Re: Miapimoquitch text: Eye Juggler (long)

On Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 11:27  AM, David Peterson wrote:

> Wow!  Phenomenal!
<blush> Thank you. </blush>

> I have a few questions, but I'm probably just misunderstanding:
>
> <<     se-    <Vk>   wenki e=  hena  yu=  yuu
>      3poss- <COLL> eye   SS= shiny and= black
>
>      He had shiny, black eyes.>>
>
> Why is...oh, I get it.  Never mind.  :)
>
> <<     n-  sea    <Vk>   kasu   -pte
>      TR- out.of <COLL> remove -EYE
>
>      He took them out>>
>
> Is this common in Amerind languages--to have a kind of clitic that
> stands in for a substantive (referring to the suffix referring to
> "eye")?
A lot of languages have derivational affixation which can indicate
stuff like body parts or basic implements or natural forces (rock,
stick, wind, sun). My inspiration for these is Uto-Aztecan and
Salishan. The suffix itself isn't an argument, so this isn't
incorporation, strictly speaking.

The object of this clause is present indirectly in the _n-_ prefix.
This prefix marks the predicate as transitive, and the lack of overt
person marking means that the subject and object are both third
persons; their reference is determined contextually.

>
> <<     yu=  n-  mepa -mepa
>      and= TR- mock -RED:DIST
>
>      and made fun of him.>>
>
> Where do you get the "him" in this sentence?  And where's the subject
> marker?
Since the prefix marks the predicate as transitive and there is no
overt person marking, both the subject and object are understood to be
third persons whose reference is determined contextually.

>
> <<
>      tui    ia    e=  peya
>      INCEPT angry SS= Coyote
>
>      Coyote got angry>>
>
> And shouldn't this, then, be a different subject?
I've restricted my use of the same/different subject proclitics to
single clauses with adjoined predicates. This isn't exactly how they
would be used in languages with bona fide switch reference systems, and
it makes the Miapimoquitch markers look more like case inflection. It
might be that I let the English version unduly influence the division
into clauses, and that most or even all of the clauses would have some
kind of SS or DS marker in the Miapimoquitch story.

> I  notice that in the next few sentences the same strategy is used to
> indicate a known direct object: redpulicate distributive.  How does
> that work?
Number marking doesn't have to be about the direct object; it can be
about the subject, or it can be about the number of events which the
predicate expresses. So out of context the clause

n-  taleka -leka
TR- chase  -RED:DIST

could mean 'he chased a bunch of them', 'a bunch of them chased him',
'a bunch of them chased a bunch of them' or 'he chased him a bunch of
times'. In the context of the story it's apparent that the first
reading is the appropriate one. Number marking is sensitive only to the
number of chasing events which take place and not to how they're
distributed among arguments.

> Just finished.  Fascinating!  I think I have a better understanding of
> Amerind languages now.  If they function like yours, or in a similar
> fashion, I kind of get how they work.  Wild!
I don't think that Miapimoquitch is typical, although I did get a lot
of hints from Salish stuff I've been looking at for a while (as well as
Uto-Aztecan which I've been living with for even longer). I liked the
cleanness of the analysis I saw of Straits Salish which rejects a
noun/verb distinction, and I've been trying to work out for myself what
that would look like in Miapimoquitch.

Thanks for the comments.

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"Speech is human, silence is divine, yet also brutish and dead;
therefore we
must learn both arts."                                      - Thomas
Carlyle