Minhast/Noun Incorporation: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
= Truncation/Weak Suppletion = | = Truncation/Weak Suppletion = | ||
Most Minhast nouns are irregular in their IN forms, the majority of which exhibit what has been referred to among Minhast linguists as ''truncation'', but is more commonly referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion#Weak_suppletion weak suppletion] (see also "Noun Incorporation: A New Theoretical Perspective", Alessio Muro, 2009). Cross-linguistic occurrence of this process may be seen in other languages such as Sora, a language from the Munda family in India. The first example shows the analytic version of the Sora sentence "Will they eat the buffalo/ Do they eat buffalo?". The second example shows the noun incorporated-version of the same sentence: | Most Minhast nouns are irregular in their IN forms, the majority of which exhibit what has been referred to among Minhast linguists as ''truncation'', but is more commonly referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion#Weak_suppletion weak suppletion] (see also "Noun Incorporation: A New Theoretical Perspective", Alessio Muro, 2009). Cross-linguistic occurrence of this process may be seen in other languages such as Sora, a language from the Munda family in India. The first example shows the analytic version of the Sora sentence "Will they eat the buffalo/ Do they eat buffalo?". The second example shows the noun incorporated-version of the same sentence, where the independent word ''bɔŋtɛl'' ("buffalo") has lost its final syllable to create its incorporating form, ''bɔŋ'': | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
}} | }} | ||
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"). | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
| Line 49: | Line 48: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Similar patterns can be found with ''hispawak'' > ''-hispak-'' (birch), and ''izzesparak'' > ''-spark-'' (canoe). | Similar patterns can be found with ''hispawak'' > ''-hispak-'' ("birch"), and ''izzesparak'' > ''-spark-'' ("canoe"). | ||
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) . | ||
| Line 81: | Line 80: | ||
<!-- [This needs further analysis] | <!-- [This needs further analysis] | ||
This one looks questionable. "Dye" (purrak) is being incorporated as an Instrumental into the stative verb. I would think instrumental incorporation is more likely in transitive verbs. | This one looks questionable. "Dye" (purrak) is being incorporated as an Instrumental into the stative verb. I would think instrumental incorporation is more likely in transitive verbs. Also, cross-linguistically more animate subjects are focused than less animate ones. In this case, the first example is less likely to be used than the second. | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
|phrase = Ruppamaktirekt asumtahālpurrakmaharan. | |phrase = Ruppamaktirekt asumtahālpurrakmaharan. | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
}} | }} | ||
This one looks kosher though and appears to be doing possessor raising. | This one looks kosher though and appears to be doing possessor raising. | ||
{{Gloss | {{Gloss | ||
|phrase = | |phrase = Purrakyār asuntaharrumpakkaran. | ||
| IPA = | | IPA = | ||
| morphemes = purrak asum-tahal-ruppamak-ek-ar-an. | | morphemes = purrak=yār asum-tahal-ruppamak-ek-ar-an. | ||
| gloss = face-3NS.NOM+1S.NOM=ERG INCH-be.green-face-1S.NOM-PST-INTR | | gloss = dye=ABL face-3NS.NOM+1S.NOM=ERG INCH-be.green-face-1S.NOM-PST-INTR | ||
| translation = My face became green from the dye (lit. "I became green face-wise") | | translation = My face became green from the dye (lit. "I became green face-wise from the pigment") | ||
}} | }} | ||
--> | --> | ||
Revision as of 02:16, 22 June 2020
Types of Noun Incorporation
- This is an example of Minthun'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...", which is essentially an Inessive-like case construction. Here, nua means "side", and has been incorporated into the verb complex. The implicit head is suharak (deerskin), which was mentioned in a previous line in the passage, which is what the Locative applicative naħk- is referring to. This construction is equivalent to saying "Next to it", "By its side", etc.
- Tayyamakim tayyapte naħkixripuxnutartimmahabu
tayyamak min tayyap=de naħk-xr-pux-nua-tar-timmah-ab-u
thunder CONN ball=ERG LOC.APPL-ITER-boom-side-3S.ANIM.ABS+3S.ANIM.ERG-IMPF-TRANS
Canonballs explode next to it.
Truncation/Weak Suppletion
Most Minhast nouns are irregular in their IN forms, the majority of which exhibit what has been referred to among Minhast linguists as truncation, but is more commonly referred to as weak suppletion (see also "Noun Incorporation: A New Theoretical Perspective", Alessio Muro, 2009). Cross-linguistic occurrence of this process may be seen in other languages such as Sora, a language from the Munda family in India. The first example shows the analytic version of the Sora sentence "Will they eat the buffalo/ Do they eat buffalo?". The second example shows the noun incorporated-version of the same sentence, where the independent word bɔŋtɛl ("buffalo") has lost its final syllable to create its incorporating form, bɔŋ:
- bɔŋtɛlәnәdɔŋ jomtɛji pɔ
bɔŋtɛl-әn-әdɔŋ jom-t-ɛ-ji pɔ
buffalo-/әn/3-ACC eat-NPST-3S-PL.S Q
Will they eat the buffalo/ Do they eat buffalo?
- jombɔŋtɛnji pɔ
jom-bɔŋ-t-ɛ-n-ji pɔ
eat-buffalo-NPST-3S-INTR-PL.S Q
Will they eat the buffalo/ Do they eat buffalo?
Similarly, Minhast INs exhibit weak suppletion, and it occurs extensively, particularly with nouns longer than two syllables, e.g. sussagarānī > -suggan- ("big toe").
- Sussagarānītirektiki kahušnišattekaran.
sussagarānī-tirek=de=ki kah-ušn-šatt-ek-ar-an
big.toe-3SN.INAN.POSSM+1S.POSSR=ERG=LOC INV.VOL-hit-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS
I banged myself against my big toe.
- Kahušnisuggašnattekaran.
kah-ušn-suggan-šatt-ek-ar-an
INV.VOL-hit-toe-RFLX-1S.NOM-PST-TRNS
I stubbed my big toe.
Similar patterns can be found with hispawak > -hispak- ("birch"), and izzesparak > -spark- ("canoe").
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 in Intransitive Verbs
Although noun incorporation in Minhast is associated with transitive verbs, intransitive verbs may incorporate nouns. Stative verbs often incorporate oblique nominals to background them, thereby focusing on the single core argument. The following two examples, the first with no incorporation, and the second with incorporation of the oblique nominal tipr ("meat") are semantically equivalent. The difference between the non-incorporated and incorporated versions is one of discourse purpose.
In the first example, the speaker is explicitly adding information about the cause of his sickness. Additionally, by explicitly mentioning the meat he is introducing new information, as it had not yet been introduced into the discourse:
1) Non-incorporated NP:
- Tipiryār asunkuldekaran
tipr=yār kuld-ek-ar-an
flesh=from INCH-sick-1S.NOM-PST-INTR
I was sick from (infected) meat.
In the second example, another speaker's focus is on being sick. What caused her to be sick is of secondary importance, and there is an underlying assumption that both the speaker and the listener already know about the meat in question, either by previous discourse or other means. In this case, earlier in the week, the speaker and her brother had cleaned the refrigerator after an extended power outage. Unwilling to let an expensive cut of beef to go to waste, she foolishly ate it and got sick. Therefore, she chose to background the meat by incorporating the noun into the verb:
2) Incorporated NP:
- Asunkulittipirkaran
asum-kuld-tipr-ek-ar-an
INCH-sick-flesh-1S.NOM-PST-INTR
I was sick from the (infected) meat.