Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific

Home , Ainu language, Arapaho language, Blagar language, Classifier (linguistics), Glottolog, Inalienable possession

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]

1. Introduction

A number of languages around the Pacific and throughout the Americas use head-marking person or person-number affixes to index possessors on nouns of a class usually called inalienable, a restricted set of nouns that most often obligatorily take possessive morphology. The inalienables vary from language to language but usually include body parts, kin terms, and/or a few other nouns intimately connected to human owners (articles of clothing, essential implements and weapons, 'house', etc.). In most current thinking, inalienables have argument structure and the possessor noun is the argument. In most languages with an alienable/inalienable distinction, alienables differ from inalienables in not being obligatorily possessed, and/or in having a distinctive and often longer form of possessive morphology, and/or in using dependent-marked morphology, typically a genitive case on the possessor noun, while inalienables are head-marked or juxtaposed to (or compounded with) the possessor (Nichols 1988). But in a number of the languages at issue here the alienables – a large and open class of nouns – cannot take morphological indexation, even when referent of the noun in question is owned or otherwise possessed. That is, these are non-possessible nouns. Instead they use an analytic construction in which a word in an appositive relation to the possessed noun bears morphological possessive marking, and often also has classificatory functions (Nichols & Bickel 2005ab). We call this the appositive word. Usually this appositive word is an inalienable noun taking the regular possessive inflection of inalienables. (1) shows examples from Fijian, where no- is a classifier noun taking a possessive suffix and in apposition to 'house'.

(1) Fijian (Gottocode: fiji1243, Austronesian, Fiji; Lynch et al. 2002:40) Inalienable Alienable na mata-qu na no-qu vale ART eye-1sg ART CL-1sg house 'my eye' 'my house'

In most languages the appositive word can also function as an independent noun. In some languages, however, the appositive classifiers are verbs, either finite verbs or relativized or nominalized to enable them to modify the possessed noun. Here we show that Ainu (ainu1240), an isolate of northern Japan and formerly also Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, has an appositive classifier system that uses verbs. Ainu inalienables, chiefly body parts and kin terms, take direct affixation of possessive affixes, while alienables cannot take person markers but instead use a relative construction with 'have' in which the possessor of the head noun is marked as subject of 'have' and the possessed noun is the (gapped) object of 'have'.

Ainu (Satō 2008:156; Bugaeva 2004, 2012)

(2) (káni) ku-sik-i 1SG 1SG.A-eye-PSD1 ‘my eyes’

(3) [ __ ku-kor] seta O 1SG.A-have dog ‘my dog’, lit. 'dog (that) I have’2

1 This and other abbreviations and terms introduced here are defined in §2.2. Others are either familiar, transparent, or defined in place. 2 Here and below, an underscore indicates the gap in gap-strategy relativization. It is interlinearized with the argument role of the gapped nominal. 3

As discussed below, Ainu 'have' in alienable possession appears to be the survivor of a formerly larger set of verbs with classificatory functions. The person markers used in this possessive construction are unambiguously verbal person markers. Does the Ainu construction fit in with the Oceanic and American languages as an appositive alienable possessive construction? Or is it simply a rare or unique treatment of alienable possession? This paper surveys appositive possessive constructions around the Pacific and inland to define the grammatical and geographical range, limits, and bounds especially of the verbal type, to show how Ainu does and does not fit the established typology, and to address the hypothesis of Nichols and Bickel 2005ab that this is a Pacific Rim trait. In what follows we provide a method and theoretical framework (§2), describe Ainu in those terms (§3), account for some of the typological behavior (§4) and distribution of appositive possessive constructions (§5), and close with open questions (6). There are three on-line supplements: S1 lists the languages surveyed and their possession types; S2 gives figures and methods for the statistical analysis; and S3 gives analysis and examples of possessive constructions from all survey languages found to have appositives.

2. Method and survey design

2.1. Survey

We started with a close, typologically based description of the Ainu possessive system (§3) and extracted from it the set of features and concepts needed to determine, point by point, whether the Ainu system is or is not of the same type as known appositive systems. We then carried out an in- depth cross-linguistic survey of the target constructions in languages around the Pacific and nearby to refine the typology and map out the distribution, among other things surveying sisters of languages with appositive possession to see if they also have the constructions. We performed a less in-depth survey of other continents. The resultant survey is larger and better targeted than the WALS surveys of Nichols & Bickel 2005ab. Like those surveys, it covers only common nouns as heads of possessive constructions, leaving out proper names because their referents are not often possessed.3 The geographical macroareas are defined as follows (Nichols et al. 2013, Bickel et al. 2017). The Pacific Rim is the population of languages from northern Australia to (clockwise) southernmost South America, from the coast to the upper far side of the major coastal range. The Circum-Pacific population is the Pacific Rim population plus all of Australia, New Guinea, and the Americas.

2.2. Key grammatical concepts

Grammatical terms used here, and their definitions, are as follows. 4 Terms we use in abbreviated form in the text are listed by those abbreviations (which follow Hill 2014; as she does, we use the abbreviations as interlinear glosses).

3 Names are occasionally mentioned as not possessible (an example is Dutton 1996:40-41 for Koiari (gras1249); his term is unpossessable), but we have not counted these as non-possessibles. Dutton classifies terms for animals as proper names, together with personal names, place names, and ethnonyms (41). 4 Note that in this set of terms we are not defining the ordinary English verbs own and possess but technical terms in which one or the other of the roots own and possess figures as one etymological building block. 4

Possession: The relation of an adnominal dependent (including ones with appositive structure) to a head noun which the dependent owns, possesses, or has, or which belongs to the dependent.5 Typically the semantics involves ownership, other entitlement, part-whole relations, kinship relations, etc. Possessive: We use this adjective to describe an NP or DP with an adnominal noun (possessive phrase) and semantics of possession, and/or with head-marking morphology marking the possessive relation and indexing properties of the possessor (e.g. possessive suffix). Head- marked possessive indexation almost always involves person or person-number. Possessor: The dependent element in a possessive phrase. Possessum: The head noun in a possessive phrase. Optionally possessible (often shortened to possessible): A noun or noun class that may, but is not required to, have possessive morphology. Obligatorily possessed: A noun requiring a possessor as argument, and obligatorily possessed grammatically possessed; typically this means obligatorily taking a head-marked possessive affix or clitic. These are then bound nouns, grammatically unable to occur without possessive marking. Non-possessible: A noun that grammatically cannot take possessive inflection (in general, as a matter of lexical morphological principle) and therefore cannot take head-marked person indexation in languages that mark possession that way. Owned non-possessible: A grammatically non-possessible noun whose referent is owned by or belongs to someone (or something, but most examples involve human or anthropomorphized possessors). Possessibility: General term for the macro-category of possessible, obligatorily possessed, non- possessible. Importantly, the terms for the possessive classes possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible are grammatical classificatory terms, not semantic ones. In using a possessive construction, a speaker does not decide to convey whether an item can be owned or not; rather, the choice of a noun determines the possessive construction that can be used with it. Some of the cross-linguistically most commmon non-possessibles are words whose referents can be and usually are owned, such as domestic animals, especially dogs. Cahuilla (cahu1264) (§4.2) is a good example: the non-possessible classes are defined by traditional categories of ownership and usufruct. Alienability: A formal morphological opposition between nouns which can or must take possessive marking when possessed (=when head of a possessive construction) and those which do not or cannot or take a different formal class of possessive marking. It is a formal opposition in how heads of possessive NPs are marked, and not a semantic type of possession (though grammars often offer a rough semantic characterization of the distinction) Inalienable: A noun or noun class belonging to one of two values of an alienability opposition. Most often inalienable is applied to obligatorily possessed nouns. Sometimes the distinction is based on types of marking: e.g. inalienables have head-marked possession while alienables variously use a different set of possessive allomorphs, or juxtaposition or dependent- marked possession (e.g. a genitive case). (Nichols 1988 gives a full inventory of types.) The definition of what counts as inalienable is specific to individual languages and we do not further typologize the lexical choices here. Alienable: A noun or noun class belonging to the other member of the alienability opposition. Most often it refers to optionally possessible nouns, but sometimes also or rather to non- possessibles.

5 Here and below, wording like "the possessor owns the head noun" is shorthand for "the referent of the possessor owns the referent of the head noun". 5

Appositive noun (here often shortened to appositive): In a possessive construction, a noun or noun- like possessive morpheme that is in apposition to a non-possessible head noun and carries the morphological marking of possession. Usually it carries possessive morphology; often it is an obligatorily possessed noun; sometimes it is a dedicated classificatory morpheme but in some languages it can function as a head noun on its own. Examples are in (4) and (5). In (4a) and (5a), ‘animal’ functions as the (possessed) head noun; in (4b) and (5b) it is in apposition to another noun, which we take to be the head of the constituent (‘pet’ and ‘cat’, respectively).

(4) Macushi (macu1259, Cariban, Brazil; Carson 1982:58) a. u - y - ekïng wuty 1sg-POSS-animal go 'I will ride my animal' (independent noun; inalienable) b. woroké u - y - ekïng parrot 1sg-POSS-CL:pet6 'my parrot' (classifier; 'parrot' is non-possessible)

(5) Wichi Lhomtes (wich1263, Matacoan, Argentina; Nercesian 2014:169, 168) a. la-lo=y 3-animal-PL 'the animals’ (independent noun lo 'animal') b. n'-lo=mitsi 1-CL:animal-cat 'my cat' (classifier; 'cat' is non-possessible)

Appositive verb: An independent verb that functions as a classifier to modify a possessed noun and carry possessive marking. An example is (3) above, where the finite verb 'have' carries the marking of possession which is not available to non-possessible 'dog'. The appositive verb is finite in Ainu and some other languages, but in others it is nominalized or a participle, enabling it to modify the possessed noun. We nonetheless call it a verb, assuming that the nominalizing or participial morphology is inflection dictated by the syntax and not derivation of a word with its own part of speech. In contrast, there are also cases where appositive nouns are etymologically related to verbs or synchronically derived from verbs by means of derivational morphology or conversion, and we regard these as separate words of nominal part of speech rather than inflected forms of verbs. Grammar descriptions are usually adequate to let us make these decisions unproblematically. Possessive classifier: Any morpheme that is an element of the possessive construction and whose form is dictated by the possessed noun, regardless of its lexical or grammatical type (purely classificatory clitic or affix, appositive lexical noun, etc.). For convenience we shorten the term to just classifier, unless other types of classifiers are also at issue. Interlinear: CL:, with the name or gloss of the class following the colon. NPN (non-possessed noun): Morphology that derives an alienable from an inalienable or allows an otherwise obligatorily possessed noun to be used without a possessor. Known in most Uto- Aztecanist literature as absolutive. Examples are (6) and (8) below. PSD (possessed): A morpheme on a head noun that registers a possessor (i.e. responds to its presence but does not index its grammatical categories; e.g. construct state in Semitic languages). Put differently, it marks a noun as having a dependent, i.e. as heading an NP

6 Here and below, we gloss the classifier for domesticated animals 'pet' where the sources do. The classifier usually applies to more nouns than would be called pets in English. 6

(usually a possessive NP but occasionally other types). In some languages a PSD morpheme cooccurs with possessive indexation. Examples are in (6), (9) below. Some languages have pairs of possessed and non-possessed nouns formed with PSD and NPN from the same stem, as in several Uto-Aztecan languages:

(6) Pipil (pipi1250, Uto-Aztecan, Nicaragua; Campbell 1985:38, 43) siwa:-t nu-siwa:-w woman-NPN 1sg-woman-PSD 'woman' 'my wife'

POSS: A non-classifying appositive word or morpheme. In some languages it may be a construct morpheme, registering a possessor on the head noun but not indexing its categories. We gloss the possessive morphemes of single-classifier systems as POSS, as do some grammars. In grammars of some languages of Oceania (see Supplements S3.5-3.6) it is called a linker, implying that it is juxtaposed between head and possessor and not syntactically or prosodically bound to either one (but usually with minimal or no discussion). An example is (4) above. Unspecified: A morpheme marking a noun as possessed by an unspecified or generic or unknown possessor. Usually it is part of a paradigm of person or person-number morphemes that index the possessor. Owned non-possessible: a noun that is grammatically non-possessible but whose referent is owned. At issue in this paper is the various grammatical means languages have to allow a non- possessible noun to head a possessive phrase.7 A, O: Subject and object prefixes in Ainu; the A series is also used for possessors.

A language with the full inventory of possessibility classes is Yanesha' (yane1238, Arawak; Peru; Duff-Tripp 1997:30-34):

Obligatorily possessed: Person-number prefix plus noun, no suffix:

(7) po-ʔse (3sg-brother) 'his/her brother'

Obligatorily possessed nouns from which a non-possessed noun can be derived with the NPN suffix:

(8) p-oñ oñ-ets 3sg-head head-NPN 'his/her head' 'head, a head'

Optionally possessed: Animates (also some relational terms and terms for edibles), usually with PSD when possessed; inanimates without PSD.

(9) ochec 'dog' p-ochc-ar (3sg-dog-PSD) 'his/her dog'

7 The fact that owned non-possessible is not an oxymoron shows that the conventional grammatical terms possessible, non-possessible (or its less frequent synonym unpossessible), possessor, possessum, etc. share the same stem as the non-technical verb possess but differ in meaning, denoting a grammatical relationship and not ownership or the like. 7

cac 'fish' po-cac-ar (3sg-fish-PSD) 'his fish; his catch of fish'

noñt´8 'canoe' poʔ-noñt´ (3sg-canoe) 'his/her canoe'

Non-possessibles: chiefly chesha' 'child' and huocchanesha' 'orphan'.

Yanesha' also has the cross-linguistically infrequent type that can be called alienably possessed inalienables, where an inalienable noun is additionally owned. Yanesha' uses two possessive prefixes in sequence, one referring to the inalienable possessor and the other to the possessor of the inalienable (and its PSD suffix):

(10) pa-ʔmeʔ no-pa-ʔme-r 3sg-egg 1sg-3sg-egg-PSD 'its egg' (i.e. the chicken's) 'my egg' (chicken's egg that I own)

Mora-Marín 2019 surveys possession in the Mayan family, where many languages have an array of types. The syntactic structure of possessive NP's can be described in the same terms as that of clauses. Inalienable nouns have argument structure and valence: the possessor of such a noun is its argument. The possessor of an alienable noun is not an argument but an adjunct or modifier or similar non-argument. (For this point see Seiler 1983, Lehmann 1985, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001: 964, Barker 2011; Alexiadou 2003 gives an overview of the notion in X-bar syntax.) The three types of possessibility are types of argument structure: the possessed noun can have, must have, or cannot have an argument (the possessor). The language-specific coding that possessed nouns take, and any syntactic constraints on it, are matters of valence. Alienable and inalienable are common terms for two main valence patterns, where inalienable usually labels obligatorily possessed or possessible nouns and alienable labels optionally possessibles or non-possessibles. That the possessor of a non-possessible is not an argument of that noun is consistent with the morphosyntactic coding of many of them as adjuncts. It also explains why, in examples like (11), the same head noun can take a variety of appositive classifiers. The possessed noun does not require the possessor or dictate its form or the semantics of the relation (much as the verb does not dictate the form or semantic relation of an adjunct).

(11) Paamese (paam1238, Austronesian; Lynch et al. 2002:42) ani ā-k coconut CL:FOOD-1sg 'my coconut (which I intend to eat)'

ani ema-k coconut CL:DRINK-1sg 'my coconut (I intend to drink the juice)'

ani esa-k coconut CL:PLANT-1sg 'my coconut (growing on my land)'

8 Duff-Tripp uses a tilde over all palatalized consonants. We write t´, etc. for letters we cannot place a tilde over. 8

ani ona-k coconut CL:NEUTRAL-1sg 'my coconut (e.g. to sit on)'

3. Ainu possessive constructions

Ainu (moribund isolate, northern Japan) stands out among its Northeast Asian neighbors as atypical in being predominantly head-marking, exhibiting (morphologically non-complex but real) polysynthesis, and having a robust alienability opposition. Here we show that the formal implementation of alienability in Ainu is a type found among Circum-Pacific languages. In Ainu, inalienables are obligatorily possessed. Only inalienables ‒ typically body parts (13a, 14a) and their semantic extensions, kinship terms, and relational nouns (13b, 14b) ‒ can be used in a proper possessive construction. (12) shows the template for the proper possessive NP construction. The possessum takes the possessed suffix (PSD) -hV or -V(hV)9 that registers a possessor plus a person-marking prefix that indexes a possessor and is identical with the transitive subject marker or the object marker of relational nouns.

(12) [ [possessor: noun/(pronoun)]N1 [possessum: PERSON-noun-PSD]N2 ]NP

The possessor noun (N1) can easily be omitted without ambiguity as the possessed suffix signals its presence. It is most natural to omit the possessor as an N (or free pronoun) if it is a first or second person pronoun as in (14); in such cases it is overtly indexed on the possessum (PERSON). The third person is zero, so the default interpretation of a “noun-PSD” form standing alone would be ‘the …of him/her/it, his/her/its …’ as in (13), which shows lexically possessed nouns in (13), and pronominally possessed nouns in (14). The possessed nouns in 13a and 14b are body parts; those in 13b and 14b are relational nouns.

(13a) toan nispa Ø-sik-i that rich.man 3SG-eye-PSD ‘the eyes of that rich man’ (Satō 2008: 156)

(13b) toan cikuni Ø-sam-a that tree 3SG-near-PSD ‘near that tree’ (Satō 1997: 156)

(14a) (káni) ku-sik-i 1SG 1SG.A-eye-PSD ‘my eyes’ (Satō 2008: 156)

(14b) (cókay) un-sam10 1PL.EXCL 1PL.EXCL.O-near ‘near us (him and me)’

Obligatorily possessed nouns almost never occur without possessive morphology. In response to elicitation of body part terms most speakers would provide the PSD forms of nouns, which are

9 The value of the PSD vowel V partly depends on the last vowel of the root. 10 PSD is not required on relational nouns with 1st/2nd person possessors. 9 interpreted as having the 3rd person possessor, e.g. sik-ihi ‘the eye(s) of/his eyes’, kisar-a ‘the ear(s) of/his ear(s)’, tek-ehe ‘the hand(s) of/his hand(s)’ (fieldwork; also Tamura 1993). Occasionally, some speakers chose the 1st person possessor encoding, i.e. ku-yup-i(hi) ‘my elder brother’ instead of just ‘brother’ (Krasheninnikov 1994 (1755): II-185, Tamura 1993: 9), but never just the bare forms (yup ‘elder brother’ or sik ‘eye’, cf. (15)). Even in a few documented riddles, where there is no specified possessor, obligatorily possessed nouns do not occur in their bare forms, unlike other nouns in such riddles (cf. mukur ‘axe’, tar ‘rope’ in Tamura (1993: 14)). Instead, speakers marked the possessor with the fourth person (unspecified) transitive subject marker a- as in (15). (W and S are the two speakers in this recorded riddle.) What is known as the fourth person in Ainu is basically an unspecified or indefinite possessor ('someone/people in general') but the form also has a range of other functions such as inclusive first person plural, second person honorific, and logophoric (including person of protagonist in folktales).

(15) W: sine situ u-ko-kor wa u-nukar eramiskari p one ridge REC-with.APPL-have and REC-see not.remember thing hemanta an? what exist.SG ‘What are the things that share one ridge and never see each other?’ S: a-sik-ihi un 4.A-eye-PSD FIN ‘Eyes’ (lit. ‘people’s/ our eyes’) (Tamura 1993: 16, 18)

In some cases, it is the derivational antipassive/absolutive marker i- that is used to encode an unspecified possessor on obligatorily possessed nouns when they are incorporated11.

(16a) i-sapa-kar usi ANTIP-head-make/do place ‘a barber shop’, lit. ‘a place (where) (s)he does people’s heads’ (Tamura 1996: 247)

(16b) i-rekut-tuye ANTIP-throat-cut ‘(S)he cuts someone’s throat’ (Okuda 1999)

(17) i-y-ona-ne12 ANTIP-EP-father-COP ‘be a father’, lit. ‘be someone’s father’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K8303243UP.054)

(18) i-sermak-us ANTIP-behind-attach.to ‘(for a god) to protect someone from behind’, lit. ‘…someone’s behind’

11 Obligatorily possessed nouns cannot be incorporated in their possessive forms (Satō 1992, 2001). When their possessors are coreferential with the subject they can be incorporated in just their non- possessive (bare) forms, but when non-coreferential they require the antipassive/absolutive prefix i- to be incorporated as in (16)-(18). 12 The copula ne ‘be, become something/somebody’ is regarded as a special kind of transitive verb in Ainu grammar since it takes A-series transitive subject personal affixes but does not take O series affixes. 10

(Nakagawa et al. 2020: K8010291UP.521)

The antipassive, then, is functioning as an NPN marker, comparable to what are known as absolutives in Uto-Aztecanist analyses. Some languages, for example Navajo (nava1243) (Young & Morgan (1987: 3)) and Slave (slav1253) (Rice 1989: 209) (both Athabaskan) or the Arawak (araw1281) (S3.4.2) and Tupian languages (S3.4.3),13 have an unspecified possessor as part of their person-number possessive paradigm. These end up doing semantic work similar to NPN's, but the NPN suffix lets the noun be used without possessive morphology while the unspecified possessor lets it be used with possessive morphology but without being specific about the possessor. As shown, Ainu has both the unspecified possessor in a-sik-ihi (4.A-eye-PSD) ‘someone’s eye(s), eye(s) of people in general’ in (15) and antipassive in i-rekut-tuye (ANTIP-throat-cut) ‘cut someone’s throat’ in (16b). The latter is reserved for O-incorporation of obligatorily possessed nouns with non-coreferential possessors. The semantically optionally owned nouns of Ainu are usually termed alienable. Typical alienable nouns ‒ animals, fish, plants, utensils, and some kinship terms ‒ are non-possessible in Ainu: they cannot take the regular possessive morphology but instead use the verb kor ‘have’ which functions as the predicate of a (gapped) pre-head relative clause (19a) that has the possessor as the subject of the relativized verb and the possessum as the head noun.

(19a) [ __ ku-kor] seta O 1SG.A-have dog ‘my dog’, lit. ‘the dog (that) I have/had’.

The base construction is a finite clause as in (19b):

(19b) poro seta ku-kor big dog 1SG.A-have ‘I had a big dog.’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7708242UP.163)

Though grammatically the kor construction is possible with all non-possessible nouns, e.g. ku- kor cup [1SG.A-have sun] ‘my sun’ (Tamura 1964: 130), only a few nouns are actually attested in the kor construction in the texts used for this study.14. Tamura’s lexicon with examples (1991) contains 57 such nouns, which can be grouped as follows:

(a) people: 24 items (aynu ‘human, man’, hapo ‘mother’, nispa ‘rich man’ etc.); (b) place/environment: 11 items (kotan ‘village’, mosir ‘land, country’, pet ‘river’); (c) food/drink: 7 items (aep ‘food’, cep ‘fish’, pirkep ‘rice’ etc.); (d) tools/utensils/ritual object: 7 items (emus ‘sword’, ikor ‘treasures’ etc.); (e) domestic animals: 1 item (coni ‘small horse’); also seta ‘dog’ and pewrep ‘bear cub’ in other sources; (f) human attributes: 7 items (isoytak ‘story’, itak ‘language’, rametok ‘bravery’).

13 Nanti (nant1250, Arawak) (S3.4.2) and Guarani (para1311, Tupian) (S3.4.3) mark the unspecified with the inclusive, which is reminiscent of the inclusive function of the fourth person in Ainu ((15) above). 14 The corpus consulted includes Nakagawa et al. (2020), currently 59,002 Ainu words, and a huge bulk of folklore texts (Ainu Phonetic Material (1–6)) searchable through Tamura (1991). 11

The high frequency of (a) human nouns might be due to the extended use of the kor constuction to express a feeling of affection (Tamura 2000/1988: 88), e.g. ‘my dear (to a young girl)’, and the same might be true for (f) 'human attributes'.

(20) a-kor pon menoko a-e-yaykatekar 4.A-have young woman 4.A-APPL-love ‘I loved my young girl.’ (Tamura 2000/1988: 60)

Food, house, village, household-related items, and domesticated animals are most typically attested with kor, while wild animals and plants, which do not belong to anyone, are absent from the list. Exceptions are ‘fish’, because villages owned sections of rivers where they could harvest fish, and ‘bear cub’, because bear cubs were ritually adopted and raised in the village. There is good evidence that Ainu formerly had a larger set of verbs with classificatory functions. In oral literature, which is fairly old and of high-register style, a number of other transitive verbs have been attested to perform the same possessive/ownership function specifying and classifying the type of possessive relation. Some of these verbs are fixed high-frequency expressions as in (21), (25), and (26).

(21) a-un cise ta hosipi-an na 4.A-attach.to/belong house LOC return-4.S FIN ‘I returned to my house’, lit. ‘the house (where) I belong’ (Nakagawa 1995: 71)

(22) a-mut emusi notak kas-i-ke e-ray 4.A-wear sword edge.of. sword top-PSD-PSD at.APPL-die kuni p e-ne ruwe ne na. should person 2SG.A-COP INF.EV COP FIN ‘You are a person (who) should die on top of the edge of my sword.’ lit. ‘the sword (which) I wear’ (Nakagawa 2001: 99)

(23) an-reska pewre-p 4.A-raise young-thing (=a young bear cub) ‘my raised bear-cub’,15 lit. ‘the bear cub (which) I raised’ (Sunazawa 1983: 24)

(24) a-resu16 cape 4.A-raise cat 'my cat', (lit. 'my raised cat') (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K8010311UP.026)

(25) e-an-te hoku 2SG.A-exist.SG-CAUS husband ‘your husband’, lit. ‘husband (who) you made stay (with yourself)’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7807152KY.030)

15 The bear cub was ritually adopted, raised in a cage, and killed at a bear festival, a ceremony sending off the spirit of the bear to the land of gods. 16 resu ‘raise’ (Southwestern Ainu) and reska ‘raise’ (Northeastern Ainu) in (23) are dialectal variants of the same word. 12

(26) a-hekote nispa/ katkemat/ ekasi 4.A-be.married.to rich.man/ married.woman/ grandfather ‘my husband/wife/grandfather’, lit. ‘husband/wife/grandfather (who) I am married to’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7708242UP.303, K7803232UP.075, K7803233UP.096)

(27) a-mi kosonde a-mi ruwe ne 4.A-wear Japanese.kimono 4.A-wear INF.EV COP ‘I put my Japanese kimono on.’ (Kubodera 1977: 208)

Example (27) shows the difference between ordinary verb (the second mi) and classifier (the first mi). Also, it suggests that the starting point of non-possessibility might be unfamiliarity: kosonde ‘short-sleeved kimono’ is a Japanese loanword (and cf. the Tzotzil (tzot1259) example with 'bus' in §5.3). Further evidence for the possible existence of a larger set of classifier verbs is compound nouns that originate in verbs with their phraseologized objects (unspecified or generic nouns) as in (28).

(28) c-e-p (1PL.EXCL.A-eat-thing) ‘fish’, lit. ‘the thing we (EXCL) eat’, ci-ronnu-p (1PL.EXCL.A-kill.PL-thing) ‘fox’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (EXCL) kill’ ci-koyki-p (1PL.EXCL.A-catch-thing) ‘game’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (EXCL) catch’ ci-ramante-p (1PL.EXCL.A-hunt-thing) ‘bear’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (EXCL) hunt’ a-e-p (4.A-eat-thing) ‘food’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (INCL) eat’, a-kor-pa-p (4.A-have-PL-thing) ‘belongings’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (INCL) have’ a-mi-p (4.A-wear-thing) ‘clothing’, lit. ‘the thing (that) we (INCL) wear’ c-ani-ku (1PL.EXCL.A-hold-bow) 'bow, hunting bow', lit. 'bow (that) we hold (when hunting)' c-ama-ku (1PL.EXCL.A-put/set-bow 'bow trap', lit. 'bow (that) we set up (as a trap)'

We hypothesize that an older set of classificatory verbs in Ainu included items specifying how animals were hunted and raised, food preparation types, clothing, houses and objects by function. Historically, former more specific verbs must have been replaced with kor ‘have’ and erstwhile multiple alienable classes (with different verbs) reduced to just to one as in (29b).

(29a) a-ma a-e-p 4.A-grill 4.A-eat-thing ‘my grilled food’ lit. ‘the thing(s) (that) I grill’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7803231UP.033)

(29b) a-kor a-e-p 4.A-have 4.A-eat-thing ‘my food’ lit. ‘the thing (that) I have (that) I eat’, 'the edible(s) that I have' (Tamura 1985: 6)

We reconstruct the following diachronic progression for the development of verbal possessive classifiers in Ainu:

I. Old set of verbal possessive classifiers (as in sporadically retained verbs (21)-(27), (29a) and numerous frozen nouns (28)) > II. General possessive verbal classifier kor ‘have’ (19a), (29b)

Although the possessive kor construction is fully conventionalized in Ainu, syntactically it still retains most of the features of a normal relative clause. For example, the relative clause predicate kor ‘have’ can optionally be marked for plurality (30), perfectivity (31), or mirativity and can take adverbial modifiers.

(30) [ona-ha __kor pa] p opitta father-PSD have PL thing all ‘All of the things (that) his father owned’ (Tamura 1985: 42)

(31) [__a-kor a] kotan a-ko-hosipi ruwe ne. 4.A-have PRF.SG village 4.A-to.APPL-return INF.EV COP ‘I returned to my former village.’ (Tamura 1989: 64)

Relative clause stacking is easily allowed, i.e. we can have two possessive kor constructions (32) or the possessive kor and other relative clause in any order (33) (note that there is no separate class of adjectives in Ainu, so pirka ‘good’ and pon ‘small’ below are relative clause intransitive predicates).

(32) [[__ kor] sinrit __kor] pe have ancestors have thing/person ‘Their ancestors’ things’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7803233UP.101)

(33a) [pirka] [__ kor] pe good have thing ‘His good things’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7803233UP.379)

(33b) [__ a-kor] [pon] oni 4.A-have small demon ‘My little demon’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7708241UP.018)

Unsurprisingly, inalienable and alienable possessive constructions can combine into larger syntactic structures.

(34) [__ a-kor] pet hontom-o ta 4.A-have river half.way-PSD LOC ‘At the middle (reaches) of our river’ lit. ‘halfway of the river (that) we have’ (Nakagawa et al. 2020: K7803233UP.172)

Yet, there are some signs of grammaticalization of the kor possessive construction with regard to phonology. If the possessor (the relative clause subject) is third person, kor ‘have’ lacks overt person marking and (unlike other relatives or other phrases in general) tends to constitute a single phonological unit with the following possessum (the head noun) with a pause (//) after the subject of the relative clause.

(35) Meri katkemat // kor-ninkari, Nabe // kor-ninkari Mary married.woman have-earrings Nabe have-earrings ‘Mrs. Mary's earrings and Nabe's earrings’17

17 From AB's elicitation. 14

This also shows that an erstwhile dependent-marking kor construction is in the process of turning into a head-marking construction: the kor verb is cliticizing to the head noun, consistent with the scenario adduced in Nichols 1986:84-85. Using relative clause structures for complex NPs here is a natural choice for Ainu since the language lacks resources like adjectives, adpositions, or genitive case marking that are recruited in various other languages for expressing possession (Heine 1997). Also, Ainu does not easily form non-minimal NP’s, and most of its attributive modifying constructions (locative, propriative, privative, etc.) also obligatorily use verb-based relative clauses similar to alienable possession.

(36) [__sat-cep o] pu dry-fish enter/have storehouse ‘a storehouse with dry fish’, lit. ‘dry fish-entered storehouse’ (Tamura 1996: 547)

(37) [__Iskar-un] kur Ishikari-live.at man ‘a man from Ishikari’, lit. ‘an [Ishikari-living] man’ (Nakagawa 1995: 33)

4. Typological properties of appositive possessive systems

The analytic framework for our typology of appositive possessive constructions is contained in the definitions in §2.2 above. Here we discuss some findings from our survey which inform our comparison of Ainu to the other languages with appositive possessives.

4.1. Basics

In languages with noun appositives, the appositive is generally obligatorily possessed and often described as an inalienable noun in the language. Verbal appositives generally have person- number indexation referring to the possessor; often they are finite, and where nonfinite they are usually inflectional forms of the verbs rather than derivatives. Thus they are lexically and grammatically verbs.

4.2. Open and closed classifier systems

4.2.1. Number of classifiers

Appositive possessive subsystems can be characterized for convenience as small or large. This section discusses first the number of classifiers, then the number of non-possessible nouns. Details are in Supplement 3. For appositives, examples of small systems are Paamese, illustrated in (11) above, with four classifiers; Washo (wash1253, isolate, Nevada-California, US; Jacobsen 1964), with only two appositives 'pet' and 'plant'; or Wichi Lhomtes (Matacoan; Argentina; Nercesian 2014), with two classifiers, one for animals illustrated in (5) above and one for inanimates:

(38) n' -ka-husan 1sg-CL-axe 'my axe’ (Nercesian 2014:168)

The ultimate small system is a one-appositive one, found in contemporary Macushi ((§2.1) above). That single appositive is the noun 'animal' and used only with animal names, so it can be called a classifier; this is then a one-classifier system. (Carlson & Payne 1989:103 note that an older source on Macushi (Williams 1932) also has a classifier for food.) Another one-classifier system is Yurakare (§S4.6.3). Others are found in languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family (Papuan) of eastern Indonesia:

(39) Bunaq (east2519, Timor-Alor-Pantar, Indonesia; Donohue & Schapper 2008:322, citing Steinhauer 1977, 1991) n-up ni-e zap 1-tongue 1-POSS dog 'my tongue' (inalienable) 'my dog' (alienable)

These can be said to classify for alienability, where kin terms and/or body parts, and usually a few other nouns, are inalienable. Small systems are usually closed systems. Large systems include those of Iaai (New Caledonia; Austronesian: Oceanic), for which Lynch et al. 2002:782-3 give 21 classifiers selected from the larger list of Ozanne-Rivierre 1976; or Panare (enap1235, Pemong-Panare subbranch of Venezuelan Cariban), for which Payne and Payne 2013:81-82 list 20. Large systems are usually open, and they often contain items with varied derivational sources: typically, some are derivationally or etymologically related to nouns, some to verbs, and some have no known source. Verbal appositive classifier systems are often small: examples are the one-classifier systems of Ainu (above), Tutelo (tute1247, Siouan; Virginia, US; Oliverio 1996), where the non-possessibles use either a PSD prefix or a nominalized form of the verb 'belong to'; and Seri (seri1257, isolate; Mexico) , which uses the verb 'own':

(40) Seri (isolate, New Mexico; Marlett 1981) simalón kiʔ tro:ki ya: kiʔ Cimalon the car 3.NMZ.own the 'Cimalon's car' (p. 69; extracted from clause)

(41) kanóatax ʔi-o-ya:t koi boats 1-NMZ-own the 'our boats' (70; extracted from clause)

A large verbal system is that of Cahuilla (Uto-Aztecan, Arizona; Seiler 1995, 1977), which has two animal classifiers, one for ordinary domestic animals and pets and one for totem animals; a general inanimate classifier; four for food plants, the choice depending on traditional relations of ownership and usufruct; and several for prepared foods, based on how they are prepared. All are nominalized forms of verbs or flexible noun-verbs, except for the general animal classifier, which is a bare form of the verb:

(42) a. né-ʔaš ʔáwal 1sg-own dog 'my dog' (Seiler 1995:219)

b. pe-n-áš-qal 3sg.O-1sg-own-DUR 'I own it (as a pet)' (Seiler 1995:219, 1977:305)

An example of a Cahuilla classifier based on traditional ownership is the one for stands of naturally growing plants or the places where they grow: mesquite, oak/acorn, pinyon, chia. Such places were assigned to clan lineages; "[t]he members of the lineage had a legal claim and were allowed to harvest these places when the appropriate time came" (Seiler 1995:301).

(43) a. ne-kiʔiw-ʔa méñikiš 1sg-wait-NZ mesquite.beans 'my mesquite beans' (1995:221; see also 1977:301)

b. pe-n-kíʔiw-qal 3sg-1sg-wait-DUR 'I am waiting for it'

For the other classifiers of Cahuilla see Supplement S3.2.2. The Cahuilla system is presumably open, but closely related and nearby Cupeño (cupe1243) (Hill 2014) has only the animate and inanimate classifiers, both cognate to the Cahuilla analogs. Given the transparency of the Cahuilla system, its uniqueness within Uto-Aztecan, and the apparent absence of any fossilized former classifiers in Cupeño, the Cahuilla system is probably a recent expansion.

4.2.2. Number of non-possessibles

Turning now to the set of non-possessible nouns, it is often open, though it may be a restricted open set such as all animal names. The obligatorily possessed nouns are a smaller, usually enumerable system, though they too could be said to be open but restricted in languages where all kin terms, or all body parts, are obligatorily possessed. In languages like Yanesha' (Peru: Arawakan; Duff-Tripp 1997) or Washo (isolate, California-Nevada: Jacobsen 1964) the non-possessibles are a closed set and the optionally possessibles presumably open. In Biloxi (bilo1248, Siouan; Mississippi, US; Einaudi 1976) there are three classes: obligatorily possessed (kin terms, body parts), optionally possessed (a few nouns denoting intimate possessions such as ‘house’ and items of clothing, which are marked the same way as inalienables when owned), and all other nouns, which cannot be inflected for person. How ownership of these non-possessibles was expressed is unknown. In languages with a small set of non-possessible classifiers consisting primarily or exclusively of 'animal' and 'inanimate', the nouns used with 'inanimate' are presumably open and 'animal' open but restricted. The ultimate degree of openness and the ultimate largest set is languages where all nouns are non-possessible. This description fits languages of the Caddoan family (Wichita in our sample: Kansas to northern Texas; Rood 1976:143-150)), where apparently no nouns can take person indexation (or any other inflection; nouns are a non-inflecting part of speech). The only possessive construction in Wichita is relativization. (POSS here is a verbal morpheme, possibly a construct marker, indicating possession: see Supplement S3.2.6.)

(44) a. niye:s niya:wéʔekih {niy-uR-waʔ-iki} child PCP.indef:S-POSS-DISTRIBUTIVE-be.PLURAL 'their children' (lit. 'child they-are-theirs')18 (Rood 1976:144; extracted from clause)

18 Here and below, translations marked "lit." are our suggested literal (or more nearly literal) renditions. 17

b. natí:weʔesikih {nat-u'r-weʔes-iki} PCP.1S-POSS-dog-be.PLURAL 'my dogs' (145; extracted from clause)

Kwaza (kwaz1243, isolate, northwestern Brazil; van der Voort 2004) makes no alienability distinctions but does use classifiers (numbering about 150) in possession: the possessor is in the genitive case, followed by either a nominalizer or a classifier. Van der Voort analyzes the nominalizer as a neutral classifier. In the following examples -hỹ is the nominalizer/neutral classifier and -xy is the classifier for such things as houses.

(45a) 'si-dy-hỹ a'xy 1sg-GEN-NMZ house 'my house' (nominalized)

(45b) Tawi'wi-dy-hỹ a'xy T.-GEN-NMZ house 'Tavivi's house' (nominalized)

(46a) (a'xy) si-dy-xy house 1sg-GEN-CL:house 'my house' (classifier)

(46b) Tawi'wi-dy-xy T.-GEN-CL:house 'Tavivi's house' (classifier) (van der Voort 2004:130-131)

Since there is no alienability distinction, and since the possessor word is nominalized, Kwaza can be described as a language with exclusively appositive possession using classifiers. For some languages there is a class of non-possessibles but their treatment when owned is not appositive. In most Algonquian languages19 there is a small class of non-possessibles, which have possessible synonyms, e.g. Menomini (meno1252, Bloomfield 1962:42):

(47) anè:m 'dog' (non-possessible)

ne-t-i:hsèh 'my dog' (possessible) 1sg-EP-dog (EP = epenthetic)

Uniquely in Algonquian, Arapaho (arap1274) uses the possessible word for 'horse' to mean 'pet', which can be used appositively (this is much like the Numic (numi1242, Uto-Aztecan) languages discussed in S3.2.2 and is an evident contact feature as Arapaho borders on the Numic language Shoshone (shos1248)):

wóxhoox 'horse' (non-possessible) nó-toníhi' 'my horse' (possessible)

nó-toníhi' beníixóxko'ó' 1sg-pet goat

19 We thank ANONYMOUS for consultation on Algonquian. 18

'my goat, my pet goat' (Cowell & Moss 2008:67, 68)

In most Algonquian languages, inanimate nouns (a formal gender and verb classification class) cannot be possessors. A relative construction is used instead, e.g. Arapaho in (49). The relative construction does not define a class of non-possible nouns. Rather, here it is the possessor that determines the construction type: inanimates cannot control possessor indexation, and relativization is used instead. The construction shows that, in general, verbal possessive inflection is an alternative available for when nominal possessive inflection is precluded.

(48) Animate possessor: hi'óó3 3sg-leg 'his/her leg'

Inanimate possessor: hí-íooe-éihi-:noo-' 3.leg-AI.PASS-II-ØS 'its leg', lit. 'it has a leg, the leg it has'20 (Cowell & Moss 64)

4.3. Semantics of appositive words

Languages with appositive classifiers can have numeral or other classifiers as well. Most languages of the Micronesian branch of Oceanic (Austronesian) have numeral classifiers as well as appositive possessive classifiers, and some Amazonian languages also. The systems of classifiers and their contexts of use are discrete. Only in Motuna (siwa1245, Solomon Is., Oceania; South Bougainville family; Onishi 2012:244-245) have we observed a single classifier system that serves as both appositive possessive classifiers and numeral classifiers. Where they coexist, numeral and possessive classifiers seem to have recurrent semantic differences. For the Oceanic languages, Lynch et al. 1998:42 observe that "the numeral classifiers are generally based on physical form, while the possessive classifiers are generally based on function". Our impression is that possessive classifiers often have to do with function, relation, activity, or how possession was acquired. (See Supplement S3.2.2 for this motivation of classification in Cahuilla.) This is consistent with the fact that, where derivational or etymological information is available, a number of the possessive classifiers appear to be derived from or etymologically related to verbs; e.g. in Iaai (iaai1238) (Supplement S3.5.1) roughly equal numbers of appositives are related to nouns, related to verbs, and of unknown origin. Verbal origins are especially clear in the larger systems, but in the two-classifier system of Cupeño and the cognate items in Cahuilla (§4.2) both classifiers are verbal (overtly nominalized in Cahuilla but not in Cupeño). The sole classifier of Ainu is a verb. There appear to be few clear semantic generalizations to be made about what words are likely to become appositive classifiers and what kinds of semantics will be salient in the classifier system. Food and drink are ubiquitous among the possessive classifiers in the Pacific; in the Americas, animals and food plants. In larger systems, clothing, implements, and fire (including materials, tools, and other things connected with making and using fire) seem to be frequent. The lack of semantic generalizations in appositives contrasts with the consistent generalizations that characterize non-possessibles. These almost always include natural kinds (especially animals and plants) and natural phenomena.

20 AI = animate intransitive, the Algonquianist term for a formal class of verbs; II = intransitive inanimate, another class. In this class, relative and finite verbs are identical. 19

4.4. Lexical specification of appositives and valence

In languages with appositive possessives, are the appositives lexically specified as classifiers? as classifiers used with or required by particular nouns? are nouns lexically specified as requiring, allowing, or not allowing appositives? as requiring particular appositives? The answer to most of these is No. Possessive classification is the NP analog to valence, and just as it is predicates that require particular arguments and assign particular cases to those arguments, and not the nouns and pronouns that demand to be in argument roles or bear particular cases, so it is with possession. The one Yes answer is that the appositive words appear to be lexically specified as classifiers. In large systems, the classifiers that have no known derivational or etymological connections to other words are clearly only classifiers now. In many systems, some or all of the classifiers can also function as independent nouns (or verbs); this means that their lexical class, and possibly even their part of speech, is flexible or underspecified. Otherwise, the appositives have minimal lexical specification. They do not appear to be specified as used with particular nouns; in larger systems there is a good deal of flexibility. Limits are set by semantics: in a minimal system with two classifiers, for animates and inanimates (like that of Cupeño, Supplement S3.2.2), there will of course be no overlap, but this is not a matter of strict government by either the appositive or the head noun. It is the head nouns that are lexically specified as having argument structure: as requiring, permitting, or not allowing possessors. It may be that they are also specified as allowing or not allowing the valence-changing NPN and PSD derivations, but we have not seen this covered in descriptions. (It is suggested in Duff-Tripp's description of Yanesha', (9) above: most of the nouns called "optionally possessed" are obligatorily possessed inalienables that can take an NPN suffix to derive an alienable noun, i.e. one that can be used without possessive morphology.) Dictionaries, then, need to indicate whether a noun is possessible, obligatorily possessed, or non-possessible, and classifiers need to be identified as such. Classifiers are generally identified in dictionaries, but in our experience the full set of optional/obligatory/prohibited possession is not always identified.

4.5. Tight vs. loose bond

Within an appositive possessive NP, it appears that the appositive word is more tightly or more loosely connected to the head noun, depending on the language. Several descriptions note that the possessive constructions can be discontinuous, with the classifier detached from the possessed noun, while in some languages they form a tighter phrase with strict order and no detachability (e.g. Meira 1999 for Tiriyó [Cariban]). Those describing the looser appositive syntax generally describe the construction as something other than an NP and prefer the term "generic noun" to "classifier". The tighter phrase appears to be what is called close apposition in English descriptive grammar (e.g. Acuña-Fariña 2016, Heringa 2012; Huddleston & Pullum 2002:Ch. 15, with different terms; a frequently used example is the poet Burns). Close possessive apposition is generally taken to be a two-nominal NP where the relation between the nominals is neither coordination nor modification.

4.6. Indexation in possessive classification

In the languages we have surveyed, the obligatorily possessed nouns and the possessive classifiers index the possessor in person (or, more commonly, person-number). Head-marked possessive morphology appears never to index gender alone. This generalization holds for all kinds of possessive constructions and not just for appositive ones. When there is gender indexation in possessive constructions it is dependent-marked, the possessor indexing the head, e.g. Bantu 20 languages (Maho 1999:102-103), where the possessor is preceded by a possessive word which indexes the class (gender) of the head noun.

(49) Kiswahili (swah1253, Bantu; Maho 1999:102 citing Perrott 1957:27) kitabu changu {ki tabu ch+a angu} NP.7 book PC.7 my 'my book' (NP = noun prefix, PC = possessive concord [i.e. index])

The generalization about head-marked indexation appears to be categorical, but it could be that head-marked possessive gender indexation is just very rare. Gender indexation is rare in Circum- Pacific languages, and the probability is very small that the rare indexation type will occur in the area where the category involved is rare. These observations about gender and head/dependent marking apply only to possessive phrases. Verbs can index gender, either as a third person category (as in Bantu languages) or with any person reference (as in a number of Nakh-Daghestanian languages).

4.7. Verbal appositives

The verbal appositives described above for Ainu (§3), Tutelo (§4.2), and Seri (§4.2) are small systems of one or two verbs, usually meaning 'own' or 'have'. The large system of Cahuilla consists of verbs describing how one acquires or prepares things, chiefly foods, but there are also two fairly general verbs for animates (the verb means 'own') and inanimates (the verb means 'do'). The cognates to these two make up the entire system in closely related Cupeño, and Luiseño from the same subbranch has the animate one as its only classifier. Itonama (iton1250, isolate, Bolivia; Crevels 2006, 2009) uses verbal appositives in the form of relativizing morphology on alienably possessed nouns. Alienables take the regular person-number prefixes followed by the relativizer/nominalizer mi- / ni- . Forms of uku 'house' (2009:250):

(50) as - mi - ku dih - ni - ku sih - ni - ku 1sg-REL-house INCL-REL-house 1pl-REL-house ‘my house’ ‘our-INCL house’ ‘our-EXCL house’

The pattern is reminiscent of Ainu except that there is no verb root involved in the possession. These examples might be paraphrased 'house which (is) mine', etc. and regarded as relativized counterparts of the verbless predicate nominals discussed in 4.8 below. Modern Urarina (urar1246, isolate, northern Peru lowlands; Olawsky 2006), under Spanish influence, has lost aspects of its former possessibility opposition, but an originally verbal appositive system is still evident in traditional language. Inalienables were obligatorily possessed, with person prefixes. Alienables were non-possessible and, when owned, used an appositive construction using a nominalized form raj of the verb 'receive' preceded by a juxtaposed noun or independent pronoun.

(51) akaïrï raj batia 3pl POSS pot 'their pots' (336)

(52) kača raj lureri man POSS house 'the man's house' (335) 21

The appositive word is now optional, or can take the possessive clitic of inalienables. Two unrelated, geographically distant non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages of the Pacific have verbal appositives. In both languages inalienables use head-marked possession and alienables use a verb 'possess' or 'belong to' as appositive. (For fuller descriptions and examples see Supplement S3.6.)

(53) Mpur (mpur1239, isolate, Bird's head, New Guinea; Odé 2002:62) n-tar jan 1sg-possess house 'my house'

(54) Sulka (sulk1246, isolate, New Britain, PNG; Tharp 1999:80-81) a-kom to mkor e-Pruo SG-knife DEM belong:to Pruo 'Pruo's knife' (117)

‘Have/own/possess’ or ‘belong to’ figure cross-linguistically in adnominal possessive constructions of all kinds but normally it has nothing to do with non-possessibility. In Maltese and some Arabic dialects, the use of the genitive marker ta originating in the verb ‘to belong’ is limited to the alienable construction, e. g. ‘my chair’ comes from ‘chair belonging-my’ (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1996: 247). However, in many Creole languages, there is no such distinction so ‘belong’ can occur in nominal possessive constructions with any semantics such as buk bilong mi ‘my book’ or brata blong yu ‘your brother’ in Tok Pisin (tokp1240) and other English-based Creoles (Bislama bisl1239), and the same for punya, pung ‘belong’ in Malay-based Creoles (Singapore Bazaar Malay (baba1267), Ambon Malay(ambo1250)) and tá ‘belong’ in Arabic-based Creoles (Kinubi (nubi1253), Juba Arabic (suda1237)) (Michaelis et al. 2013). We suppose that if a language uses a verb for adnominal possession and has only one such verb it is likely that that verb will be one meaning ‘have/own/possess’ or ‘belong to’.

4.8. Appositive and inalienable NP's are predicative

Though we have not done a formal survey, we have noted that languages capable of inflecting nouns for person often also use those person-inflected nouns as predicate nominals in verbless constructions. Examples include (55) as well as (S19-20) in Supplement S3.2.2 from Tümpisa Shoshone (pana1305) or (S120-121) in Supplement S3.4.3 from Kamaiurá (kama1373). This applies to inalienably possessed nouns and to the appositive noun in an appositive possessive construction (recall that appositive nouns are inalienables). Velasquez-Castillo 1996:69-85 gives a native speaker's perspective on the construction in Guaraní (see examples in Supplement S3.4.3).

(55) wararwijaw-a je =r-eymap puppy-N 1sg=LINK-CL:pet 'the puppy is my pet'

It is unsurprising that, in languages with neutralization of the noun-verb distinction in predicate nominals (for this analysis see Beck 2013), the flexible noun-verb indexes the subject and functions as predicate. What is noteworthy in our examples is that the person inflection indexes the possessor, not the subject (see again (38) above); and the noun-verb neutralization applies only to inalienables and not to predicate nominals in general. Inalienables have an argument slot, as discussed above, but that argument is the possessor and not the subject. Cross-linguistic work, 22 probably corpus-based, will be needed to determine whether this is the effect of the person inflection or of the inalienability. We propose this hypothesis to experts on relevant languages: Person inflection is prone to carry, or even impose, predicative semantics.

5. Distribution

5.1. Geography

Map 1 combines the results of the survey with the data in the World Atlas of Language Structures (Nichols & Bickel 2005a).

Map 1. Languages with (black) vs. without (gray) appositive possessive constructions. Triangles represent Austronesian languages, which make up the majority of the cases with appositive possessives in the west. (Base map: Equal Earth projection, Šavrič et al. 2019.)

There are two main clusters of languages with appositives: Oceania and the Americas, excluding the northern half of North America. The Oceania cluster comprises six non-Austronesian families and four separate innovations in Austronesian (for the languages and branches see Supplement S3.5-3.6; an example from Bunaq of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family is (40) above). All are from east of the Wallace Line, which in linguistic terms is the line east of which Papuan languages are found and most Austronesian 23 languages have Papuan contact or substratal effects. Donohue & Schapper 2008 trace their origin in Austronesian to Papuan influence: calquing Papuan constructions and also more general Papuan- influenced pressure to use prenominal modifiers. In this view, the Oceanic construction is not an internal Proto-Oceanic development but a Papuan contact phenomenon. Since there is reason to believe that different Oceanic subgroups had different Papuan substrata (Donohue & Denham 2008), appositive possessive constructions in Oceanic may well result from separate post-Proto- Oceanic contact episodes rather than from a single Proto-Oceanic or Proto-Eastern-Malayo- Polynesian innovation. This would indicate that pre-Austronesian Oceania was a diverse hotbed in which appositive possessive constructions were a sizable minority tendency among the Papuan languages, and they survive as substratal properties in some Austronesian languages. No cases have been reported from inland New Guinea (or non-Austronesian New Guinea more generally), or from Australia. The American group extends primarily from the U.S. southwest through Mexico and Central America to South America. In the U.S. and Mexico it chiefly involves the two widespread language families of the desert and semidesert interior, Uto-Aztecan and Yuman (yuma1250), and their neighbors. The speakers are mostly agricultural peoples or desert foragers with intensified techniques of plant gathering and use, or their neighbors. There is a small cluster in the U.S. southeast, arguably stemming ultimately from the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV), a region where agriculture spread early from Mexico and Central America, complex farming societies developed, and similar ecologies made overland and coastal migration from Mexico natural and probably common.21 Four large language-family spreads, those of Caddoan, Siouan, Iroquoian, and Muskogean, originated at or near the periphery of the LMV, and all of them contribute examples of appositive possessives or non-possessibles to our survey. The southwestern set continues into Mexico and then, in humid tropical environments, to Central America and South America, chiefly Amazonia. The speakers are mostly agricultural peoples. Thus the distribution of appositive possessives in the Americas largely coincides with the range of agriculture. Probably the best interpretation of this geography is that non-possessibles and appositive possessives have diffused through contact, and agricultural spreads testify to ecological continuity, which makes migrations and language contacts relatively easy. In the Pacific, horticulture is ancient on the islands and mainland New Guinea, but appositive possessives are found only on the islands and not on the mainland except where introduced by Austronesian settlement (one token in our survey). Diffusion of appositive systems here seems to follow cultural and economic lines rather than following cultivation per se, distinguishing coastally oriented from inland societies. The difference antedates the spread of Austronesian east of the Wallace line, over 4000 years ago. Where anything is known about the sociolinguistics of the contacts, they have been intense, often substratal. Language and language-family density are high all around the Pacific. We suppose that language contact and especially multilingualism increase tolerance of contact-induced reanalysis and enhance the likelihood that what would otherwise be a one-time-only novel construction or even a slip or outright mistake in a monolingual society would be accepted and even propagated. In sum, appositive possessives appear to follow contact and diffusion lines and form large areas that reflect local language-to-language contacts within similar ecosystems. Appositive possessives are absent in large stretches of the near-coastal zone in the Pacific Northwest of North America, and in the Andean highlands and nearby in South America. We have no explanation for these gaps. We found three large clusters where appositive possessives appear to be an areal or family

21 A specific case is Chitimacha (chit1248), a language isolate of the Mississippi delta, shown to be probably related to the Totozoquean macrofamily of Mesoamerica by Brown et al. 2014. D. Kaufman 2014 (q.v. for Lower Mississippi Valley areal properties more generally) finds that Totonac (toto1252), a Totozoquean member, scores high in structural resemblances to Lower Mississippi Valley languages. 24 tendency, found in a number of languages. In all three there is a mix of types of systems, including some large systems that have evidently expanded from smaller ones. In the Pacific, small appositive systems in a number of Papuan languages are an occasional areal phenomenon in Oceania as described above, found east of the Wallace Line in a minority of languages representing several unrelated Papuan families and several Austronesian branches but absolutely lacking west of the line and in Australia and New Guinea. The appositive systems differ as to whether they are verbal or nominal, prefixal or suffixal, and in their forms, but nearly everywhere they are minimal or small systems; where there is more than one classifier there is generally one for edibles. Where they occur in Austronesian languages they are due to Papuan substratal influence (Donohue & Schapper 2008). One of those occasional cases must have been in Proto-Oceanic, whose proliferation over all of Oceania has given rise to hundreds of cases in the modern Oceanic languages. There have been three independent innovations of larger systems, all in the Oceanic branch of Austronesian: one in the Micronesian subbranch, one in the St. Matthias subbranch, and one in the New Caledonian subbranch (Supplement S3.5.1). If the optional relative- like construction of Kiribati represents an earlier Micronesian stage (Supplement S3.5.1), the ancestral construction must have originally been verbal. In the Uto-Aztecan family (§§4.2 and Supplement S3.2.2), appositive systems are found in a number of languages in the central area of the family's range. All but one are small, and several branches have a cognate appositive for animals, usually domesticates. Similar systems are found in the neighboring Yuman family and Washo isolate. A large system has arisen once, in Cahuilla (§4.2), where it is a transparent and evidently recent extension of the minimal system of its closest sisters. The system is verb-based and expanded by allowing the set of classifier verbs to become open-ended. Despite widespread areality in Amazonia and nearby, there is considerable diversity from family to family in possessive constructions, with most families internally fairly consistent and discrete from others (Supplement S3.4). Appositive systems, mostly small, are found in a number of Amazonian languages. Most Cariban languages have large, open systems of appositive nouns. Appositives meaning 'animal' and 'food' recur in nearly all Cariban languages, and are often cognate. Arawak languages typically have head-marked possessive morphology, and nouns are usually divided into possessive classes based on obligatoriness of possession and the presence of PSD suffixes when possessed and/or NPN suffixes when unpossessed (see §2.2 for the Yanesha' system). In our sample, two Arawak languages have appositive possessives while two others have a system of classifiers that are not possessive but have more or less gender-like functions, appearing on various modifiers in agreement with the head noun. It appears that few Tupian languages have appositives, and those that do mostly have small systems. Seki 2000:302-303 describes a large system in Kamaiurá, and, judging from her examples and her listing of the non-possessibles, the appositives can be used not only with non-possessibles but with other nouns as well. The classifiers include animals and food but also, curiously, 'body, house', 'covering, wrap, clothing', and 'bow, weapon', meanings that often surface among the obligatorily possessed nouns in other languages. These are the three large language families that are widespread in Amazonia. Several of the Amazonian isolates and non-Amazonian languages have small systems of appositives. Large systems have arisen at least twice in Amazonia: in an earlier stage of Cariban (or perhaps more than one early branch) and in Kamaiurá. To summarize, occasional occurrence of small systems is part of an areal signature in three separate areas, and in each of the areas large systems are an occasional development of small systems, possible (but not frequent) where resources exist to expand the set of classifiers. There is a consistent difference between the Americas and the Pacific involving the semantics of non-possessibles: they center on food in the Pacific and animals in the Americas. Table 2 shows the classifiers found in the smallest systems. Larger systems, in the Pacific, the Americas, and older Ainu, add subdivisions of food by preparation type; clothing; instruments and objects by function; 25 fire and fire-related things; houses; various items by history of acquisition; and others. Of the core items in small systems, the food class is easily elaborated in the Oceanic languages but the animal one is not elaborated in the Americas.

Table 2. Numbers and semantics of classifiers in small systems

Americas: 1 pet (Shoshone, S. Paiute (sout2969), Washo, Luiseño (luis1254), Hopi (hopi1249), Acoma (acom1246), Creek (cree1270), recent Macushi) 2 pet food (Waimiri (waim1254), earlier Macushi) pet plants (edible or domesticated) (Chemehuevi(chem1251)) pet inanimate (Cupeño, Yuman) pet paper (Copala Triqui (copa1237)) pet instrument, tool (Wichi Lhomtes) animate inanimate 3 female animal male animal general (Kadiweu (kadi1248))

Austronesian: 2 food general (South Halmahera-West New Guinea (sout3231)) 3 food drink general (Proto-Oceanic) 4 food drink plant general (Paamese)

Non-Austronesian Pacific (Papuan): 1 general (various languages)

5.2. Diachrony

Several processes of change in classifier systems can be inferred from our data. A small appositive classifier system can expand to a large one, as shown by comparing closely related Cupeño and Cahuilla (Uto-Aztecan) (§4.2 and Supplement S3.2.2). Cupeño has a two-classifier verbal system distinguishing animal vs. general classifiers (a common pattern for central Uto-Aztecan languages and their neighbors); the classifier construction involves relativization. Cahuilla simply adds verbs to the system, creating a set of classifiers for foods and food plants by using verbs for conventional ways of acquiring possession and preparing foods. Some similar process of lexical expansion must have created the large systems of a few Oceanic languages (see Supplement S3.5.1 for the Kiribati verbal appositive system as a possible early stage). However, the starting point – the classifier system reconstructed for Proto-Oceanic – is not verbal and consists of short morphemes that are dedicated classifiers. Loss of classifiers can also be inferred. The several classifiers of earlier Ainu have shrunk to just one in the modern variety, and Macushi (§§2.1, 4.2) probably lost all but one classifier during the 20th century. Obviously some classifiers have fallen out of use, probably as less fluent speech communities came to rely more and more on a single default classifier. Classifier constructions and their semantic classes, though probably not the actual classifiers, evidently spread by contact. Evidence includes the strong resemblance between the small systems of Numic (Uto-Aztecan) languages and their neighbors Washo (isolate) and Arapaho (Algonquian) (§4.2, Supplement S3.2.7), all of which distinguish an appositive 'pet' and often no more. An example of how contact operates is given by Berry & Berry 1999: speakers of Abun (abun1252 ) 26

(which has a single appositive word), when speaking Indonesian (which does not have appositive possessives), construct possessive phrases with an appositive:

(56) saya punya rumah 1sg POSS house 'my house' (81)

Standard Indonesian does not use punya in such phrases. The appositive is the verb 'have, possess' in Indonesian, so Abun-influenced Indonesian has a verbal appositive system.22 That is our sole piece of evidence for the rise of an appositive system where there was none before. It involves calquing, i.e. contact. We have no evidence on how appositive systems arise in the first place in the absence of contact influence. Donohue and Schapper 2008 note that a number of western Austronesian languages that have no appositive possessives do have two different possessive constructions (either with no reported semantic or pragmatic difference, or with only pragmatic difference), e.g. Tagalog (taga1270):

(57) Tagalog (Donohue & Schapper 2008:319) a. ang tiyan=ko NOM stomach=1sg.GEN b. ang aki(n)-ng tiyan ~ ang tiya(n)-ng akin NOM 1sg.DAT-LINK stomach NOM stomach-LINK 1sg.DAT all 'my stomach'

(a) is head-marked; (b) has a second-position linker which attaches to the first noun in the phrase, whether possessor or possessed. Donohue & Schapper argue that the availability of two models may facilitate the rise of an alienability distinction. There is some evidence that the crucial step in the evolution of appositive systems is the development and grammaticalization of a class of non-possessibles. At least, there are languages, some on the outskirts of appositive-using areas, that have a set identified as non-possessible but without an identified adnominal construction for owned non-possessibles: Dakota (dako1258) and possibly Biloxi (Siouan; Supplement S3.2.8.3), some Mayan languages (Supplement S3.3.2.), and our sole example from inland New Guinea, Koiari (footnote 4 above). Two sources report cases where items of modern technology were initially non-possessible but have become possessible with the ordinary head-marked possessive construction as they have become familiar and ownable in the culture. Tavares 2005:147-149 describes Wayana (Cariban) non-possessibles as pertaining semantically to the wild or non-cultural world, while possessibles belong to human culture and their membership can be expanded as items of national and European culture become familiar in Wayana society. Laughlin 1975:24 relates how the Tzotzil (Mayan) word for 'bus' was firmly non- possessible when he began his fieldwork, but by 15 years later, when someone from a nearby village had bought a bus, the word was possessible. All of these cases suggest that the essential starting point of non-possessibility is unfamiliarity or non-attestation of the noun with possessive inflection, i.e. that possessive inflection cannot easily be extended to a word that does not take it (as is of course the case for inflection in general). Grammaticalization of one or more inflectable words as appositives does not necessarily follow immediately on perception of a noun's referent as ownable: the Iroquoian pattern of non- possessibles with recruitable ad hoc appositives but no dedicated appositives (Supplement S3.2.8.2) appears to be durable in that family. The whole question needs more work, but it is

22 Berry and Berry do not discuss the lexical source of the appositive bi of Abun, but gloss it POSS and describe it grammatically as a linker. 27 interesting if the critical enabling factor is not something like the semantics of possession or the frequency of use with possessors but the covert argument structure of nouns. Whatever the shorter-term evolutionary processes may have been, the modern distribution of appositive possessives must have resulted from a mix of contact and inheritance over a very long time span.

5.3. Measuring the strength of the Circum-Pacific effect

The distribution appears mostly consistent with Nichols & Bickel’s (2005a) hypothesis that appositive possession is characteristic of the Pacific Rim population. However, that hypothesis is not about recent or current language contact nor about the current geographical distribution. Rather, it bears on probability differences during the entire history of the Circum-Pacific region: despite all fluctuations, linguistic lineages are hypothesized to have been more likely to develop, retain and/or re-develop possessive appositives because these lineages have been in contact at some time, or at several times, with families that show a similar bias. Proper testing of this hypothesis therefore requires an assessment of diachronic biases toward or against appositive possessives over the world’s language families. While such biases are best estimated through explicit evolutionary modeling, this is not feasible in our data since most families are very small (nearly half are isolates with only one member; Bickel 2015) and/or are known only through poorly resolved phylogenies. In such situations, simple per-family proportions pick up bias signals much as explicit models do. Bickel (2020) demonstrates this for the per-family proportions estimated by the Family Bias Method (Zakharko & Bickel 2011), which we employ here. The basic idea of this method is to take the proportion of a feature in a family (e.g. 80% of the languages have appositive possessives) and evaluate whether this proportion differs from what can be expected by chance alone. If the proportion of appositive possessives is higher than expected, this indicates a bias toward retaining and/or (re-)developing appositive possessives over time; if it is lower, this indicates a bias toward losing and not developing appositive possessives; if it is expected by chance, this indicates random evolution and the absence of a bias. Estimates of this kind can easily be calculated for large families. For isolates and small families, the Family Bias Method estimates biases with an extrapolation sampling algorithm. The algorithm assumes that the isolates and members of small families are the survivors of unknown larger families with a similar proportion of biases (for or against appositive possessives) as opposed to no biases as in the known large families. Given this assumption, the method samples survivors in proportion to the large-family bias proportion and declares them to belong to biased unknown families as well. For the resulting sample of survivors, we furthermore assume that some of them faithfully reflect the bias in their unknown larger family, and so we can take their choice (e.g. having appositive possessives) to reflect that bias. But some will happen to be deviates, e.g. the exceptional language that lost appositive possessives although its family as a whole was biased to retain them. To allow for this possibility, the method declares a subsample to be deviates, in inverse proportion to the strength of the bias in large families, i.e. a smaller subsample if the large-family biases are stronger (e.g. on average 90% presence) and a larger one if they are weaker (e.g. 70% presence). The extrapolation algorithm involves sampling in two cases (whether a survivor stems from a biased vs. non-biased family; whether it reflects the bias or deviates from it). While the size of the samples is set by the large-family proportions, the concrete choice of languages within these samples is random. To accommodate the uncertainty from this, we repeat the sampling procedure many times. Figure 2 summarizes the results of a Family Bias analysis in terms of odds ratios, which report how many times higher the odds are for families to be biased toward vs. against appositive 28 possessives in the Circum-Pacific as opposed to families outside the region.23 The figure also includes the results of a Reliability Landscape analysis comparing the estimated odds ratio with counterfactual scenarios (Janssen et al. 2006): how many more families (one more? two more? etc.) would have to turn up with a bias toward appositive possessives outside the Circum-Pacific in order for the effect to disappear (i.e. to reach each equal odds, a ratio of 1:1 = 1)?

Obs.

1 10 20 30 Odds Ratio

Figure 2: Estimated ratio between the odds of families being biased toward appositive possessive inside vs. outside the Circum-Pacific region. The dashed line indicates an odds ratio of 1, i.e. equal odds for appositive possessive biases inside and outside the region. The estimates of the odds ratios are plotted as densities across the large family data and all sampled extrapolations, so the heights of the gray areas indicate how many samples have a given odds ratio (x-axis). The black dots represent the median across the samples and the black horizontal lines represent the 90% highest density of estimates around the median (leaving 5% on each side). The bottom density (“obs.”) reports the estimates from the observed data, as reported in Supplement S1. The other densities are counterfactual estimates and report how the odds ratio would look like if +1, +2, +3, or +4 more families or isolates turned up with appositive possessives outside the Circum- Pacific region (cf. Table S2 in Supplement S2 for a numerical summary).

Our results suggest that the odds for appositive possessive biases are about 18 times higher inside the Circum-Pacific than outside it, with all estimates far away from equal odds (Figure 2). The effect is also relatively reliable against finding up to three families with estimated biases outside the Circum-Pacific. Note that this reliability estimate is highly conservative since it is of course just as likely that we missed a family with a bias inside the Circum-Pacific. A case in point is the South Halmahera and Western New Guinea branch of Oceanic, for which there is actually good

23 The odds is a commonly used statistic that allows compact representation of relative probabilities. An odds of 1 means that something is as probable to occur as not, i.e. it stands a 1:1 chance of occurring. The odds ratio is the ratio between two odds, e.g. if A has odds of 1 (i.e. stands a 1:1 chance) and B odds of 2 (stands a 2:1 chance), then the odds ratio between A and B is ½: A has half the odds of B and B has twice the odds of A (see e.g. Agresti 2000:Ch. 2 for a comprehensive textbook discussion). The details of the statistical analysis are summarized in Supplement S2. A replicable script and the data are available at https://osf.io/p5xky 29 evidence that it is biased toward appositive possessives (cf. Section 6.1) although we did not fully survey the branch and therefore have left it out from our quantitative analysis. Another possibility is Koiari, also left out of the quantitative analysis.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Is Ainu a typical Circum-Pacific language?

Where possessive marking is concerned, the answer to this question is Yes. Ainu has an appositive possessive construction for alienable nouns, which in Ainu are optionally possessed nouns. Inalienables are obligatorily possessed, and they take head-marked person indexation. Ainu uses a verbal appositive, a type that is not frequent overall but is well represented in the Pacific, and the minimal one-classifier system of recent Ainu finds a close parallel in several Papuan languages that also use a verb 'have' as their only possessive appositive. The larger system reconstructible for earlier Ainu is reminiscent of the Cahuilla system, which is also verbal; in both, the classifiers have to do with the history and cultural status of possession. The rapid shrinking from the earlier larger Ainu system to the recent minimal one, and the durability of the minimal one through language death, recall the expansions and reductions of the inventory of appositives that we can infer from the variation in large families like Cariban and Uto-Aztecan. The system remains an appositive possessive system and a core set of classifiers is retained regardless of the number of appositives. Ainu uses unspecified possessor and antipassive morphology as NPN morphology, allowing an obligatorily possessed noun to be used without a specified possessor or an overt possessor (15-18). PSD suffixes register a possessor but do not index its properties, and they mark a noun as requiring a possessor (which is then indexed with a possessive prefix). All in all the Ainu system, with its bound inalienables and non-possessible alienables, represents a common type among Circum- Pacific languages.

6.2. Why only Circum-Pacific?

In the Americas, appositive possessives are not strictly a Pacific Rim phenomenon but extend into the interior in North America, probably via contact with the southwest and Great Basin and/or the Lower Mississippi Valley and Southeast, and in South America across the northern half of the continent. Outside of these two American clusters, however, they are a strictly Pacific Rim phenomenon. In the southern Pacific they are found throughout eastern Oceania but not in New Guinea (except for a few Austronesian immigrant languages, one in our survey) or Australia. In northern Eurasia Ainu is one of four coastal families (along with Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut) surviving from what must have been a diverse population prior to the post-Neolithic spreads of language families of the Inner Asian type: Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic, Japanese, Korean. We do not know what preceded them in the near-coastal area, but the synchronic situation is that appositive possessives are absolutely lacking on the Eurasian mainland. The typological prerequisite of head-marking NP morphology is widespread throughout the Americas and northern New Guinea, and in northern Eurasia it is found in Tungusic both near the coast and inland, and in Turkic and isolate Yukagir farther inland, so there is no obvious typological obstacle to further spread. Appositives are evidently ancient in both the Americas and Oceania, so there has been enough time that further diffusion could have occurred. The fact that appositives are largely coextensive with agriculture in the Americas and are widespread in early horticultural Oceania may be telling: food production brings larger, denser and more complex social networks, and these increase the chances that an innovation will arise, catch on, and/or be further transmitted (for these demographic effects on innovation and transmission see Fagyal et al. 2010). 30

6.3. Summary

The main typological contributions of this paper are: • An appositive possessive is a construction where a lexeme or morpheme in apposition to the possessed noun bears the possessive morphology, usually person or person-number indexation of the possessor. • The set of appositive words is often classificatory, classifying possessed nouns by their semantic properties. The classification is usually semantic rather than lexical. • Nouns can have argument structure and valence. Alienability and possessibility distinctions are a matter of argument structure; the form of their morphological marking as well as the grammatical categories they index is a matter of valence; and derivational or inflectional processes that change alienability or possessibility classes are matters of valence change. NPN and PSD (as defined in §2) commonly implement valence changes. • Non-possessible nouns preclude morphological indexation of a possessor. Their referents can be owned, and appositives are the usual way of treating an owned non-possessible. • Appositives are usually inalienably possessed nouns, but they can also be verbs, usually in the form of grammaticalized relative constructions. They too can be classificatory, utilizing different verbs. • Possessibility classes and appositives are found only in languages with head-marked possession. This refers to strict lexical categorization, which we distinguish from discourse frequencies and tendencies. In languages like English, with dependent-marked possession, there is a strong tendency for kin and body-part terms to occur with possessors, but this is not a categorical requirement. • Ainu possession is entirely typical and well covered by this framework.

The main contributions to historical linguistics are: • Appositive possessives are almost entirely limited to the Pacific Rim macroarea, with extensions into North and South America at the known leakage points of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Amazonia. This range can be described as Circum-Pacific (but strictly Pacific Rim outside of the Americas). • A language's chances of developing an appositive possessive are about 18 times as great in the Circum-Pacific as elsewhere. This is a calculation of its combined birth and death rates. • Typological prerequisites to developing or copying appositive possessives are head-marking morphology and possessibility oppositions in nouns. • Appositive possessive constructions, their semantic classificatory principles, and occasionally the forms of their markers apparently diffuse along trade and contact networks and can eventually come to characterize areas. • Ainu is easily interpreted as a remnant of what may have been a larger set of north Asian Circum-Pacific languages with appositive possession. Any others have been absorbed in the spreads of Tungusic, Japanese (nucl1643), Korean (kore1280), Chinese (mand1415), and Austronesian.

Questions that remain open are: • How does appositive possession arise in the first place? We have examples of diffusion and copying but no known examples of spontaneous and entirely independent innovation. • Why is appositive possession limited to the Circum-Pacific? We have suggested that greater density of human population and language diversity in the region creates more opportunities for reanalysis and diffusion, including diffusion that lets what would otherwise be a one-time or 31 accidental formation be laterally transmitted and retransmitted often enough to outpace the expected die-off rate. This remains only a hypothesis, however. • Why is non-possessibility categorical only in languages with head-marked possession? After all, in clauses, languages with no head-marked argument indexation, such as Dyirbal or Japanese, have firm argument-structure classes of verbs. • Is it true that (as suggested in §5.3) non-possessibility can exist and be fairly stable in the absence of grammaticalized appositive constructions?

A presently unanswerable question is whether any evidence (such as substratal effects) can be found that languages now absorbed in the large spreads of northern Asia had appositive constructions. This would let us firmly classify the Ainu possessive system as a sole survivor rather than a random outlier. We hope that future typological research will find criteria and propose answers. We close with a call for data. For very few languages are all the phenomena defined in §2 covered in grammars. We hope this paper will spur publication of comprehensive descriptions of possession and possessibility.

References

Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2016. The grammars of close apposition. Journal of English Linguistics 44:1.61-83. Agresti, Alan. 2002. Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. Martine Coene & Yves D'hulst, eds., From NP to DP, vol. II: The expression of possession in noun phrases, 167– 188. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Barker, Chris. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, & Paul Portner, 1109–1130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Beck, David. 2013. Unidirectional flexibility and the noun-verb distinction in Lushootseed. In Flexible Word Classes, ed. Jan Rijkhoff & Eva van Lier, 185–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berry, Keith & Christine Berry. 1999. A description of Abun: A West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University. Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. 2nd ed, ed. Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog, 901–923. Bickel, Balthasar. 2020. Large and ancient linguistic areas. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Language dispersal, diversification, and contact, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Balthasar Bickel, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe. 2017. The AUTOTYP database, release version 0.1.1. University of Zurich. Available at https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press. Brown, Cecil H., Søren Wichmann, & David Beck. 2014. Chitimacha: A Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley. IJAL 80:4.425–474. Bugaeva, Anna. 2004. Grammar and folklore texts of the Chitose dialect of Ainu (Idiolect of Ito Oda). ELPR Publication Series A-045. Suita: Osaka Gakuin University. Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carlson, Robert & Doris L. Payne. 1989. Genitive classifiers. In Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, ed. Robert Carlson, Scott DeLancey, Spike Gildea, Doris L. Payne, & Ajnu Saxena, 87–119. Eugene: University of Oregon. Carson, Neusa. 1982. Phonology and morphosyntax of Macuxi (Carib). PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Cowell, Andrew & Alonzo Moss Sr. 2008. The Arapaho language. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Crevels, Mily. 2006. Verbal number in Itonama. In Grazyna Rowicka & Eithne B. Carlin, eds., What’s in a verb? Studies in the verbal morphology of the languages of the Americas, 160–170. Crevels, Mily. 2009. Itonama. In Mily Crevels & Pieter C. Muysken, eds., Lenguas de Bolivia, II: Amazonía, 233– 32

294. Donohue, Mark & Tim Denham. 2008. The language of Lapita: Vanuatu and an early Papuan presence in the Pacific. Oceanic Linguistics 47:2.433–444. Donohue, Mark & Annette Schapper. 2008. Whence the Austronesian possessive construction? Oceanic Linguistics 47:2.316–327. Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Gramática del idioma Yanesha’ (amuesha). Peru: Ministerio de Educación and SIL. Dutton, Tom E. 1996. Koiari. Munich: Lincom. Einaudi, Paula Ferris. 1976. A grammar of Biloxi. New York: Garland. Elliott, Eric Bryant. 1999. Dictionary of Rincon Luiseño. PhD, University of California, San Diego. Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, Samarth Swarup, Anna María Escobar, Les Gasser, & Kiran Lakkaraju. 2010. Centers and peripheries: Network role in language change. Lingua 120:8.2061–2079. Heringa, H. 2012. Appositional constructions. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, Jane H. 2014. A Grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language. Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Janssen, Dirk, Balthasar Bickel & Fernando Zúñiga. 2006. Randomization tests in language typology. Linguistic Typology 10. 419–440. Kaufman, David V. 2014. The Lower Mississippi Valley as a language area. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal possession. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible, eds., Language Typology and Language Universals, Volume 2, 960– 970. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1997. Possessive NPs in Maltese: Alienability, Iconicity and Grammaticalization. In Borg, A. & Frans Plank (ed.), The Maltese NP Meets Typology. Rivista di Linguistica 8.1: 245–274.) Krasheninnikov, Stepan. 1994 (1755). Opisanie zemli Kamchatki [Explorations of Kamchatka 1735-1741], v. II. Nauka/Kamshat: St. Petersburg. Kubodera, Itsuhiko. 1977. Ainu jojishi shin’yō seiden-no kenkyū [The study of Ainu heroic epics and songs of gods]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Laughlin, Robert M. 1975. The great Tzotzil dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica 19. 67–109. Lynch, John, Malcolm D. Ross & Terry Crowley. 2002. The Oceanic Languages. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. Maho, Jouni. 1999. A comparative study of Bantu noun classes. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Meira, Sergio. 1999. A grammar of Tiriyó. PhD, Rice University. Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin & Huber, Magnus (eds.). 2013. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: https://apics-online.info/ Website last accessed on 27-02-2021. Mora-Marín, David. 2019. Reconstructing possessive morphology in Mayan languages. MS, University of North Carolina. Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 1995. Ainugo Chitose hōgen jiten [A dictionary of the Chitose dialect of Ainu]. Tokyo: Sōfūkan. Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 2001. Tumunci pencay okokko pencay. Ainu Chitose hōgen jojishi tekisuto [Tumunci pencay okokko pencay. Epic texts of the Chitose dialect of Ainu]. In: S. Miura (ed.) Jojishi no gakusaiteki kenkyū. Chiba: Chiba University, 91–146. Nakagawa, Hiroshi, Bugaeva, Anna, Kobayashi, Miki, & Yoshikawa, Yoshimi. 2020. A Glossed Audio Corpus of Ainu Folklore. National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics HP. Available at http://ainucorpus.ninjal.ac.jp/en/ Nercesian, Verónica. 2014. Wichi lhomtes: Estudio de la gramática y la ineracción fonología-morfología- sintaxis-semántica. Munich: Lincom. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62:1.56–119. Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In: Shipley, William. (ed.) In honor of Mary 33

Haas: from the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 557-609. Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2005a. Obligatory possessive inflection. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, Bernard Comrie, & David Gil, eds., World Atlas of Language Structures, 238-241. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2005b. Possessive classification. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, Bernard Comrie, & David Gil, eds., World Atlas of Language Structures, 242–245. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, Johanna, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, & Balthasar Bickel. 2013. The Autotyp genealogy and geography. Available at https://www.autotyp.uzh.ch/available.html Odé, Cecilia. 2002. A sketch of Mpur. In Languages of the eastern Bird’s Head, ed. Ger P. Reesink, 45–107. Canberra: Pacifici Linguistics. Okuda, Osamu. 1999. Ainugo Shizunai hōgen bunmyaku-tuki goi-syū (CD-ROM-tuki) [Ainu shizunai dialect lexicon in context (with a CD-ROM)]. Sapporo: Sapporo Gakuin Daigaku. Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Oliverio, Giulia R. M. 1996. A grammar and dictionary of Tutelo. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Onishi, Masayuki. 2012. A grammar of Motuna. München: Lincom Europa, 2012. Ozanne-Riviere, Françoise. 1976. Le Iaai: Langue mélanésienne d’Ouvéa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: SELAF. Payne, Doris L. & Thomas E. Payne. 2013. A Typological Grammar of Panare. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Perrott, Daisy Valerie. 1957. Teach yourself Swahili. Second edition. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton. Reesink, Ger P. 2005. Sulka of East New Britain: A mixture of Oceanic and Papuan traits. Oceanic Linguistics 44:1.145–193. Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rood, David S. 1976. Wichita grammar. New York - London: Garland. Satō, Tomomi. 1992. ‘Hōgō’-kara mita hoppō-no shogengo [The languages of the Northern peoples from the viewpoint of ‘incorporation’]’, In Miyaoka Osahito, ed., Kita-no gengo: ruikei to rekishi, 191-201. Tokyo: Sanseidō. Satō, Tomomi. 1997. Possessive expressions in Ainu, In: Hayashi Tōru & Bhaskararao, Peri (eds.) Studies in Possessive Expressions. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 143–160. Satō, Tomomi. 2008. Ainugo bunpō-no kiso [The basics of Ainu grammar]. Tokyo: Daigakushorin. Šavrič, Bojan, Tom Patterson & Bernhard Jenny. 2019. The Equal Earth map projection. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 33.454–465. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1977. Cahuilla Grammar. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1995. Possession and classifiers in Cahuilla (Uto-Aztecan). Egon Renner, Michael Dürr & Wolfgang Oleschinski, ed., Language and Culture in Native North America: Studies in honor of Heinz- Jürgen Pinnow, 211–225. Munich: Lincom. Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do kamaiurá: Língua tupi-guarani do Alto Xingu. Campinas - São Paulo: Editora da Unicamp & Imprensa Oficial SP. Steinhauer, Hein. 1991. Demonstratives in the Blagar language of Dolap (Pura, Alor, Indonesia). Papers in Papuan linguistics 1: 177–221. Steinhauer, Hein. 1977. “going” and “coming” in the Blagar of Dolap (Pura, Alor, Indonesia). NUSA: Miscellaneous Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia 4.39–49. Sunazawa, Kura. 1983. Watashi no ichidai no omoide Ku sukup opuspe [My life story]. Sapporo: Miyama Shobō. Tamura, Suzuko. 1985. Ainugo onseishiryō 2 [Ainu Audio Materials 2]. Tokyo: Waseda daigaku gogaku kyōiku kenkyūjo. Tamura, Suzuko. 1989. Ainugo onseishiryō 6 [Ainu Audio Materials 6]. Tokyo: Waseda daigaku gogaku kyōiku kenkyūjo. Tamura, Suzuko. 1988/2000. Ainugo [The Ainu language]. In: Takashi Kamei, Rokurō Kōno & Eiichi Chino (eds.), Gengogaku daijiten, 6–94. Tokyo: Sanseido. English version: The Ainu language. ICHEL Linguistic Studies v. 2, Tokyo: Sanseido. Tamura, Suzuko. 1991. Ainugo onsei shiryō (1–6) Goi. Zen-yōrei-tuki [Ainu Phonetic Material (1–6). Lexicon. All with examples]. Vols. 1–3. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Gogaku Kyōiku Kenkyūjo. Tamura, Suzuko. 1993. Ainugo onsei shiryō senshū: sanbun-hen [An anthology of Ainu phonetic materials: prose]. Tokyo: Waseda Daigaku Gogaku Kyōiku Kenkyūjo. 34

Tamura, Suzuko. 1996. Ainugo Saru hōgen jiten [A dictionary of the Saru dialect of Ainu]. Tokyo: Sōfūkan. Tharp, Doug. 1996. Sulka grammar essentials. In Two non-Austronesian grammars from the islands, ed. John M. Clifton, 77–179. Ukarumpa: SIL. van der Voort, Hein. 2004. A Grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Velasquez-Castillo, Maura. 1996. The Grammar of Possession: Inalienabilty, incorporation, and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Williams, James. 1932. Grammar, notes, and vocabulary of the Makuchi Indians of Guiana. St. Gabriel-Mödlung. Wilson, Peter J. 1992. Una description preliminar de la gramatica del achagua (arawak). Bogotá: ILV [i.e. SIL]. Young, Robert W. & Morgan, William. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. (Revised edition.) Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Zakharko, Taras & Balthasar Bickel. 2011. familybias: Family bias estimation. R package, https://github.com/IVS-UZH.

Author contributions: AB did the Ainu field and corpus work and first described the possessive phenomena. AB and BB first analyzed them from an areal perspective. All coauthors developed the typology. JN did the survey and standardized terminology. BB performed the statistical analyses. AB and JN wrote the paper, with contributions from BB.

Acknowledgments: Parts of this paper were presented by AB at the ALT 12 conference held at ANU, Canberra in December 2017. AB thanks participants of these meetings for their questions and comments as well as her former supervisor Prof. Tomomi Satō for fruitful discussions, and all Ainu speakers who she was blessed to work with. The present study was supported by the NINJAL project “Endangered languages and dialects in Japan” (headed by Prof. Kibe Nobuko) and the Japanese Ministry of Education Grant-in-Aid Research Program, project “Towards understanding dynamics of language change in Ainu” (#17K02743; 2017-2021) (Kiban C, Principal Investigator: Anna Bugaeva). JN's research was supported in part by a grant from the Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100 to the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow and in part by the HSE University Basic Research Program. BB’s work was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Grant Nr. CRSII5_183578 and the NCCR Evolving Language, SNSF Agreement Nr. 51NF40_180888. We thank several colleagues for consultation on languages and language families: George Aaron Broadwell (Triqui, Muskogean), Mark Donohue (Austronesian, Papuan), Jack Martin (Muskogean), David Mora-Marín (Mayan), Richard A. Rhodes (Algonquian); and Rolf Hotz for help in editing glottocodes and references. Supplement S1. Table S1: Survey languages and features. Language Stock Branch Glottocode AppPoss.Presence Ainu Ainu (isolate) ainu1240 present Pipil Uto-Aztecan SUA: Aztecan pipi1250 absent Cora Uto-Aztecan SUA: Corachol elna1235 absent Tümpisa ShoshoneUto-Aztecan NUA: Numic pana1305 absent Eastern ShoshoneUto-Aztecan NUA: Numic shos1248 absent Northern Paiute Uto-Aztecan NUA: Numic nort2954 absent Chemehuevi Uto-Aztecan NUA: Numic utes1238 present Southern Paiute Uto-Aztecan NUA: Numic utes1238 present Tübatulabal Uto-Aztecan NUA isolate tuba1278 present Hopi Uto-Aztecan NUA isolate hopi1249 present Choguitá RarámuriUto-Aztecan SUA: Tarahumara-Warihio lowl1265 present SE Tepehuan Uto-Aztecan SUA: Tepiman sout2976 present Tohono O'odhamUto-Aztecan SUA: Tepiman toho1245 present N Tepehuan Uto-Aztecan SUA: Tepiman nort2959 present Luiseño Uto-Aztecan NUA: Cupan luis1253 present Cupeño Uto-Aztecan NUA: Cupan cupe1243 present Cahuilla Uto-Aztecan NUA: Cupan cahu1264 present Seri Seri (isolate) seri1257 present Washo Washo (isolate) wash1253 present Hualapai Yuman Pai hava1248 present Jamul Tiipay Yuman Delta-California kumi1248 present Maricopa Yuman River mari1440 present Cocopa Yuman Delta-California coco1261 present Kiliwa Yuman Kiliwa kili1268 present Acoma Keresan Western Keresan west2632 present Laguna Keresan Western Keresan east1472 present Wiyot Algic Wiyot wiyo1248 absent Yurok Algic Yurok yuro1248 absent Arapaho Algic Algonquian: Arapahoic arap1274 present Menomini Algic Algonquian: E.Great Lakes meno1252 absent Creek Muskogean Creek cree1270 present Cherokee Iroquoian Southern cher1273 present Tutelo Siouan Southeastern tute1247 present Lakhota Siouan Mississippi Valley lako1247 present Crow Siouan Missouri River crow1244 absent Wichita Caddoan Northern Caddoan wich1260 absent Haida Haida Northern haid1248 absent Coast Tsimshian Tsimshianic Southern-Coastal nucl1649 absent Kwak'wala Wakashan Northern Wakashan kwak1269 absent Nuuchahnulth Wakashan Southern Wakashan nuuc1236 absent Thompson Salishan Interior Salish thom1243 absent Musqueam Salish Central Salish musq1240 absent Slave Athabaskan Northern Athabaskan nort2942 absent Navajo Athabaskan Apachean nava1243 absent Hupa Athabaskan Pacific Coast hupa1239 absent Chimariko Chimariko (isolate) chim1301 absent Tz'utujil Mayan Quiche-Mam tzut1248 absent K'ichee' Mayan Quiche-Mam kich1262 present Mam Mayan Quiche-Mam mamm1241 present Yucatec Mayan Yucatecan yuca1254 present Chichimeco JonazOtomanguean Otopamean chic1272 present Copala Triqui Otomanguean Mixtecan copa1247 present Wayana Cariban Guianan waya1269 present Panare Cariban Venezuelan enap1235 present Tiriyó Cariban Guianan trio1238 present Apalai Cariban Apalai apal1257 present Waimiri Cariban Yawaperi waim1253 present Macushi Cariban Pemong-Panare macu1259 present Yanesha' Arawak W. Maipuran yahe1238 absent Achagua Arawak N Maipuran acha1250 present Piapoco Arawak N Maipuran piap1246 present Nanti Arawak S Maipuran nant1250 absent Kukama-KukamiriaTupian Tupi-Guaraní III coca1259 absent Kamaiurá Tupian Tupi-Guaraní isolate kama1373 present Guaraní Tupian Tupi-Guaraní: Southern para1311 present Tapiete Tupian Tupi-Guaraní I tapi1253 absent Emerillon Tupian Tupi-Guaraní VIII emer1243 present Wichi Lhomtes Matacoan Mataguayo II wich1261 present Kadiweu Guaycuruan Kadiweu qomm1235 present Itonama Itonama (isolate) iton1250 absent Urarina Urarina (isolate) urar1246 present Kwaza Kwaza (isolate) kwaz1243 present Yurakare Yurakare (isolate) yura1255 present Bunaq Timor-Alor-PantarEast Timor-Bunaq buna1278 present Blagar Timor-Alor-PantarAlor-Pantar blag1240 present Klon Timor-Alor-PantarAlor-Pantar kelo1247 present Adang Timor-Alor-PantarAlor-Pantar adan1251 present Fijian Austronesian Oceanic: Central Pacifi fiji1243 present Paamese Austronesian Oceanic: N-C Vanuatu paam1238 present Iaai Austronesian Oceanic: Loyalties iaai1238 present Mussau Austronesian Oceanic: St. Matthias muss1246 present Gilbertese Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian gilb1244 absent Ambai Austronesian SHWNG amba1265 present Selaru Austronesian SHWNG sela1259 present Sawai Austronesian SHWNG sawa1247 present Banggai Austronesian Celebic bang1368 present Tugun Austronesian CEMP: Timoric tugu1245 present Kaitetu Austronesian CEMP:Central Maluku seit1239 present Motuna S.Bougainville Buin siwa1245 present Abun Abun (isolate) abun1252 present Mpur Mpur (isolate) mpur1239 present Kol Kol (isolate) kolp1236 present Sulka Sulka (isolate) sulk1246 present Bilua Bilua (isolate) buky1245 present Kuot Kuot (isolate) kuot1243 absent Mali Baining mali1284 absent Kosraean Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian kosr1238 present Marshallese Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian mars1254 present Puluwatese Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian pulu1242 present Ulithian Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian ulit1238 present Mokilese Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian moki1238 present Pohnpean Austronesian Oceanic: Micronesian pohn1238 present

Inside Circum-Pacific Outside Circum-Pacific

absent

present

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 Number of biased families across extrapolation runs

Supplement 3. Survey language data

This supplement has two goals: (1) to give information on possessibility classes and possessive marking in all languages we surveyed that have appositive constructions or other non- possessibility; (2) to make available a body of data with consistent analyses, terminology, and glosses. Languages are ordered by continent and then family, clockwise from Ainu. The sections in order are:

S3.1. Ainu S3.2. North America S3.3. Mexico-Central America S3.4. South America S3.5. Pacific: Austronesian S3.6. Pacific: Non-Austronesian S3.7. References

S3.1. Ainu (ainu1240)

Additional examples of old classificatory verbs are the following.

(S1) a-mi kosonte a-e-oriki-kut-kor kane 4.A-wear Japanese.kimono 4.A-APPL-upwards-belt-have doing.so ‘I put my Japanese kimono on.’ (Satō 2003)

(S2) a-mi hayokpe opitta a-yay-ko-anu wa 4.A-wear armor all 4.A-REFL-to.APPL-put and ‘I took off all my armor’ (Nakagawa 1995)

The nouns attested with mi ‘wear’ are limited to kosonte ‘Japanese short-sleeved kimono’ and hayokpe ‘armor, the referent of the latter is also of Japanese origin, which additionally shows that the the essential starting point of non-possessibility is unfamiliarity.

(S3) a-resu kamuy a-resu pito e-i-nu 4.A-raise god/spirit 4.A-raise god/spirit 2SG.S-APASS-hear kat-u ene an hi shape-POSS like.this exist.SG NMLZ ‘My spirit, my spirit, listen carefully to what I have to say.’, lit. ‘…your listening shape is like this.’ (Kubodera 1977: 450)

Here too we are dealing with two old loanwords from Japanese, i.e. kamuy ‘god/spirit’ (< OJ kamï ‘god, spirit) and pito (< OJ pito ‘man, human’), which is consistent with the above scenario. Other nouns attested with resu ‘raise’ are pewre-p ‘bear-cub’, which was ritually raised in a cage in Ainu villages and killed to be send off to the land of gods, and cape (onomatopoeia-thing) ‘cat’, whose referent is borrowed from the Japanese. A number of kin terms in Ainu are variable in that they can appear as both obligatory possessed and non-possessible with kor ‘have’.

(S4a) a-mat-ihi 4.A-wife-PSD ʻmy wife’

(S4b) a-kor mat 4.A-have wife ‘my wife’ (Chiri and Kindaichi 1936(1974): 28)

The semantics of affection seems to be a factor that can determine the choice, but the structural fact is that these words are variable. Moreover, some kinship terms are also attested in puzzling obligatory possessed and non- possessible combinations, which are regarded as symptoms of language attrition in Chiri and Kindaichi (1936/1974: 29) and Chiri (1942: 533). Yet, such examples are not rare in Classical Ainu literature yukar ‘heroic epics’ and kamuy yukar ‘divine songs’, and on top of this they are found with other classificatory verbs too as in (S6) and (S7), cf. (25) in the main text.

(S5) a-kor mac-ihi 1SG.A-have wife-PSD ‘my wife’ (Chiri and Kindaichi 1936(1974): 29)

(S6) a-an-te mac-i itak-an ciki 4.A-exist-CAUS wife-PSD speak-4.S if pirka-no e-nu kus ne na be.good-ADV 2SG.A-hear because COP SGST ‘My wife, if I speak, you should listen well.’, lit. ‘lit. ‘husband (who) I made stay (with myself)’ (Bugaeva 2004: 191)

(S7) an-ante hoku-hu e-ikka kusu 4.A-exist.SG-CAUS husband-PSD APPL-steal because ‘She stole my husband.’, lit. ‘husband (who) I made stay (with myself)’ (Kubodera 1977: 244)

Kinship terms are likely to be the first pioneers moving out of the obligatorily possessed class so obligatory possessed while non-possessible combinations can be regarded as an intermediate stage in this process of change in classification in Ainu, which is valuable for understanding the diachrony of how word classes evolve.

S3.2. North America

Pacific Northwest (Alaska to northern California): All languages surveyed lack appositive possession.

S3.2.1. Wakashan Nuuchahnulth (nuuc1236, Southern Wakashan; Vancouver Island, Canada): There is no appositive possession, but apparently all nouns can optionally be treated as non-possessible. Possession can be marked either on the verb, as external possession indexing the possessor (and no possessive marking on the noun), or on the noun with subordinating or relative morphology (Nakayama 2001:128, Ravinski 2005). The PSD suffix makes an alienability distinction (Ravinski 2005) and 'wife' is alienable. 3

(S8) 7aap-h.ii-7a:k-s łuucma kind-DUR-PSD:AL-1sg wife 'my wife is kind' (Nakayama 128) (lit. 'my-kind-one, wife') 7 = glottal stop; h. = h with underdot

(S9) 7aap-h.ii-7iš łuucma-7a:k-qs kind-DUR-IND.3 wife-PSD:AL-SUB.1sg (lit. 'she-is-kind, my-wife') id. (ibid.)

S3.2.2. Uto-Aztecan The Uto-Aztecan family extends well into both North America and Mexico, but for convenience all of it is covered in this section. The family is divided into two halves, for which we use the abbrevations NUA = Northern Uto-Aztecan and SUA = Southern Uto-Aztecan. Most Uto-Aztecan languages have possessive affixes or clitics indexing the person-number of the possessor, e.g. Cupeño (cupe1243, NUA: Cupan):

(S10) nu-yu 1sg-hair 'my hair' (Hill 2014:167)

Most make an alienable/inalienable distinction. Commonly, inalienables are obligatorily possessed and alienables optionally possessed. Inalienables usually include kin terms, body parts, and a few other close possessions. In addition, most of the languages have a set of NPN's (Uto-Aztecanist term: absolutive suffixes) found on nouns that do not have possessive morphology or other suffixal morphology or compounded elements. Some of the languages also have PSD suffixes that cooccur with possessive indexation. E.g. Pipil (pipi1250, SUA: Aztecan):

(S11) siwa:-t nu-siwa:-w -siwa:- woman-NPN 1sg-woman-PSD 'woman' 'my wife' 'wife' (stem) (Campbell 1985:38, 43)

Cupeño: (S12) waka-l -waq-ʔa -waq- spear-NPN spear-PSD 'spear, a spear' 'spear' (lexeme) 'spear' (stem) (Hill 2014:172)

See also Sapir 1930:120-122 for Southern Paiute (utes1238) examples, and Langacker 1977:88. Several of the languages have a set of non-possessible nouns, always including animal names and sometimes plants and natural phenomena. When the referent of an alienable is owned an appositive construction with a classifier noun is used. E.g. Cupeño (Hill 2014:129, 176-177):

(S13) awal ne-ʔash dog 1sg-CL:pet 'my dog'

(S14) wi-ly ne-mixan lard-NPN 1sg-CL:possession 'my lard' (cooking lard) [constructed from Hill's table (176)]

Languages at the far peripheries of the family's range have minimal or no appositive possession. Pipil (Aztecan subbranch; Campbell 1985), spoken in Nicaragua at the far southern limit of the Aztecan branch, has none (nor do other Aztec varieties to our knowledge). In western central Mexico, Cora (elna1235, SUA: Corachol subbranch, just north of Aztecan; Casad 1984) appears not to have appositives or classifiers, but in predicative possession the word 'animal' (sg. kyi, pl. yá'amwa) is inflected for possession and replaces the verb 'be' used for other possession:

(S15) ńéeci pú ńa-kyi mine 3sg 1sg-animal 'It's my animal' (236)

(S16) nye-síiku'u pú=pýryky 1sg-shirt 3sg=be [it's my shirt] (234)

This may be either a fossil or a possible nascent appositive construction. The northernmost languages of the Numic branch (the northernmost Uto-Aztecan branch, spoken in and near the Great Basin) also lack appositive constructions in its northernmost languages. All the Numic languages have a noun *puŋku (the Proto-Numic form) or similar, which functions as an independent noun meaning 'pet, domestic animal' and is also the possessive classifier for animals. In Chemehuevi (utes1238) and Southern Paiute of the Southern Numic subbranch, the word is an appositive classifier, taking a cliticized pronominal possessor and compounding with the possessed noun:

(S17) Chemehuevi: nyyni tuku-pungku-n 1sg.GEN mountain.lion/cat-pet-1sg 'my mountain lion/cat' (Press 1975:114)

(S18) Southern Paiute: qava:+vungqu-ni horse+pet-1sg 'my horse' (Sapir 1930:121)

Languages to the north of these use exclusively dependent-marked possession, or pronominal argument marking in which pronoun possessors cliticize to possessed nouns while nouns take the genitive case. In these languages, the *puŋku reflex and the putative classifier form a compound:

(S19) nia-ng [ wasüppi pungku ] 1sg-GEN mountain sheep pet 'It's my mountain sheep' (structure: my [mountain.sheep pet], i.e. [my [pet mountain.sheep]] )

(S20) nia-n [ nütsütü pungku ] 1sg.GEN airplane pet 5

'It's my airplane'1

Similarly in Eastern Shoshone (shos1248, Shaul MS):

(S21) goso vungku pig pet ‘pig, domesticated pig’

(S22) wovim bungku log pet ‘wagon’ (lit. 'wood[en vehicle')

Such compounds are listed in dictionaries: Eastern Shoshone goso vungku (pig pet) 'pig, domesticated pig' (Shaul MS); Northern Paiute (nort2954) sadyʔy+puku (dog+puku) 'pet dog' (Liljeblad et al. 2012). In the entries they are cited without possessors, which would not be possible if they were possessive appositives (because then they would be inalienable nouns). In the Eastern Shoshone examples above, the initial *p- of the classifier undergoes lenition, showing that it forms a close phrase or compound with the possessed noun.2 In Northern Paiute, the word means 'horse' or 'dog as an independent noun and appears as second element in compounds referring to domestic animals: (sadyʔy+puku [dog+puku] 'pet dog', Liljeblad et al. 2012 s.v.). In Tümpisa Shoshone (pana1305) predicative possession, punku is incorporated into the verb 'have':

(S23) Satü yühmü pungku+pa'e DEM porcupine pet+have 'He has a pet porcupine' as are other head nouns:

(S24) Nü petü+ppa'i 1sg daughter+have 'I have a daughter'

The word can also be used as an independent noun meaning 'pet, domestic animal'. There is also a compound isa+punku 'dog' (coyote+pet). In these Numic languages, then, the possessed noun and the *puŋku reflex form a compound or close phrase, and the *puŋku reflex is an ordinary alienable noun. Since these languages use a genitive case in some or all possessive phrases, and the cognate to the possessive appositive of sister languages with head-marked possession is appositive but not a possessive appositive, they are consistent with the generalization that appositive possessives occur only in head-marked phrases. Farther south in the Numic branch, Chemehuevi, the southernmost Southern Numic language, has a two-classifier appositive system, using the inalienable noun -pungku in appositive

1 In Numic languages the word means not only 'dog; horse' but (in a semantic extension from ''horse') 'vehicle, means of transport'. 2 Dayley's Tümpisa Shoshone practical orthography is at a more abstract level and does not indicate whether (40-41) are to be read as non-compound phrases, with [p], or as second elements of compounds, with [β]. Shaul's spelling is unambiguous. 6 constructions and incorporation (Press 1975:114):

(S25) nyyni tuku-pungku-n 1sg.GEN mountain.lion/cat-pet-1sg 'my mountain lion/cat'

(S26) nyy-k waha-ku-my waʔarovi-my pungku-wy-ga-nt 1sg-K two-OBL-ANIM.OBL horse-PL.OBL pet-PL-have-PCP 'I have two horses' ( K = 3rd person inanimate) and -ygapy 'plant (not wild)’ for plants (115; no examples given). Southern Paiute, a close sister of Chemehuevi, has only -pungqu 'domesticated animal, owned animal; horse, dog', which can be used by itself or as an appositive classifier (Sapir 1930:121):

(S27) qava:+vungqu-ni horse-pet-1sg 'my horse'

(S28) pungqu-ni pet-1sg 'my horse'

Qava 'horse' is alienable. We assume that pungqu- is probably inalienable when used by itself. In all of the Numic languages the *puŋku reflex forms a compound or close phrase with the possessed noun, unlike most appositive possessive words. It can be analyzed as a construct morpheme, one that registers the presence of a possessor (or the fact of possession) on the head. Unlike most construct morphemes, it also functions as an independent word. Given that the possessive phrases using it are spelled and pronounced as compounds, it is not an inflectional morpheme but derivational. There is no discussion of whether words for domesticated animals and plants are non- possessible in these languages. There are examples showing that they are possessible, without the appositive, in other Numic languages, e.g. Tümpisa Shoshone:

(S29) Satümmü tammi putisiha innüntükkanna those INCL-GEN burro-ACC steal 'They stole our burros' (Dayley 1989:190)

Tübatulabal (tuba1278), an NUA isolate branch, has both possessive affixes and a genitive case. It has obligatorily possessed inalienables (kin terms, some body parts, and a few special terms) and non-possessibles (proper names and some plant and animal names), but no information is given about possession of non-possessibles (Voegelin 1935:140). There is a cognate to *puŋku in the verb pungguʔ- 'domesticate' and the (evidently suffixed) noun pukubiš-t 'dog' (Voegelin 1958 s.vv.) but no reported appositive classifier. Hopi, another isolate NUA branch, has what appears to be a fossil appositive construction using the cognate to the Numic and Tübatulabal form. Most possessed nouns, including names of commonly possessed animals, take the regular prefixal possessive markers. Names of animals not usually possessed compound the noun with pooko, cognate to *puŋku:

(S30) mosa 'cat' i-mosa 'my cat' kwaayo 'hawk' i-kway-vooko 'my (captive) hawk' (Hopi Dictionary Project 873-874)

In the other Northern Uto-Aztecan languages we surveyed, Cupeño, Cahuilla, and Luiseño (luis1253, Cupan branch) use head-marked possession and have possessive appositives:

(S31) Cupeño awal ne-ʔash dog 1sg-CL:pet 'my dog' (Hill 2014:129)

(S32) Cahuilla né-ʔaš ʔáwal 1sg-own dog 'my dog' (Seiler 1995:219)

(S33) Luiseño no-ʔa:š awá:l 1sg-CL:pet dog 'my dog' (Kroeber and Grace 1960:82)3

Languages of the SUA Tarahumara-Guarijio branch (northern Mexico) have appositives of different types. The Choguitá Rarámuri (lowl1265) variety of Central Tarahumara (Caballero in prep.) has neither genitive case nor person marking on the possessed noun, but uses PSD suffixes to register a possessor. The suffix -la (henceforth we cite examples in the more surface of Caballero's two levels) is found on both inalienables (where it is obligatory) and alienables. Some nouns can add a second suffix -wa before -la.

(S34) a ne wasá-la 1sg.NOM cultivation.land-PSD 'my cultivation land'

b ne wasá-wa-la 1sg.NOM field-PSD-PSD id.

The second suffix is standard for some nouns, impossible for some, and optional for many as in these examples. Where it is optional, for the most part there is no detectable semantic difference. Some inalienables add a third suffix, the locative -či (added without regard to the syntactic function, i.e. not in a locative context):

(S35) nehé kawí-wa-la-či 1sg.NOM hill-PSD-PSD-LOC 'my hill'

Another possessive construction uses an appositive clause with the possessive noun nía, which takes the PSD suffix:

3 Kroeber and Grace do not write the initial glottal stop; Elliott 1999 does write it in similar examples. We have therefore added the glottal stop where it is lexeme-initial but word-internal, as Hill writes it (Seiler writes it even word-initially). 8

(S36) kúmi bu'í ne nía-la wičá where lie.sg 1sg.NOM POSS-PSD needle Where is my needle?

(S37) na ko ne nía-la líbro ko PROX EMPH 1sg POSS-PSD book EMPH 'This here is my book'

Exs. (S38ab) show -la present on an inalienable (where it is obligatory) and absent from the same word in its alienable sense (which when possessed requires nía):

(S38a) nehé sa'pá-la 1sg meat-PSD 'my flesh (of my body)'

(S38b) nehé nía-la sa'pá 1sg POSS-PSD meat 'It is mine the meat (to eat)' [We assume also NP 'my meat' (i.e. to eat)]

The possessive noun can also funtion as a verb in possessive predication, glossable as 'have'. This is the only appositive noun in Choguita Rarámuri. Rarámuri as reported by Rosenthal 1981 has two classificatory possessive verbs, one for ownership of animals: buku-, cognate to the Numic 'pet' classifier, in Rarámuri a verb meaning 'own (of animal)' (Rosenthal 1981:196, without source but evidently Brambila 1953).

(S39) Rarámuri nihe buku-ra gawe 1sg pet-PSD horse 'my horse'

The remaining surveyed UA languages have classifier systems with non-possessibles (or apparent non-possessibles). In the SUA Tepiman branch (which extends from central Mexico to southern Arizona), Southeastern Tepehuan (sout2976, Willett 1991) uses head-marked possession with person-number markers that are proclitic to the noun (suffix for 3sg) or enclitic to a preposed article. It is obligatory with inalienables (kin terms, body parts, meronyms).

(S40) gu - ñ moʔ ART-1sg head 'my head' (82)

There is a PSD suffix -ga- / -ʔ- used on words for domestic animals, affinal kin terms, plant and animal parts, and some basic possessed items such as 'house', when they are possessed (Willett 1991:211)

(S41) gu-m junu-ʔ ART-2sg corn-PSD 'your corn'

(S42) gu-m cvai-ʔ ART-2sg horse-PSD '...your horses' [extracted from clause]

(S43) gu joñ-ga-ʔn gu Macario ART wife-PSD-3sg ART M. 'Macario's wife' [extracted]

(S44) upsu-ga-ʔn kyʔn ty-kykyʔ gu nacsyr stinger-PSD-3sg with EXTENT-bite4 ART scorpion 'The scorpion stings with its stinger'

(S45) Jum-xychuiʔ gu cúpar-ga-ʔn gu-ñ jóco-ʔ RFL-break ART top-PSD-3sg ART-1sg flashlight 'The top to my flashlight is broken.'

As can be seen by scanning the above examples, the nouns that take -ga / -ʔ include both words that are cross-linguistically often inalienable (kin terms, body and plant parts, other parts) and frequent non-possessibles (domestic animals, food plant parts). With the typical non-possessibles it has PSD function, but with the inalienables it is pleonastic and divides semantic inalienables into two sets: obligatorily possessed kin terms and human body parts, and affinal terms and non-human parts. The suffix then marks, approximately, things that can be acquired (Willett 1991:211). Other Tepiman languages have appositive possessive nouns which classify nouns as animate vs. inanimate, and which take suffixes that add further classification. Seiler 1985 reports these two: Tohono O'odham (toho1245, formerly Papago; Saxton 1982:182) has animate šoi- and inanimate ïñ-, with suffixes -ka (possessed plant parts), -g (loanwords), -ga (others). Northern Tepehuan (nort2959, Bascom 1982:213) has animate šoi-ga and inanimate tyulydya-ga. These then add possessive suffixes. The suffixes -ga are cognate to the -ga allomorph of the Southeastern Tepehuan PSD suffix (above). The Cupan branch of NUA provides evidence for evolution of classifier systems, specifically for rapid growth of a small system into a large and open one. Luiseño (southwestern California) has an appositive classifier -ʔash for names of animals, which are non-possessible (Kroeber & Grace 1960: 82-83):5

(S46) awá:l 'dog' no-a:š awá:l 'my dog' no:ta 'gopher' no-a:š no:ta 'my (pet) gopher'

The word also functions as an independent noun ʔash-la (with NPN suffix) 'pet, domesticated animal, horse, cow; shaman's familiar', which can also be possessed: po-ʔásh 'his horse', 'her cow', etc. (Elliott 1999:135). It also forms a suffixed denominal verb ʔásh-lu 'breed (livestock), increase (one's herd)'. Closely related Cupeño (Arizona; Hill 2014) has a cognate classifier for animals and another for inanimate possessions (examples repeated from above):

(S47) awal ne-ʔash dog 1sg-CL:pet 'my dog' (129)

4 EXTENT is a preverb, apparently directional or spatial. 5 Kroeber and Grace do not write the initial glottal stop; Elliott 1999 (cited just below) does. 10

(S48) wi-ly ne-mixan lard-NPN 1sg-CL:possession 'my lard' (cooking lard) (176, 177)

Cahuilla, a neighbor and closest sister of Cupeño, has cognate nouns in the same two functions, as well as additional semantically based classifiers (Seiler 1995; 1977:298ff.). All but one can be inflected and used as either nouns or verbs, and most are basic verbs as shown by the fact that in their appositive use they take the nominalizer -ʔa. (For this suffix see Seiler 1977:298 and Hill 2014:316-319. We use Hill's term nominalizer.) Those with the nominalizer are surface nouns in apposition, but basic verbs. There are two animate classifiers, generic -ʔaš for domestic animals and pets, and -kil´iw 'totem' for the two moiety animals. The first of these appears to be a flexible noun-verb, as it can function as appositive without a nominalizing suffix; the second was nearly obsolete at the time of Seiler's fieldwork and only known as a noun.

(S49a) né-ʔaš ʔáwal 1sg-own dog 'my dog' (Seiler 1995:219)

(S49b) pe-n-áš-qal 3sg.O-1sg-own-DUR 'I own it (as a pet)' (1995:219, 1977:305)

There is a generic inanimate classifier for possessions of all kinds based on a verb root that Seiler glosses 'do' (with INDEF prefix it gives the meaning 'do (in some way)'):

(S50) qáwiš ne-m-éxan-ʔa rock 1sg-INDEF-do-NZ 'my rock' (1977:300)

(The Cahuilla word takes nominalizer -ʔa when used appositively; the Cupeño examples lack it. For these and other inanimate classifiers Seiler includes the -ʔa in the citation form.) For edible plants and/or their fruit there are classifiers based on traditional relations of ownership and usufruct. All take the nominalizer -ʔa.

-kiʔiw-ʔa Group of plants (or the location where they grow), and their fruit (mesquite, oak/acorn, pinyon, chia), from the verb root 'wait'.

(S51a) ne-kiʔiw-ʔa méñikiš 1sg-wait-NZ mesquite.beans 'my mesquite beans' (1995:221; see also 1977:301)

(S51b) pe-n-kíʔiw-qal 3sg-1sg-wait-DUR 'I am waiting for it'

Such places were assigned to clan lineages; "[t]he members of the lineage had a legal claim and were allowed to harvest these places when the appropriate time came" (301).

-ʔay-ʔa Fresh fruit or blossoms picked from the plant: fresh mesquite beans (in the pod), squash blossoms, corn.

(S52a) ne-ʔáy-ʔa méñikiš 1sg-pick-NZ mesquite.beans 'my mesquite beans (fresh, on the tree)' (221)

(S52b) pe-n-ʔáy-qal 3sg-1sg-pick-DUR 'I am picking it'

-či-ʔa Edible items after they have fallen off the plant and are picked up from the ground.

(S53a) ne-čí-ʔa méñikiš 1sg-gather-NZ mesquite.beans 'my mesquite beans (picked up from the ground)' (221)

(S53b) pe-n-číči-qal 3sg-1sg-gather-DUR 'I am picking it up from the ground'

-wés-ʔa Crops planted in a row.

(S54a) ne-wés-ʔa 1sg-plant-NZ 'my planting' (1977:303) (no adnominal example given)

(S54b) pe-n-wés-qal 3sg-1sg-plant-DUR 'I am planting it' (ibid.)

These classifiers are primary verbs and take the nominalizer to function adnominally. Their meanings as verbs are human actions: 'own a claim (and harvest when ripe)', 'pick, harvest', 'gather', 'plant'. In their adnominal uses they also appear to carry nominal-like quantitative or distributional implications: patch of land where edible plants grow; scattered over the ground; ripe for picking, or fresh; in a row. We assume these are aspects of what is lexicalized in the nominalized form and not inherent in the verb meaning. There are other classifiers for other food products, based on how they are prepared: -sex-ʔa 'cooked', -waʔ 'roasted', -čáxni-ʔa 'melted', -téneq-ʔa 'barbecued':

(S55a) né-waʔ túkut 1sg-roasted wildcat 'my roasted bobcat meat' (304)

(S55b) pe-n-wáwa-qal 3sg-1sg-roast:RED-DUR 'I am roasting it' (304)

(S56a) ne-čáxni-ʔa wíl´ 1sg-melt-NZ lard (305) 12

'my melted lard'

(S56b) pe-n-čáxni-qal 3sg-1sg-melt-DUR 'I am melting it' (305)

-waʔ 'roast' does not take the nominalizer and must be a basic noun or flexible noun-verb; the others take it and are basic verbs. All have verbal meanings based on the type of preparation. They appear not to have the quantitative or distributional implications that the edible plant classifiers have. The Cahuilla system is the only large system we have found in Uto-Aztecan. The Cahuilla classifiers use morphology and syntax that are easily available for one type of relativization, which is morphologically minimal and apparently appositive rather than subordinating, as in this example from Cupeño:

(S57) pe-pulinma pe-ʔayew-ʔa 3sg-man's.child 3sg-like-NZ6 'his son whom he loved' (Hill 2014:317)

Such constructions could easily have been coined to create possessed NP's for owned non- possessible head nouns. Thus we can reconstruct a pre-Cahuilla system in which animal nouns and some inanimates were non-possessible, or perhaps all alienables were non-possessible. Owned non-possessibles could form the appositive construction as needed, and these have been lexicalized for the salient owned or apportioned categories of animals and food items. An open question is whether the foodstuff nouns were strictly grammatically non-possessible: perhaps the possession marked by possessive affixes is semantically a more intimate or inherent relationship that does not apply outside of kin terms, body parts, or certain other closely connected nouns (e.g. a basket which the owner has made, which is inflected as inalienable in Cahuilla); or perhaps notions like 'have', ownership, and possession in Cahuilla and pre-Cahuilla necessarily involve relations of ownership or actions of claiming and are therefore naturally conveyed by verbs. (See Seiler 1977:298-307 and 1995 for a close analysis of the semantics of possession in Cahuilla.) All three Cupan languages have the appositive classifier *ʔaash 'pet, owned animal', which Rosenthal 1981:198 describes as similar to a 'pet' classifier of the neighboring Yuman language family. She does not give the Yuman form and we have not found it in our survey (§3.3 below); we have found only Tiipay (kumi1248) -xaṭ, Hualapai (hava1248) -hadh. The range of Uto-Aztecan appositive possessive systems can be accounted for with two principles: (1) independent elaboration in Cahuilla, using verbs in a relative construction that was generally available and could easily have become standard for certain semantic kinds of possession; and (2) tapering off to both north and south of smaller systems with non-possessible animal names and some inanimates attested in the centrally located languages. 7 In the elaborate Cahuilla system and the simpler Cupeño type from which it evolved the classificatory appositives are verbs in origin. To judge from the Tübatulabal cognate, the Numic 'pet' classifier may have been a verb in origin.

6 Hill interlinearizes the suffix as PSD, but as this is a type of nominalization we interlinearize it functionally in this example as NZ. It is a single morpheme with those two functions. 7 Unless the allomorph -ʔ of the Southeastern Tepehuan PSD suffix -ga- / -ʔ- is cognate to the Cupan nominalizer and is a remnant of a once larger or more open system. 13

S3.2.3. Washo (wash1253, isolate, northeastern California and western Nevada; Jacobsen 1964:391-2, 408, 468) Washo has person-number possessive prefixes. Alienables may take prefixes; inalienables, mostly kin terms and body parts, are obligatorily possessed. (Inalienables fall into three morphologically defined subclasses: see Jacobsen's Appendix 3.) Animal and plant names cannot take possessive prefixes but use appositive classifiers: gúšuʔ 'pet' for animals and another word for plants (Washo term not given). Other non-possessibles can add the attributive-instrumental prefix when preceded by a noun possessor. We analyze this prefix as PSD. It registers a possessor but does not index it.

(S58) t'á:gim 'pine nuts' vs. dabóʔo ʔit-t'á:gim white.man PSD-pinenuts 'white man's nuts' [purchased nuts]

S3.2.4 Yuman8 The Yuman family, spread across southern California and Arizona and Baja California, is probably somewhat over 2000 years old. We have surveyed five of its 10 daughters, including representatives of all major branches. The languages typically have a system of three possessive classes. Inalienables directly take possessive prefixes and are obligatorily possessed; they include kin terms, body parts and plant parts, and a few others. (Kin terms and body parts have slightly different allomorphs of their possessive prefixes in some of the languages.) Alienables are optionally possessed, and when possessed some or all of them take a PSD prefix following the person prefix. A possessor noun or pronoun precedes the possessed noun. These two classes have the same structure across the family; the PSD prefix has two allomorphs, contrasting in some languages and leveled in favor of one or the other in most. Certain other nouns are apparently non-possessible (though never so described in grammars) and take postposed appositive possessive nouns that have some classification, most often 'pet' and some kinds of inanimates, but occasionally others. These are less consistent across the family. Examples of the three classes from Hualapai (Pai branch; Watahomigie et al. 1982):9

Inalienable:

(S59) nya ʔ-jídha ma m-jídha I 1-mother you 2-mother 'my mother' 'your mother' (173)

Alienable: In Hualapai the PSD form is used chiefly for nouns referring to real property (land, houses, etc.) (187). Most nouns can use the general appositive construction (below).

(S60) nya nyi-ʔ-wa:-v-ch hánkyu 1sg PSD-1-house-DEM-SUBJECT good This house of mine is good. (188)

The PSD prefix is also used on the animal classifier (just below).

8 In Yuman examples we have replaced “d” (with strikethrough) with dh. We linearize superscript “y” and “w”. 9 This grammar is notable for including sizable lists of nouns in each class and mentioning nouns that can take more than one kind of possessive marking (with disussion of the semantic difference). 14

Appositive: Names for some domesticated animals and some wild animals in captivity use the animal classifier -hadh:

(S61) waksí ma m-nyi-hádha cow you 2-PSD-pet 'your cow' (extracted from clause example) (179)

Other nouns use the general classifier -wi:-. 10

(S62) madh ma m-wi:-ny-ch hánkyu land 2sg 2-POSS-DEM-SUBJECT good The land that belongs to you is good. (189)

Examples from Jamul Tiipay (Delta-California branch; Miller 2001): 11

Inalienables:

(S63a) Ø-shally (1-hand) 'my hand, arm' me-shally (2-hand) 'you hand, arm' Ø-shally (3-hand) 'his/her hand, arm' (146)

(S63b) Ø-ntaly (1-mother) 'my mother' me-ntaly (2-mother) 'your mother' kwe-ntaly (3-mother) 'his/her mother' (147)

Note the allomorphy of third person prefixes, with Ø- for body parts and kwe- for kin terms.

Alienables:

(S64) Ø-nye-wa (1-PSD-house) 'my house' me-nye-wa (2-PSD-house) 'your house' Ø-nye-wa (3-PSD-house) 'his/her house' (147)

Appositive possessives are not explicitly discussed, but Langdon 1970:170 has this one among her examples of other appositional NP's:12

(S65) ʔa:ṣa: ʔ-ny-xaṭ bird 1-PSD-pet 'my pet bird'

For Maricopa (mari1440, River branch) Gordon 1986:33 describes two appositive classifiers: ny-hat (PSD-dog) for animals and ny-wish for others:

10 The prefixed alienable construction is an alternative. It implies a closer or more immediate, ongoing, possessive relation compared to the appositive one (Watahomigie et al. 188-189). 11 We have added "Ø" and interlinearized it where there is no overt prefix. 12 Retranscribed without predictable schwas, to match Miller's transcription. 15

(S66) qwaqt '-ny-hat horse 1-PSD-dog 'my horse'

(S67) m-ntay posh ny-hat 2-mother cat PSD-dog 'your mother's cat'

(S68) kwar'o m-nywish knife 2-PSD.POSS 'your knife'

In Cocopa (coco1261, Delta-California branch; Crawford 1966) inalienables are much as in Hualapai and Jamul Tiipay, except that kin terms are denominal verbs, renominalized with the nominalizer kw-:

(S69) ny-šmá:l (3-ear) 'his/her ear' (98) kw-ny-a-cáy (NZ-PSD-3-mother)13 'his/her mother' (99)

Only a few alienables use the PSD prefix ny-:

(S70) máṭ 'land, ground' m-ny-máṭ 'your land, country' 2-PSD-land wá 'house' Ø-ny-wá 'my house' kmí 'bag, sack' Ø-ny-kamí 'his pocket' (139)

It has an allomorph i:- that appears on a few body part nouns:

(S71) Ø-i:-mí: 'my foot, leg' m-i:-yú 'your eye, face' (139)

Most alienable nouns use an appositive construction with a form of the verb aʔi 'do'.14

(S72) nyqwál uʔás 'her front dress' (front:dress 3sg-DO) nyqwál maʔís 'your front dress' (front:dress 3sg-DO (97)

(S73) ku:k Ø-aʔís 'my coke', lit. 'I have a coke, the coke I have' 1-do/have (79)

The appositive construction uses a PSD prefix for animate possessum:

(S74) kwramáṣ p-ny-aʔís 'I have children' (79) ?-PSD-do/have

13 Note the homophony of ny-, which is PSD for alienables and kin terms but third person for most inalienables. -a- of 'his mother' is not originally a member of the person paradigm but an epenthetic or similar vowel, arguably reanalyzed as a person marker (Crawford, 98). 14 Crawford describes the -s as a distributive object plural marker, describes the entire construction as apparently nominalized, and translates some examples as finite. We take it to be an internally headed nominalization. 16

We found no mention of a separate animal classifier. Kiliwa (kili1268, isolate branch, more distant from the rest; Mixco 1971:106-108 has the same treatment of inalienables, except that some take a PSD prefix -i-:15

(S75a) ʔ - ʔíy 1 head 'my head'

(S75b) m - yíw 2 eye 'your eye'

(S75c) ʔ - i - wáʔ 1sg-PSD-house 'my house'

(S75d) m - i - phíʔ 2 - PSD-nose 'your nose'

Apparently all alienables take one of three shape-based appositive classifiers: páʔ 'non- long', háʔ 'long', and č-ʔî 'perpendicular'. These are shape-classified verbs all meaning 'put, place'.

(S76a) ximíʔ ʔ - páʔ bag 1sg-place:non-long 'my bag' (108)

(S76b) ʔ that ʔ - háʔ 1 dog 1-place:long 'my dog' (108)

(S76c) naitháʔ m - č - ʔî: horse 2 - (place:perpendicular) 'your horse' (109)

There is no mention of an animal classifier, and the examples of 'dog' and 'horse' just above indicate that domestic animals take the regular shape-based classifiers. To summarize, most Yuman languages treat inalienables alike: kin terms, body parts, and a few others take direct possessive affixation; only Kiliwa uses the PSD prefix with some of these. Alienables are more variable. Alienables with PSD are a default class in Jamul Tiipay but a minor class elsewhere, coexisting with appositive classifiers, and absent entirely from Kiliwa. Appositive classifiers are even more variable. The Kiliwa system is entirely different from those of the other languages (consistent with its geographical and phylogenetic separation from the rest of the family). In General Yuman (the non-Kiliwa branch of the family) the appositive classifier haṭ for animals and the PSD prefix ny- are found in all three subbranches and can be reconstructed to the General Yuman protolanguage, and the general appositive wi:- is found in two branches and can possibly be reconstructed for General Yuman. The only structural patterns that are pan-Yuman are the direct affixation with inalienables, which is common worldwide, and the appositives in general (though not specific ones). The appositives are described as verbs or deverbal wherever the point is mentioned (Watahomigie et al. 173, 180, Crawford 1966:97, 168, Mixco 1971:106-108). It is

15 We replace Mixco's word-internal plus signs with hyphens. 17 difficult to say whether, over time, it is PSD alienables that have been expanding at the expense of appositive ones or vice versa.

S3.2.5. Keresan Laguna (east1472), of the small Keresan family (or more properly dialect chain) of the Pueblos, has four possessive classes (Lachler 2006:54-65): non-possessibles (natural kinds such as plant and animal species, and natural phenomena such as ‘snow’, ‘sun’); optionally possessed nouns (including artifacts, institutions, etc. and also what Lachler terms dealienables, alienables derived from inalienables); body part nouns (obligatorily possessed), and kin terms (obligatorily possessed, but with different possessive prefixes from those of body parts). Non-possessibles, when owned (as with domesticated animals), take an appositive construction with the nominalized verb stem - adyaa-she (have.as.pet-NZ) with a possessive prefix:

(S77) kawaayu k’-adyaa-she horse 3sg-have.as.pet-NZ ‘his/her horse’ (62)

Wild animal names can occur in this construction if they are pets, e.g. in a myth text:

(S78) k’-adyaa-she muuk’aitra 3sg-have.as-pet-NZ mountain lion ‘his (pet) mountain lion’ (63; Boas 1927:07.062)

The same construction, with the cognate possessive noun and also with animal names, occurs in closely related Acoma (west2632):

(S79) kawâayu ś-adyá horse 1sg.pet 'my horse' (Miller 1965:147) and Santa Ana (east1472; Davis 1964:129, unsegmented example with ‘his eagle’).

S3.2.6. Caddoan In Wichita (wich1260, northern Texas to Kansas; Rood 1976:143-150), apparently no nouns can take person indexation (or any other inflection; nouns are a non-inflecting part of speech). The only possessive construction is relativization. (The exact form of relativization – argument indexation or incorporation – depends on whether the relative noun is A, S, O, or R.)

(S80a) niye:s niya:wéʔekih {niy-uR-waʔ-iki} child PPL.indef:S-POSSESSIVE-DISTRIBUTIVE-be.PLURAL 'their children' (144; extracted from clause)

(S80b) natí:weʔesikih {nat-u'r-weʔes-iki} PPL.1S-POSSESSIVE-dog-be.PLURAL 'my dogs' (145; extracted from clause)

POSSESSIVE (Rood's term) is a verbal morpheme, as is clear in (99a). In (99b) it looks as though it might be a PSD affix on the noun (incorporated together with the noun), but (99a) shows 18 that it is a verbal morpheme. Perhaps it is a construct affix, registering but not indexing an argument; in that case it could be glossed PSD in our sense (§2 of main text). In Wichita, therefore, the entire class of nouns is non-possessible. All possessive constructions use relativization.

S3.2.7 Algonquian16 Arapaho (arap1274, Montana; Cowell & Moss 2008:60-68) uses prefixal person indexation with any and all nouns (animate and inanimate, alienable and inalienable), the only differences in nouns being that inalienables are obligatorily possessed and some alienables have a special possessed stem formed by adding a PSD suffix. 17

(S81) híxon-o ne-t-íxon-eb bone-PL 1sg-EP-bone-PSD 'bones' 'my bone' (63)

(S82) béé3ei hi-béé3ei-w owl 3poss-owl-OBV 'his/her owl' (62)

With inanimate possessors, however, possessive indexation is not possible, and a relative construction is used instead:18

(S83) Animate possessor: Inanimate possessor: hi'-óó3 hí-íooe-éihi-:noo-' 3sg-leg 3.leg-AI.PASS-II-ØS 'his/her leg' 'its leg', lit. 'it has a leg' (e.g. a table) (64)

The relative construction does not define a class of non-possible nouns; rather, the possessor determines the construction type. (See main text §4.2.) In addition, as in most Algonquian languages, a few nouns are non-possessible and have suppletive possessible counterparts. One of these, the possessible word for 'horse', also means 'pet' and can be used appositively in Arapaho (Cowell & Moss 2008:67):

(S84) ho3 'arrow' wóxhoox 'horse' néic 'my arrow' nó-toníhi' 'my horse' héic 'your arrow' hó-toníhi' 'your horse' hinííc 'his arrow' hí-toníh'o ~ hítoního' 'his horse' (67)

(S85) nó-toníhi' beníixóxko'ó' 1sg-pet goat 'my pet goat'

(S86) nó-toníhi' nih'óó3ouwóx 1sg-pet pig 'my pet pig' (67)

16 We thank Richard Rhodes for consultation on Algonquian. 17 Transcription is in orthography; 3 = theta. Abbreviations: EP epenthetic; OBV obviative (case); AI animate intransitive, II intransitive inanimate; Ø inanimate; S subject. 18 With verbs of the AI and II stem classes, relative and main clauses are identical (Cowell & Moss, 373). 19

Suppletive pairs are discussed in grammars of most Algonquian languages, e.g. Menomini (meno1252, Bloomfield 1962:42):

(S87) anè:m 'dog' (non-possessible) ne-t-i:hsèh 'my dog' 1sg-EP-dog

Appositive treatment of non-possessibles seems not to be attested outside of Arapaho (where it seems to be a contact phenomenon: see main text §4.2).

S3.2.8 The U.S. Southeast19 Examples are attested from several of the diverse languages of the southeastern U.S, including one verbal appositive.

S3.2.8.1. Muskogean The only case from the Muskogean family (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) that we have found is Creek (cree1270), originally spoken in northwestern Florida and nearby southwestern Alabama (now also Oklahoma). Creek has obligatorily possessed and optionally possessed nouns, and an additional set that, while not strictly non-possessible, "sound awkward with a possessive prefix" (Martin 2011:138). These include compounds, nominalizations, and nouns that are not ordinarily possessed. Instead they take an appositive construction with the noun 'thing':

(S88) toɬ-sakká:ka ca-nâ:ki eye-sitting.in.it 1S.PAT-thing 'my glasses' (Martin 2011:138)

The same construction can be used with optionally possessed nouns as well.

S3.2.8.2. Iroquoian In Cherokee (Virginia, Georgia), which comprises the Southern Iroquoian branch, human root nouns (i.e. chiefly kin terms; root nouns are underived basic nouns) can take possessive prefixes, but nonhuman root nouns cannot take any inflection and instead use an appositive construction with an empty or generic root and a possessive prefix indexing the person of the possessor:

(S89) soógwíli agi-ajeéli horse 1B-POSS ‘my horse’ (Montgomery-Anderson 2015:134 citing Feeling 1975a:17)

Montgomery- Anderson’s term for this generic root is possessive pronoun. Kin terms are two- argument predicates that index the possessor with a Series B prefix (patient or S/O) and the kin referent with Series A (S/A).

(S90) agi-ji ja-ji uu-ji 1B-mother 2B-mother 3B-mother my mother your mother her mother (145)

19 We thank Jack Martin and Aaron Broadwell for consultation on Muskogean and Cherokee (cher1273). 20

These can also mean ‘She is my mother’, ‘She is your mother’, ‘She is her mother’, functioning as predicates. Though we have not seen appositive possession discussed in grammars of other Iroquoian languages, in fact all of the languages have non-inflectable words including some animal names, and these when owned can take an appositive construction using a possessible noun (in Northern Iroquoian typically -tshenv or -itshenv 'domestic animal') (M. Mithun, p.c.). The Iroquoian system is distinctive in that it involves general non-inflectability of nouns and not just specifically non- possessibility.

S3.2.8.3. Siouan Appositive constructions are found in two languages of the Southeastern Siouan branch, both of which went extinct without receiving full descriptions. Biloxi (bilo1248, Einaudi 1976) has three possessive classes: obligatorily possessed (kin terms, body parts), optionally possessed (a few nouns denoting intimate possessions such as ‘house’ and items of clothing, which are treated as inalienables when owned), and all other nouns, which cannot be inflected for person. How ownership of these non-possessibles was expressed is unknown. In Tutelo (tute1247) of the same branch (Oliverio 1996) inalienables are obligatorily possessed (kin terms, body parts) and are often but not necessarily used with possessive prefixes. Alienables are optionally possessed and take a longer possessive marker consisting of the person prefix plus a PSD prefix -ta:-. A handful of nouns also have an alternative construction with an appositive word consisting of the verb ‘belong to’ plus an indefinite suffix that marks it as a noun:

(S91) wi - ta: - ku:čka:-i 1sgP-PSD-child-INDEF ‘my child’ (140) (prefixal)

(S92) wakučka wį - kítǫ - wi child 1sgDAT-belong-INDEF 'my child' (140) (appositive)

The word ‘dog’, and no other noun, takes a verbal appositive word ‘own’, which we interpret as a (finite) relative (relative clauses are not described for Tutelo). If the use with only 'dog' is not an accident of under-documentation, this is our only example of a noun lexically governing a possessive appositive word.

(S93) čhǫk o - wa - hkínphi dog LOC-1sgA-own 'my dog' (lit. 'the dog I own')

(S94) čhǫk o - ya - hkínphi dog LOC-2A-own 'your dog' ('the dog you own')

Non-possessible nouns are also found in the Dakotan subgroup of the Mississippi Valley Siouan branch of the northern Great Plains. Dakota ordinarily uses external rather than adnominal possession, marking the possessor on the verb with a person-number object index plus a dedicated prefix marking its possessive function (Boas & Deloria 1941:86-92, 128-130; Mithun 2001). Some nouns are non-possessible: "According to Dakota concepts certain objects, particularly natural 21 objects and food, cannot be personal property" (Boas & Deloria 1941:90), and for those nouns the verb cannot take the possessive form and is reflexive instead. (Adnominal possessive constructions do exist in Dakota, but we have not found a discussion of adnominal treatment of owned non- possessibles.) The Dakota material is important, as it shows that non-possessibility is independent of adnominal possessive morphology and is a more general lexical property of nouns themselves. We also surveyed Crow (Graczyk 2007), for which there is no mention of non-possessibles.

S3.3. Central America

S3.3.1. Seri (seri1257, isolate, northern Mexico; Marlett 1981) Seri inalienables (kin terms, body parts) take possessive prefixes that index person. Alienables do not take possessive prefixes but use a verbal appositive, a relative clause with the verb 'own' in a nominalized form:

(S95) simalón kiʔ tro:ki ya: kiʔ Cimalon the car 3.NMZ.own the 'Cimalon's car' (69; extracted from clause)

(S96) kanóatax ʔi-o-ya:t koi boats 1-NMZ-own the 'our boats' (70; extracted from clause)

S3.3.2. Mayan The Mayan family consists of some 40 languages mostly spoken in Guatemala. Mora-Marín 2019 surveys possession across the entire family. All Mayan languages use head-marked possession using person-number prefixes, and most have a variety of different types based on obligatory possession, possessibility with restrictions, non-possessibility, animate vs. inanimate possessor, intimacy of possession, and other distinctions, some of these marked by PSD and NPN suffixes of various types. One of these is what Dayley 1985:145 describing Tz'utujil (tzut1248) calls abnormal possession: a noun such as a body part or meronym takes unmediated possessive inflection in its alienable sense but requires a special suffix in the inalienable sense:

(S97) kik' 'blood': nuu-kiik' 'my blood' (e.g. to make sausage with) n-kik'-eel 'my blood' (in my body)

Mora Marín shows that these suffixed forms can be analyzed as derivation, specifically abstractivization, and not as inflection. Only a few Mayan languages have an appositive construction for non-possessibles, e.g. some natural phenomena (Mora Marín 29 and p.c.):

(S98) K'ichee' qa-naan jab 'our mother rain' (1PL-mother rain) qa-naan uleew 'our mother earth' (1PL-mother earth) qa-taat q'iij 'our father sun' (1PL-father sun)

(S99) Mam q-txuu jb'aal 'our mother rain' (1PL-mother rain) q-man q'iij 'our father sun' (1PL-father sun) q-txu xjaaw 'our mother moon' (1PL-mother moon) or animals and food: 22

(S100a) Yucatec inw-aalak' pèek' 1sg-CL:animal dog 'my (pet) dog'

(S100b) inw-ó'och b'u'ul 1sg-CL:food beans 'my beans (ready to eat)'

The Yucatec pattern is like the one found in several Uto-Aztecan and nearby languages, with appositive classifiers for animals and plant food. The examples from K'ichee' and Mam are different from any we have found elsewhere, classifying (if that is the right term) nouns not by their function or the way they were acquired or prepared but by what is probably a cultural or mythic connection or metaphor. Here too, an inalienable noun serves as classifier.

S3.3.3. Otomanguean

S3.3.1. Chichimeco Jonaz (chic1272, Otopamean branch of Otomanguean; central Mexico; Lastra de Suarez 1984) has a large number of inalienable possessive classes defined by stem changes in the noun when they take possessive prefixes. These nouns are mostly kin terms, body parts, and items of clothing. Alienables do not take possessive prefixes or the internal possessive marking, but occur with one of four appositive classifiers, which are inalienable nouns and do take stem changes. Examples with singular possessors (25):

1sg 2sg 3sg (S101) CL:food nantʔé ' útʔe utʔé CL:clothing nuntʔú: nírʔu: nintʔú: CL:animal námbæʔæ ungwǽʔæ úngwæʔæ CL:thing námbihi úngwihi úmįhį 20

The noun kúroho 'rock' with singular possessors (25):

(S102) 1sg námbihi kúroho 2sg úngwihi kúroho 3sg úmįhį kúroho

S3.3.2. Copala Triqui (copa1247, Mixtecan branch, southern Mexico; Broadwell 2011, 2016) has obligatorily possessed inalienables, possessible alienables, and non-possessible alienables. Inalienables have a juxtaposed possessor (S103a-b), which for some nouns can optionally be a clitic (c). (The noun in (S103abc) has suppletive alienable and inalienable forms.)

(S103a) rej xnii father child:ALIENABLE 'the child’s father'

20 The original has a small underscore centered under the "m", indicating a lenis nasal (highly nasalized approximant). 23

(S103b) ta'nii so' child:INALIENABLE he 'his child'

(S103c) tani-j child:INALIENABLE-1sg 'my child’

A small number of alienables are non-possessible and require an appositive classifier. There are two classifiers, one for animals and one for objects made of paper:

(S104a) daán=j chuvee CL:animal=1sg dog my dog

(S104b) danj xnii libroó CL:paper child book 'the child's book'

S3.4. South America

S3.4.1. Cariban21 The Cariban family is fairly widespread in northern South America. The Glottolog classification lists 42 languages in 8 branches. Cariban languages typically distinguish obligatorily possessed (typically kin terms, body parts, and a few others), optionally possessed, and non-possessible nouns, of which the latter always include domestic animals, growing plants, and some natural phenomena. (Tavares 2005:147-149 describes the semantics of Wayana non-possessibles as pertaining to the wild or non-cultural world, while possessibles belong to human culture, and their membership can be expanded as items of national and European culture become familiar in Wayana society.) Non- possessibles whose referents are owned take an appositive possessive construction with a classifier that behaves synchronically like an obligatorily possessed noun. The classifiers are a fairly large class in languages of different branches, and often open in the sense that any relatively generic noun can be used in the same way. Classifiers can be used as appositives, e.g. Panare (enap1235) (using classifier 'liquid' as appositive):

(S105) kape-ya y-úku-nh coffee-in 1-CL:liquid-PSD 'in my coffee' (Payne & Payne 2013:81) or as independent nominals:

(S106) Asa' t-ïkë mémpa-sejpa këj Toman two 3UNSP-CL:animal DI.steal-FUT AN.PROX Tom 'Tom is going to steal someone's two domestic animals' (86)

Several descriptions note that the classifier constructions can be discontinuous, with the classifier

21 For readability barred “i” of some of the Cariban sources is replaced with ï. 24 detached from the possessed noun, while in some languages they form a tighter phrase with strict order and no detachability (e.g. Meira 1999 for Tiriyó). Those describing the looser appositive syntax generally describe the construction as something other than an NP and prefer the term "generic noun" to "classifier"; we call them all classifiers regardless of the closer vs. looser structure of the phrase. Payne & Payne 2013:81-82 list 20 such classifiers for Panare (Pemong-Panare subbranch of Venezuelan Cariban); Koehn 1994 lists 9 for Apalai (apal1257, isolate branch); Tavares 2005:144 lists 13 for Wayana (waya1269, Wayanic subbranch of Guianan Cariban); Meira lists 7 for Tiriyó (trio1238, Taranoan subbranch of Guianan); Bruno 2003:69 gives only two, 'pet' and 'food', for Waimiri (waim1253, Yawaperi branch) (without, however, claiming that this is an exhaustive list). Classifier inventories for some of these are:

(S107) Apalaí (cited with possessive prefixes)

j-o-ty 1sg-meat.type.food-PSD y-napy-ry INCLdu-veg/fruit.type.food-PSD ỹ-kyry-ry 1sg-field.produce-PSD y-kyry-ry 1sg-thing-PSD eky 3sg-pet/domestic.animal-PSD22 j-uhme 1sg-nut/corn/seed i-karimo-ry 3sg-killed.game-PSD apwahto-ry 2sg-firewood-PSD z-u-ru 3sg-manioc.cake/bread-PSD

(S108) Wayana

ot(ï) animal-based food kaimo game [animal] akïï farm animal; parasite; breed anon(u) body painting (w)okï beverage ekï pet kïlïï thing muhunu bait pataa place, village kanpë smoked animal-based food nepïï soft vegetable food neme juicy fruit/food ka-top thing

(S109) Waimiri ieky pet wyty food

For Macushi (macu1259, Pemong-Panare subgroup of Venezuelan branch; Carson 1982) only one classifier is found in more recent work:

(S110) -ekïng pet

22 Glossing sic. The grammar does not identify 3sg or PSD morphemes in this word. 25

but Carlson & Payne 1989:103 note that an older source (Williams 1937) also has a classifier for food. We have found little discussion of classifier origins in Cariban. Synchronically, all are syntactic nouns and mostly inalienables. In Panare (Payne & Payne 2013:85) and Wayana (Tavares 2005:145) a few of them are verbal in origin (in Wayana those are nominalized verbs). The only source mentioned for new classifiers in open systems is nouns (usually with fairly generic semantics).

S3.4.2. Arawak Arawak is an old and widespread family that once covered much of northern Amazonia and several Caribbean islands. The languages typically have head-marked possessive morphology, and nouns are usually divided into possessive classes based on obligatoriness of possession and the presence of PSD suffixes when possessed and/or NPN suffixes when unpossessed. Non-possessibles are generally not mentioned in grammars and where discussed at all they are few and there is no mention of classifiers or appositives. Most Arawak languages have a system of classifiers that are not possessive but have more or less gender-like functions, appearing on various modifiers in agreement with the head noun. Examples from Yanesha' (yahe1238) showing the various classes (Duff-Tripp 1997:30-34):

(S111) Obligatorily possessed: Person-number prefix plus noun, no suffix:

po-ʔse (3sg-brother) 'her brother'

(S112) Usually possessed; NPN when not possessed.

oñ-ets (head-NPN) 'a head' p-oñ (3sg-head) 'his/her head'

Optionally possessed. Animates (also some relational terms and terms for edibles), usually have PSD when possessed. Inanimates are without PSD.

(S113) ochec 'dog' p-ochc-ar (3sg-dog-PSD) 'his/her dog'

cac 'fish' po-cac-ar (3sg-fish-PSD) 'his fish; his catch of fish'

noñt´ 23 'canoe' poʔ-noñt´ (3sg-canoe) 'his/her canoe'

Non-possessibles are chiefly chesha' 'child' and huocchanesha' 'orphan'. When an inalienably possessed noun is additionally owned, the noun takes two possessive prefixes:

(S114) pa-ʔmeʔ no-pa-ʔme-r 3sg-egg 1sg-3sg-egg-PSD 'its egg' (i.e. the chicken's) 'my egg' (chicken's egg that I own)

23 Duff-Tripp uses a tilde over all palatalized consonants. We write t´, etc. for letters we cannot place a tilde over. 26

Achagua (acha1250, Wilson 1992:65) has two possessive classifiers, animate and inanimate, used with alienable nouns. The classifier takes a possessive prefix if the possessor is a pronoun.

(S115) hi-íhiža éema Manuéľi íhiža éema 2sg-POSS horse Manuel POSS horse 'your horse' 'Manuel's horse'

(S116) ľi-šínaa páiniya wašiáľikuá-eži šínaa páiniya 3sgM-POSS machete man-SG POSS machete 'his machete' 'the man's machete'

Achagua also has a system of 12 numeral classifiers. The appositive classifiers above are not part of that system (Wilson's term for them is posposición de pertenencia.) Piapoco (piap1246, Reinoso 1999:92-98) also has an appositive possessive classifier. Inalienables (kin terms, body parts, plant parts) are obligatorily possessed. Alienables, if owned, take a PSD suffix together with the possessive prefix. Non-possessibles cannot take possessive prefixes or the PSD suffix. When owned they can optionally take the appositive possessive noun:24

(S117) tzema 'tobacco' nu-azu tzema (1sg-POSS tobacco) 'my tobacco'

In Nanti (nant1250, Kampa branch; Michael 2008:297-301) the usual Arawak system is undergoing change. Possessive prefixes are obligatory with inalienables (which are further distinguished by being able to be incorporated into verbs, with the possessor marked by verbal person markers). Alienables take the same possessive prefixes and, optionally, the PSD suffix. The pan-Arawak NPN suffix that derives alienables from inalienables has been lost; instead, Nanti speakers use the inclusive possessive marker: a-gito (INCL-head) 'our.INCL head; a head'.

S3.4.3. Tupian Tupian is an old family widespread in Amazonia and nearby. We have surveyed only the major branch, Tupi-Guarani. Nearly all Tupi-Guarani languages distinguish inalienables (obligatorily possessed), which include kin terms, body and plant parts, and some intimate possessions such as clothing; alienables (optionally possessed); and non-possessibles, and grammars generally mention these three types and cover inalienables and alienables. The possessive marking for these is generally identical (except for the obligatory vs. optional nature), but the treatment of nouns without possessors or with unspecified possessors differs: inalienables have dedicated unspecified marking, while alienables instead use the first person inclusive for the same meaning (e.g. Guarani (para1311): Gustafson 2014:328). Just how unspecified possession of inalienables is marked varies. In Kamaiurá (kama1373, Seki 2000) and Tapiete (tapi1253, Gonzalez 2005:111) there is a dedicated UNSP possessor prefix t- in the paradigm of person-number prefixes; in Wayampi (waya1270) the marking is initial consonant alternations or vowel loss in the noun, e.g. -poã 'medicine': e-poã 'my medicine', moã 'medicine' (Jensen 1998:500).

24 Wilson illustrates only with non-possessibles that when owned can be treated as either alienable (with classifier) or inalienable (with possessive prefix and no PSD), without discussion of the semantic difference. When 'tobacco' is treated inalienably the possessed form is nu-tzema (1sg- tobacco) 'my tobacco'. 27

While grammars generally identify a non-possessible class of nouns, they are less likely to discuss the marking of owned non-possessibles. Kukama-Kukamiria (coca1259, Vallejos 2016) has no person agreement but simply preposes a possessor to the head, creating an identifiable type of NP but not alienable vs. inalienable classes of nouns. Kin terms that vary for ego's gender (such as 'son' and 'daughter') have a "strong tendency" (114) to have a possessor; those without gender reference are optionally possessed. Non-possessibles would not be grammatically identifiable in such a system. Tapiete (tapi1253, Gonzalez 2005) has affixal possessive marking, which is obligatory for inalienables and optional for alienables, but perhaps no firmly grammaticalized class of non-possessibles; possessive morphology is pragmatically odd but elicitable for nouns denoting wild animals, air, earth, etc. For neither of these languages do there appear to be appositive possessive nouns. For Paraguayan Guarani, Velasquez-Castillo 1996:9-85 shows that possessive predication is usually non-verbal for inalienables but verbal for alienables:

(149) (Che) che-memby-ta 1sg 1sg.INACTIVE-offspring-FUT I will have a child. (Velasquez-Castillo 66)

(150) A-reko Maria mesa che-roga-pe 1sg.ACTIVE-have Maria table 1sg.INACTIVE-house-in I have Maria's table at home. (76) and equational predication of a possessed noun generally involves alienables:

(151) Ko-mesa che-mba'e this-table 1sg.INACTIVE-thing This table is mine. (alienable noun) (84)

(152) * Ko-memby che-mba'e this-child 1sg.INACTIVE-thing This child is mine. (inalienable noun) (84)

Her explanation relies on iconicity: less conceptual distance means less formal distance, so the inherent relationality of inalienables favors lack of an overt verbal form. See the discussion of appositives as predicative in §4.8 of the main text: we suggest that that there is an implicational hierarchy for null manifestation of a copula, and a first step in the hierarchy is predicative possession with an inalienable noun. Some languages do have appositives, typically one for animals or two for domestic vs. wild animals. Emerillon (emer1243, Rose 2003) has only one, for domestic animals:

(S118) de-le-iba zawal 2sg-LINK-animal dog 'your dog'

Aikhenvald (2012:291) says that most Tupi-Guarani languages distinguish classifiers for domestic vs. wild animals. Only in Kamaiura, carefully described in Seki 2000, have we found a large system of appositive classifier nouns (302-303):

(S119) -emijat prey, game (lit. 'lo que é apanhado' = 'what's caught') -emi'u food ('what's ingested') 28

-eymap domestic animal, pet -yet canoe; vehicle, means of transport -ywyrapat bow, weapon -yru covering, wrap, clothing -pyt body, house -kyap sleeping place -ata fire -apo artifact, accessory

Note that these include prototypical non-possessibles such as prey and domesticated animals, and meanings that are commonly found among inalienables such as clothing, weapons, and houses. Not all of these are explicitly identified as non-possessibles, which (p. 54) are listed as including animals, plants, natural phenomena, and persons, and artifacts and tools are explicitly identified as alienable. The appositive construction, then, is broader than the non-possessible class. Examples of the appositive construction are all translated as predicative (302):

(S120) paku-a je = r - emijat paca-N 1sg-LINK-prey 'The paca is my prey (game animal)'

(S121) ini -a je=kyap net-N 1sg-sleeping.place 'A net is my sleeping place'

(S122) wararwijaw-a je =r -eymap dog -N 1sg-LINK-pet 'The dog is my pet'

Seki paraphrases -emijat 'game animal' and -emi'u 'food' as with verbal locutions: 'what is caught/hunted' and 'what is ingested' (302). We note that -emijat 'game animal' and -eymap 'domestic animal' have cognates elsewhere in the family (e.g. Jensen 1998:503) and these are the ones that Aikhenvald reports as most common in the family. We conclude that the typical and probably reconstructable Tupi-Guarani system had appositive classifiers for game animals and domestic animals. The system has shrunk or disappeared in a few languages, and has grown considerably in Kamaiurá, where a more widely used appositive construction for equative predicative possession ('X is my Y') is used and perhaps conventionalized for owned non-possessibles.

S3.4.4. Matacoan Matacoan is a small family found mainly in the Gran Chaco and east Andean region of Argentina. Wichi Lhomtes (wich1261, Argentina; Nercesian 2014:167) uses direct person-number prefixation with inalienables, but with alienables it attaches the person-number index to a classifier: ka- for inanimates, especially instruments and tools but also others, and lo= for domesticated animals. ka- is only a prefix, but lo= can also be used as an independent noun 'animal'.

(S123a) n' -ka-husan 1sg-CL-axe 'mi hacha' (168)

(S123b) n' -lo=mitsi 1sg-CL=cat 'mi gato' (168)

(S123c) la-lo=y 3-CL=PL 'los animales' (169; extracted from clause example)

S3.4.5. Guaycuruan Guaycuruan is a small family spoken in the Gran Chaco area of northern Argentina. Kadiweu (qomm1235, Sandalo 1995) has obligatorily possessed inalienables, which directly add a person- number prefix. 25

(S124a) l-Geladi 3-house 'his house'

(S124b) Gad:-akilo 2-head 'your head' (56)

Alienables ordinarily have no prefix; they can be possessed, but then must have a classifier or what we gloss PSD between the person prefix and the noun root. There are three classifiers: female domestic animal, non-female domestic animal, and generic (all others).

(S125a) l-wiGadi apolikGanGa 3-CL:animal horse 'his horse'

(S125b) l-wiqate apolikGanGa 3-CL:female.animal horse 'his female horse'

(S125c) Gad:-neb:i aqi:di 2-CL:generic river 'your river'

The PSD prefix n- may be a reduced form of the generic classifier (Sandalo 57).

(S126) Gad:-n-aqi:di 2-PSD-river 'your river'

Two classifiers can cooccur (for emphasis: 57)

(S127) i-wiGadi i-neb:i apolikGanGa 1-CL:animal 1-CL:general horse

25 Sandalo gives examples in both phonemic and more abstract transcription. We use only the more abstract one. 30

'this horse of mine' (57)

There are some nouns that cannot be possessed (even with classifiers). "If they do occur with possessive markers, the meaning changes" (58). The only example given is epenay 'moon' : i-n- epenay (1-PSD-moon) 'my month' (the month I was born in).

S3.4.6. South American isolates

S3.4.6.1. Itonama (iton1250, Bolivia; Crevels 2006, 2009) uses relativizing morphology on alienably possessed nouns, but with no verb root involved in the possession. Inalienables take a possessive prefix on the noun. Kin terms are verbs, and additionally take a subordinating prefix and verbal number marking.

(S128) Inalienable: us-nu 'my nose' u'-nu 'your.M nose' ku'-nu 'your.F nose' (2009:250)

(S129) Kin term: ah - may - maye'ne ah - may - maye'ne-'cha'ke 3-SUBORD-father 3-SUBORD-father-MULTIPLE:ARG. 'his father' 'their fathers' (2006:163)

Alienables take the regular person-number prefixes followed by the relativizer/nominalizer mi- / ni-, which we gloss POSS. Forms of uku 'house' (2009:250):

(S130) as - mi - ku dih - ni - ku sih - ni - ku 1sgPOSS-house INCL-POSS-house 1pl-POSS-house ‘my house’ ‘our-INCL house’ ‘our-EXCL house’

S3.4.6.2. Urarina (northern Peru lowlands; Olawsky 2006) Modern Urarina (urar1246), under Spanish influence, has lost aspects of its former alienability opposition, but the original system is still evident in traditional language. Inalienables (kin terms, body parts, and a few others) were obligatorily possessed, with person prefixes. 3sg n- is now frozen in the citation form of some of these nouns (350-351):

(S131) alaarihja 'chest' 1sg k=alaarihja 3sg n=alaarihja (n)anaae 'leg' k=anaae n=anaae nïlïnï 'neck' ka=lïnï raj nïlïnï

Alienables were non-possessible and, when owned, used an appositive construction using a nominalized form raj of the verb 'receive' preceded by a juxtaposed noun or independent pronoun

(S132) akaïrï raj batia 3pl POSS pot 'their pots' (336)

(S133) kača raj lureri man POSS house 31

'the man's house' (335)

The appositive word is now optional, or can take the possessive clitic of inalienables:

(S134) kanï raj teru ~ kanï teru 1sg POSS axe 1sg axe 'my axe' (353)

(S135) ka=raj kanaanaj-ïrï=ra 1sg=POSS child=PL=EMF (EMF = clause-final emphatic particle) 'my children' (338)

S3.4.6.3. Yurakare (yura1255, central Bolivia; van Gijn 2006) uses a person prefix for inalienables:

(S136) ti-sibë 1sg-house my house

(S137) shunñe a-sibë man 3sg-house 'the man's house' (116)

Most animal nouns cannot take the possessive prefixes but use a lexical classifier:

(S138a) *ti-talipa 1sg-chicken 'my chicken'

(S138b) ti-tiba talipa 1sg-pet chicken 'my chicken' (74)

Human nouns can only take possessive prefixes if they are kin terms or proper names (116-117; the grammar does not discuss whether non-kin human nouns can take appositives).

S3.4.6.4. Kwaza (kwaz1243, northwestern Brazil; van der Voort 2004) Kwaza has a very large and probably open set of classifiers, nearly 150 (van der Voort 2004:177) which have a wide range of functions, one of which is possession. There is no alienability distinction. The possessor is in the nominative case, followed by either a nominalizer or a classifier. Van der Voort analyzes the nominalizer as a neutral classifier. In the following examples -hỹ is the nominalizer/neutral classifier and -xy is the classifier for such things as houses.

(S139) 'si-dy-hỹ a'xy 1sg-GEN-NMZ house 'my house'

(S140) Tawi'wi-dy-hỹ a'xy T.-GEN-NMZ house 'Tavivi's house' 32

(S141) (a'xy) si-dy-xy house 1sg-GEN-CL:house 'my house'

(S142) Tawi'wi-dy-xy T.-GEN-CL:house 'Tavivi's house'

These examples are from pp. 130-131; for other nouns with other classifiers see 181-186. Since there is no alienability distinction, and since the possessor is nominalized, Kwaza can be described as a language with exclusively appositive possession using classifiers.

S3.5. The Pacific

S3.5.1. Oceanic Most languages of the Oceanic branch of Austronesian contrast what the Austronesianist tradition calls direct and indirect possession, corresponding to our inalienable and alienable respectively. Lichtenberk 2018 gives a detailed survey of possessive constructions and their evolution. Lynch et al. 2002 is an earlier survey of just Oceanic. Proto-Oceanic had a small closed set: POc *ka- 'food', *m(w)a- 'drink', *na- general. These have no recoverable lexical source but may possibly be related to demonstratives (Lynch et al. 77). Whatever their sources, in modern languages they apparently are inalienable nouns in synchronic morphology, taking possessive affixes. showing that they are also to be found in the closest sister group to Oceanic, the South Halmahera-West New Guinea branch. Outside of Oceanic, Proto-South Halmahera-West New Guinea had a two-classifier system, *na- 'food' and *ri- general; the *na- classifiers of the two branches may be cognate (Lichtenberk 2018:186-190). Donohue & Schapper 2008 find other, more distantly related Austronesian languages with classifiers With direct possession, the head noun takes a person-number possessive affix. This pattern is used on kin terms, body parts, other parts, and other prototypical inalienables. With indirect possession, the possessed noun cannot take possessive person affixes; instead, a classifier carries the person-number affixes and is syntactically in apposition to the possessed noun. Classifiers do not classify nouns rigidly; there is often freedom to choose a classifier based on the semantics. See main text §1 for Fijian and Paamese examples. Larger inventories of possessive classifiers are found in three separate subgroups of Oceanic: Mussau (St. Matthias branch; the branch comprises Mussau (muss1246) and one very similar but nearly undescribed language); the Nuclear Micronesian branch (14 languages: Kosraean (kosr1238), Kiribati (gilb1244), Marshallese (mars1254), and 11 languages of the Pohnpeian- Chuukic subfamily); and Iaai (iaai1238, of the three-language Loyalties subgroup of New Caledonian). Since these three instances are widely separated phylogenetically and geographically, Lynch et al. reconstruct the abstract set of classifiers to Proto-Oceanic, but since it was an open class with changing membership and probably optional usage no individual classifiers can be reconstructed (79). This larger set of classifiers again pattern as inalienable nouns, and many of them are derived from lexical nouns or verbs. E.g. Iaai (Lynch et al. 782-3; list selected from Ozanne-Rivierre 1976):

(S143) From nouns: umwa- houses, shelters < uma 'house' nuu- plants nu 'coconut' huu- boats hu 'boat' tange- baskets tang 'basket' mëni- power mën 'power' waii- reefs wai 'reef'

(S144) From verbs: hlogu- fires hlök 'warm oneself' hicö- things to be chewed hic 'chew' bicö- headgear bicâ 'wear on the head' haalee- animals haatr 'look after' döö- spears dââ 'pierce'

(S145) No known lexical source: a- food bele- drink hnââ- passive [undergoer of nominalized verb] hne- agent [of nominalized verb] hanii catch (of fish, game) hwa- noise, voice iie- piece for chewing ii- land dee- road, path anyi- general

Examples:

(S146) wââ a-n thaan fish POSS:FOOD-3sg chief 'the chief's fish (to eat)' (783)

(S147) köiö bele-n moomo water POSS:DRINK-3sg woman 'the woman's water (to drink)' (783)

Note also that, orthogonal to possessive classification, many Oceanic languages have a separate system of classifiers used as numeral classifiers and/or attached to the nouns themselves. These are different in function and also in semantics: "the numeral classifiers are generally based on physical form, while the possessive classifiers are generally based on function" (Lynch et al. 42). Harrison 1988 shows that Kiribati/Gilbertese, the only Micronesian language lacking possessive classifiers, uses appositive possessed nouns and nominalized verbs in a looser construction for alienables.

(S148) nima-u te ran drink-1sg ART:PSD water 'water for me to drink' (70)

The verb is an object nominalization with the semantics of a headless relative ('what I drink') 34

(1988:74). The article is a dedicated possessive article. This construction is optional, used only when further specification (here, the intended use of the water) is wanted, while in the other Micronesian languages a possessive classifier is obligatory with non-possessibles. Harrison argues that the Gilbertese construction is archaic and reflects the ancestral construction which evolved into the classifier construction of the sister languages. Appositive words that tend to figure in the Gilbertese construction are mostly cognate to classifiers of the other Micronesian languages. Are the Oceanic possessive classifiers nominal or verbal in origin? In individual languages some of them are described as nominal or verbal in origin (as for Iaai above), but this is synchronic derivation or synchronically transparent etymological relatedness. Harrison reconstructs a nominalized verb form as ancestral to the construction in Micronesian and notes that many of the classifiers are cognate within Micronesian. Lynch et al. do not mention whether they can be traced back within the other two branches, stating only that no Proto-Oceanic set of classifier words is reconstructable. In any case, given the considerable part-of-speech flexibility of major class lexemes in Oceanic and more generally Austronesian languages (Foley in prep., 2017, 2008, Himmelmann 2008, and much earlier discussion; Foley reconstructs flexibility of the great majority of lexemes as the Proto-Austronesian state), etymological work tracing parts of speech of classifiers may prove inconclusive and the question itself may not be particularly meaningful. It may be telling, though, that the classifier construction must have evolved independently in Micronesian and must have been verbal in origin there.

S3.5.2. Non-Oceanic Austronesian

All are geographically distant from each other. South Halmahera-Western New Guinea is the closest sister to Oceanic. The others are from entirely different branches of Austronesian.

S3.5.2.1. South Halmahera-Western New Guinea: Donohue & Schapper 2008; s.a. Lichtenberk 2018. In Ambai (amba1265), most nouns use an appositive noun, but body parts and some kin terms take a possessive suffix directly. (There are further complications; see Donohue & Schapper 2008:320.)

(S149) Ambai (Donohue & Schapper 2008:320, citing Anceaux 1961, Silzer 1983, Price et al. n.d.) ne-hu wafo ne-mu wiwing POSS-1sg canoe POSS-2sg woman 'my canoe' 'your wife'

awe-hu tama-mu(ai) leg-1sg father-2sg 'my leg' 'your father'

In Selaru (sela1259) and Sawai (sawa1247), body parts are inalienable. Other nouns take one of two classifiers: food and general.

(S150) Selaru (Donohue & Schapper 2008:320, citing Coward 1990)

iblu-mw-ke skin-2sg-ART 'your skin'

wasi-mw hahy-desy-ke CL:GENERAL-2sg pig-that-ART 'your pig there', 'that pig of yours'

hina-mw hahy-desy-ke CL:EDIBLE-2sg pig-that-ART 'your pork there', 'that pork of yours'

S3.5.2.2. Celebic branch Banggai

S3.5.2.3. Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian branch (different subbranches): Tugun (Timoric subbranch) Kaitetu (Central Maluku subbranch)

S3.6. Non-Austronesian (Papuan) Pacific

Six non-Austronesian languages, phylogenetically and geographically distant from each other, have appositive classifiers. All are isolates or from small families.

S3.6.1. Abun (abun1252, isolate) (Berry & Berry 1999:77)

Inalienables (body parts and other parts of wholes) form possessive constructions with juxtaposition:

(S151) ndar sye ne gwes dog big DET leg 'the big dog's leg' (77; extracted from clause)

(S152) ji syim 1sg arm 'my arm' (77; extracted from clause)

Alienables use an appositive word (called a linker in the grammar, following Croft 1990:32, and glossed POSS in the grammar)

(S153) gap sye ne bi gan ge we rat big DET POSS young.one CL two 'the big rat's two young offspring' (78; extracted from clause)

(S154) ji bi nggwe 1sg POSS garden 'my garden' (78; extracted from clause)

Kin terms are alienable (78, 82):

(S155) Rahel bi ai bi nyom Rachel POSS father POSS machete 'Rachel's father's machete' (82)

(S156) An bi nji bi nggon bi nu 3sg POSS brother POSS wife POSS house 'his brother's wife's house'

The Indonesian of Abun speakers calques the Abun possessive phrase, using the verb 'have' as possessive :

(S157) saya punya rumah 1sg have house 'my house' (81)

The fact that a verb is used suggests that the possessive morpheme bi of Abun is a verb (its source is not discussed in the grammar).

S3.6.2. Mpur (mpur1239, isolate) (Odé 2002)

Alienables use an appositive verb tar or bi 'possess' (61):

(S158) n-tar jan 1sg-POSS house 'my house' (62; extracted from clause)

(S159) Lambert-a26 a-bi ba(r)-in L.-3sgM 3sgM-POSS thing-grow 'Lambert's garden' (62; extracted from clause)

Inalienables (body parts, kin terms, and a few others) use a person-number prefix.

(S160) a-wom 3sgM-hand 'his hand'

(S161) e-yen 1pl-mother 'our mother'

(S162) an-muk 2sg-name 'your name'

26 The -a 3sgM on Lambert is autogender. Personal names are suffixed with -n (female) or -a (male), as are some other human nouns: 'mother', 'father', 'girl, woman', 'boy, man'; 'girlfriend', 'boyfriend' (63). 37

S3.6.3. Bilua (buky1245, isolate) (Obata 2003:98-105) In Bilua, inalienable nouns can take either direct (prefixal) or indirect (appositive) possession; alienables can take only appositive possession (34-35).

(S163) ke=mama 3pl father 'their father' (99; extracted from clause)

(S164) o=baerebaere poso 3sgM=friend PL.M 'his friends' (99; extracted from clause)

Inalienable nouns include kin terms, body parts, 'match', 'self', and "common nouns which have a special significance in the life and culture of Vella La Vella island people" (34-35): 'house', 'village/home', 'garden', 'island', 'friend', 'tribe'. Indirect (alienable or inalienable; alienables can take only indirect possession) (35):

(S165) Ilai=ko matu=ma pade I.=POSS.3sgF big=3sgF house (101) 'Ilai's big house'

(S166) vo = ko ngi 3sgM POSS.3sgF name 'his name' (75; extracted from clause) ko (POSS.3sgF), the possessive word in these examples, is a 3sg distal demonstrative, =vo for singulative number and =ko for unspecified number (75; 100).

S3.6.4. Sulka (sulk1246, isolate) (Tharp 1996:80-81, Schneider 1962:259-261, Reesink 2005:179-183 )

It appears that in Sulka part-whole terms and probably body parts and kin terms take direct head- marked prefixal indexation of the possessor. There are four different sets of possessor indices, for non-kin, kin, and two emphatic possessors.

(S167) a kua-rik 1sg-house 'my house' (80)

b ko-nan 1sg-mother 'my mother' (80)

c kota-kom 1sg.EMPH-knife 'my own knife' (81) (EMPH non-kin)

d kot nan 1sg.EMPH mother 'my own mother' (81)

Examples with overt possessors:

(S168) a a-kom ka-rain sg-knife 3sg-handle the knife's handle (118)

b en ka-rai 3sg 3sg-handle 'its handle'

Kin terms and parts of wholes, which appear in these examples, are not obigatorily possessed (118- 119). Other nouns use an uninflected form of the verb 'belong to' without argument indexation. It is not clear whether this is a prepositional or appositive construction. If appositive, it is atypical in that the putative appositive word does not bear person inflection. (It is not a relative construction, as those have relative pronouns and verbs inflected for person and TAM in the relative clause: 147- 148. Schneider 1962: 259-261 considers the form a preposition. Reesink 2005:181 considers it possibly either a verb or a preposition.)

(S169) a-kom to mkor e-Pruo sg-knife DEM.sg POSS:belong.to PN-Pruo 'Pruo's knife' (117)

(S170) a-kom to mkor dok sg-knife DEM.sg POSS:belong.to 1sg 'my knife' (117) (PN = proper noun prefix)

S3.6.5. Bunaq (buna1278, Timor-Alor-Pantar; Donohue & Schapper 2008:322, citing Steinhauer 1977, 1991) uses prefixal possessive marking for inalienables and a single appositive word for alienables:

(S171) n-up ni-e zap 1-tongue 1-POSS dog 'my tongue' (inalienable) 'my dog' (inalienable)

Other languages in the family with this pattern include Blagar and Klon.

S3.6.6. Motuna (siwa1245, South Bougainville family, Bougainville Island; Onishi 2012). Motuna has obligatorily possessed kin terms (po-oro [her-daughter] (89). Alienables cannot take possessive prefixes but have the option of either dependent-marked inflection or an appositive construction using one of the 51 classifiers of the language.

(S172) a hoo howo peeko-na-pa ART.M house 3nonsg.POSS-LINK-CL:shelter 'their house' (in contrast to other houses) (244) (appositive)

b peeko-ng howo 3nonsgPOSS-M house 'their house' (245) (dependent-marked simple NP)

(The classifiers are used with both numerals and demonstratives, articles, etc.) There is a semantic or pragmatic difference: the appositive construction implies contrastive focus on the possessive NP or the possessive relationship. The classifiers are not independent nouns in Motuna, but they take the same possessive prefixation as the kin terms, so they are structurally like inalienable nouns. This is the only example we have found where an appositive construction is just one option for alienables, and the choice has semantic consequences.

S3.6.7. Koiari (gras1249; Koiarian family, southern New Guinea; Dutton 1993, 1996). Animal names are non-possessible (no owned non-possessibles are reported). Dutton classifies animal names as proper names, none of which can occur in possessive constructions.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. The languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anceaux J. C. 1961. The linguistic situation in the islands of Yapen, Kurudu, Nau, and Miosnum, New Guinea. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Bascom, Burton. 1982. Northern Tepehuan. In Ronald W. Langacker, ed., Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, 3, 271-393. Dallas-Arlington: SIL and University of Texas, Arlington. Berry, Keith and Christine Berry. 1999. A description of Abun: A West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press. Boas, Frans. 1927. Keresan texts. American Ethnological Society Publications 8:2 and 8:1. Leiden: Brill. Boas, Franz, & Deloria, Ella. 1941 Dakota grammar(23:2). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Brambila, David. 1953. Gramática rarámuri. México: Editorial Buena Prensa. Broadwell, George Aaron. 2011. Surrogate possession in Copala Triqui. Presented at HPSG Conference. MS, University at Albany. Broadwell, George Aaron. 2016. La sintaxis de posesión par sustituto en trique de Copala. Presented at Coloquio sobre Lenguas Otomangues y Vecinos (COLOV). April 2016, Oaxaca, Mexico. http://www.academia.edu/24371419/La_sintaxis_de_posesion_por_sustituto_en_triqui Bruno, Ana Carla. 2003. Waimiri Atraoari grammar: Some phonological, morphological, and syntactic aspects. PhD, University of Arizona. Bugaeva, Anna. 2004. Grammar and folklore texts of the Chitose dialect of Ainu (Idiolect of Ito Oda). ELPR Publication Series A-045. Suita: Osaka Gakuin University. Caballero, Gabriela. In preparation. A grammar of Choguitá Rarámuri. MS, University of California, San Diego. Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carlson, Robert and Doris L. Payne. 1989. Genitive classifiers. In Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, ed. Robert Carlson, Scott DeLancey, Spike Gildea, Doris L. Payne, and Ajnu Saxena, 87-119. Eugene: University of Oregon. Carson, Neusa. 1982. Phonology and morphosyntax of Macuxi (Carib). PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Casad, Eugene H. 1984. Cora. In Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, 4, ed. Ronald W. Langacker, 153–459. Dallas: SIL. Chiri, Mashiho. 1942/1973. Ainu gohoo kenkyū – karafuto hōgen o chūshin to shite [Studies in Ainu grammar – with an emphasis on the Sakhalin dialect]. In: Chiri Mashiho chosakushū 3, Tokyo: Heibonsha, 455–586. 40

Chiri, Mashiho and Kyōsuke Kindaichi. 1936/1974. Ainu gohō gaisetsu [An outline of Ainu grammar]. In: Chiri Mashiho chosakushū 4, Tokyo: Heibonsha, 3-197. Coward, David Forrest 1990. An introduction to the grammar of Selaru. Phd dissertation, University of Texas At Arlington. Cowell, Andrew and Alonzo Moss Sr. 2008. The Arapaho language. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Crawford, James M. 1966. The Cocopa language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Crevels, Mily. 2006. Verbal number in Itonama. In Grazyna Rowicka and Eithne B. Carlin, eds., What’s in a verb? Studies in the verbal morphology of the languages of the Americas, 160-170. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, Irvine. 1964 The language of Santa Ana Pueblo (BAE Bulleti 191.53-190). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Dayley, Jon P. 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Dictionary. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Donohue, Mark and Annette Schapper. 2008. Whence the Austronesian possessive construction? Oceanic Linguistics 47:2.316–327. Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Gramática del idioma Yanesha’ (amuesha). Peru: Ministerio de Educación and SIL. Dutton, Thomas E. 1993. Possession in Koiari. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 24:1.39–58. Einaudi, Paula Ferris. 1976. A grammar of Biloxi. New York: Garland. Elliott, Eric Bryant. 1999. Dictionary of Rincon Luiseño. PhD, University of California, San Diego. Feeling, Durbin. 1975. Cherokee-English dictionary. Tahlequah: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Foley, William A. 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Peter Austin and Simon Musgrave, eds., Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, 22-44. Stanford: CSLI. Foley, William A. 2017. Structural and semantic dependencies in word class membership. In Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems, ed. Nick Enfield, 179–195. Berlin: Language Science Press. Foley, William A. In preparation. The epidemiology of language: The evolution of word class categorialization in the Austronesian languages. González, Hebe Alicia. 2005. A grammar of Tapiete (Tupi-Guarani). PhD, University of Pittsburgh. Gordon, Lynn. 1986. Maricopa morphology and syntax. University of California Press: Berkeley-Los Angeles. Graczyk, Randolph. 2007 A Grammar of Crow. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gustafson, Bert. 2014. Guaraní. In Pieter Muysken and Mily Crevels, eds., Lenguas de Bolivia, 307-368. La Paz: Plural Editores. Harrison, S. P. 1988. A plausible history for Micronesian possessive classifiers. Oceanic Linguistics 27:1/2.63-78. Hill, Jane H. 2014. A Grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Peter K. Austin and Simon Musgrave, eds., Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages, 247-293. Stanford: CSLI. Hopi Dictionary Project. 1998. Hopi Dictionary. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language. Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupi-Guarani syntax. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds., Handbook of Amazonian Languages, 489-616. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koehn, Sally Sharp. 1994. The use of generic terms in apalaí genitive constructions. Revista latinoamericana de estudios ethnolingüísticos 8. Kroeber, A. L. and George William Grace. 1960. The Sparkman grammar of Luiseño. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kubodera, Itsuhiko. 1977. Ainu jojishi shin’yō seiden-no kenkyū [The study of Ainu heroic epics and songs of gods]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 41

Lachler, J. (2006). A grammar of Laguna Keres. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico. Langdon, Margaret H. 1970. A grammar of Diegueño: the Mesa Grande dialect. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lastra de Suarez, Yolanda. 1984. Chichimeco Jonaz. In Munro S. Edmonson and Patricia A. Andrews, eds., Supplement to the handbook of Middle American Indians: Linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2018. The diachrony of Oceanic possessive clssifiers. In William B. McGregor and Søren Wichmann, eds., The diachrony of classification systems, 165-200. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Liljeblad, Sven, Catherine S. Fowler and Glenda Powell. 2012. The Northern Paiute-Bannock dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Lynch, John, Malcolm D. Ross and Terry Crowley. 2002. The Oceanic Languages. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Martin, Jack B. 2011. A grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Meira, Sergio. 1999. A grammar of Tiriyó. PhD, Rice University. Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social practice in an Amazonian society. PhD dissertation, University of Texas. Miller, Wick R. 1965. Acoma grammar and texts. (UCPL 40.) Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Miller, Amy. 2001. A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. possession and inalienability. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund, & Finn Sørenson, eds., Dimensions of possession, 285-310. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mixco, Mauricio. 1971. Kiliwa grammar. PhD, University of California, Berkeley. Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2015. Cherokee reference grammar. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mora-Marín, David. 2019. Reconstructing possessive morphology in Mayan languages. MS, University of North Carolina. Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 1995. Ainugo Chitose hōgen jiten [A dictionary of the Chitose dialect of Ainu]. Tokyo: Sōfūkan. Nakayama, Toshihide. 2001. Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax. (UCPL 134.) Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Nercesian, Verónica. 2014. Wichi lhomtes: Estudio de la gramática y la ineracción fonología-morfología- sintaxis-semántica. Munich: Lincom. Obata, Kazuko. 2003. A grammar of Bilua. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Odé, Cecilia. 2002. A sketch of Mpur. In Languages of the eastern Bird’s Head, ed. Ger P. Reesink, 45–107. Canberra: Pacifici Linguistics. Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Oliverio, Giulia R. M. 1996. A grammar and dictionary of Tutelo. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas. Onishi, Masayuki. 2012. A grammar of Motuna. München: Lincom Europa, 2012. Ozanne-Riviere, Françoise. 1976. Le Iaai: Langue mélanésienne d’Ouvéa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: SELAF. Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne. 2013. A Typological Grammar of Panare. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Press, Margaret L. 1975. A grammar of Chemehuevi. Phd dissertation, UCLA. To be replaced by the following when libraries reopen and pages can be checked: Price, David S., Tamara R. Price, Peter J. Silzer, Cheryl Silzer, and Nataniel Merasi. Ambai-Indonesian dictionary. n.d. MS, SIL, Papua Branch. Ravinski, Christine. 2005. Grammatical possession in Nuu-Chah-Nulth. M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia. Reesink, Ger P. 2005. Sulka of East New Britain: A mixture of Oceanic and Papuan traits. Oceanic Linguistics 44:1.145–193. Reinoso Galindo, Andrés Eduardo. 1999. Elementos para una gramática de la lengua piapoco. Bogotá: 42

Ministerio de Cultura. Rood, David S. 1976. Wichita grammar. New York - London: Garland. Rose, Françoise. 2003. Morphosyntaxe de l’émérillon: Langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française. PhD, Université Lumière Lyon 2. Rosenthal, Jane M. 1981. How Uto-Aztecan is the Nahuatl possessive? In Frances Karttunen, ed., Nahuatl studies, 182-214. Sandalo, Filomena. 1995. A Grammar of Kadiweu. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Sapir, Edward. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Satō, Tomomi. 2003. Sakata shiritsu mitsuoka bunko shozō Ezo-ki no Ainugo ni tsuite [Notes on an old Ainu vocabulary in the Sakata City Kōkyū Library]. Hokkaidō Daigaku Bungaku Kenkyūka Kiyō 111. 95-118. Saxton, Dean. 1982. Papago. In Ronald W. Langacker, ed., Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, v. 3, Dallas and Arlington: SIL and University of Texas, Arlington. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1977. Cahuilla Grammar. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press. Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda, a Papuan language. Canberra, Australia: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies Australian National University. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1995. Possession and classifiers in Cahuilla (Uto-Aztecan). Egon Renner, Michael Dürr and Wolfgang Oleschinski, ed., Language and Culture in Native North America: Studies in honor of Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow, 211-225. Munich: Lincom. Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do kamaiurá: Língua tupi-guarani do Alto Xingu. Campinas - São Paulo: Editora da Unicamp & Imprensa Oficial SP. Shaul, David Leedom. 2012. Eastern Shoshone working dictionary. MS. Silzer, Peter James. 1983. Ambai: An Austronesian Language of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Phd Dissertation, Australian National University. Steinhauer, Hein. 1977. “going” and “coming” in the Blagar of Dolap (Pura, Alor, Indonesia). NUSA: Miscellaneous Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia 4.39–49. Tavares, Petronila da Silva. 2005. A grammar of Wayana. PhD dissertation, Rice University. Tharp, Doug. 1996. Sulka grammar essentials. In Two non-Austronesian grammars from the islands, ed. John M. Clifton, 77–179. Ukarumpa: SIL. Vallejos, Rosa. 2016. A grammar of Kukama-Kukamiria: A language from the Amazon. Leiden: Brill. van der Voort, Hein. 2004. A Grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. van Gijn, Rik. 2006. A grammar of Yurakaré. PhD dissertation, Radboud University. Velasquez-Castillo, Maura. 1996. The Grammar of Possession: Inalienabilty, incorporation, and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Voegelin, C. F. 1935. Tübatulabal grammar. (UCPAAE 34:2.) Berkeley: University of California Press. Voegelin, Charles F. 1958. Working dictionary of Tübatulabal. IJAL 24.221-228. Watahomigie, Lucille J., Jorigine Bender and Akira Y. Yamamoto. 1982. Hualapai reference grammar. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA. Willett, Thomas L. 1991. A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Dallas: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington. Williams, James. 1932. Grammar, notes, and vocabulary of the Makuchi Indians of Guiana. St. Gabriel- Mödlung. Wilson, Peter J. 1992. Una description preliminar de la gramatica del achagua (arawak). Bogotá: ILV [i.e. SIL]. Young, Robert W. and Morgan, William. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. (Revised edition.) Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.