Re: Noimi Inverse Marking
|From:||Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, July 6, 2005, 8:03|
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:22:24 -0500, Thomas Wier <trwier@...> wrote:
> > A possible exception is when both 1st and 2nd person arguments occur;
> > I'm not sure whether to use
> > (a) a special A2 marker for 1st person acting on 2nd person, or
> In Algonquian languages, when the speech-act participants are
> restricted to first and second person, special inverse forms
> are used, which treat second person as higher in the hierarchy
> than the first person, contrary to the generalization of
> Silverstein's hierarchy:
> ke-wa:pam-i ke-wa:pam-ene
> 2-look.at-1,2.DIR 2-look.at-1,2.INV
> "You (sg) are looking at me." "I am looking at you."
This is consistent with what I recently found on an Ojibwe site
you (singl.) see me - giwaabam
i see you (singl.) - giwaabamin
you (pl.) see me - giwaabamim
i see you (pl.) - giwaabamininim
The Potawatomi site I've looked at seems to have inconsistencies.
The Algonquian method seems to be like (b); I got the idea of (a) from
Miapimoquitch. For the second part, I'm leaning toward following the
(Silverstein's -- I didn't remember the name for it) hierachy, since it
makes more sense to me, and the 2nd-person-first way implies some
connection to Algonquian.
> ke-wa:pam-i-pwa ke-wa:pam-ene-pwa
> 2-look.at-1,2.DIR-2Pl 2-look.at-1,2.INV-2Pl
> "Y'all are looking at me" "I am looking at y'all."
> The data is from Meskwaki, of course. I use '1,2' to
> distinguish these from the regular direct and inverse
> thematic markers that are used when a third person
> participant is involved. Note how every verb form has
> a second person prefix, whatever the grammatical function
> of that prefix.
> > (b) a special A3/A1 marker for 2nd person used only with A2 = 1st
> > person.
> > I'm also not sure whether I should swap 1st and 2nd person above.
> > At this point, I should mention inverse marking. Inverse marking is
> > necessary to change which roles are mapped to which arguments. If no
> > such marking appears, the word has a *direct* form and the roles R1,
> > R2, and R3 go with arguments A1, A2, and A3 respectively. The inverse
> > marker will swap R2 with R1 if V=2 and with R3 if V=3.
> > Role Mapping A1 A2 A3
> > ---------------------------------------
> > V=3 direct R1 R2 R3
> > V=3 inverse R1 R3 R2
> > V=2 direct R1 R2 --
> > V=2 inverse R2 R1 --
> I had been meaning to get to this earlier, but the July 4th
> celebrations interceded. :)
> I should point out that the system you've created here is
> AFAIK entirely unattested among inversion languages. In
> all cases that I'm familiar with (Algic, Ktunaxa, Kiowa-Tanoan,
> Mapudungun, etc.), the inversion process only cares about
> who's the subject and who's the object; secondary objects
> don't figure into the equation. Thus, you would only
> expect an inversion between R1 and R2 (being linked to
> A2 and A1 respectively), not between R2 and R3.
This is interesting. I can only tell you why I've done it this way:
Noimi has only a few primitive V=3 words. For these, the indirect object
role goes with A3 (when direct), since a recipient etc. will normally be
animate, and A3 is animate only (like A2), while A1 can't be animate. These
A2 gives A1 to A3
A2 takes A1 from A3
A2 tells A3 A1
It seems more likely that a 1st or 2nd person would take that role much
more often than direct object.
There are also a number of V=3 derived by compounding some actional V=2
with a locational V=2. In these, the agent is R2 (as usual), the location
referent is A1, and the entity at/going to/coming from the location is R3.
> Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
> Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
> University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
> 1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
> Chicago, IL 60637