Re: PLUG: SpecGram Current Issue

On 3/3/07, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:

> Dirk wrote:
> <<
> 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).
>  >>
>
> I believe I heard this example before (possibly when the topic
> of systematic suppletion came up before), but I've always wondered:
> are not these simply different lexemes?  So for verbs without
> these suppletive forms, is there some regular morphological
> pattern that takes you from a verb with a singular absolutive
> argument to a verb with a plural absolutive argument?  I guess
> I'd be imagining something like this:
>
> Regular:
> maka "eat (sg. obj.)"
> maka-ne "eat (plu. obj.)"
> kepo "sleep (sg. sbj.)"
> kepo-ne "sleep (plu. sbj.)"
>
> Irregular
> nukki/nuraa
> paikka/wase
>
Nope. Number marking is otherwise optional and is rarely (if ever)
seen with inanimate arguments. It takes the form of two enclitics:
/=pemmen/ 'plural 3rd person' and /=peweh/ 'dual 3rd person'. They are
always controlled by the number of the subject, and so, I guess, are
not really part of the same system ...

Okay. Let's say for the sake of argument that the alternating forms
are different lexemes. Since only 2-3 dozen verbs of the language
participate in these alternations, we could just say that Shoshonis
have two (or three; there's a dual as well) ways of saying things like
'kill', 'say', 'sleep', 'run', 'sit', etc. The problem I have with
this approach is that the features which govern the selection of one
form over another really seem "grammatical", rather than "semantic"
(if you know what I mean). This is why I put them in the same
paradigm, even though there is no regular verbal marking that parallel
the system.

BTW, the dual forms are often formed by initial reduplication of
either the singular or the plural---an indication that the dual was
not a Proto-Uto-Aztecan category (e.g. nukki run (sg.subj)' ~ nunukki
'run (du.subj)' ~ nutaa 'run (pl.subj)'. But it's not regular enough
to make generalizations about.

> -David
> *******************************************************************
> "A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
> "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>
> -Jim Morrison
>
> http://dedalvs.free.fr/
>

Reply