Inalienability split in possessive NPs and the origin of the two cases with genitive function in Budugh Gilles Authier* 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Setting the problem Budugh, an East Caucasian language of the Lezgic branch spoken in a single village in Azerbaijan, is notable for exhibiting two different genitive forms (‘inlocative’ –a and ‘adlocative’ –u) whose distribution is determined by the (in)alienability of the possessum. In the following example, the inlocative (ending –a: or –e) is used twice, both in verb-dependent (locative) function and in noun-dependent (possessor / genitive marking) function with an inalienable possessum (a bodypart), while the adlocative (ending –u) marks the possessor as another genitive case in an alienable possessive relation: (1) ızga-n-u lem-ild-a: yiq’iy-e alq’ol-i other-SUBST-AD donkey-OBL-IN back.OBL-IN sit.IPF-PRS ‘He sits on the back of someone else’s donkey.’ (from fieldnotes, as are all Budugh examples here1) This uncommon situation is the result of a recent reshaping of the case system, as is shown by comparison with the most closely related language, Kryz (Kryz dialects and Budugh make up the Southern branch of Lezgic), and it should be linked with the phenomenon of differential recipient marking, a peculiarity found in most languages of this family. 1.2. Genitive splits Probably the majority of languages display a distinction (hereafter called “genitive split”) between two or more adnominal possessive constructions, whose application is determined by parameters such as the type of the possessum, the type of the possessor and the type of relation existing between the two (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003; Lander 2009). However, such oppositions are only very rarely conveyed by means of a contrast between different genitive cases. Rather, these splits usually involve variations in locus: distinct possessive * Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Courriel : [email protected] 1 The Budugh data were all generously provided by Adigoezel Hajiev. Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 178 Gilles Authier constructions are employed, such that the use of genitive case in one contrasts with the use of head-marking or the total absence of marking in another. Most frequently, a genitive morpheme or adposition is associated with the possessor (dependent-marking) and/or a possessive marker is found on the possessum (head-marking). According to Haspelmath (2006), this situation may be explained in terms of iconicity or frequency-related rules of economy in grammar. A common split triggering morphosyntactic differences in possessive NPs is between different kinds of possessors. The use of a genitive marker may be restricted to certain classes of nominals (those higher on the ‘animacy scale’), while topicality features account for such splits as found, for instance, in English (preposed Saxon genitive vs postposed adpositional genitive, cf. Deane, 1987) or in Azeri, where only possessors referring to accessible, specific referents take the genitive suffix: (2) a. it-in baş-ı dog-GEN head-POS3 ‘the head of the dog’ b. it baş-ı dog head-POS3 ‘a dog’s head’ The present paper will not deal with this – also rare – type of split, but will instead focus on the parameter known as the inalienable/alienable distinction (Chappell & McGregor 1995), involving the type of possessum and the type of possessive relation. The overall distinction between inalienable and alienable possession is rare in Eurasia, and commonly associated with remote, “exotic” languages of the Pacific area or the Americas, where it should be viewed against the wider background of systems of nominal classification in general. Binary possessive classification is usually called “alienable/inalienable” possession [...] partly because it is fairly common, especially in the Americas, for one of a binary set of possessive classes to be bound, i.e. obligatorily possessed. In fact, though, possessive classification is not a semantic or grammatical category but a purely lexical classification of nouns. [...] (Bickel & Nichols, 2005) Prototypical alienability contrasts (body parts, part-whole and kinship relation terms vs all others) can be expressed by differential marking on the possessum, because semantic features of the referent are responsible for the precise nuance of the possessive relation. But the most usual means of reflecting this split is a contrast between dependent-marking for alienable possession, that is, the use of a proper “genitive” case or adposition, and head-marking (possessive affixes on the possessee) or absence of marking for inalienable possession. Nevertheless, Nichols’ generalization: Most languages with head-marked possession have inalienable possession, and no language in my sample with exclusively dependent-marked possession has inalienable possession. (Nichols 1992:118). Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 179 meets with a few exceptions. It appears that alienability contrasts are not exclusively associated with head-marking possessive NP patterns or zero marking. At least five languages cited in the literature show an exclusively dependent-marking alienability contrast: Krongo (Nilo-Saharan), Old French, Spoken Faroese, Kuot (Papuan) and the East Caucasian language Khinalug (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003, and Lander 2009); Budugh should be added to this list. Budugh, an East Caucasian language distantly related to Khinalug, also shows the very rare type of inalienability split on possessive NPs in which alienable and inalienable possessors are marked by different cases: (3) a. *zo / za: q’ıl 1.AD 1.IN head ‘my head’ b. *za: / zo k’ant 1.IN 1.AD knife ‘my knife’ As will be seen below, both these adnominal cases also have predicate- dependent, originally spatial functions, which is why we label them inlocative (IN) and adlocative (AD) respectively. The morphological expression of this inalienability split may look straightforward, but the fact remains that such a device for this function is extremely rare cross-linguistically. The area where Khinalug is spoken happens to be separated from Budugh by just one valley (the Kryz-speaking area), but at the present stage of research these two instances of the phenomenon do not seem to share a common background, and we will not dwell upon what we see as a coincidence. And while the functional reason for the alienability split in Khinalug (a language with no close relatives within the East Caucasian family) is unknown, the history of case forms and functions in the Lezgic branch of East Caucasian, to which Budugh belongs, is now understood well enough to allow for a diachronic investigation.2 After describing the alienability split on Budugh possessive NPs in the following section, we will set it out against other types of possessor marking in NPs as they are found in related languages of the East Caucasian family, and introduce the notion of possessive classification as found in Kryz, the closest relative of Budugh. We will then explain the emergence of differential case marking on Budugh possessive NPs. The final section explains the emergence of the genitive split by relating it to the differential case marking of recipients (or ‘split-recipient’) as found in the majority of East Caucasian languages. 1.3. Binary genitive classification in Budugh: the alienability contrast Budugh NPs show a possessee-determined (alienability) split according to which a consistent class of nouns, characteristically comprising body parts, some part- 2 In literary Lezgian this concrete notion is usually assumed by the postposition ppattav ‘near’, which is itself the Adessive form of a noun originally meaning ‘flank’, cf. Haspelmath 1993. Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access 180 Gilles Authier whole terms and some kinship terms, trigger the use of distinctive ‘inalienable’ case-marking when they appear in a possessive construction: the possessor is marked by different cases depending on whether or not the possessee belongs to this class. Note that the two cases involved in the Budugh system of possessive marking are syncretic: they express both nominal and predicate dependency. Hereafter these two cases are labelled with reference to their predicate-dependent, originally spatial function - IN for inlocative (marker –a), and AD for adlocative (marker –u) – but in NPs, possessors take the inlocative case when they depend on inalienable items (body-parts (4a) and other body-related types of possession (4b&c), including part-whole relationship (4d)): (4) a) za: xab za: q’ıl b) za: sa:s 1.IN hand 1.IN head 1.IN voice ‘my hand’ ‘my head’ ‘my voice’ c) za: gudž za: dard za: ya:s 1.IN strength 1.IN sorrow 1.IN funeral ‘my strength’ ‘my sorrow’ ‘my funeral’ d) dar-a: q’ala: tree-IN head.IN ‘at the top of the tree’ In contrast, possessors of items which are considered alienable bear adlocative case (5): (5) zo k’ant zo yurt 1.AD knife 1.AD country ‘my knife’ ‘my country’ yo uspor zo kıda 1PL.AD quarrel 1.AD work ‘our quarrel’ ‘my work’ Kin terms are evenly distributed across both types (6 vs 7), perhaps due to cultural biases (a wife can be repudiated, but not a husband, a father can exile his son, but not reversely): (6) za: ada za: furi 1.IN father 1.IN man ‘my father’ ‘my husband’ (7) zo ħedž zo dix 1.AD woman 1.AD son ‘my wife’ ‘my son’ But it should be mentioned that in many cases the choice between the two genitive forms seems arbitrary or at least lexically determined, which points to the fact that the grammaticalization of this split is probably a recent phenomenon: Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 10:19:21PM via free access Inalienability split in Budugh 181 (8) malla.dž-a: džib fu-ye tike mullah-IN pocket bread-IN piece ‘Mullah’s pocket’ ‘piece of bread’ but: (9) huv-o q:aye / vis-o xhad / xab-o t’il-imer mill-AD stone spring-AD water hand-AD finger-PL ‘millstone’ ‘spring water’ ‘the fingers of the hand’ 2.