Phaleran Update: Relative clauses, Proximative and Obviative pronouns
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <artabanos@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, August 12, 2001, 6:12|
In the last post, I talked about causative constructions in Phaleran.
In this post, I'm going to address how Phaleran forms relative clauses.
Phaleran relative clauses are, like causatives, formed by deletion of
transitivity markers and addition of a relativizing suffix -gwa- in their place,
even though relative clauses do not alter the valence of verbs. Because
Phaleran is a fairly typical APV language, relative clauses typically appear
before the noun that they modify. Consider, for example, the nonrelativized
(1) Atherlu dzarituo sunesna hnerrateonten.
father.ERG son.DAT bill.PL.ABS give.DITR.3pSgPfRe.Qu
'The father gave his son some money, so I hear.'
Some possible relativized forms of this sentence would be:
(2) Dzarituo sunesna hneirgwanten ather
son.DAT bill.PL.ABS give.REL.3pSgPfRe.Qu father.ABS
'the father who gave his son some money'
(3) Atherlu oiwo sunesna hneirgwanten dzari
father.ERG 3pObvSgDAT bill.PL.ABS give.REL.3pSgPfRe.Qu son.ABS
(lit.) 'the son who his father gave him money' or 'the son whose father
gave him money' or 'the son to whom his father gave money'
(4) Atherlu dzarituo hneirgwanten sunesna
father.ERG son.DAT give.REL.3pSgPfRe.Qu bill.PL.ABS
'the money which the father gave his son'
Although this is the prototypical position for relative clauses, it need not be
the only one. Relative clauses may also be placed after the noun they're
modifying if the information they relate is new or complicated requiring
relatively more lengthy discussion. Note, also, that the Phaleran relative
clauses function almost like participial adjectives. Like adjectives, they
modify a noun's basic attributes, and like adjectives in many languages, the
relative clause's head verb agrees in number and person with the noun it
modifies. What cause, then, is there for thinking that the verb forms are
not really deverbitive adjectives? The reason for thinking so is that other
nouns in the clause otherwise operate exactly as if they were in main clauses
themselves, taking case and agreement marking.
One thing of note here is the obviative pronoun in (3). Because Phaleran does
not (at least now, anyway) have relative pronouns, it sometimes requires
resumptive pronouns when the sense is not obvious.
Proximative and Obviative pronouns
This seems as good a time as any to make good on my failure to mention
obviative pronouns several posts ago. Here they are, with proximative
pronouns for comparison:
Sg Pl Sg Pl
S eo eona ellei ellai
A eollu eondru erlu ulnallu
O eoi eoni ellei ellai
Dat eotwo eontwo oiwo oinawo
Ben eos eonâs uyâs oinâs
Inst eonto eonânto uyânto oinânto
Dur eokû eoñkû uyâkû oinâkû
Abe eoþþa eonâþþa uyâþþa oinâþþa
Some things you can see here:
(1) the split ergativity of the third person stops with the proximative
third person pronouns; obviative pronouns pattern like regular nouns
in this respect.
(2) /n/ in some dialects shifts to /l/, which is how you get _ellai_
from *eo-hlei-na-i, where /eo/ also shifts to e / _ll
(3) (a) in some dialects, /eo/ --> [u] / _*ly, where "ly" is a palatal [l]
(b) in all dialects, /ly/ --> /y/
In some dialects, these two shifts happened in opposite orders:
in dialects where [eo] remains while /ly/ shifts, you get another
sound shift /eoy/ --> /oi/. In dialects where [eo] shifts before /ly/
shifts, you get eventually */eoly/ --> [uy]. This explains the odd
patterning of the obviative oblique cases. Not all of these forms are
entirely artificial; many of them occured in the prestige dialect which
went to make up the bulk of forms in Standard. However, this dialect
was itself situated along several nonbundling isoglosses, and so forms
from otherwise consistent dialects go to form a hodgepodge in the
Thomas Wier | AIM: trwier
"Aspidi men Saiôn tis agalletai, hên para thamnôi
entos amômêton kallipon ouk ethelôn;
autos d' exephugon thanatou telos: aspis ekeinê
erretô; exautês ktêsomai ou kakiô" - Arkhilokhos