5,466
edits
Minhast/Noun Incorporation: Difference between revisions
m
Fixed typo
m (Fixed typo) |
|||
| (27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Construction}} | |||
= Introduction = | = Introduction = | ||
= Types of Noun Incorporation = | = Types of Noun Incorporation = | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
# Type I - Lexical Compounding: the creation of new lexical items by compounding a noun root and verb root; | # 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 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 | # 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.” | # 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.” | ||
Not all languages that employ NI exhibit all four types. For example, in the indigenous Brazilian language Karajá, NI is mostly restricted inalienably possessed nouns, particularly body parts, and does not alter valence, which by nature involves Type II case manipulation (Ribeiro 2001). Chukchi freely employs Type II NI to alter argument structure, Type III is attested per Mithun, but Type IV NI is absent (Modena & Muro). Nevertheless, languages that employ all four types of NI are found in disparate languages, including Mohawk, Caddo, and Gunwinggu. Minhast also falls within this group. | Not all languages that employ NI exhibit all four types. For example, in the indigenous Brazilian language Karajá, NI is mostly restricted inalienably possessed nouns, particularly body parts, and does not alter valence, which by nature involves Type II case manipulation (Ribeiro 2001). Chukchi freely employs Type II NI to alter argument structure, Type III is attested per Mithun, but Type IV NI is absent (Modena & Muro). Nevertheless, languages that employ all four types of NI are found in disparate languages, including Mohawk, Caddo, and Gunwinggu. Minhast also falls within this group. | ||
=== Type I Noun Incorporation === | === Type I Noun Incorporation - Lexical Compound Formation === | ||
Minhast utilizes Type I NI to create lexical compounds but only if a particular activity, state, or event occurs frequently to warrant institutionalizing into the lexicon. Usually, one or both elements of the compound are shortened, as in the following examples: | Minhast utilizes Type I NI to create lexical compounds but only if a particular activity, state, or event occurs frequently to warrant institutionalizing into the lexicon. Usually, one or both elements of the compound are shortened, as in the following examples: | ||
5a) aydann- “To store water in a cistern, reservoir, or catch-basin” (derived from ayaya- | 5a) ''aydann''- “To store water in a cistern, reservoir, or catch-basin” (derived from ''ayaya'' - “put something into a container” + ''dannua'' “water”)<br/> | ||
5b) uzdann- → uzzat-dannua “To draw water from a well” (derived from uzzat- “to pull | 5b) ''uzdann- → uzzat-dannua'' “To draw water from a well” (derived from ''uzzat''- “to pull | ||
something out of a container or other enclosing object, e.g. an envelope” + dannua “water” | something out of a container or other enclosing object, e.g. an envelope” + dannua “water” | ||
=== Type II Noun Incorporation === | Compounding NI is a derivational process. If the compound yields a new verb, it has the fullstatus and capabilities of a verb not derived from compounding, including NI:<br/> | ||
5c) ''Aydantayattaran → aydann-tayatta-ar-an'' “He poisoned the well” (lit. “He stored the water with poison). | |||
=== 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 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 98: | ||
The use of Case Manipulation accounts for the majority of NI in Minhast. This is not surprising, since Minhast, as a syntactically ergative language, utilizes various grammatical devices to maintain and manipulate the S/O pivot to cross-reference the Absolutive argument across clauses. | The use of Case Manipulation accounts for the majority of NI in Minhast. This is not surprising, since Minhast, as a syntactically ergative language, utilizes various grammatical devices to maintain and manipulate the S/O pivot to cross-reference the Absolutive argument across clauses. | ||
== Type III Noun Incorporation == | === Type III Noun Incorporation - Discourse Manipulation === | ||
Another important difference in Minhast between Antipassivation and Noun Incorporation is found in discourse manipulation in extended speech or narratives. Antipassivation is often used to remove an element from discourse entirely, marking the demoted NP as truly incidental and ultimately unimportant to the narrative. On the other hand, Minhast uses NI to retain the demoted argument in the | Another important difference in Minhast between Antipassivation and Noun Incorporation is found in discourse manipulation in extended speech or narratives. Antipassivation is often used to remove an element from discourse entirely, marking the demoted NP as truly incidental and ultimately unimportant to the narrative. On the other hand, Minhast uses NI to retain the demoted argument in the | ||
18 | 18 | ||
| Line 187: | Line 190: | ||
Notice that if the Controller is placed into the Absolutive position by Antipassivation (Sentences 14d, 14h, 14l) the nominalization must be deleted, since Minhast does not tolerate two separate Absolutive arguments and nominalizations must always have an Absolutive argument to relativize on. The IN of the complement clause in which the Controllee is embedded in may be retained by incorporation into the Control verb, but without nominalization, there is no way to qualify the NI. That must be determined by context. | Notice that if the Controller is placed into the Absolutive position by Antipassivation (Sentences 14d, 14h, 14l) the nominalization must be deleted, since Minhast does not tolerate two separate Absolutive arguments and nominalizations must always have an Absolutive argument to relativize on. The IN of the complement clause in which the Controllee is embedded in may be retained by incorporation into the Control verb, but without nominalization, there is no way to qualify the NI. That must be determined by context. | ||
== Type IV Noun Incorporation == | === Type IV Noun Incorporation - Classificatory Functions === | ||
Some languages have expanded the range of functions that NI can perform beyond valence operations and discourse pragmatics. These languages take NI to an advanced level, whereby a generalized noun is incorporated to classify or categorize the Patient, which has more specific meaning. Again, Mohawk is an exemplary language that exploits this form of NI pervasively, called Classificatory NI (Mithun's Type IV category). The following passage from Mithun (1984) illustrates this NI function type: | |||
14a) Tohka niyohserd:ke tsi nahe' sha'te:ku niku':ti rabahbot wahu-tsy-ahni:nu ki rake'niha. → several so.it.year.numbers so it.goes eight of.them bullhead he-fish-bought this my.father. | |||
“Several years ago, my father bought eight bullheads.” | |||
In this example, the incorporated noun (i)tsy (“fish”) is co-referrent with the Patient rabahbot (“bullhead fish”); (i)tsy serves as a general modifier to classify the more specific rabahbot. As the narration continues, rabahbot is subsequently referred to by the incorporated noun (i)tsy: | |||
14b) Saháhkete' ki:kv rakenuhá:'a s-a-h-vtsy-ahsheruny-à:na-'. Yusa :rawe ki': óksa'k wa-h-vtsy- ahserul:ni tanu wa-h-vtsy-akeri:tahw-e. Tsi n-a-ho-tsy-ari-hs-e ki' ki:kv wahv:ru, “Tho yukyatv:ro rinu-tsy-anut-v-:ra.” | |||
back.he.turned this my.uncle back-PAST-he-fish-fix-go.to-PUNC back-he-arrived just quick PAST-he-fish-fix(PUNC) and PAST-he-fish-fry-PUNC as as-PAST-him-fish-fry-finish-PUNC just this he.said there we.two.friends.are I/him-fish-feed-for-go.to | |||
“My uncle then returned to fix them (the fish). At home, he cleaned and fried them (the fish), and when they (the fish) were ready, he decided to take them (the fish) over to his friend as a special treat.” | |||
The Mohawk examples show how the generic IN, (i)tsy, is used like an agreement marker throughout the entire discourse. Although it is generic, it is used to refer back repeatedly to the more specific rabahbot (bullheads), which is mentioned only once, at the beginning of the narrative. | |||
Minhast, like Mohawk, uses Classificatory NI, but once again, the factors motivating Minhast NI to | |||
implement Classificatory NI are different. As mentioned earlier, certain noun classes are resistant to NI or forbidden. Nouns that are resistant to NI or forbid it are typically located in the high end of the animacy scale. Nouns that fall under this portion of the animacy hierarchy are kinship nouns and proper nouns. | |||
As in Mohawk, for Classificatory NI Minhast incorporates a generic noun. This incorporated argument is then used as an agreement marker to the NI-resistant noun, which is always in the Absolutive. A requirement for Classificatory NI in Minhast is that the noun which the IN is corefererent with cannot be a semantic Agent, and for this reason, once again Antipassivation is blocked by NI. | |||
The NI-resistant noun and the generic IN that serves as its agreement marker are highlighted in bold underlined font: | |||
15a) Supnar min anxekte Keyyis min niħkašektaran duntittarraru duntittarumā, anxēa indintanuskikirimredadnnarumā. | |||
Supnar min anxē=ek=de Keyyis min niħkaš-ek=de=aran dut-nittam-ar-u=mā, anxēa nd-inta- nusk-kirim-redad-nn-ar-u=mā... (PROP.NOUN CONN brother=3MS.ABS+1S.ERG=ERG PROP.NOUN CONN friend-3S.ABS+1S.ERG=ERG=DAT DAT.APPL-shout-PST- TRANS=SUBORD, brother.ABS INCEP-INTENS-ADVER.APPL-speak-man- 1P.EXCL.ERG-PST-TRANS=SUBORD) | |||
“My brother Supnar shouted at my friend Keyyis and we started to argue against my brother...” | |||
The narrative continues. The narrator decides to cast himself as the Absolutive argument to feed the S/ O pivots in the succeeding clauses. When he needs to mention his brother as the Patient, he chooses not to use the Antipassive in order to cast his brother as a Dative oblique; to do so would imply the brother is incidental information, which is not the case in this passage. Instead, he applies NI on redad, which coindexes his brother as the logical Patient. Redad then serves as a proxy for his brother for NI operations: | |||
15b) ...kūdāš segwekarammā, (kūde) yummatekarumā, rabbaddadekarammā, karyaħtendepār kaħmadekarampamā šarrataran ušniddadekarammā, nittarredadekarannamā: “Bakran wattaħte ušnktahuš? Hatā anxēšattarakš? Ta'astakkemarunaft wastānešattarakte hittastānehakkemaruš?” | |||
...kū=dāš segw-ek-ar-an=mā, (kua=de) yummat-ek-ar-u=mā, rabba-redad-ek-ar-an=mā, karyaħt-enn=de=pār kaħmad-ek-ar-an-pi=mā šarrat=aran ušn-redad-ek-ar-an=mā, nittam- redad-ek-ar-an=namā: “Bakran wa=tah=de ušn-ktah-u=š? Hatā anxēa-šattar-hak=š? Ta=ast-hakkem-ar-u=naft wastāne-šattar-hak=de hitt-wastāne-hakkem-ar-u=š?” | |||
3S.OBL=MAL make.fist-1S.ABS-PST-INTRANS=SUBORD, (3S=ERG) swing.fist- 1S.ABS+3S.ERG-PST-TRANS=SUBORD, grab-man-1S.ABS-PST-INTRANS=SUBORD, arm-3S.NEUT.ANIM.ABS+3S.ERG=ERG=INSTR twist-1S.ABS-PST-INTRANS- ANTI=SUBORD earth=DAT hit-man-1S.ABS-PST-INTRANS =SUBORD, shout.at-man- 1S.ABS-PST-INTRANS=DIR.QUOT: why CONN=2S=ERG hit-1S.ABS+2S.ERG- TRANS=IRREAL? NEG brother-RECIP-1P.INCL.ABS=IRREAL? NEG= beget- 1P.INCL.ABS+3P.COMMON.ERG-PST-TRANS=NMLZ blood-RECIP - 3S.NEUT.ANIM.ABS+1P.INCL.ERG=ERG give-blood-1P.INCL.ABS+3P.COMMON.ERG- | |||
PST-TRANS=IRREAL | |||
“...[and] we started to fight, my brother and I. He swung at me (but missed), and I grabbed my brother, then I twisted his arm and struck him to the ground. I yelled at my brother, 'Why do you strike at me? Am I not your brother? Are we not of the same blood? (lit. Our mutually- shared blood, did not those that begat us give us blood?)'” | |||
While these passages demonstrate that Minhast does employ Classificatory NI, it does not do so as extensively as in Mohawk. In Minhast, Classificatory NI is employed to get around the obstacles presented by NI-resistant nouns, which by their nature, rank high in the animacy hierarchy. Thus, Classificatory NI is rarely, if ever, encountered in passages with low-animacy entities. | |||
Most important, though, is whether Classificatory NI is required to maintain the S/O pivot. If not, Classificatory NI is not employed. Thus, one is not likely to see a sentence like in 16a. In fact, a native speaker would find it quite odd, and most likely ungrammatical: | |||
16a) Dūy zaydakkī sarekaru, (dūy) rimar-sankūy-ekarumā, (dūy) niyyet-sankuy-ekaru. | |||
“I saw the salmon in the river, I fish-speared it, then I fish-pulled it out of the water.” | |||
The sentence does not require Classificatory NI because dūy (“salmon”) is incorporatable and no advantage is gained by using the generic noun sankūy (“fish”) to co-index dūy. While both nouns are animate, they are also neuter in gender, which when compared to nouns that have masculine and feminine nouns, both of these nouns lie lower in the animacy spectrum; Classificatory NI is typically employed with highly animate nouns, which include proper nouns and kinship terms. However, dūy is low in the animacy scale, so the incorporation of the more generic term sankūy for Classificatory NI is unnecessary. | |||
Compare this with the previous Mohawk example of Classificatory NI: | |||
16a) Tohka niyohserd:ke tsi nahe' sha'te:ku niku':ti rabahbot wahu-tsy-ahni:nu ki rake'niha. several so.it.year.numbers so it.goes eight of.them bullhead he-fish-bought this my.father. | |||
Here rabahbot (the bullhead fish) and generic, incorporated noun tsy (fish) lie in the same level on the animacy hierarchy, but Mohawk utilizes Classificatory NI so that tsy can function as an agreement marker for rabahbot later discourse. | |||
In the case of Minhast, the application of Classificatory NI background dūy conveys no observable benefits, as both dūy and sankūy are at the same animacy level. Minhast uses Classificatory NI when the target noun is unincorporatable, as in the case of proper nouns and kinship nouns. However, neither dūy nor sankūy are considered ineligible for incorporation. | |||
If dūy is the topic of interest, it must be cast as the Pivot, which requires that it assume the role as an Absolutive argument: | |||
16b) Dūy zaydakkī sarekaru, [PRO] rimarekarumā, [PRO] niyyetekaru. | |||
“I saw the salmon in the river, speared it, and pulled it out of the water.” | |||
Or if the pronoun yak/-ek- were the topic of interest, it would be the S/O pivot, and then dūy can become the incorporated Patient: | |||
16c) Dūy=aran zaydakkī sarekarampi, rimar-dūy-ekammā, [PRO] niyyet-dūy-ekan. | |||
“I saw some salmon in the river, I salmon-speared, then salmon-pulled-out-of-the-water. | |||
...or dūy can be nominalized, in which it would again serve as the S/O pivot: 16d) Dūy zaydakkī sarekarunaft rimarekarumā [PRO] niyyetekaru. | |||
“The salmon that I saw, I speared and pulled it out of the water.” | |||
However, the incorporation of dūy would make it ineligible to function as the Pivot. The following | |||
** Sartuyekarammā rimarekaru >> ** sar-duy-ek-ar-an-mā rimar-ek-ar-u | |||
** “I fish-saw then speared it.” | |||
Here the intent of the speaker was to mark duy as a PT in the first clause via NI, then link the first | |||
clause to the second clause via the -mā suffix. The verb in the first clause is intransitive after the | |||
incorporation process, which is why it received intransitive marking with the -an- affix. The second | |||
clause is marked as a transitive verb by the suffix -u. The speaker used the transitive -u suffix thinking | |||
that its PT argument was the incorporated -duy-, however this is ungrammatical. The transitive marker | |||
requires an Absolutive argument, but the incorporation of -duy- removed it from the Absolutive | |||
position, thus there no longer is an Absolutive argument available to rimarekaru to function as the | |||
Pivot. In Minhast, an IN can never serve as a Pivot in clause chains, only an explicit NP in the | |||
Absolutive case frame, or null-marked implicit NP, whose agreement marker is the ABS agreement | |||
marker inside the verb complex. To make this sentence grammatical while retaining the IN, at the | |||
minimum an Applicative affix marking an explicit or implicit NP that has been promoted to core status | |||
26 | |||
The fact that animacy conditions have to be met before Classificatory NI is applied explains a major reason why it is not as extensively used in Minhast as it is in Mohawk. The requirements of the S/O pivot, which is exploited pervasively in Minhast, also has a role in governing whether Classificatory NI is employed. Classificatory NI appears to be a last-resort measure that is used if no other valence operation can feed the S/O pivot with the proper argument; otherwise, it is not employed. That Minhast has other syntactic mechanisms, such as the valence operations of Antipassivation and Applicative Formation, as well as nominalizations and the wa-clause connective and allied structures all contribute to the low frequency of Classificatory NI in Minhast. | |||
The situation for Mohawk is the inverse of the Minhast system: lacking the ancillary syntactic mechanisms for altering argument structure found in Minhast, Mohawk needs Classificatory NI because the language does not employ nominalizations. Mohawk clauses, even when chained together into long clause chains, are still ultimately regarded as truly independent, stand-alone sentences; stripping one of the component clauses from its matrix clause does not change its grammaticality. In | |||
26 The 3S.ABS+1S.ERG agreement marker is -ek-, which is homophonous with 1S.ABS -ek-. The Transitive verb suffix - u disambiguates which -ek- form is being used. | |||
is required. | |||
contrast, nominalizations cannot stand alone, they must be contained within a matrix clause; stripping them from their matrix clause does make them ungrammatical. Minhast has its S/O pivot system available to it, which it exploits aggressively, especially in the case of nominalizations; Mohawk has no such syntactic construct. That Mohawk has the Classificatory NI available to it to handle the narratives in 14a and 14b does not make it superior to Minhast. That Minhast can use nominalizations and its S/O pivot system to handle the same narrative and minimize using Classificatory NI does not make it superior to Mohawk. They are simply different syntactic structures available to their respective languages, and each language maximizes the tools available to solve syntactic problems such as the ones just described. | |||
* This is an example of Mithun's Classificatory NI (Class IV) being exploited by Minhast. Here, it is essentially creating the equivalent of a locative noun in other languages, e.g. English "Within the ''interior of'' the beast..." Here, ''nua'' means "side" has been incorporated into the verb complex. The implicit head is ''suharak'' (deerskin), which was mentioned in a previous line in the passage, referred to by the Locative applicative ''naħk-''. This construction is equivalent to saying "Next to it", "By its side", etc. | * This is an example of Mithun's Classificatory NI (Class IV) being exploited by Minhast. Here, it is essentially creating the equivalent of a locative noun in other languages, e.g. English "Within the ''interior of'' the beast..." Here, ''nua'' means "side" has been incorporated into the verb complex. The implicit head is ''suharak'' (deerskin), which was mentioned in a previous line in the passage, referred to by the Locative applicative ''naħk-''. This construction is equivalent to saying "Next to it", "By its side", etc. | ||
| Line 198: | Line 263: | ||
| translation = Canonballs explode next to it the deerskin. | | translation = Canonballs explode next to it the deerskin. | ||
}} | }} | ||
= Truncation/Weak Suppletion = | = Truncation/Weak Suppletion = | ||
| Line 224: | Line 284: | ||
Similarly, Minhast INs exhibit weak suppletion, and it occurs extensively, particularly with nouns longer than two syllables, e.g. ''sussagarānī'' > ''-suggan-'' ("big toe"). | Similarly, Minhast INs exhibit weak suppletion, and it occurs extensively, particularly with nouns longer than two syllables, e.g. ''sussagarānī'' > ''-suggan-'' ("big toe"). The contrast can be seen in the following two examples, the first where the noun occurs in its full form as the dependent argument in a possessive NP, and the second wherein the noun appears in truncated form after noun incorporation: | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
|phrase = | |phrase = <u>Sussagarānī</u>tirektiki kahušnišattekaran. | ||
| IPA = | | IPA = | ||
| morphemes = sussagarānī-tirek=de=ki kah-ušn-šatt-ek-ar-an | | morphemes = sussagarānī-tirek=de=ki kah-ušn-šatt-ek-ar-an | ||
| gloss = big.toe-3SN.INAN.POSSM+1S.POSSR=ERG=LOC INV.VOL-hit-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | | gloss = big.toe-3SN.INAN.POSSM+1S.POSSR=ERG=LOC INV.VOL-hit-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | ||
| translation = I | | translation = I stubbed my big toe. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
|phrase = | |phrase = Kahušni<u>sugga</u>š<u>n</u>attekaran. | ||
| IPA = | | IPA = | ||
| morphemes = kah-ušn- | | morphemes = kah-ušn-sussagarānī-šatt-ek-ar-an | ||
| gloss = INV.VOL-hit-toe-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | | gloss = INV.VOL-hit-toe-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | ||
| translation = I stubbed my big toe. | | translation = I stubbed my big toe. | ||
| Line 245: | Line 305: | ||
The pattern of truncation is unpredictable; syllable loss may occur in initial, medial, or final positions, although noun roots with more than two syllables tend to lose either their medial or final syllables and retain the initial syllable, but exceptions abound, such as ''allāga'' > ''-lgagg-'' (conch) . | The pattern of truncation is unpredictable; syllable loss may occur in initial, medial, or final positions, although noun roots with more than two syllables tend to lose either their medial or final syllables and retain the initial syllable, but exceptions abound, such as ''allāga'' > ''-lgagg-'' (conch) . | ||
= Noun Incorporation of Oblique Arguments= | |||
In many languages which exhibit noun incorporation, the type of noun that can be incorporated into the verb is often restricted. Some languages incorporate body parts only, others are restricted to inalienable nouns or some other semantic category. Other languages that exhibit extensive noun incorporation, of which Mohawk and its relatives in the Iroquoian language family are the most studied, while having much fewer semantic restrictions, still limit the syntactic or thematic role of the noun that can be incorporated: these are that of the Patient argument, and in some cases the Instrument argument. Other arguments serving in a different thematic/theta role are barred from incorporation. Other noun incorporating languages, such as Chukchi, appear to have no restrictions on the theta role of the incorporated noun (IN); but when these oblique nouns are incorporated, the only way to recover their thematic role is by context alone. | |||
Minhast is one of those languages that can incorporate oblique arguments. However, the oblique arguments that can be incorporated are constrained by the semantic characteristics of the verb. Some transitive verbs which require a third argument, which is always an oblique noun, can optionally incorporate the oblique noun. The verb wasaskiyu is such an example: | |||
wasaskiyu - “to put something on an object” (E.g. “Please put it on the chair”) | |||
Verb takes 3 arguments, v(Agt, Pt, Obl.LOC) | |||
Agent is typically ERG | |||
Pt is typically Abs | |||
Obl.LOC can be incorporated. | |||
Surma dūy wasaskizekyašennaru. | |||
Surma dūy wasaski-zekyaš-enn-ar-u | |||
PN salmon put-table-3S.ANIM.ACC+3MS.ERG-PST-TRN | |||
“He put the salmon on the table.” | |||
If this were Ainu, the incorporated Locative noun would license an Applicative affix; in Mohawk (and presumably its closely related Northern Iroquoian relatives), I haven’t seen incorporation of an oblique, only Patients. An exception is found in Tuscarora (Mithun p. 201 “Word Orders”, example 12a, contrasting non-incorporated 12b) in which we see a Locative arg incorporated in the stative verb | |||
Chukchi incorporates obliques, but often the theta role must be inferred by context. See A Lexical Account of Noun Incorporation in Chukchi (Silke Lambert, p.56). Minhast, as demonstrated in this article, incorporates obliques like Chukchi, but is much more restricted based on the semantic characteristics of the verb, i.e. verbs that incorporate obliques are restricted to a limited set of theta roles, and often the number of roles is restricted to one. | |||
The semantic properties of a verb, namely the type of semantic/thematic role of an NP it can accept as an argument, influence what nouns may be incorporated. This semantic property limits the scope of which oblique nouns can incorporate, a limitation not exhibited in Chukchi. Motion verbs typically incorporate Goal or Origin nouns; Positional verbs typically incorporate Locative nouns. Otherwise, transitive verbs may incorporate either Patient or Instrument nouns; this sort of incorporation may seem to create ambiguities, but such is not the case, as both the polypersonal agreement pronominal affixes, and the presence or absence of an Instrumental Applicative make clear whether the Absolutive is a Patient or is an Instrument that has been promoted to the Absolutive argument. A few examples: | |||
Example of a Goal argument: | |||
Iknatumankaran. | |||
Ikna-tūman-ek-ar-an | |||
go-house-1S.NOM-PST-INTR | |||
“I went to/towards the house.” | |||
Example of an Origin argument: | |||
Hahurtaħran. | |||
ha-hūr-tah-ar-an | |||
come-mountain-2S.NOM-PST-INTR | |||
“You came from the mountain.” | |||
Example of a Locative argument: | |||
Sap puħtabanakkaran. | |||
Sap puħta-banak-ek-ar-an | |||
This stand-rock-1S.NOM-PST-INTR | |||
“I stood on this rock.” | |||
Example of a Patient ABS with incorporated Instrumental argument: | |||
Redadesap ušnišuhapnekarun. | |||
Redad=sap ušn-šuhapna-ek-ar-un | |||
Man this strike-sword-3MS.ACC+1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | |||
“I struck the man with this sword.” | |||
Example of an Instrument ABS with incorporated Patient argument: | |||
Sapim šuhapna matušnerdattirkarun. | |||
Sap min šuhapna mat-ušn-redad-tirk-ar-un | |||
This CONN sword INST.APPL-strike-3NS.ACC+1S.NOM-PST-TRNS | |||
“With this sword I struck the man.” | |||
Noun incorporation is often associated with clauses that are structurally transitive, regardless of whether or not an oblique argument has been promoted to a core argument. However, in Minhast some stative verbs can noun incorporate. In other words, under certain circumstances, a clause that is structurally intransitive may also undergo noun incorporation. Such intransitive clauses tend to be nouns whose single core argument’s theta-role is that of Experiencer, e.g. | |||
6) Kuldantuhamaran. | |||
kuldan-tuham-ar-an | |||
sick-fever-3S.NOM.PST-INTR | |||
“He is sick with fever/He is sick and feverish.” | |||
7) šuhapna wastanxundēban. | |||
šuhapna wastan-xunde-ab-an | |||
Sword bleed-wound-3S.NOM.IMPF-INTR | |||
“He is bleeding from his sword-wounds/He is bleeding and wounded by sword/Because of that sword he was bleeding and wounded.” | |||
8) Saxtisuspaħtayattaran. | |||
saxt-suspaħ-tayatta-ar-an | |||
INCH-be.blind-poison-3S.NOM.PST-INTR | |||
“He became blind because of the poison.” | |||
As an additional observation, those stative verbs that can incorporate tend to indicate sickness, injury, or congenital or other physical defects (as in Ex. #8 above). When the Inchoative prefix -saxt- occurs with the incorporated noun, native speakers tend to indicate the IN is the direct cause of the Experiencer’s state (Ex. #8). Otherwise the IN provides further details of or delimits the Experiencer’s current state (Examples #6 & #7), hence the alternative translations using the conjunction “and”. But this is not always so, as illustrated in the case of Ex. #7 which lacks the Inchoative. Here the sentence without -saxt- would seem to suggest that something else may have caused the bleeding, but there were other wounds that resulted from a sword. However, context and general knowledge that swords tend to cause bleeding would make that interpretation dubious. The use of the Inchoative -saxt- would definitely dispel that ambiguity, but is not necessary if context is sufficient to disambiguate between the two possible interpretations. | |||
Also note in Ex. #7 the stranded NP “šuhapna” (sword): this stranded NP is the modifier of the incorporated noun “xunde”; the equivalent non-noun incorporated sentence would be “šuhapna min xundeyār wastanaban” (lit: From sword-wounds, he was bleeding), where the Ablative clitic =yār indicates the cause of the subject’s bleeding. The polypersonal agreement affix in Ex. #7 indicates there is only one core argument only, which would be the logical subject. This clearly demonstrates that “šuhapna” is a stranded NP. | |||
= Noun Incorporation in Intransitive Verbs = | = Noun Incorporation in Intransitive Verbs = | ||
| Line 354: | Line 488: | ||
| IPA = | | IPA = | ||
| morphemes = purrak saxt-raħk-tahal-ruppamak-ek-ar-an | | morphemes = purrak saxt-raħk-tahal-ruppamak-ek-ar-an | ||
| gloss = pigment=ABL | | gloss = pigment=ABS INCH-APPL.ABL-be.green-face-1S.NOM-PST-INTR | ||
| translation = My face became green from the dye (lit. "Because of the pigment, I became green-faced.") | | translation = My face became green from the dye (lit. "Because of the pigment, I became green-faced.") | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 369: | Line 503: | ||
}} | }} | ||
= Valency and Agreement Marking Irregularities = | |||
It remains debatable as to whether stative verbs with incorporated meteorological nouns are monovalent or zero-valent. The following example lends support to a monovalent interpretation: an overt non-null pronominal agreement marker ''-i-'' indicates that an underlying third person inanimate plural absolutive argument exists and has undergone pro-drop: | It remains debatable as to whether stative verbs with incorporated meteorological nouns are monovalent or zero-valent. The following example lends support to a monovalent interpretation: an overt non-null pronominal agreement marker ''-i-'' indicates that an underlying third person inanimate plural absolutive argument exists and has undergone pro-drop: | ||
| Line 380: | Line 514: | ||
}} | }} | ||
= Polypersonal Marking = | |||
The primary purpose of the polypersonal markers in the Minhast verb are to reference the core arguments of its clause, whether they appear overtly, or are omitted through pro-drop. However, polypersonal marking can target the IN under certain restrictions. When agreement marking does appear, they tend to occur with collective or mass nouns, such as the inherently collective ''iyuššit''. Moreover, this type of incorporation occurs with certain verbs only, particularly ones indicating movement, and even then ''iyuššit'' triggers agreement marking in a small fraction among these verbs. | |||
{{Gloss | |||
|phrase = Nayyakiyuššitiyaran. | |||
| IPA = | |||
| morphemes = nayyaki-iyuššit-i-ar-an | |||
| gloss = gather.together-storm.cloud-3.ANIM.P-PST-INTR | |||
| translation = Storm clouds gathered. | |||
}} | |||
Oftentimes irregularities in gender-number concord may appear. An example where agreement marking is lacking with the very same collective noun follows in the next example. Note that the verb ''-adu-'' ("be many"), unlike ''-nayyaki-'', is not a motion verb. The lack of an overt agreement marker with ''-adu-'' points towards a zero-valent interpretation: | |||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
| Line 400: | Line 545: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Interestingly, ''-puht-'' can license agreement with other nouns, such as ''kayyūn'' "tree", when a collective meaning is intended: | |||
{{Gloss | |||
|phrase = Yaššapuħtakayyummaharan. | |||
| IPA = | |||
| morphemes = yašša-puħt-kayyūn-mah-ar-an | |||
| 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. | 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. | ||