Re: (tangent thoughts arising from) Active-Ergative langs (discussion)

dirk elzinga wrote:

>       e= same subject (<e> is a high, central, unrounded vowel)
>       a= different subject
What does the = mean in your glosses?



>In the switch reference systems I've seen, there are usually a handful
>each of SS and DS markers indicating various tense/aspect distinctions
>and replacing the normal tense/aspect suffixes (there is usually some
>homophony between members of the switch reference system and the t/a
>system, though).
Is that what the Numic languages do?  The only one I've looked at is
Comanche, but the grammar did not characterize switch reference (hereafter:
SR) like that at all.  That wouldn't be the only issue I've had with that
grammar though.  (Never could figure out what final features are from that
book.)

The Muskogean languages generally treat SR and t/a separately; SR is fused
with the complementizers.  There is a same-subject and a different-subject
marker for each set.  Generic is at/ka~; 'and' is na/cha; contrastive
akoot/ako~; etc.  The homophony in these systems are between SR and case -
which has led to all kinds of fantastic claims about Choctaw not have case
but that all nouns are clauses, or that clauses are case marked.  All
showing a lack of knowledge about the distribution and behavior of case and SR.

In Yuman languages, subordinate clauses aren't marked for tense, but they
have switch reference markers.  Only a single set though, like Tepa.  In
Hokan languages, SR also encodes temporal relationships between the two
clauses: simultaneous, afterwards, earlier, and so forth.  In Eskimoan
languages SR is part of the 3rd person agreement.


===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale
===============================