Re: PLUG: SpecGram Current Issue

On 3/3/07, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
> Den 3. mar. 2007 kl. 02.30 skrev Dirk Elzinga:
> >
> > Some Uto-Aztecan languages show regular suppletion of verb forms based
> > on the number of the subject for intransitives or for the number of
> > the object for transitives; it is thus an ergative pattern. Some
> > examples from Shoshoni: nukki 'run (sg.subj)' ~ nuraa 'run (pl.subj)';
> > paikka 'kill (sg.obj)' ~ wase 'kill (pl.obj)' . The form alternations
> > themselves are unpredictable (else it wouldn't be suppletion), but it
> > is a regular feature of the language (at least for the several dozen
> > verbs it applies to).
> >
> > Verb suppletion was probably a feature of Proto-Uto-Aztecan, though
> > many (if not most) of the Southern Uto-Aztecan langauges have lost it.
> > However, in Tepiman verbal number agreement is still ergatively
> > aligned. In Tohono O'odham, a Tepiman language spoken on the
> > Arizona/Mexico border, number agreement is marked by initial
> > reduplication. Again, for intransitive verbs verbal number agrees with
> > the subject, but for transitives it agrees with the number of the
> > object: cipkan 'work (sg.subj)' ~ cicpkan 'work (pl.subj)' ; ceposid
> > 'brand (sg.obj)' ~ cecposid 'brand (pl.obj)'.
>
> I am fascinated. But I'm not sure that I understand quite how it
> works. Do these languages have explicit subjects and objects, so that
> the verb takes different forms solely to agree with the subject or
> object respectively? Can you provide example sentences?
I'll be happy to, once I get back to my office on Monday. I'm supposed
to be in bed now recuperating from a very weird and extremely fierce
fever I've had for the past five days.

Dirk

Reply