Minhast/Noun Incorporation: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 7:

# Type I - Lexical Compounding: the creation of new lexical items by compounding a noun root and verb root;

# Type II - Case Manipulation: a noun (usually a Patient, although Instrumental and Locative nouns may be involved) is incorporated into the verb complex. This is a valence operation: if the incorporated noun was originally a core argument, another argument can occupy the position vacated by the IN and assume core status. Alternatively, depending on the semantic nature of the verb, Oblique8 nouns that are Instruments, Locatives, or Goals may also be incorporated;9

# Type III - Manipulation of Discourse: NI is used to ~~background10~~ information in sections of the discourse so that other arguments are brought to the foreground. It allows speech participants to focus on the important entities within a particular passage of the discourse;

# Type III - Manipulation of Discourse: NI is used to background information in sections of the discourse so that other arguments are brought to the foreground. It allows speech participants to focus on the important entities within a particular passage of the discourse;

# Type IV - Classificatory NI: Mithun describes this type of NI wherein a “...relatively general N(oun) stem is incorporated to narrow the scope of the V(erb)...but the compound noun stem can be accompanied by a more specific external NP which identifies the argument implied by the IN.”

Line 23:

=== Type II Noun Incorporation - Case Manipulation ===

As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument.

As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument.

Returning back to Sentence 1a and 1b, the argument structure has been altered13 from a transitive clause in Sentence 1a to an intransitive one via the application of NI previously observed in Sentence 1b.

~~Both sentences have been restated here as Sentences 5a and 5b:~~

5a) Yadukte kaslub ~~ayuparu~~ → yaduk=de kaslub ~~ayup~~-ar-u (boy=ERG dog.ABS point.at-PST TRANS)

Returning back to Sentence 1a and 1b, the argument structure has been altered from a transitive clause in Sentence 1a to an intransitive one via the application of NI previously observed in Sentence 1b. Both sentences have been restated here as Sentences 5a and 5b:

5a) Yadukte kaslub ayupparu → yaduk=de kaslub ayupp-ar-u (boy=ERG dog.ABS point.at-PST TRANS)

“The boy pointed at the dog.”

5b) Yaduk ayukkaslubaran → yaduk ayup-kaslub-ar-an (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST- INTRANS)

“The boy pointed at a/the dog” (lit: “The boy dog-pointed”).

The alteration of the argument structure from a transitive sentence to an intransitive one is pragmatically motivated and changes the nature of the discourse. The incorporation of the PT kaslub, both opens up the Absolutive position for occupation by another argument, in this case, the Agent yaduk. The incorporation of the Patient kaslub also backgrounds it, reducing its salience in the discourse. The Agent yaduk thus becomes more salient, as it has now become the sole core argument of the sentence. The result alters discourse by presenting the Agent as the most important element of the discourse, while that of the Patient has been reduced to a peripheral role.

Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic

14

Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5:

language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental

arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5:

13 This is an instance of Case Manipulation NI, i.e. Mithun's Type II classification.

14 There still remain some die-hard advocates who group the two languages with Chutchki and Nivkh under a single

Line 548:

{{Gloss

|phrase = ~~Puħtakayyummaharan~~.

|phrase = Yaššapuħtakayyummaharan.

| IPA =

| morphemes = puħt-kayyūn-mah-ar-an

| morphemes = yašša-puħt-kayyūn-mah-ar-an

| gloss = ~~Sappu~~ stand.upright-tree-3S.NEUT-PST-INTR

| gloss = there.DIST-stand.upright-tree-3S.NEUT-PST-INTR

| translation = The trees stood there.

}}

Diachronic factors may explain the irregularities involving agreement marking for a subset of incorporated nouns interacting with a subset of verbs. The Proto-Nahenic ancestor originally had an extensive hierarchical noun class system, remnants of which remain in Minhast's relative Nahónda as evidenced by even more irregularities in the latter, and in its other relative Nankôre, whose elaborate nominal hierarchy may be a preservation of the protolanguage's original noun class system or an extensive elaboration of it. The irregular agreement marking triggered by ''-iyuššit-'' among a subset of a select class of verbs suggests that the noun once fell within a noun class of a particular animacy level. When the protolanguage split, the original noun class system were restructured in the daughter languages; further reductions and loss, particularly in both Minhast and Nahónda, left a residue in the form of the irregular agreement marking seen today.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 # Type I - Lexical Compounding: the creation of new lexical items by compounding a noun root and verb root;
 # Type II - Case Manipulation: a noun (usually a Patient, although Instrumental and Locative nouns may be involved) is incorporated into the verb complex. This is a valence operation: if the incorporated noun was originally a core argument, another argument can occupy the position vacated by the IN and assume core status. Alternatively, depending on the semantic nature of the verb, Oblique8 nouns that are Instruments, Locatives, or Goals may also be incorporated;9
-# Type III - Manipulation of Discourse: NI is used to background10 information in sections of the discourse so that other arguments are brought to the foreground. It allows speech participants to focus on the important entities within a particular passage of the discourse;
+# Type III - Manipulation of Discourse: NI is used to background information in sections of the discourse so that other arguments are brought to the foreground. It allows speech participants to focus on the important entities within a particular passage of the discourse;
 # Type IV - Classificatory NI: Mithun describes this type of NI wherein a “...relatively general N(oun) stem is incorporated to narrow the scope of the V(erb)...but the compound noun stem can be accompanied by a more specific external NP which identifies the argument implied by the IN.”
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 === Type II Noun Incorporation - Case Manipulation ===
-As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument.
+As Mithun identified in Case Manipulation NI, an important function of IN Minhast is to alter the argument structure of a clause. The prototypical function of NI is to decrease the valency of a verb; the transitivity of a clause is decreased by removing one of the core arguments, namely the PT, and absorbing it into the verb. This opens up the Absolutive position to be occupied by another argument, either an oblique argument, or the Ergative argument.
-Returning back to Sentence 1a and 1b, the argument structure has been altered13 from a transitive clause in Sentence 1a to an intransitive one via the application of NI previously observed in Sentence 1b.
-Both sentences have been restated here as Sentences 5a and 5b:
-a) Yadukte kaslub ayuparu → yaduk=de kaslub ayup-ar-u (boy=ERG dog.ABS point.at-PST TRANS)
+Returning back to Sentence 1a and 1b, the argument structure has been altered from a transitive clause in Sentence 1a to an intransitive one via the application of NI previously observed in Sentence 1b. Both sentences have been restated here as Sentences 5a and 5b:
+a) Yadukte kaslub ayupparu → yaduk=de kaslub ayupp-ar-u (boy=ERG dog.ABS point.at-PST TRANS)
 “The boy pointed at the dog.”
 b) Yaduk ayukkaslubaran → yaduk ayup-kaslub-ar-an (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST- INTRANS)
 “The boy pointed at a/the dog” (lit: “The boy dog-pointed”).
 The alteration of the argument structure from a transitive sentence to an intransitive one is pragmatically motivated and changes the nature of the discourse. The incorporation of the PT kaslub, both opens up the Absolutive position for occupation by another argument, in this case, the Agent yaduk. The incorporation of the Patient kaslub also backgrounds it, reducing its salience in the discourse. The Agent yaduk thus becomes more salient, as it has now become the sole core argument of the sentence. The result alters discourse by presenting the Agent as the most important element of the discourse, while that of the Patient has been reduced to a peripheral role.
-Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic
+Patients are not the only arguments that can be subjected to NI. An interesting feature of NI in Minhast is that the semantic nature of a verb may allow certain non-PTs oblique arguments, namely Instrumentals and Locatives, to be incorporated. This is similar to Ainu, another polysynthetic language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5:
-language of Northeast Asia unrelated to Minhast . Like Minhast, Ainu can target Instrumental
-arguments for NI, like sapa (“head”) underlined below in Sentence 5:
 This is an instance of Case Manipulation NI, i.e. Mithun's Type II classification.
 There still remain some die-hard advocates who group the two languages with Chutchki and Nivkh under a single
@@ Line 548: / Line 548: @@
 {{Gloss
-|phrase = Puħtakayyummaharan.
+|phrase = Yaššapuħtakayyummaharan.
 | IPA =
-| morphemes = puħt-kayyūn-mah-ar-an
+| morphemes = yašša-puħt-kayyūn-mah-ar-an
-| gloss = Sappu stand.upright-tree-3S.NEUT-PST-INTR
+| gloss = there.DIST-stand.upright-tree-3S.NEUT-PST-INTR
 | translation = The trees stood there.
 }}
 Diachronic factors may explain the irregularities involving agreement marking for a subset of incorporated nouns interacting with a subset of verbs.  The Proto-Nahenic ancestor originally had an extensive hierarchical noun class system, remnants of which remain in Minhast's relative Nahónda as evidenced by even more irregularities in the latter, and in its other relative Nankôre, whose elaborate nominal hierarchy may be a preservation of the protolanguage's original noun class system or an extensive elaboration of it. The irregular agreement marking triggered by ''-iyuššit-'' among a subset of a select class of verbs suggests that the noun once fell within a noun class of a particular animacy level.  When the protolanguage split, the original noun class system were restructured in the daughter languages; further reductions and loss, particularly in both Minhast and Nahónda, left a residue in the form of the irregular agreement marking seen today.