Re: PLUG: SpecGram Current Issue

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 am thinking a little about agreement these days. It does to me
often seem redundant. And I have only vestiges of it in my languages.
But redundancy itself can have an important function in
communication. And I think agreement can give more freedom in the
structure of a sentence. I am thinking of introducing some form of
adjectival agreement in Gaajan, either in the late form, or maybe
only in earlier stages.

LEF

Reply