DOCSLIB.ORG

THE LANGUAGE OFTHE SALINAN INDIANS Nominalizing Suffixes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE LANGUAGE OFTHE SALINAN INDIANS Nominalizing Suffixes UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-154 January 10, 1918 THE LANGUAGE OF THE SALINAN INDIANS BY J. ALDEN MASON CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION..--.--.......------------........-----...--..--.......------........------4 PART I. P'HONOLOGY ---------7 Phonetic system ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vowels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Quality ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Nasalization ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Voiceless vowels.------------------......-------------.........-----------------......---8 Accent --------------------------------------------------9 Consonants ................---------.............--------------------...----------9 Semi-vowels ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Nasals ---------- 10 Laterals -------------------------------------------------------------10 Spirants ---------------------------------------....-------------------------------------------10 Stops .--------......... --------------------------- 11 Affricatives .......................-.................-........-......... 12 Tableof phonetic system ---------------------------.-----------------13 Phonetic processes ---------------------------.-----.--............13 Vocalic assimilation ------------------..-.........------------------13 Syncope.---------..................------------------------14 Reduplication .--- 14 Onomatopoeia ----------------------------------------------------------15 Metathesis --------------------------------------...-----------------------------15 Dissimilation ----------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Elision . -............................................... 16 Phoneticdifferences in dialect ----------------------------------------------------- 17 PART II. MORPHOLOGY ..................- ............ 18 Etymology --------------------------------------18 Nominalizing suffixes .................1.................8............... 18 Verbalizing suffixes .................-.......................2.............. 20 Adjectivizing suffixes ------------------..............----- --------------.--21 Nominal etymological prefixes --------------------------------------------------- 21 Grammatical structure -------------------..............---------------------.--22 andNoun verb --------------------------------.-.-.----------------22 Plural - 22 2 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 14 PAGE The Noun .------------------------------------29 Nominal prefixes ------------------------------------ 29 Pronominal possession ----------------I------------------- 30 Pronominal system .................................... 32 Independent pronouns .................................... 32 Locative pronouns ------------------------------------ 33 Table of pronominal forms ------------------------------------ 33 The Verb .......------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.34 Proclitics .............................. ---34 Temporal proclitics -------------------------------- 34 Interrogative proclitics ...............................-- -. 35 Proclitic pronominal subject .............................. 36 Prefixes .............................. 37 Transitive, intransitive, nominal ....... ....................... 38 Imperative .............................. 40 Negative ... ........................... 41 Interrogative .............................. 42 Conditional .............................. 43 Dependent .....................:.-- ---------------------------------44 Purposive ..-- ---- 44 Substantive --------------45 Verb stem -------------- 45 Objective pronouns .............. 46 Passive forms --------------48 Suffixes --------------48 Enclitics ..............- ......... 50 Quasi-enclitics -------------5 50 Tense enclitics ---------------------------------------------------------- ............................. 52 Enclitic pronominal subject ................................................ 54 Adverbs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------54 Temporal adverbs ---------------------------.............-------------------------------------------55 Locative adverbs -------------------------------.........--------------------------------------55 Other parts of speech ---- 57 Prepositions --------------------------57 Adjectives -- -57 Demonstratives ..................................................................................... 58 Conjunctions - -58 PART III. TEXTS- 59 Dialect of San Antonio -...................................................................... 60 Prairie-Falcon, Raven and Coyote -------------------------------------------- 60 Analysis - -64 Prairie-Falcon and White Owl --.----...------ 67 Cricket and Mountain Lion - -69 HawkGreat and the Cold ....................--....................73 The Animals and God --------------------......---. 76 The Pelican ---------------------------------- ....---------------.......... 77 Coyote and the Salt Water - -79 The Beginning of the World ....................... ....... 81 The Theft of Fire -82 How People Were Made -83 The Tar Man -84 1918] Mason: The Language of the Salinan Indians 3 PAGE Prairie-Falcon and Woodpecker ....... .......................... 85 Coyote and Wildcat 86 Coyote and Hare 87 Coyote and Rabbit 88 Coyoteand Bull ...............-...............8.................. 88 Coyote and the Sun ............. 90 The Sun and the Moon .............................-.......-............... 91 Prairie-Falcon, Xui and the Serpent .- ................ 92 The Murderers ..................................................................................... :93 Rainmaker-The ....................-................................................. 94 The Mountain-Lion Hunt ........-...... 94 A Forest Fire ........ 97 A Trip to San Francisco ........ 98 BluejayIoyand ....................-99........... ..................... 99 The Elk ......-; ...................................... 101 The Fight ......................................................1......................................0........ 102. Dialect of San Miguel ........................... 104 The Beginning of the World ........................... .104 The Theft of Fire ........................... 105 The Tar Woman ..................-..... 108 Prairie-Falcon and Elf 110 The Serpent 112 The Elf and the Bear 114 The Old People 117 The Eclipse 118 The Tornado .1.............18.................................................................. 118 The Famine Year ........................ 119 The Earthquake ........................ 120 IV.PARTVOCABULARY........................-1 1.21 Nominal stems 122 Animals 122 Body parts 126 Botanical terms -............................128 Manufactured objects 130 Natural phenomena 132 Personal terms 133 Abstract and miscellaneous terms ........ 135 Verbal stems 137 Adjectival stems ....................1.....4........................149 Various stems 151 Demonstrative articles ...................- :151 Temnporal adverbs 152 Locative adverbs 152 Descriptive adverbs ... 153 Numerals ............................................3..................153 . Conjunctions - 154 Interjections ...... 154 4 Utniversity of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 14 INTRODUCTION This study of the dialects composing the Salinan linguistic group was beguni in September, 1910, when I made a visit to the neighbor- hood of the old Mission of San Antonio in Monterey County, whlere live the few remaining members of this group. Here a little work was done with the oldest member of each of the two divisions, Jose Cruz of the Antoniaflo and Perfecta Encinales of the Migueleiio dialect. An incomplete acquaintance with Spanish, the mediuin of communication, coupled with a lack of satisfactory interpreters and other disappointing circumstances, rendered this visit not wholly prof- itable. Consequently arrangements were later made by which Pedro Encinales, one of the middle-aged Indians, visited San Francisco, where I worked with him from Thanksgiving until Christmas. During this time Dr. T. T. Waterman made some researches on the phonetics of the language with the help of various mechanical apparatus. Unfortunately the informant was found to be totally ignorant of all mythology, and the few texts received from him were rather poor. The month of January, 1911, was spent in linguistic work upon the material received. For five years I was unable to continue my researches upon Salinan, but these were again taken up in January, 1916, to continue through- out that year. A second trip was made to the region of Jolon, Monterey County. In the intervening years Jose Cruz and Perfecta Encinales were found to have died, but better linguistic informants were found in the persons of David Mora, a pure Antoniafio Indian, and Maria Ocarpia, a pure Migueleiio. An unexpectedly good series of mythological texts were secured from these. Another old Indian, Juan Quintana, was found to be an unsatisfactory linguistic informant, but gave a number of mythological stories in Spanish, which were translated into Saliman by Maria Encinales, a sister of Pedro, and by David Mora. Furthermore, all the extant linguistic material from other sources has been examined
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology
    This page intentionally left blank The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology Phonology – the study of how the sounds of speech are represented in our minds – is one of the core areas of linguistic theory, and is central to the study of human language. This state-of-the-art handbook brings together the world’s leading experts in phonology to present the most comprehensive and detailed overview of the field to date. Focusing on the most recent research and the most influential theories, the authors discuss each of the central issues in phonological theory, explore a variety of empirical phenomena, and show how phonology interacts with other aspects of language such as syntax, morph- ology, phonetics, and language acquisition. Providing a one-stop guide to every aspect of this important field, The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology will serve as an invaluable source of readings for advanced undergraduate and graduate students, an informative overview for linguists, and a useful starting point for anyone beginning phonological research. PAUL DE LACY is Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University. His publications include Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology (Cambridge University Press, 2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology Edited by Paul de Lacy CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521848794 © Cambridge University Press 2007 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-Creation of the Tribal Identity On
    From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican Contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 By Kumiko Noguchi B.A. (University of the Sacred Heart) 2000 M.A. (Rikkyo University) 2003 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Native American Studies in the Office of Graduate Studies of the University of California Davis Approved Steven J. Crum Edward Valandra Jack D. Forbes Committee in Charge 2009 i UMI Number: 3385709 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3385709 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Kumiko Noguchi September, 2009 Native American Studies From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Abstract The main purpose of this study is to show the path of tribal development on the Tule River Reservation from 1776 to 1936. It ends with the year of 1936 when the Tule River Reservation reorganized its tribal government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.
    [Show full text]
  • INTER-TIER CORRESPONDENCE THEORY by LIAN HEE WEE A
    INTER-TIER CORRESPONDENCE THEORY by LIAN HEE WEE A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School – New Brunswick Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Linguistics written under the direction of Akinbiyi Akinlabi and approved by Akinbiyi Akinlabi Alan Prince Youngmee Yu-cho Matthew Y Chen New Brunswick, New Jersey May 2004 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Inter-tier Correspondence Theory By LIAN-HEE WEE Dissertation Director: Akinbiyi Akinlabi Inter-tier Correspondence Theory (ICT) is a theory of candidate structure. It is a response to phenomena in which both opaque and transparent derivational effects are simultaneously attested. The response that ICT provides rests upon the recognition that structural configurations are crucial in triggering alternations in the first place. By appealing to percolation, ICT assumes that each phonological output candidate is in fact a structural representation where non-terminal nodes reconstruct the information content of the constituent nodes. However, reconstruction may be imperfect. That outputs are structural is hardly novel, since GEN generates structures to given strings. Instead, it is the carriage of information in non-terminal nodes that is noteworthy. Under ICT, terminal nodes would be identical to the input string. Alternations no longer apply to strings but to constituencies as elements of the input string percolate upwards in their constituent structures. This is an important improvement because it directly addresses the fact that mere adjacency does not trigger alternation (many marked collocations are tolerated if the offending sequence are not within the same constituent). To be precise, GEN takes an input string and maps it to candidate structures of various percolative possibilities with the terminal nodes identical to the input string and non-terminal nodes corresponding to their subordinates in a multitude of ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Glottalization in Barbareiio Chumash and Its Neighbors* Tsuyoshi Ono, Suzanne Wash, and Marianne Mithun University of California, Santa Barbara
    Final Glottalization in Barbareiio Chumash and Its Neighbors* Tsuyoshi Ono, Suzanne Wash, and Marianne Mithun University of California, Santa Barbara 0. Introduction Final glottalization in Barbarefio Chumash appears in a variety of environments which include reduplication, imperative, and emphasis. l Interestingly, we have found that final glottalization occurs in similar environments in neighboring languages which include Uto-Aztecan, Yokuts, and Yuman languages. Below, we will present final glottalization data from Barbarefio and report the results of a small survey of the functions of final glottalization in neighboring languages. We hope our paper will stimulate discussion and further investigation by interested individuals. 1. Data Barbarefio data come from microfilms of John Peabody Harrington ' s manuscripts. Barbarefio transcription has been regularized because Harrington used a variety of symbols for individual segments over the course of his work. The data for other languages are taken from published sources such as grammars and dictionaries. We have generally retained the transcriptions of the sources. 2. Barbareiio Chumash Final Glottalization In this section, we will present final glottalization data from Barbarefio Chumash. We will first discuss its phonetic *We would like to thank Dale Kinkade, Margaret Langdon, Herb Luthin, Amy Miller and Mauricio Mixco for sharing with us their expertise on the languages they have worked on. Our work on Barbarefio Chumash has been made possible by grant BNS90-11018 from the National Science Foundation. l~inalglottalization probably appears in similar environments in other Chumash languages. For instance, all the environments described in this paper are reported in Inesefio (Applegate 1972). Final glottalization is also found with transitivization and nominalization in Barbarefio.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Morphological Parallels Between Hokan Languages1
    Mikhail Zhivlov Russian State University for the Humanities; School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Moscow); [email protected] Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages1 In this paper I present a detailed analysis of a number of morphological comparisons be- tween the branches of the hypothetical Hokan family. The following areas are considered: 1) subject person/number markers on verbs, as well as possessor person/number markers on nouns, 2) so-called ‘lexical prefixes’ denoting instrument and manner of action on verbs, 3) plural infixes, used with both nouns and verbs, and 4) verbal directional suffixes ‘hither’ and ‘thither’. It is shown that the respective morphological parallels can be better accounted for as resulting from genetic inheritance rather than from areal diffusion. Keywords: Hokan languages, Amerindian languages, historical morphology, genetic vs. areal relationship 0. The Hokan hypothesis, relating several small language families and isolates of California, was initially proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913) more than a hundred years ago. There is still no consensus regarding the validity of Hokan: some scholars accept the hypothesis (Kaufman 1989, 2015; Gursky 1995), while others view it with great skepticism (Campbell 1997: 290–296, Marlett 2007; cf. a more positive assessment in Golla 2011: 82–84, as well as a neutral overview in Jany 2016). My own position is that the genetic relationship between most languages usually subsumed under Hokan is highly likely, and that the existence of the Ho- kan family can be taken as a working hypothesis, subject to further proof or refutation. The goal of the present paper is to draw attention to several morphological parallels be- tween Hokan languages.
    [Show full text]
  • THE VOWEL SYSTEMS of CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley
    THE VOWEL SYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA HOKAN1 Jeff Good University of California, Berkeley Unlike the consonants, the vowels of Hokan are remarkably conservative. —Haas (1963:44) The evidence as I view it points to a 3-vowel proto-system consisting of the apex vowels *i, *a, *u. —Silver (1976:197) I am not willing, however, to concede that this suggests [Proto-Hokan] had just three vowels. The issue is open, though, and I could change my mind. —Kaufman (1988:105) 1. INTRODUCTION. The central question that this paper attempts to address is the motivation for the statements given above. Specifically, assuming there was a Proto-Hokan, what evidence is there for the shape of its vowel system? With the exception of Kaufman’s somewhat equivocal statement above, the general (but basically unsupported) verdict has been that Proto-Hokan had three vowels, *i, *a, and *u. This conclusion dates back to at least Sapir (1917, 1920, 1925) who implies a three-vowel system in his reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms. However, as far as I am aware, no one has carefully articulated why they think the Proto-Hokan system should have been of one form instead of another (though Kaufman (1988) does discuss some of his reasons).2 Furthermore, while reconstructions of Proto-Hokan forms exist, it has not yet been possible to provide a detailed analysis of the sound changes required to relate reconstructed forms to attested forms. As a result, even though the reconstructions themselves are valuable, they cannot serve as a strong argument for the particular proto vowel system they implicitly or explicitly assume.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Pronominals Marianne Mithun [email protected] LSA
    Shaping Grammar: The Emergence of Grammatical Distinctions Marianne Mithun University of California, Santa Barbara Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences September 2019 1 Fundamental Question Why are languages the way they are? Abstract genetic endowment: design features universal to all humans? Products of more general cognitive abilities categorization, generalization, abstraction, routinization, extension, economy, processing, learnability . .? Other things? 2 Depends on what aspects of language we’re trying to explain. And conversely, our theoretical tools determine in part what we try to explain. 3 Here Consider some basic grammatical categories with non-random geographical distributions See the role of areality in shaping languages, especially if we pull apart diachronic layers 4 1. Indigenous Languages of North America 5 How many languages? Around 275 known How many families in North America ? ~ 57-58 Earlier estimates 3, 6, 12, . 8 Some Strong Linguistic Areas Northwest Coast Southeast California and adjacent areas 9 California Indigenous Languages Heizer, Robert (ed.) 1978. Handbook of North American Indian Languages 8 ix: California 10 California Families and Isolates Athabaskan Yuki-Wappo Yokutsan Uto-Aztecan Tolowa Yuki Palewyami N. Paiute Hupa Wappo Buena Vista Mono Mattole Pomoan Kings River Panamint Eel River Northeastern Pomo Gashowu Kawaiisu Kato Northern Pomo Valley Yokuts Chemehuevi Karok Eastern Pomo Chumash Tubatulabal Shasta Central Pomo Obispeño Serrano Chimariko Southeastern Pomo Purisimeño Kitanimuk
    [Show full text]
  • UBCWPL University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics
    UBCWPL University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics -Papers for WSCLA 17- The Seventeenth Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas Edited by: Pat Littell, Analía Gutiérrez, Raphaël Girard, and Natalie Weber May 2014 Volume 36 -Papers for WSCLA 17- The Seventeenth Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas Chicago, Illinois March 9–11, 2012 Hosted by: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago Edited by: Pat Littell, Analía Gutiérrez, Raphaël Girard, and Natalie Weber The University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 36 May 2014 UBCWPL is published by the graduate students of the University of British Columbia. We feature current research on language and linguistics by students and faculty of the department, and we are the regular publishers of two conference proceedings: the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) and the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL). If you have any comments or suggestions, or would like to place orders, please contact : UBCWPL Editors Department of Linguistics Totem Field Studios 2613 West Mall V6T 1Z2 Tel: 604 822 8948 Fax 604 822 9687 E-mail: <[email protected]> Since articles in UBCWPL are works in progress, their publication elsewhere is not precluded. All rights remain with the authors. i Cover artwork by Lester Ned Jr. Contact: Ancestral Native Art Creations 10704 #9 Highway Compt. 376 Rosedale, BC V0X 1X0 Phone: (604) 793-5306 Fax: (604) 794-3217 Email: [email protected] ii Table of Contents PREFACE .......................................................................................................... iv HEATHER BLISS ......................................................................................... 1–14 Marking the boundaries: Blackfoot preverbs in narratives and elicitation ELENA BENEDICTO AND ELIZABETH SALOMÓN ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Topics in Chukchansi Yokuts Phonology and Mophology
    Topics in Chukchansi Yokuts Phonology and Morphology Peter Ara Guekguezian California State University, Fresno 1. INTRODUCTION. Chukchansi Yokuts is a dialect of the Yokuts language family native to Central California. Yokuts dialects were spoken in the San Joaquin Valley and the surrounding foothills from the Fresno and Chowchilla rivers in the north down to the where the valley ends in the Tehachapi mountains in the south (Kroeber 1963). There were originally around forty Yokuts tribes, each speaking a distinct yet related dialect. Kroeber (1963) estimates that most of these dialects were mutually intelligible; Whistler and Golla (1986) state that this is probably not true, though dialects within a branch of the Yokuts family likely could understand each other. The Chukchansi tribe inhabits the foothills in the north of Yokuts territory, around present-day Ahwahnee and Coarsegold. Many Chukchansi still live in these foothills about 30 miles north of Fresno; this is where the headquarters of the tribe, Picayune Rancheria, is today. According to Kroeber's (1963) system of classification, based on the presence of the imperative suffix [-ka] and the form of the negative morpheme [ohom’], Chukchansi is a Valley dialect of the Yokuts family, not a Foothill dialect, despite its location in the Sierra foothills. While Whistler and Golla (1986) disagree with Kroeber over the integrity of Foothill group, they do agree that Chukchansi is a Valley dialect. Specifically, it is in the Northern Hill subgroup of the Northern Valley branch, closely related to the Yokuts dialects Chawchila and Dumna. Chukchansi has all the major features common to the Yokuts family.
    [Show full text]
  • Jicaque As a Hokan Language Author(S): Joseph H
    Jicaque as a Hokan Language Author(s): Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 216- 222 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010 Accessed: 11-07-2017 15:04 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263010?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics This content downloaded from 12.14.13.130 on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:04:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms JICAQUE AS A HOKAN LANGUAGE JOSEPH H. GREENBERG AND MORRIS SWADESH COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1. The problem 2. The phonological equivalences in Hokan 2. Phonological note have been largely established by Edward 3. Cognate list Sapir's work.3 The Jicaque agreements are 4. Use of lexical statistics generally obvious. A special point is that 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific
    Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Anna Bugaeva1,2, Johanna Nichols3,4,5, and Balthasar Bickel6 1 Tokyo University of Science, 2 National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo, 3 University of California, Berkeley, 4 University of Helsinki, 5 Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 6 University of Zü rich Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/inalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum and has only one class of alienables. The language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper gives a first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding previous coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. Keywords: Pacific Rim, Circum-Pacific, Ainu, possessive, appositive, classifier Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Partitioning the Timeline a Cross-Linguistic Survey of Tense
    Partitioning the timeline A cross-linguistic survey of tense Viveka Velupillai Justus Liebig University Giessen The database The following gives the languages and their values in my database. The lan- guage names are primarily based on the source(s) and WALS Online (Dryer & Haspelmath 2013); where these differ from theEthnologue (Lewis et al. 2013) lan- guage names the Ethnologue name has been given in parenthesis. The ISO-639–3 codes are given in square brackets after the language name. I have relied onWALS Online where possible for the family and genus affiliation; where this was not pos- sible I relied on the source(s) and Ethnologue. The values for fusion type were tak- en from Bickel and Nichols (2013a) where possible; those languages are marked with an asterisk (*). For those languages that were not in Bickel & Nichol’s (2013a) database, I coded the fusion type according to the principles set out in Bickel & Nichols (2013b) using the reference indicated in the ‘Source’ column. Studies in Language 40:1 (2016), 1–42. doi 10.1075/sl.40.1.04ve2 issn 0378–4177 / e-issn 1569–9978 © John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Viveka Velupillai Viveka No tense Language Genus Family Fusion Source Abui [abz] Greater Alor Timor-Alor-Pantar Isolating/Concatenative (Kratochvíl 2007: 209ff, 350) Achumawi [acv] Palaihnihan Hokan Concatenative (Angulo & Freeland 1930: 89ff, 111) Ainu [ain] Ainu Ainu Concatenative (Shibatani 1990: 80) Apinajé (Apinayé) [apn] Ge-Kaingang Macro-Ge Isolating (Cunha de Oliveira 2005: 170f) Arandai [jbj] South Bird’s Head Marind
    [Show full text]