{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03130434782608696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017391304347826088, 'mean_word_length': 5.057894736842106, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dative experiencers with nominal predicates in Romanian: a synchronic and diachronic study

Abstract This article investigates the evolution of the Romanian pattern [dative clitic + ‘be’ + N] (cf. Mi-e foame, lit. me.dat=is hunger, ‘I’m hungry’) from the 16th century until present-day Romanian. This pattern traces back to the Latin mihi est construction (lit. me.dat is), but is semantically more restricted than its Latin ancestor in that it can only express a physiological or psychological state. The aim of our study is to examine to what extent the dative experiencer behaves like a subject and the noun denoting a state like a predicate. We argue that, although certain subject diagnostics raise problems in Romanian, due to the obligatoriness of clitics and the scarcity of controlled infinitives, this pattern is clearly an instance of non-canonical subject marking with quirky dative case. The tendency toward expansion of this construction in present-day Romanian contradicts the hypothesis proposed in language typology according to which non-canonical subject marking tends to recede in favor of canonical marking in European languages.