Definiteness. The common law reasonably requires that an offer spell out the essential proposed terms with sufficient definiteness3—certainty of terms that enables a court to order enforcement or measure damages in the event of a breach. As it has often been put, “The law does not make contracts for the parties; it merely enforces the duties which they have undertaken” (Xxxxxxx, 1965, p. 19). Thus a supposed promise to sell “such coal as the promisor may wish to sell” is not an enforceable term because the seller, the coal company, undertakes no duty to sell anything unless it wishes to do so. Essential terms certainly include price and the work to be done. But not every omission is fatal; for example, as long as a missing term can be fixed by referring to some external standard—such as “no later than the first frost”—the offer is sufficiently definite. In major business transactions involving extensive negotiations, the parties often sign a preliminary “agreement in principle” before a detailed contract is drafted. These preliminary agreements may be definite enough to create contract liability even though they lack many of the terms found in a typical contract. For example, in a famous 1985 case, a Texas jury concluded that an agreement made “in principle” between the Pennzoil Company and the Getty Oil Company and not entirely finished was binding and that Texaco had unlawfully interfered with their contract. As a result, Texaco was held liable for over $10 billion, which was settled for $3 billion after Texaco went into bankruptcy.
Definiteness. The transition from pronoun to agreement marker is often characterized as a loss of the referential property of the affix, leaving only the φ-features to be expressed (Xxxx 1842; Givo´n 1976; Xxxxxxx and Mchombo 1987). After the referential property is lost, other pronoun properties can be retained, leading to various “finer transition states” on the path from pronoun to agreement (Bresnan 2001: 146). For example, Xxxxxxx (2001: 146–7) suggests that anaphoric binding features (e.g., being subject to Condition B) are retained by agreement markers in Kichaga (Bresnan and Moshi 1990: 151–2), and certain dialects of Spanish (Xxxxxxx 1990: 539–42). Sun˜er (1988) argues that the clitics in Xxxxxx˜o Spanish are non-pronominal affixes, but retain the sensitivity to specificity that pronouns have. Similarly, the presence of agreement markers is conditioned by specificity or animacy in some Bantu languages (Givo´n 1976; Wald 1979). In these languages, φ-features are retained along with their sensi- tivity to specificity or animacy. In Hungarian, we suggest that feature loss occurred in the opposite order: φ-features were lost, but sensitivity to specificity, definiteness, or topicality was retained, and this property was reanalyzed as formal definiteness. Evidence for the idea that definiteness-sensitivity in Hungarian is grammatical- ized topicality-sensitivity comes from Northern Ostyak (Uralic). As in Hungarian, an objective conjugation is used for certain types of objects in Northern Ostyak, and a subjective conjugation is used elsewhere. The use of the objective conjugation in this language is conditioned by a certain form of topicality (Xxxxxxxxx 1999, 2001). Xxxxxxxxx (1999) shows that a nominal triggers the objective conjugation only when it is outside the VP, in which case it functions as a ‘secondary topic’ (a topic that is not the most prominent one). Despite being outside the VP, the objects that trigger the objective conjugation in Northern Ostyak are still genuine arguments of the verb, as Xxxxxxxxx (1999) shows. Therefore, the objective conjugation does not contain an incorporated pronoun, but rather an object agreement marker that is restricted to objects that are (secondary) top- ics. However, Northern Ostyak’s system can be understood as deriving from a system where free object nominals are topics anaphorically linked to the bound pronominal argument when it appears on the verb. On this view, Northern Ostyak object marking retains a topicality rest...
Definiteness. Definiteness is morphologically marked by the suffix – `ŋ. The suffix consists of a nasal and a low tone. The place of articulation of the nasal is determined by its following element: the suffix is realized as – `ŋ before velar consonants and before pause; as – `n before dental and alveolar consonants; as – `m before labial consonants. Definiteness is generally marked on the noun. The definite suffix stands after derivational markers, but before the topic and subject focus markers and clitics. In relative clauses, the marker may appear on dependent elements, e.g. on adjectival verbs and verbs. In these cases, the definiteness marker is co-referential with the head noun and functions as a relative marker at the end of the clause. The marker occassionally occurs twice in noun phrases (section 3.6); this has been observed for definite nouns that are followed by the adjective me´e´ ‘big’ and the definiteness marker: me´eˆ–ŋ. The presence of the definiteness marker requires obligatory gender and number marking on feminine and human plural nouns respectively: definite feminine nouns are obligatorily followed by the feminine gender marker –su&.`, definite plural human nouns by the plural marker –so`. Masculine singular nouns have no overt gender marker. The following examples give definite forms of masculine, feminine, and human plural nouns. Note that the obligatory feminine and plural markers on definite nouns can co-occur with (frozen) gender and number markers in the nominal. 5ho`oˆ–ŋ the house (m.) < 5ho`o´ house (m.) ŋ|e`me´seˆ–ŋ the man (m.) < ŋ|e`me´se´ man (m.) phu´mphu´soˆ–ŋ the offering (m.) < phu´mphu´so´ offering (m.) !'o`ro`roˇ–`n–su&` the frog (f.) < !'o`ro`xxˇx frog (f.) ŋ|e`me´su`–n–su&` the woman (f.) < ŋ|e`me´su` woman (f.) sa`nda`we´so`–n–so` the Sandawe (PL) < sa`nda`we´so` Sandawe (PL) ŋ|o`mo´so`–n–so` the people (PL) < ŋ|o`mo´so` people (PL) Masculine nouns which end in a nasal consonant and a low or a falling tone cannot be distinguished from their definite forms. Examples of these forms can be categorized in three groups: first, several nouns referring to body parts and related terms have a final nasal (e.g. tA'uˆŋ ‘hand’, 'oˆŋ ‘throat’, !eˆŋ ‘rib’, Aıˆŋ ‘mucus’). Further, all language names (e.g. sa`nda`we´–5ı`ʔı`ŋ ‘Sandawe’), and infinitives (e.g. maˆntsha`–ʔoˆŋ ‘to eat’) have a final nasal consonant. The nasal is part of the derivational suffix. One analysis is to consider the nasal as an inherent definiteness marker for infinitives a...
