Re: "Bird in Tree" translation (was: Re: milimpulaktasin)

Matt Pearson wrote:

>Roger Mills wrote:
>> Kash:
>> -- tingaska ange mimik yu!
>> look-at-IMP. tree little that
>>
>> -- matikas.
>> I-see.
>>
>> -- ri nihiñi yale tukrinji shisu.
>> LOC top-its there-is tukrim-DIM red
>>
>> -- e, yavirik, yaleka?
>> oh  3s-pretty, it-is-Q
>>
>> Sorry, there are no birds on Cindu.  _tukrim_ are various beloved spp. of
>> "lizards" capable of gliding; they more or less "sing".  (Species that do
>> not "sing" are called tumbrik.)
>>
>> A much more colloquial version:  --tiká, ri angembik yu!  --tikas (or:
>> yale).  --ri nihiñi, tukrinji shisu. -- e, virik (or: viri-virik), ya?
>
>Random questions about Kash:
>
>(1) What's the deal with "ange mimik" versus "angembik"?  Is this
productive?

Yes and no.  In this case, it's fast speech, a tendency to reduce a 4-syl.
constituent to 3 if sandhi can apply (if 'tree' had a final stop, /s/ or
/l/, you couldn't do it).  Essentially [áNge mímik] > [áNge m:ik] >
[aNgémbik].  Most adjectives cannot be so shortened; here it is aided and
abetted by the fact that /-mbik/ and /-rak/ < raka 'big' frequently occur in
lexicalized compounds e.g. vori 'river', vombrik 'stream, creek'.  (To a
nurseryman or gardening maven, /angembik/ would actually refer to specific
low-growing (to human height, 2m) woody plants, tree-like with a single
trunk and generally horizontal branching-- not a "bush").
>
>(2) Why is "virik" optionally reduplicated in the colloquial version?
My faulty thinking.  Both the regular and the colloq. versions struck me as
less than enthusiastic, in the original version.  Better than /e/, /u: ~uwá/
or /uhá/  would convey genuine surprise/admiration/pleasure; then  yavirik
or virik or the redupl. form would be OK in either sentence.

>How does reduplication in Kash work, phonologically speaking?
Full redupl:  repeat both words; if the resulting medial cluster is
impermissible, delete the final C of the first member, so viri-virik;
otherwise, sandhi applies. Probably more favored than:-
Partial (initial) redupl:  repeat the first CV-; if the initial is /CrV.../,
repeat only the CV.  Exs. shapat 'surprised', shashapat 'surprising'; trako
'bone', tatrako 'bony, full of bones (like a badly prepared filet of fish)'.
V-initial words cannot undergo this redupl.
Final syl. redupl. (rare, fossilized): repeat the final -CV(C); e.g. vacan
'believe' : vacanjan 'believe in; trust'.

>What is the function of reduplication?
Full redupl. is quite productive and generally indicates intensification
(including diminution) of the action or quality (hence, it is rare to find
fully redupl. nouns, though it's possible, with the sense 'lots of...,
different kinds of...'-- preferred would be N naya-naya [naya 'kind, sort,
type of']).  The meaning can depend on the semantics of the base, as well as
on context-- so viri-virik is 'really pretty', not 'sort of pretty' or 'not
very pretty'; OTOH, kici 'bite' > kici-kici 'nibble at, gnaw'; anju 'time,
period; (conj.) when' : anju-anju '(conj.) whenever...'.
Initial redupl., less productive, can also connote intensification (lisam
'to like', lilisam 'adore, dote on'); but also can create verbs from nouns
or vice versa, adverbials, etc. (sawu 'water': sasawu 'to rinse the hands or
face'; vatip 'personal, private': vavatip 'personally, privately, in
confidence'), or can connote 'a specific type of...' e.g. toye 'money':
totoye 'cash'.
In many cases, a redupl. form's meaning might overlap with a caka- form:
hecik 'noisy': hecikecik~cakecik 'very noisy, raucous'; but not always--
some caka-forms are lexicalized:  vecut 'dirty', vecu-vecut 'really dirty':
cakavecut 'lewd, filthy,
disgusting'.

>(3) What is the morpheme breakdown for "tingaska"?
tingas 'look at, view; examine' + -ka 'imperative' ['ti.Ngas.(@)ka]; tingas
of course is related (anciently, by infixed-nasal intensification) to tikas
'see'.  The homophony of /-ka/ (no stress shift) '1. imperative 2. yes-no Q
marker' was originally an oversight; but I decided it was reasonable.

Reply