Kämpya: Difference between revisions

96 bytes added ,  5 December 2019
m
Categories.
m (Categories.)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 124: Line 124:
In colloquial speech, stops in the codas of unstressed syllables are debuccalised to glottal stops e.g. the city named /ˈkʰóʔnàt/ is often pronounced [ˈkʰóʔnàʔ], /ˈpʰḛ̂jòd/ - "fjord" is pronounced [ˈpʰḛ̂ːjòʔ].
In colloquial speech, stops in the codas of unstressed syllables are debuccalised to glottal stops e.g. the city named /ˈkʰóʔnàt/ is often pronounced [ˈkʰóʔnàʔ], /ˈpʰḛ̂jòd/ - "fjord" is pronounced [ˈpʰḛ̂ːjòʔ].


If a nasal coda occurs before /h/, an approximant, or at the end of a word, it is often pronounced as nasalisation of the preceding vowel e.g. /nâḭm/ - "name" is pronounced [nâḭⁿ]. But likewise it is still present underlyingly, as can be seen when combined with the dative clitic /àuŋ/ to form /nâḭm=àuŋ/ - "to the name", which is pronounced [nâḭmàuⁿ].
If a nasal coda occurs before /h/, an approximant, or at the end of a word, it is often pronounced as nasalisation of the preceding vowel e.g. /nâḭm/ - "name" is pronounced [nâḭⁿ]. But likewise it is still present underlyingly, as can be seen when combined with the alienable genitive clitic // to form /nâḭm=/ - "of the name", which is pronounced [nâḭmjì].


===Stress and Phonation===
===Stress and Phonation===
Line 142: Line 142:
If /h/ occurs after vowels with harsh phonation, it is pronounced as a voiced epiglottal fricative [ʢ] e.g. /zwéˈmâ̰h/ - "to report", is pronounced [zwéˈmâ̰ʢ].
If /h/ occurs after vowels with harsh phonation, it is pronounced as a voiced epiglottal fricative [ʢ] e.g. /zwéˈmâ̰h/ - "to report", is pronounced [zwéˈmâ̰ʢ].


Of course, if a process such a cliticisation (e.g. with the genitive clitic /ji/ or the dative clitic /auŋ/), means that the /h/ is no longer in coda position, then these processes do not occur e.g.
Of course, if a process such a cliticisation (e.g. with the genitive clitic /ji/), means that the /h/ is no longer in coda position, then these processes do not occur e.g.


/à̤h=jì/ - "of the question (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈà̤çì] (/hj/ assimilates to [ç]).
/à̤h=jì/ - "of the question (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈà̤çì] (/hj/ assimilates to [ç]).


/dáʔh=jì/ - "of the darkness (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈdáʔçì].
/dáʔh=jì/ - "of the darkness (alienable)" is pronounced [ˈdáʔçì].
/à̤h=àuŋ/ - "to the question" is pronounced [ˈà̤ɦàuⁿ].
/dáʔh=àuŋ/ - "to the darkness" is pronounced [ˈdáʔhàuⁿ].




Line 678: Line 674:
/dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ áˈwâḭ/
/dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ áˈwâḭ/


dog lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite lizard=DAT flee
dog lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite flee


The dog bit the lizard and (the dog) ran away.
The dog bit the lizard and (the dog) ran away.
Line 753: Line 749:
Immediately after a monophthong with harsh voice, /t/ also lenites to /ɾ/. However, it also triggers a phonation shift on the vowel from harsh to glottalised e.g. the noun meaning "snare" is /n̥ḛ̀/ in Tone Class 2. It normally has harsh voice, but it combines with the secundative clitic to form /n̥èʔ=ɾá/, as in:
Immediately after a monophthong with harsh voice, /t/ also lenites to /ɾ/. However, it also triggers a phonation shift on the vowel from harsh to glottalised e.g. the noun meaning "snare" is /n̥ḛ̀/ in Tone Class 2. It normally has harsh voice, but it combines with the secundative clitic to form /n̥èʔ=ɾá/, as in:


/ˈsʰíʔtà n̥ḛ̀=ɾá θú=gḭ̂p dô̰k=àuŋ/
/ˈsʰíʔtà n̥ḛ̀=ɾá dò̰k=gó θú=gḭ̂p/


guardian snare=SEC ANTIP=give dog=DAT
guardian snare=SEC dog=DAT ANTIP=give


Literally "the guardian gave the snare to the dog", but "give a snare" could also be translated as "use a snare to catch".
Literally "the guardian gave the snare to the dog", but "give a snare" could also be translated as "use a snare to catch".
Line 786: Line 782:


The /k/ here lenits to /h/ and triggers deaspiration in exactly the same way as /g/. However, if the monophthong had harsh voice, it changes to be glottalised e.g. from /n̥ḛ̀/ - "snare", if we add the locative clitic /-ka/, the result is /nèʔ=há/ - "at the snare".
The /k/ here lenits to /h/ and triggers deaspiration in exactly the same way as /g/. However, if the monophthong had harsh voice, it changes to be glottalised e.g. from /n̥ḛ̀/ - "snare", if we add the locative clitic /-ka/, the result is /nèʔ=há/ - "at the snare".


====With Pronouns====
====With Pronouns====
Line 830: Line 825:
===Applicative Voice===
===Applicative Voice===


To topicalise a noun in a postpositional phrase, Kämpya uses applicative constructions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicative_voice]. These are formed by first shifting the noun in the absolutive case to the end of the sentence (and marking it with the dative clitic /-àuŋ/). In turn, the noun that the postposition was attached to goes into the absolutive case (and changes to Tone Class 1), and the postposition is placed after the verb as a clitic e.g. from the sentence:
To topicalise a noun in a postpositional phrase, Kämpya uses applicative constructions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicative_voice]. These are formed by first shifting the noun in the absolutive case to the postpositonal object "slot" in the sentence (and marking it with the dative clitic /=gó/). In turn, the noun that the postposition was attached to goes into the absolutive case (and changes to Tone Class 1), and the postposition is placed after the verb as a clitic e.g. from the sentence:


/ˈdô̰k=zù pʰò̤wé=ká ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/
/ˈdô̰k=zù pʰò̤wé=ká ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/
Line 841: Line 836:
we can apply an applicative transformation to get:
we can apply an applicative transformation to get:


/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ=kà ˈlḭ̂zàd=àuŋ/
/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù lḭ̀zád=góˈbíʔ=kà/


forest dog=ERG bite=LOC lizard=DAT
forest dog=ERG lizard=DAT bite=LOC


In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.
In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.
Line 859: Line 854:
becomes the following:
becomes the following:


/ˈbwḛ̂lì déˈpáʔɾ=hwàm ˈḛ̂nèm=àuŋ/
/ˈbwḛ̂lì ˈè̤ném=gó déˈpáʔɾ=hwàm/


valley depart=from enemy=DAT
valley enemy=DAT depart=from


From the valley, the enemy departed.
From the valley, the enemy departed.
Line 880: Line 875:
becomes
becomes


/bâṵn ˈsʰíʔtà=zù ˈgḭ̂p=tá ˈdô̰k=àuŋ/
/bâṵn ˈsʰíʔtà=zù dò̰k=góˈgḭ̂p=tá/


bone guardian=ERG give=SEC dog=DAT
bone guardian=ERG dog=DAT give=SEC


The bone was given to the dog by the guardian.
The bone was given to the dog by the guardian.
Line 898: Line 893:
we get
we get


/pʰò̤wè té=ˈbíʔ=kà dô̰k=àuŋ/
/pʰò̤wè dò̰k=gó té=ˈbíʔ=kà/


forest 2PS.ACC=bite=LOC dog=DAT
forest dog=DAT 2PS.ACC=bite=LOC


In the forest, the dog bit you.
In the forest, the dog bit you.
Line 909: Line 904:
This is clearly a cliticisation process, since adverbs can come before the particle but after the verb e.g.
This is clearly a cliticisation process, since adverbs can come before the particle but after the verb e.g.


/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù bíʔ ˈˈjě̤tài=kà ˈlḭ̂zàd=àuŋ/
/pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=zù lḭ̀zád=gó bíʔ ˈˈjě̤tài=kà/


forest dog=ERG bite yesterday.ADV=LOC lizard=DAT
forest dog=ERG lizard=DAT bite yesterday.ADV=LOC


In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.
In the forest, the dog bit the lizard.
Line 1,115: Line 1,110:


The forest, which the lizard bit it in, is small.
The forest, which the lizard bit it in, is small.
====Internal Heads====
It must be noted that Kämpya restrictive relative clauses are strictly speaking internally headed [http://wals.info/chapter/90]. We can only see this in antipassives and applicatives where the noun (that used to be in the absolutive case) is re-introduced as a dative argument, it follows the head noun e.g.
/θú=bíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd dô̰k=àuŋ áˈwâḭ/
ANTIP=bite lizard dog=DAT flee
The lizard that had bitten the dog fled. (not */θú=bíʔ dô̰g=àuŋ ˈlḭ̂zàd áˈwâḭ/)
Or in an applicative construction:
/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ=kà pʰò̤wè dô̰k=àuŋ m̥ôṵ/
lizard=ERG bite=LOC forest dog=DAT small
The forest that the lizard bit the dog in is small. (not */ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù bíʔ=kà dô̰g=àuŋ pʰò̤wè m̥ôṵ/)


==Mood/Evidentiality==
==Mood/Evidentiality==
Line 1,654: Line 1,626:




/ˈsʰíʔtà ˈkèʔ=ɾí θú=gḭ̂p dô̰k=àuŋ/
/ˈsʰíʔtà ˈkèʔ=ɾí dò̰k=gó θú=gḭ̂p/


guardian Q.ACC=SEC ANTIP=give dog=DAT
guardian Q.ACC=SEC dog=DAT ANTIP=give


Who / What did the guardian give to the dog?
Who / What did the guardian give to the dog?
Line 1,704: Line 1,676:
or
or


/θú=ˈbíʔ dô̰k ˈlḭ̂zàd=àuŋ éi=ˈhḛ̂b/
/ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ dô̰k éi=ˈhḛ̂b/


ANTIP=bite dog lizard=DAT Q.ERG=have
lizard=DAT ANTIP=bite dog Q.ERG=have


Whose dog bit the lizard? (literally "Who has the dog that bit the lizard?")
Whose dog bit the lizard? (literally "Who has the dog that bit the lizard?")


===Other Interrogatives that modify noun phrases===
===Other Interrogatives that modify noun phrases===
Line 1,723: Line 1,696:
However, bá- can only attach to a noun in the absolutive case. To ask about the subject of a transitive verb, it is necessary to antipassivise the verb. e.g.
However, bá- can only attach to a noun in the absolutive case. To ask about the subject of a transitive verb, it is necessary to antipassivise the verb. e.g.


/θú=ˈbíʔ bá=dô̰k ˈlḭ̂zàd=àuŋ/
/ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ bá=dô̰k/


ANTIP=bite Q.INTR=dog lizard=DAT
ANTIP=bite Q.INTR=dog lizard=DAT
Line 1,730: Line 1,703:




Attaching the clitic to a noun in the ergative case is ungrammatical e.g. */bá=dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ lḭ̂zàd/. Also the clitic cannot attach to a topicalised noun e.g. */bá=dô̰k θú=ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd=àuŋ/.
Attaching the clitic to a noun in the ergative case is ungrammatical e.g. */bá=dô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ lḭ̂zàd/. Also the clitic cannot attach to a topicalised noun e.g. */bá=dô̰k ˈlḭ̀zád=gó θú=ˈbíʔ/.




To ask about the object of a postposition, an applicative construction is needed e.g.
To ask about the object of a postposition, an applicative construction is needed e.g.


/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù ˈbíʔ=kà bá=pʰò̤wè ˈdô̰k=àuŋ/
/ˈlḭ̂zàd=zù dò̰k=gó ˈbíʔ=kà bá=pʰò̤wè /


lizard=ERG bite=LOC forest dog=DAT which
lizard=ERG dog=DAT bite=LOC which=forest


Which forest did the lizard bite the dog in?
Which forest did the lizard bite the dog in?
Line 1,798: Line 1,771:
And another example using a postposition:
And another example using a postposition:


/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾí péiʔk kʰḭ̂d ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/
/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk kʰḭ̂d ˈdô̰k=zù ˈbíʔ ˈlḭ̂zàd/


mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child dog=ERG bite lizard
mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child dog=ERG bite lizard
Line 1,807: Line 1,780:
And as before, the absolutive argument of the superordinate clause can be the topic of the subordinate clause e.g.
And as before, the absolutive argument of the superordinate clause can be the topic of the subordinate clause e.g.


/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾí péiʔk kʰḭ̂d wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk kʰḭ̂d wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog
mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog
Line 1,814: Line 1,787:




/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾí θú=ˈdè̤sì ˈkʰḭ̂d=àuŋ wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk wá=bàṵn=tá gá=gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC ANTIP=speak child=DAT INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog
mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak  INDEF=bone=SEC NEC=give dog


The mother told the child that she (the mother) must give the dog a bone.
The mother told the child that she (the mother) must give the dog a bone.
Line 1,824: Line 1,797:




/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾí θú=péiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d=àuŋ wá=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk =bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC ANTIP=speak child=DAT  INDEF=bone=SEC give dog
mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT  ANTIP=speak INDEF=bone=SEC give dog


The mother told the child that she (the mother) gave the dog a bone (the speaker saw the act of giving).
The mother told the child that she (the mother) gave the dog a bone (the speaker saw the act of giving).




/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾí θú=péiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d=àuŋ wá=bàṵn=tá sʰái=gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=péiʔk =bàṵn=tá sʰái=gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC ANTIP=speak child=DAT INDEF=bone=SEC REP=give dog
mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak  INDEF=bone=SEC REP=give dog


The mother told the child that she (the mother) must give the dog a bone (the speaker didn't see the act of giving, but heard about it).
The mother told the child that she (the mother) gave the dog a bone (the speaker didn't see the act of giving, but heard about it).




Line 1,844: Line 1,817:
So if the above 2 sentences take ðjíʔ, then they become:
So if the above 2 sentences take ðjíʔ, then they become:


/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d ðjíʔ =bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂=ɾù ˈnòʔ=ɾá péiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d ðjíʔ =bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog
mother=ERG SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC speak child 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog
Line 1,851: Line 1,824:




/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá θú=ˈpéiʔk ˈkʰḭ̂d=àuŋ ðjíʔ wá=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/
/múˈhḛ̂ ˈnòʔ=ɾá ˈkʰḭ̀d=gó θú=ˈpéiʔkðjíʔ tí=bàṵn=tá gḭ̂p dô̰k/


mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC ANTIP=speak child=DAT 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog
mother SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC child=DAT ANTIP=speak 3PS.OBV.ERG INDEF=bone=SEC give dog


The mother told the child that he / she (someone other than the mother, either the child or someone else) gave the dog a bone.
The mother told the child that he / she (someone other than the mother, either the child or someone else) gave the dog a bone.
Line 1,859: Line 1,832:
===Evidentials and Reported Speech===
===Evidentials and Reported Speech===


When reporting what someone else has said, both clauses need to marked for evidentiality, both from the point of view of the speaker e.g.
====Indirect Reported Speech====
 
In this case, when reporting what someone else has said, both clauses need to marked for evidentiality, both from the point of view of the speaker e.g.




/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾí mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm déˈpʰáʔɾ/
/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾá mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm déˈpʰáʔɾ/


child SBRD.ACC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy depart
child SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy depart


The child told me the enemy departed (and I saw it happen too).
The child told me the enemy had departed (and I saw it happen too).




Line 1,872: Line 1,847:




/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾí mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm sái=déˈpʰáʔɾ/
/ˈkʰḭ̂d ˈnòʔ=ɾá mí=ˈpéiʔk ˈḛ̂nèm sái=déˈpʰáʔɾ/
 
child SBRD.ACC.EMP=SEC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy REP=depart
 
The child told me the enemy had departed (but I didn't see it, I just heard about it).
 
 
====Direct Reported Speech====
 
In this case, there is no superordinate verb marking. The quoted speech is places at the end of the sentence, preceded by the particle /ðéʔ/ and followed by the particle /tḛ̂/ e.g.
 
/ˈkʰḭ̂d mí=ˈpéiʔk ðéʔ ˈḛ̂nèm déˈpʰáʔɾ tḛ̂/
 
child 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak QUOTE enemy depart QUOTE
 
The child told me that the enemy had departed
 
 
In the above sentence, the speaker is saying the the child had used the direct evidential when reporting the enemy's departure, meaning that the speaker is reporting that the child implied that they had witnessed it themselves. This sentence conveys no information about whether or not the speaker had also seen the departure.
 
 
Compare:
 
/ˈkʰḭ̂d mí=ˈpéiʔk ðéʔ ˈḛ̂nèm sái=déˈpʰáʔɾ tḛ̂/


child SBRD.ACC 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak enemy REP=depart
child 1PS.EXCL.ACC=speak QUOTE enemy REP=depart QUOTE


The child told me the enemy departed (but I didn't see it, I just heard about it).
The child told me that he had heard that the enemy had departed (and not witnessed it himself).


==Comparative Constructions==
==Comparative Constructions==
Line 1,887: Line 1,885:


Dogs are faster than lizards (literally "Dogs are fast above lizards").
Dogs are faster than lizards (literally "Dogs are fast above lizards").
[[Category:Languages]]
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
3,044

edits