2026-05-17T22:20:28Zhttps://www.bilketa.eus/in/rest/oai

oai:www.bilketa.eus:ark:/27020/ASJU-25953ALL2025-10-25T06:25:28Z

https://www.bilketa.eus/ark:/27020/ASJU-25953Elordieta, ArantzazuASJU, 259532025-01-29Ete (ote) partikula epistemikoak harridura-perpausetan dituen bi erabilera dialektal dira aztergai lan honetan. Interesa dute beren interpretazioa ez delako ote kanonikoak duena, bestelakoa baizik. Izan ere, lehen erabileran hiztunak ete erabiltzean aurretik solaskideak esan duenaren gainean berrespen enfatikoa adierazten du. Bigarrenean, ostera, aurretik solaskideak esan duenaren gainean kontrako iritzi kritikoa ematen du hiztunak. Bestetik, erro-perpausak diruditen arren, eterekin batera -(e)n konplementatzaileak agertu behar du. Balio hauek azaldu nahian, artikuluan proposatzen da perpaus insubordinatuak direla, eta lehen erabileran polaritate fokuaren balioa hartzen duelarik, ete partikulak eta aditzak ezkerralderako mugida jasaten dutela. Bigarren erabileran, ordea, etek bere esanahia gramatikalizatu du hiztunak proposizioan adierazitakoarekin guztiz bat egiten ez duela adieraztetik adostasunik batere ez duela adierazteraino. Horrek bat egingo luke egitura esklamatiboek daukaten ñabardura kuantifikatzailearekin.Two dialectal uses of the discourse particle ete (ote) in certain exclamative sentences are under study in this work. They are intriguing because their interpretation differs from canonical ete. Specifically, in one particular use the speaker uttering ete emphatically confirms what the interlocutor has previously said. In the second use, on the other hand, the speaker objects critically to what his interlocutor has previously uttered. Interestingly enough, the complementizer -(e)n must always occur even if they are root sentences. In order to explain these values, it is proposed that they are insubordinate sentences, and that while one construction is an instance of a polarity focus, in the second construction the particle has grammaticalized its meaning of lack of full commitment to no commitment at all. This would match the often attributed graduable or quantificational nuance of exclamative structures.Two dialectal uses of the discourse particle ete (ote) in certain exclamative sentences are under study in this work. They are intriguing because their interpretation differs from canonical ete. Specifically, in one particular use the speaker uttering ete emphatically confirms what the interlocutor has previously said. In the second use, on the other hand, the speaker objects critically to what his interlocutor has previously uttered. Interestingly enough, the complementizer -(e)n must always occur even if they are root sentences. In order to explain these values, it is proposed that they are insubordinate sentences, and that while one construction is an instance of a polarity focus, in the second construction the particle has grammaticalized its meaning of lack of full commitment to no commitment at all. This would match the often attributed graduable or quantificational nuance of exclamative structures.https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/ASJU/article/view/25953/24924https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/ASJU/article/view/25953vignette : https://www.bilketa.eus/in/rest/Thumb/image?id=ark:/27020/ASJU-25953&mat=articleNumbaqhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0Merezi ete dau erabilera hauei begiratzea?Is it worth looking at these special uses of ete?Is it worth looking at these special uses of ete? / Merezi ete dau erabilera hauei begiratzea?