183 on the Semantics of the Instrumental Finals of Ojibwa Richard Rhodes University of Michigan

183 On the Semantics of the Instrumental Finals of Ojibwa Richard Rhodes University of Michigan

0. It has long been recognized that the stem structure of Algonquian languages allows for complex constructions involving up to three subparts known as initials, medials, and finals. The Ottawa dialect of Ojibwa is no exception.1 Some examples from that dialect are given in (1). (1) (a) bmose 'he walks' /bim ose w/ along walk 3 initial final (b) dkonjge /dakw am d ig e w/ 'he bites' grasp with mouth indef. obj. 3 initial final (c) gT-boknikeSin /gi bokw nik e s In w/ 'he fell and past broken arm fall 3 broke his arm' preverb initial medial final (d) mmangzide /mamang zid e w/ 'he has big feet' big(pi.) foot 3 initial medial While in general, initials are morphemically simple, medials and finals are usually at least bimorphemic This is illustrated in (lb) and (lc). In fact finals may have as many as five morphemic elements, including a prefinal (PF), a concrete final (CF), and an abstract final (AF), as shown in (2) . (2) napjige /in ah bi d ig e w/ 'he's thus PF pull(CF) AF indef. obj. (AF). 3 harnessing initial final up' This morphemic complexity has lead to some confusion both in terminology and in analysis. In this paper I will follow the analysis I proposed in Rhodes (1976)2 which divides the final into two basic parts, one semantic and one syntactic. The semantic part consists of an optional prefinal (PF) plus the concrete final (CF), while the syntactic part consists of the abstract final (AF) and the following stem morphemes. The semantic part of the final has the function of signalling a set of semantic relationships in which the verb participates. The syntactic part signals the external syntactic relation ships which the verb participates in in particular 184 constructions. In addition the abstract finals also have a function of classifying the verb with respect to a set of semantic distinctions.3 While arguing for the details of this analysis in general are beside the point of this paper, I would like to note the following irregularity in the traditional citation of finals. II, AI, and TA finals are cited in the form: (PF) - CF - AF. But TI finals are cited with the following object agreement marker. "* (3) PF CF AF OAM II ah bi de -apide ., , . ,. AI ah, b,i • zo -apiz• o be tied' TA ah bi N -apin TI ah bi d o -apido PF CF AF OMA II a s in -asin AI a s I -aSi 'be blown' TA a s im -a£im 'blow' TI a s id o -asido CF AF OMA II AI Im o 'speak' TA Im 0 'speak TI Im d am about' There are quite a few more complexities associated with the morphemic analysis of Ojibwa finals (and Algonquian finals in general), but with the caveat that the traditional citations suffer from morphological inconsistency, I will continue to give the fuller traditional citations of finals along with the citations of the PF and CF which make up the semantic part of the final with which this paper is primarily concerned. 1. The transitive finals of Ojibwa fall into a number of semantically and morphologically definable classes, as exemplified in (4). (The glosses given in (4) are only first approximations.) (4) (a) perception in- (TA inaw TI inam) 'by sight' (AI inagozi II inagwad) it- (TA itaw TI itam) 'by hearing' (AI itagozi II itagwad) ipw- (TA ipw TI ipodam) 'by taste' (AI ipogozi II ipogwad) ma- (TA mam TI mandam) 'by smell' (AI magozi II magwad) enim- (TA enim TI endam) 'by thought1 (b) body in- (TA in (ATI endagozinam) 'bi y IhandI endagwad' ) am- (TA am TI andam) 'by mouth' Im- (TA im TI odam/indam) 'by speech' (AI (agent) imo) ik/i3k- (TA ikaw/iskaw TI ikam/iskam) 'by foot/body' (AI/II ika/iska) 185

(c) instrument iz- (TA izw TI izam) 'by heat' (AI izo II ide; AI (agent) izekwe) iz- (TA izw TI izam) 'by blade' ah- (TA aw TI aham) 'by instrument' (AI aho II awa; AI (agent) aham) (d) action (i) motion bi- (TA biN TI bido) 'pull' (AI bizo II bide) bo- (TA boN TI bodo) 'saw' wi- (TA wiN TI wido) 'transport' s- (TA Sim TI sido) 'place' (AI Sin II sin) aha- (TA ahaN TI ahado) 'follow' Ih- (TA ih TI ito) 'cause' (ii) iko-_(TA ikoN TI ikodam) 'cut' aganam- (TA aganam TI aganandam) 'do violence' ina- (TA inaN TI inadam) 'pursue/kill' dabi- (TA dabaN TI dabadam) 'drag' (AI (agent) dab!) om- (TA om TI ondam) 'carry on the back' niga- (TA nigaN TI nigadam) 'carry on the shoulder' There are, of course, a substantial number of other finals, including many referring to inherently intransitive concepts.

(5) gabawi 'stand' (AI) ingwam 'sleep' (AI) ose 'walk' (AI) ode 'crawl' (AI) endi 'be away' (AI) jiwan 'flow' (ID etc .

Furthermore the classes of CFs given in (4) are not complete, but they do include all the productive morphemes, and some of the less productive ones.5 For the purposes of this study, we will concentrate on the classes of CFs given in (4b) and (4c) . It is important to note at this point that the semantic parts of the finals under study refer to the instrument or medium of the action or state expressed in the clause, and refer to the logical subject of the transitive version to clause as employing that instrument or medium. Thus a form like dkonemaad 'grasp him in the mouth' can only mean that the action takes place in the mouth of the grasper. It cannot mean that the grasper is holding something (e.g. the tongue) in the mouth of the one grasped. Notice that this means that those CFs from our study which appear in patient intransitive final complexes have implicit reference to an unmentioned semantic subject. Thus mnotaagzid 'sound good (AI)' more nearly means 'someone hears that ... sounds good'. 186 2. Body Finals. 2.0. The body finals are organized into three subgroups, shown in (6).6 (6) (a) hand 'with the hand' in- (TA in TI inam) bgidnang 'release s.t.' mjimnang 'hold s.t.' dapnad 'pick s.o. up' (b) mouth (i) 'by speech' Im- (TA im TI odam/indam) dbaddang talk afaout s.t. dbajmad s.o. ndodang ,, s.t. -,—=-r call ndomad s.o. dzindang gossip about s.t. (ii) 'with the mouth' am- (TA am TI andam) dkondang 'bite s.t.' wlkndang 'suck s.t. out' jlmad 'kiss s.o.' (iii) 'in the mouth' anem- (TA anem TI anendam) boknendang 'break s.t. in one's mouth' zagnendang 'have s.t. hanging out of one's mouth' (c) body (i) 'on the body' (specialized for wearing clothes) ik- (TA ikaw TI ikam) biskang 'put s.t. on' giskang 'take s.t. off nabkawad 'wear s.o. around the neck (a scarf) ' (ii) 'with the body' iSk- (TA iSkaw TI iskam) ik- (TA ikaw TI ikam) [Note: ik- is used after initials ending in apicals. The apical is softened to the corresponding fricative. ] dgiSkwad 'kick s.o.' baSkSkang 'burst s.t. (with one's body)' bsikang 'bump into s.t.' N.B. We will use the following convention in glossing citations: (X) means the citation entails X. [X] means the citation is appropriate to X but does not entail it. 187 2.1. The basic body morpheme is isk/ik. It is used to signal action of the body where there is no differentiation of body part. Even though forms containing it are normally translated 'with foot or body', instances of the use of iSk/ik are used to refer to any part of the body which is not the hand or mouth. Thus (7a) is appropriate to all the situations listed in (7b). In fact, when the hand is not being used prototypically, the marker iSk/ik can be used in reference to the hand, too, as in (7c). (7) (a) ngl-bsikan /n gi bit in 0 am n / 1 past act unintentionally with body inan. obj. (b) I bumped it [with my foot ]/[with my arm ]/[with my head]/[with my shoulder ]/[with my rump ]/[with my knee]/etc Furthermore, in the case in which inanimate objects or animate objects are used as subjects undifferentiated in body, iSk/ik is used. (8) (a) ngl-gTwSkwebiSkagon /n gi glwaSkwebT iSk aw igw in / 1 past drunk with the body inverse inan. iw zomnabo 'The wine made me drunk.' that wine (b) ngi-bsikagon /n gi bit ik aw igw in/ 1 past act unintentionally with body inverse inan. iw bkwakwad 'The ball hit me.' that ball (c) ndakziSkag 'He makes me sick.' /n(d) akozi iSk aw igw i / 1 sick with body inverse Another place in which isk/ik is used in reference to un differentiated objects is in the complex iSko/iko which signals indirect causation. (9) ngi-bokSkodon I broke it./I /n gi bokw iSk o d o n / made it break. 1 past broken cause inan. obj. (indirect causa tion) [e.g. I ran over it in my car.] Finally, it should be pointed out that the allomorph ik is also specialized to refer to wearing clothes, i.e. to mean 'on the body' . 188 (10) blskang /bit ik 0 am g/ 'put s.t. on (clothing)/wear s.t. ' giskang /git ik 0 am g/ 'take s.t. off (clothing)' nabkang /nab ik 0 am g/ 'wear s.t. around the neck' 2.2. The morphemes relating to the use of the mouth are shown in (6b). Several comments are in order. First there is a morphemic irregularity with im 'by speech'. It has two TI forms: odam and indam (< Im-d-am). Odam is the historical form, but it is being replaced by indam, formed by analogy with the productive pattern of adding AF d to CFs ending in m. Many speakers prefer neologized dbajndang to conservative dbaddang 'talk about s.t.' (cf. (6b(i))). Second, the general mouth action morpheme, am, does not specify which part of the mouth is involved, thus we have: (11) (a) wlkndang /wikw am d am g/ 'suck s.t. out (using the mouth as a whole) ' (b) dkomad /dakw am 0 a d/ 'bite s.o. (using the teeth)' (c) jlmad /jl am 0a d/ 'kiss s.o. (using the lips)' And lastly, the difference between the simple form am 'by mouth' and the form anem, which has a PF, is that anem refers to the mouth as a location rather than as an instru ment. (12) (a) zagnendang /zag anem d am g/ 'have s.t. sticking out of one's mouth' (b) debnendang /deb anem d am g/ 'have enough of s.t. in one's mouth' (c) boknendang /bokw anem d am g/ 'break s.t. in one's mouth' cf. bokndang /bokw am d am g/ 'break s.t. (with one's teeth)' 2.3. The final CF in the set of body finals is the morpheme in. In refers to actions performed by using the hand in prototypical ways—those which involve grasping or cupping the hand. When the hand is not used prototypically it can be treated either as a part of the body as shown in (7c) above, or under the appropriate circumstances, as an instrument, as in (13). (13) ngi-bkitewa .j spanked him /n gi bakite ah w a / [with my hand]/ 1 past strike by instrument anim. [with a belt]/ [with a stick]. Pragmatically, the situations involving the use of instru ments and some actions normally also involve the use of the hands in prototypical ways. This means that the semantic domain of in overlaps with that of the instrumental finals given in (4c) and several of the action finals given in (4d). The potential conflict is resolved on the basis of the Gricean principle of relevance. Since the use of an 189 instrument prototypically involves both action and the use of the hand, but not vice versa, the instrumentality is signaled. And since certain actions entail the use of the hand, but not vice versa, the action is marked in such cases. This yields a priority for determining the use of CFs, given in first approximation as (14). (14) instrument > action > hand Examples of the marking of instrument and motion in pre ference to hand are given in (15). (15) (a) Saghang /zaSagw ah 0 am g/ 'crush s.t. (using an instrument)' (b) Sagbidod /zaSagw bi d o d/ 'crush s.t. (using a motion of the hand)' (c) Sagnang /zaSagw in 0 am g/ 'crush s.t. (by squeezing it)' In addition consider the following minimal pairs for in 'by hand' vs. bi 'using one way motion'. (16) (a) (i) zinnad /zln in 0 a d/ 'milk s.o. [a cow]' (ii) zlnbinad /zln bi N a d/ 'ring s.o. out La handkerchief]' (b) (i) gaSknang /gaSk in am g/ 'scoop s.t. out L sand"]' (ii) gaSkbidod /gaSk bi d o d/ 'scrape s.t.' This particular semantic organization of finals, and of in 'by hand' in particular, seems to be an Ojibwa innovation. There are two reasons for thinking this. First, many forms which express actions that are hard to conceive of as happening via grasping or scooping have been replaced by forms in bi 'using one way motion'.7 (17) (a) bokbidod 'break s.t. cf. Fox po:hkonamwa *boknang (sticklike)' Cree po:skonam Menominee po:hkunam (b) bikibod 'break s.t. cf. Menominee pahke:nam *bkinang (stringlike); pick (fruit)' (c) bnibdod 'let s.t. cf. Fox panenamwa *bninang slip' Menominee pane:nam Secondly, the distinction of in vs. bi breaks down after medials, in a way that suggests the use of the cognate morphemes in other Algonquian languages.

(18) (a) bokbidod ,break s-t. (Sticklike)' *boknang bokwakbidod ,break st- (stickiike) off bokwaknang 190

(18) (b) gtigbidod ,rQll s.t./ti s.t.. *gtignang gtigjlbdod ,roll/ti s.t. over. gtigjinang

In fact, some medials can only be followed by in. In par ticular, the combination web 'move, flip' plus bi 'using one way motion' is always bad, even though web combines freely with other medials.

(19) (a) ganjwebnang 'push s.t. (with one's hands)'

(b) ganjwebSkang 'push s.t. (with one's body)'

(d) *ganjwebbidod cf. ganjbidod 'push s.t. (forward) '

Finally, I want to note that in also has a regular meta phorical use in describing actions in interpersonal relation ships .

(20) literal metaphorical bgidnad release s.o. allow s.o. (to do s.t.) webnad throw s.o. away divorce s.o., break up with [a handkerchief] s.o.; reject s.o. [offering s.t.] dapnad pick s.o. up [a accept s.o. [offering s.t.] handkerchief] dkonad hold s.o. in arrest s.o. one's hand 3. Instrument Finals. The instrument finals are organized into three groups, shown in (21) . (21) (a) heat (i) 'with fire' akiz- (TA akizw TI akizam) PF ak jagakzang 'burn s.t. up' glSkakzang 'cut s.t. [with a blow torch ]'

(ii) 'by the heat of the sun' as- (AI aso II ate) PF ah wabateg 'be faded' gtimasod 'be lazy because of the heat of the sun' (iii) 'by heat' iz- (TA izw TI izam) mnozang 'cook s.t.' bizang 'warm s.t. up' zkizang 'set s.t. on fire' 191 (b) blade 'with a blade' iz- (TA izw TI izam) giSkzang 'cut s.t.' Skozang 'leave s.t. over after cutting' bSkozang 'mow s.t. [grass]' (c) instrument (i) 'with an axe' agah- (TA agahw TI agaham) PF ag gwag wad 'fell s.o. (a tree)' daSkgahang 'split s.t. (wood)' (ii) 'with an instrument' ah- (TA ahw TI aham) bjibhang 'stab s.t.' bgonehang 'punch a hole in s.t.' bwahang 'knock s.t. off (in ricing)' (Note: The final adah- 'with a stick' is no longer productive in Ojibwa at all, occuring only in a few unanalyzable words.) The instrument finals do not present a particular problem for semantic analysis except in one respect. The forms with PF's are much less productive than the forms without PF's. In fact, the extended forms can only be used for the most stereo typical kinds of situations, and can often be freely replaced by forms involving the simple CF. Examples are given in (22). (22) (a) (i) gwagwad 'fell s.o. (a tree)' daSkgahang 'split s.t. (wood) ' ggwedgawad 'test s.o. (black ash)' (ii) bigwakzang 'crack s.t. on the fire' bkakzang 'burn through s.t. (stringlike)' (b) (i) bqoneyakzang ., , , ._ „ . , * , 'burn a hole in s.t. bgonezang (ii) daSkgahang 'split s.t. (wood)' daSkhang It should be noted that the instrument finals iz 'by heat' and ah 'by instrument' are very common. They occur in many forms from which other finals are excluded by the semantics of the root.8 Some examples are given in (23). (23) (a) (i) bdadhang 'stab s.t. (with a multi-pronged instrument ' /badak-/ stab multi- prong (with a single-pronged (ii) bjidhang 'stab s.t. ' /bijib-/ stab single instrument prong (b) (i) zkizang 'set s.t. on fire" /zak-/ be on fire (ii) ngizang 'melt s.t.' /ning-/ melt Finally, I want to note that the blade final iz is no longer productive in Ojibwa having been largely replaced by the action final, iko 'using a cutting action'. 192

(24) (a) giSkkodang 'cut s.t, glSkzang ~

(b) bakkodang 'cut the top of s.t. open' ?bakzang

(c) bSigkodang ,miss s_fc_ in cutting. *bsigzang 4. Having presented the basis analysis of the two groups of finals which we set out to describe, let us turn our attention to those members of the action group whose semantics impinge upon the semantics of body and instrument finals. There are two subgroups of action finals, the motion finals and the action finals proper. Each of these groups is subdivided as shown schematically in (25). This grouping is somewhat tentative. It is based as much on consideration of morpheme cooccurrence as on direct semantic evidence. For example, the causatives, ih, isah, and the complex causative iSko/iko show cooccurrence properties of motion finals, but can only be considered motion finals in a metaphorical sense.7 The group of finals that I want to examine here are the controlled motion finals in (25a), because it is these forms in particular which contrast with the instrument and body finals. The basic contrast in this subgroup is between one way motion expressed by bi and two way/back and forth motion expressed by bo, as shown in (26). (26) (a) one way motion nlsbidod 'pull s.t. down' ganjbidod 'push s.t. forward' bokbidod 'break s.t. (sticklike) (by snapping it) ' bmibizod 'speed along; fly; drive' (b) back & forth motion giSkbodod 'saw s.t. (in two)' ginbodod 'sharpen s.t. (by whetting/filing)' bmibojged 'plow' Notice that bo 'back and forth motion' has a specialized meaning: 'act with farm machinery', clearly of modern origin. (27) bmibodod 'plow s.t. (a field)' bisbodod 'disc s.t. (a field)' bSigbodod 'miss s.t. in plowing/discing' Skobodod 'leave s.t. unplowed/undisced' There is also the extended form of bi, api which refers to tying. Since tying involves pulling, this can be considered a special case of the use of one way motion. But as in the case of the instrument finals, api has a restricted distribution, and bi is used in some constructions to refer to tying. M 0"1 .--l ( 2 5) (a) motion- (l ocationall y orlented). / motive control:.: ~ /Ocative one .:! ~ general pl,;.;; \ ~ .

/ \y back & forth I Wlnd./ \ og i I wi I s b bo api as isko sah ih

(b) action (action oriented)

motive/ destructive

drag~ on Iback ~ on shoulder cut/ do violenceI ------pursue/ kill I I I I I I dabr am niga iko aganam in a 194 (28) (a) dgopzod 'be tied together (with s.t.)' cf. dgobzod 'travel together' zgipdod 'tie s.t. (to s.t.)' cf. zgibdod 'hang onto s.t.' (b) dkobzod 'be tied up' abskobnad 'untie s.o.' 5. At this point I want to make a brief exposition of a hypothesis about a number of forms containing the morpheme in which do not have the meaning 'by hand'. These forms are given in (29). (29) (a) (i) gwidnang 1 raise s.t.' mbinang 'list s.t. (up)' Spinang 'raise s.t.' (ii) naznang 'lower s.t.' nisnang 'put s.t. down/lower' negnang 'put s.t. in/under' (b) mawndonang 'gather (things)' mozginang 'collect (things)' mamginang 'gather (things) up' ndinang 'get s.t. from (somewhere)' (c) zignang 'empty s.t.' b2iSgonang 'empty s.t.' zignang 'pour s.t.' (d) mmadnang 'wiggle (a part of the body), move (a part of the body)' Now it is worth notint that these forms fall into semantically organized classes. Thus it could be argued that the replace- ment of in by bi takes plac e not item by item, but rather in terms of semantic fields. The fields represented in (29) are then simply those few remai ning ones which have not yet replaced in with bi. put forward an alternative However, I would like to as having the more abstract hypothesis which treats in trol'. This incorporates all the meaning: 'exerting fine con tally subsuming the meaning 'by forms in (29) as well as to above. hand6'. Conclusionas explaine.d in §2.3. 6.1. To summarize the logic of the interrelationships of the morphemes it will be useful to present several Ven diagrams in which the circles represent a range of meanings and the morpheme in the circle is the morpheme used to signal that range of meanings. 195

6.2. To conclude this paper I want to make some brief comments about the way I have been doing this analysis, and what some of the implications of this analysis are for students of Algonquian languages. First, in doing this analysis, I have leaned heavily on two notions: 1) proto types, and 2) oppositions. The notion prototype has been invoked because there is an important distinction which is often overlooked in semantic analysis between the happenings in the perceptual world (pragmatics) and the signalling devices of a language (semantics) . The prototype is the case in which the pragmatics and semantics are alligned. Pragmatically, the prototype is the most frequent case; semantically it serves as the primitive in terms of which other cases are expressed. The process of prototyping is the same as the process used in emicization in phonology: certain features are taken a more salient while other features are backgrounded or even ignored. When we mentioned the prototypical use of the hand in §3. above, it should be immediately apparent that 196 that involves finger action on the palm side of the hand, and this is the prototype for use of the hand. Furthermore the use of the hand is itself the prototype for exerting fine control as suggested by our refined analysis of the morpheme in. The second, and possibly more important, notion I have used in developing this analysis, is that of opposition. Our definitions of the CF's are in terms of the oppositions in which they participate, e.g. iSk/ik 'with the body' has the body as a general referent, but gets its full meaning only negatively: 'with the body, but not with the mouth (am) nor with the hand (in)'. Similarly ah 'by instrument' really means: 'with an instrument, but not by heat, blade, or axe'. This sort of oppositional approach is implicit in the Ven diagrams of (30) and (31). It also explains why the negatively defined items should sometimes stand in place of the positively defined items whose definition entails them. Finally, I would like to raise the question which led to this preliminary study in the first place. Ives Goddard (p.c) pointed out that the reconstruction of Proto- Algonquian proceeds, in the hands of many, wordwise, without regard for the combinatory potential of the initials, medials, and finals in the languages cited. Much less in Proto-Algonquian. This is clearly problematic, e.g. Menominee (Bloomfield 1962) TA peN, TI peto (§16.92) means only 'tie', and the extended form TA ahpeN, TI ahpeto (§16.93) is the productive one. A situation that stands in sharp contrast to Ojibwa. Whatever the form of the solution for Proto-Algonquian, it will have to stand on analyses of the semantics of the morphemes of the daughter languages, because more than any other factor, the semantics of a form determines its combinatory potential. As a first step toward solvinNOTESg the larger problem, I offer Thethi scitations paper. of forms in this vowel deleting dialect are without the omitted vowels, as is the overwhelming preference of speakers of these dialects when writing. Piggot's (1979) reanalysis is noted but rejected. A reply is forthcoming. This has been made abundantly clear by the recent work of Peter Denny. It should be noted that Bloomfield's (1957) failure to make clear distinctions between CF's and AF's leads to much of the confusion in the morphology of his chapters 12-16. Productivity here means capable of forming neologisms. It does not mean can combine freely with initials. 197 6 Note carefully: we will use the following convention in glossing citations: (X) means the citation entails X. [X] means the citation is appropriate to X but does not entail it. 7 It should be noted that there is some difference from dialect to dialect and even from speaker to speaker. Baraga (1878) has many forms with in which Ottawa and Eastern Ojibwa speakers reject. Some of these forms are also cited in Roosen-Runge and Kaye (1973), although I could find no speakers who would accept them. 8 This is sporadically true of other finals, too, but not to the extent of these two, e.g. iSk: dngiSkang 'kick s.t.', in: dapnang 'pick s.t. up', am zaSagndang 'chew s.t.', et al.

REFERENCES AUBIN, George F. 1975 A Proto-Algonquian dictionary. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 29. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. BARAGA, Frederic 1878 A dictionary of the Otchipwe language. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines. BLOOMFIELD, Leonard 1957 Eastern Ojibwa: grammatical sketch, texts, and word list. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press . 1962 The Menominee language. New Haven: Yale University Press. PIGGOT, Glyne L. 1979 Verb classification in Ojibwa. Recherches linguistiques a Montreal Volume 12: Linguistique Amerindienne I: Syntaxe Algonquienne. Ford and Lees (eds.). Universite de Montreal. PIGGOT, Glyne L. and Jonathan Kaye (eds.) 1973 Odawa language project, second report. University of Toronto Centre for Linguistic Studies. Linguistic Series 1. RHODES, Richard A. 1976 The morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa verb. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.