, yet it is not typical. It is characteristic of the sentence items independent of one another to enter into relations. (Cf. Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. LVIII. 1934. 70--94)
5.2. It is well-known that according to F. DE SAUSSURE language (langue) as a system of signs has two levels mutually postulating each other:
- the linear, i. e. syntagmatic level formed by the sequence, the linear order of items of the expression;
- the memorial, or associative (later also called paradigmatic) level consisting of paradigms as well as different lexical relations.
The associative connections round the items of syntagmatic relations make it possible for the elements forming a phonetic continuum in a sequence to be separated, and for the linear relations to be accordingly divided. The possible substitutions of single items, existing only in our memory, according to the several relations between them, are arranged into different groups or sub-systems, and make up the elements of the inner vocabulary forming the language in the mind of each individual. (Cf. SAUSSURE, Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, 1931. Chapitre V.)
In SAUSSURE's view, the syntagmatic connection exists in praesentia and is likewise based upon two or more items present in an actual linear relation, whereas the associative relation unites items in a virtual, mnemonic sequence in absentia.
The above simple sentences of [N + A] and [N + V] structures show that associative relations have a special type where, on the one hand, the items have a close associative, implicative relation to one another, and on the other hand, on the basis of this association, a valid linear connection, a predicative relation, i. e. a sentence is formed. That is to say, there exist both in praesentia and in absentia connections between them at the same time. In these sentences the items can associate with each other, because the relation between them is not incidental, occasional, or changing, but, on the contrary, is permanent, innate, essential and necessary.
5.3. These sentences can be compared to nominal and verbal simple sentences of another type:
Group A Group B a) A vér vörös; A vér ver. A vér sűrű; A vér csepeg. 'The blood [is] red; The blood beats.' 'The blood [is] thick; The blood drips.' b) A róka ravasz; A dongó dong. A róka kicsi; A dongó száll. 'The fox [is] cunning; The bumble-bee buzzes.' 'The fox [is] small; The bumble-bee flies.' c) A kő kemény; Az inga ing. A kő lapos; Az inga megáll. 'The stone [is] hard; The pendulum swings.' 'The stone [is] flat; The pendulum stops.' d) Az ég kék; A kacsa hápog. Az ég felhős; A kacsa eszik. 'The sky [is] blue; The duck quacks.' 'The sky [is] cloudy; The duck eats.' e) Az erdő kerek; A macska nyávog. Az erdő nagy; A macska ül. 'The forest [is] round; The cat meows.' 'The forest [is] big; The cat sits.' f) A holló fekete; A nap süt. A holló fehér; A nap elbújt. 'The raven [is] black; The sun shines.' 'The raven [is] white; The sun hid.' g) A hó fehér; A szél fúj. A hó piszkos; A szél eláll. 'The snow [is] white; The wind blows.' 'The snow [is] dirty; The wind drops.'
In the sentences of Group A -- just like in all the above examples -- the adjectives and verbs in predicative function emphasise and specify the permanent, essential characteristic features, innate qualities, or the basic functions of the living creatures and things (concepts) expressed by the nouns. Both implicative and associative relations can be observed between them. Such sentences have a universal as well as an individual interpretation.
That these relations are necessary is shown by the fact that language tries to preserve them. These predicative structures often become compounds and attributive constructions: hófehér 'snow-white', hollófekete 'raven-black', égszínkék 'sky-colour-blue', kőkemény 'stone-hard', vérvörös 'blood-red', macskanyávogás 'cat's meow' , napsütés 'sunshine', etc., that is: kerek erdő 'round forest', ravasz róka 'cunning fox', nyávogó macska 'meowing cat', etc., or traditional similes: ravasz, mint a róka 'cunning as the fox', fehér, mint a hó 'white as the snow', kék, mint az ég 'blue as the sky', vörös, mint a vér 'red as the blood ' , hápog, mint a kacsa 'to quack like the duck', fekete, mint a holló 'black as the raven', etc.
These structures are based on the elementary, essential qualities of things and phenomena, and on their basic functions; in evidence thereof the fact may be offered that the two members of the predicative construction in many cases (Cf. Group A, sentences a--c) are of common origin. The adjective ravasz etymologically is identical with the noun róka, thus the relation a róka ravasz preserves the identity of the primary repetitive structure by disposing the duplicate, as seen in the tautologic unit of *a róka róka/*a ravasz ravasz. The Hungarian word vörös 'red' comes of the variant of vér/vör, and is etymologically related to véres 'bloody', veres 'red', vörheny 'scarlet fever, purples' , vércse 'falcon', vérmes 'sanguine', vörösbegy 'redbreast', etc. One of the characteristic features of blood, its red colour, connects these items to the word family of vér. The predicative construction vér vörös and the compound vérvörös are the variants of a tautologic form composed of etymologically identical elements. The Hungarian adjective kemény 'hard' can also be etymologically related to kő 'stone' . (It is evident that dongó dong and inga ing are in an etymological and tautological relationship.) From the introductory sentences, csillag csillog belongs to this group, the two words being variants.
In many cases the two members of the construction are not etymologically related, but the sentence is based upon the relation of units of identical meanings (Cf. Group A, sentences d--e). For example, the noun kerek 'round' in Old Hungarian had the meaning of 'forest'; the adjective kék 'blue' of Old Turkish origin has the historical proper meaning of 'sky, sky-coloured'; the Hungarian words macska 'cat' and kacsa 'duck' of Slavonic origin are derivated from calls to livestock, imitating animal cries, and by their meanings are identical with the verbs nyávog 'to meow' and hápog 'to quack' which are not borrowings. If the rose was named after its original red colour, then the sentence a rózsa piros preserves its original meaning from changing from its primary, repetitive, tautologic unit of *rózsa rózsa (i. e. *piros piros). In the Indo-European equivalents: the rose is red; la rose est rouge; die Rose ist rot, etc. there may also be etymological connections between the words.
All this shows that sentences based on the implicative and associative relations of elements have distortedly survived, and are concealed variants of primary, tautologic units.
These above-mentioned forms may verify that the connections between primary, repetitive etymological relations and elementary semantic fields are presumably deeper and closer than W. PORZIG thought.
Transitional configurations (preserving the original form distortedly) must be reckoned with between the repetitive forms and the "real" substantial connections of meaning within the elementary semantic fields, based on the relation of independent units (Cf. Group A, sentences f--g). For instance:
=> a hápi hápog
'the quackie quacks'
=> a kacsa hápog
'the duck quacks'
=> a csengő cseng
'the tinkle tinkles'
=> a csengő szól
'the tinkle rings'
*az es es
'the rain rains'
=> az eső esik
'the rain falls'
=> 0 *a vér vér
'the blood bloods'
=> a vér ver
'the blood beats'
=> a vér lüktet
'the blood beats'
*a csel csel
'the trick tricks'
=> a csel csal
'the trick tricks'
=> a látszat csal
=> a csibe csipog
'the chick pips'
=> 0 *a fog fog
'the tooth bites'
=> 0 => a fog mar
'the tooth bites'
*a szív szív
'the heart sucks'
=> 0 => a szív dobog
'the heart throbs'
Thus the examples in Group A a--g represent a deduced course of development.
The several surviving variants of the repetitive forms refer back to the archaic level of language where the substantional and the functional part of sentences were not yet separated.
The sentence, as PORZIG put it, is a primary metaphor (Urmetapher), that is to say, primary transmission. And indeed: the sentence -- i. e. the type which unites etymologically independent elements -- par excellence arises from two repetitive primary units by the disintegration of the earliest, tautological forms of the elementary semantic field. For example:
- *A szív szív [ a + a ]
- *A dob dobog [ b + b ]
- A szív dobog [ a + b ]
In the sentences of Group B the adjectives and verbs in predicative function emphasise and nominate the occasional, changing, unimportant features, i.e. accidental qualities and functions of the substances expressed by the nouns. These sentences have only an individual interpretation. Although the characteristic or function expressed by the predicate is also a feature, i. e. a part of the substance nominated by the substantival subject, but is not necessary, permanent, nor does it become a denominating feature; it only characterizes the substance occasionally. There is an implicative relation according to the individual interpretation between the two determining elements of the predicative relationship. But no associative relation can be formed between them: such units are unable to mutually recall each other. Thus associative-implicative correlations can exclusively occur between elements which are in essential semantic relation with each other. (There is hollófekete 'raven-black', hófehér 'snow-white', égszínkék 'sky-colour-blue', napsütés 'sunshine', ravasz, mint a róka 'cunning as the fox', nyávog, mint a macska 'to meow as the cat', etc., yet there exists no *hollófehér 'raven-white', *hópiszkos 'snow-dirty', *égfelhős 'sky-cloudy', *napelbújás 'sunhiding', *kicsi, mint a róka 'small as the fox', *ül, mint a macska 'sit like the cat' , etc.)
In a given speech situation and context accidental features can become determinative in the same way as dominant ones can: having become dominant, they are taken out of the group of elements which make up their substance, and by placing an adjective or a verb next to the noun nominating the phenomena, or their class, a predicative construction, that is, a binary sentence is created.
A special kind of part and whole correlation is formed by using sentences with the [N + A], or [N + V] structure; one part, i. e. one component of the whole is applied to, and identified with, the whole on the basis of pars pro toto principle.
The predicative relation between the subject (the whole) and the predicate (the part) can be illustrated with the following analogical relation:
ez <=> rózsa
ez <=> piros
=> a rózsa = piros
If rózsa is marked with A, and piros with a, their relation can be symbolised in the following way:
A a => [A + a] <=> [A = a]
In the case of rózsa illatos, i. e. when another semantic element of rózsa becomes dominant, the relation can be described as such (b stands for illatos):
A b => [A + b] <=> [A = b]
The illustration of the correlation:
By reason of the identifications [A = a], or [A = b] the wholes can be represented and substituted for, by the parts. That is why adjectives can be substantivized and can replace nouns in subjective function. E. g.:
A virágüzletben sárga, fehér és piros rózsa kapható.
'The flowershop-in yellow, white and red rose [is] available.'
A sárgát nem szeretem, a fehér nem friss, a pirosból kérek.
'The yellow not like-I, the white [is] not fresh, the red-of want-I.'
Beside this typical conversion -- on the parole level -- we often come across regular substantivizations -- on the langue level: fekete 'black [coffee]' , tokaji 'Tokay [wine]', burgundi 'Burgundy [wine]', metélt 'cut up (pasta)' [noodles], felvágott 'sliced [cold ham or sausage]' , takart 'covered [cabbage]' , i. e. stuffed cabbage (dialectal word used in Upper Hungary), rúzs 'lipstick' (fr. French rouge), magyar 'Hungarian', német 'German', etc.
That is also the reason why present and past participles can also be substantivized. Among them there are many established conversions: arató 'reaper' (fr. arat 'to reap'), szántóvető 'ploughman' (fr. szánt 'to plough' + vet 'to sow' ), dongó 'bumble-bee' (fr. dong 'to buzz'), tanuló 'learner' (fr. tanul 'to learn'), író 'writer' (fr. ír 'to write'), múlt 'past' (fr. múl(ik) 'to pass'), jövő 'future' (fr. jön 'to come'), jövendő 'future' (fr. jön 'to come'), eső 'rain' (fr. es(ik) 'to rain'), inga 'pendulum' (fr. ing 'to swing'), csusza 'pasta with soft cheese and cracklings' (fr. csúsz(ik) 'to slide'), pengő 'old Hungarian coin' (fr. peng 'to ring' ), szülő 'parent' (fr. szül 'to bear'), szüle 'mother' (fr. szül 'to bear'), etc. The whole is approached from an obvious, characteristic part becoming dominant; partial sameness, a determining feature or function in the given respect, is a sufficient basis for the component to substitute for the whole which it belongs to.
6. Analyzing the substantival metaphors of the [N + N] structure, in what respect does this sub-type represent a more developed, complicated correlation among the simple sentences?
In natural languages an important way of vocabulary building is that new meanings can be associated with the original, proper meaning of words: it is by metaphorization that new polysemous elements occur. The different meanings of polysemants are linked by common semantic elements: the meanings can be derivated from each other.
According to ARISTOTLE's well-known definition, a metaphor is a transferred designation, and by its grammatical form an identification. The Latin rhetor QUINTILIANUS defines it as a contracted simile. Namely, the correlation closed up in the metaphor can always be explained in a complex subordinating sentence containing a comparison. That is:
Comparison Metaphor [A is like B] <=> [A = B]
The identification is made possible by the sameness or partial element(s).
The predicative structures of two nouns based on the metaphoric meanings of words contain a new, more complex form of part and whole relation. The two things (concepts) expressed by the two nouns are not identical, but the units of the substances, i. e. the content elements of the concepts, as well as the constituents determining the meanings, are identical. The identical partial element(s) make(s) the predicative correlation possible. The previous formula in a more correct way:
6.1. In the above-mentioned sub-type of simple sentences, adjectives and verbs in predicative function nominate the partial elements, i. e. the essential features which are the basic functions of the whole expressed by the nouns, thus forming an equivalence between the whole and its own part. At the same time, within this type of sentence, different wholes are identified on the basis of their common partial elements.
So substantival metaphors of the arca rózsa, szeme csillag type can be interpreted in the following analogical frame:
Arca <=> piros Szeme <=> ragyog, fénylik A rózsa <=> piros A csillag <=> ragyog, fénylik arca = rózsa szeme = csillag
Or let us take the following line by Endre Ady, the great Hungarian symbolist poet of the turn of the century (from the poem A vár fehér asszonya / The White Lady of the Castle):
"A lelkem ódon, babonás vár"
'My soul is an olden, superstitious castle.'
The identification lelkem = vár can be made possible by the common element(s) which play(s) a role in the meaning of the nouns nominating these two rather distant concepts:
So if we mark the two nouns entering into predicative relation with A and B, and their common features with a and b, their correlation can be described in this way:
A a, b and B a, b => [A + B] <=> [A = B]
The relationship is represented thus:
A = a,b
B = a,b
=> A = B
This identification can be considered as a more developed form than the previous ones, for it is more complex: it builds them (A = a, b; B = a, b) into itself, and can exist only on their basis.
The metaphoric denomination on a higher level repeats, and thus also explains the forming of denominative words, i. e. the primary nomination. The key to the understanding of the original nomination is the later, more developed form, which is the metaphoric one.
Through the exploring of the special part and whole relations of simple sentences it has been verified that a seemingly very simple type of sentence, consisting only of a subject and a predicate, contains complicated courses of development. Each sub-type builds upon each other, and, on the basis of relations observed in the state alone, can be arranged into a line of development. At the end of this course of development the [N + N] sub-type based on the metaphorical meaning of nouns includes, as partial connections, the structures of N + A, i. e. N + V standing. The existence of these partial connections makes a prerequisite for nouns to nominate different wholes forming valid predicative structures, and entering into relation with each other.
6.2. In his work Tautologikus egységek a nyelvben. [Tautological units in language] JÁNOS ZSILKA has proved through many analyses that sentences can be deduced not only from the abstract categories of a sentence, or from verbum finitum, but also from abstract nouns (e. g. festés 'painting', harapás 'biting, bite', hímzés 'embroidering', járás 'walking, walk', kötés 'knitting', köpés 'spitting, spit', szerelés 'equipping, equipment', vetés 'sowing, crop', vezetés 'leading, leadership', etc.) that express the actions themselves (= nomen actionis) as well as their results (= nomen acti). In other words, today's state of language contains a category where the discontinuance of the two basic language categories, noun and verb and their differences, can be caught in the very act. As these elements are nouns and verbs at the same time, thus N equals V, and V equals N; they are tautological units: N = V. From the foregoing it is clear that if sentences can be deduced from this category, they are necessary formations. The subjective and predicative parts of the sentence can be understood as a well-based relation in which they correspond to each other (See also Jelentésszerkezet és szintaxis. A Nyelvi mozgásformák dialektikája kutatócsoport munkái 3. [Meaning Structure and Syntax. The Works of the Research Team Dialectics of the Motion Forms in Language] Bp., 1985).
Exploring the connections between part and whole, i. e. approaching the question from quite another point of view, the above analyses cannot but confirm this idea: it is the identifying predicative connection that ensures that the linear order of words forming sentences (should) become an organic, necessary relation in which the substantional and functional sides of the sentence correspond to each other. The course of development that can be reconstructed shows that the equivalence of subjects and predicates is based upon different specific relations between part and whole. The reconstructed course of development can be demonstrated, apart from simple sentences consisting of demonstrative particles, or demonstrative particles and content words, considering the more developed structures composed of only content words, as follows:
[A + A] <=> [A = A] E. g.: *a rózsa rózsa; *a csillag csillag
'the rose [is a] rose; the star [is a] star'
[A + a] <=> [A = a] a rózsa piros; a csillag csillog
'the rose [is] red; the star twinkles'
[A + b] <=> [A = b] a rózsa illatos; a csillag fényes
'the rose [is] fragrant; the star is shiny'
[A + B] <=> [A = B] arca rózsa; szeme csillag
'face-his [is a] rose; eye-his [is a] star'
In the A + A structure the equialence is evident, for it is a repetitive (tautological) form. In these structures, which survived in different deformed variants, the first element of the linear relation is a substance name nominated through a dominant feature, while the same element in the second position represents a function name (adjective). In the primary sub-type (so far disregarded by research), the essential change from the positional difference to the functional one is caught in the act. verify that several forms of the part and whole relation play an important role in the
In structures of the A + a and A + b type the identifying predicative connection is established between the whole and its own part as the realization of pars pro toto principle.
At the top of hierarchy in the A + B structures two wholes are identified with each other on the basis of their common elements.
The connections shown in this paper may verify that several forms of the part and whole relation play an important role in the formation of the three sub-types of simple sentences containing only a subject and predicate. We may well say that this relation is of vital importance in the origin of the sentence, because its more developed forms come into being by the further differentiation of the subject and the predicate.