Universität Duisburg-Essen

Jan Tent

The Structure of Deictic Day-Names Systems: Evidence for Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualisations of Diurnal Division of the Time Continuum?

Series A: General & Theoretical Papers ISSN 1435-6473 Essen: LAUD 1998 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2007) Paper No. 435

Jan Tent

Macquarie University, Australia

The Structure of Deictic Day-Names Systems: Evidence for Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualisations of Diurnal Division of the Time Continuum?

Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 1998 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2007) Linguistic Agency Series A University of Duisburg-Essen General and Theoretical FB Geisteswissenschaften Paper No. 435 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen

Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] Jan Tent

THE STRUCTURE OF DEICTIC DAY-NAME SYSTEMS: EVIDENCE FOR UNIVERSAL AND CULTURE-SPECIFIC CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF DIURNAL DIVISION OF THE TIME CONTINUUM?

Abstract. This paper is a cross linguistic study examining the structure of deictic day-name systems of 157 of the world's languages. Most of these systems reveal a recurring structural symmetry in the number of diurnal units identified either side of 'today'. As well as this type of numerical symmetry, most languages exhibit a morphological symmetry, and several a lexical symmetry. A small number of languages have numerically and/or morphologically asymmetrical systems. The nature of these symmetries and asymmetries in the light of linguistic relativity is briefly explored.

1. Introduction In the discussion of calendric units, in his now famous Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, Charles Fillmore (1975:47) mentions that many languages have a rich set of lexicalisations for deictic day-names. He refers to Persian (Farsi) which has a deictic day-name system that names two days ahead of and four days back from 'today', Japanese and Russian which both have systems extending three days either side of 'today', Vietnamese with a system extending three days ahead of 'today' and four days back, and Chinantec with a deictic day- name system that names four days on either side of 'today'. In this paper I shall examine such systems in more detail to see whether they reveal any universal characteristics in structure and composition. The study is based on a corpus of the deictic day-name inventories of 157 unsystematically sampled, but genetically diverse languages.1 The number of day-names per system ranges from 3 to 13, and the morphological complexity can range from simple monomorphemic lexemes to complex polymorphemic expressions. Most languages in the sample reveal a high degree structural and morphological symmetry in their systems, and almost two-thirds of the languages have a day-name system consisting of 5 items (i.e. two days named either side of'today').2

1 These were obtained via the generous replies to requests for data through the electronic discussion lists LINGUIST-List and INFO-SIL; personal communications with linguists, and a few non-linguist native speakers; and a number of grammars and dictionaries. In general I have accepted on good faith the assessments, descriptions, orthographical representations of day-name systems offered by my sources, though very occasionally I have had to make my own assessment on minor points. Tables cataloguing the languages in the corpus, their genetic affiliation and region where spoken are given in the appendix. 2 Any generalisations made or conclusions drawn regarding the structure of day-name systems refer only to those systems in my corpus. It is folly appreciated that day-name systems not mentioned in this survey may behave quite differently.

1 Deictic day-names are nouns or time adverbials which name, or identify, diurnal spans in relation to the 'coding time' (CT) of an utterance (i.e. the time at which an utterance is produced). Accordingly, the time adverbials today, temet (Luiseno), aujourd'hui (French), and marima (Erromangan - Sie) identity the diurnal span which incorporates the CT. On the other hand, yesterday, waxaam, hier, and ninu have reference to a prior time and identify the diurnal span preceding one which incorporates the CT; whilst tomorrow, 'exengay, demain, and mram have reference to a later time and identify the diurnal span following the one which incorporates the CT. Deictic day-names have two types of referent (Fillmore 1975) — they can either refer to the entire diurnal span (or to a certain length of time during the mentioned diurnal span), as in (1a), or to a specific point within the mentioned diurnal span, as in (1b): (1) a. It rained here in Suva yesterday. b. I'm flying out to Kiribati tomorrow. Day-names can also be used non-deictically as (2) shows: (2) "Work in the villages was still done communally, [...]. Tomorrow's tasks were announced by village criers at sundown today." (Lai 1992:66) The day-name inventories depicted in this paper are represented in the following manner (where N = "now" or 'the present diurnal span'; deictic items consecutively preceding N are indicated by a minus symbol, e.g. -1, -2, -3 etc.; and those consecutively following N with a plus symbol, e.g. +1, +2, +3 etc.): (3) a. Luiseño: waxaam -1 temet N 'present diurnal span' 'exngay +1 b. French: avant-hier -2 hier -1 aujourd'hui N demain +1 après-demain +2 c. Erromangan~Sie: nowisas -5 nowimpe -4 nowinag -3 nome -2

2 ninu -1 marima N mran +1 weme +2 winag +3 wimpe +4 wisas +5

2. Morphology of Deictic Day-Names Individual day-names are either monomorphemic or polymorphemic. Monomorphemic day- names — which comprise 49% of the 908 day-names in my corpus (450/908) — are either lexemes for the adverb meaning "now" (for hodiernal reference), or specialised non- transparent lexemes that name specific diurnal spans which are not defined in relation to each other. Polymorphemic expressions reveal three basic types of structure:

• TYPE 1: Expressions consisting of a pre- and/or post-modified specialised non- transparent lexeme that names or identifies a specific diurnal span (32% - 289/908).

• TYPE 2: Expressions consisting of the pre- and/or post-modified lexeme for "day" (18% - 162/908).

• TYPE 3: A small group of miscellaneous items that are either transparent periphrastic phrases that describe the diurnal span being referred to, or pre- modified lexemes for the adverb meaning "now" (1% - 7/908). Pre- and post-modifiers can be in the form of one or more adverbial particles, prepositions/postpositions, adjectives, numerals, or determiners. All these are either affixes or free standing forms (see section 7.1). Following are examples the major polymorphemic day-name types in my sample:

TYPE 1 : SPECIALISED DAY-NAME LEXEME + MODIFIER(S) a) Modifier = adverbial particle or preposition/postposition. As one might expect, this type of construction is most commonly used for day-names that identify diurnal units beyond -/+1 . They are also often defined in relation to preceding day- names. French: avant-hier '-2' (avant 'before', hier '-1'), après-demain '+2' (apres 'after', demain '+!'). German: vorgestern '-2' (vor- 'before', gestern '-1'), übermorgen '+2' (über- 'over', morgen '+1').

3 Polish: przedwczoraj '-2' (przed- 'before', wczopraj '- r), pojutrze '+2' (po-'after' , jutrze < jutro '+1 '). Greek: proxθés '-2' (pro- 'before', xθhés '-1'), meθávrio '+2' (meθ- < meda 'after', ávrio '+1'). Estonian: üɫeeile '-2', uɫehomme '+2' (uɫe- 'over', eile '-1', homme '+1'). Sāmoan: talātu ananafi '-2' , talātu taeao '+2' (talātu > tala LOCATIVE BASE + atu DIRECTIONAL MARKER — away from speaker, ananafi '- 1 ', taeao '+1 ' Carib: mony koinaro '-2', mony koro'po '+2' (mony 'before/after', koinaro '-1 koro'po ‚+1’). Southern Tepehuan: vasmutakaav '-3' (takaav '-1', vas 'farther away', mu < mummu 'very far away'). Sulka: tetok '-2', tenmo '-1', ngmo '+1', ngtok '+2' (te- PAST, ng- FUT, tok ‘-/+2’, nmo/mo ‘-/+1’) Tolo: bongi ba '-2’ (bongi 'night', ba 'far back'). Kalam: (see 15b) employs the past time particle/affix atk or -tk with all its day-names preceding N. Guerrero Nahuatl: (4) ikwitlapanyewiptla -3 *- = 3SGPOSS yewiptla -2 -kwitlapan = 'behind' yalowa -1 ye- = 'already' aman N wiptla = '+2' mostla +1 wiptla +2 ikwitlapanyewiptla +3

b) Modifier = adjective. Though nowhere near as common, this type of construction is also mostly used for day- names beyond -/+1. Chamorro: nigapña '-2', agupa’ ña '+2' (nigap '-1', agupa '+1', na 'more'). Arosi: nonora wou '-2', ho'oawou '+2', nanora raha won '-4' (nanora '-1', ho'oa '+1', wou 'yonder', raha 'big').

4 Varapu: (5) bariraravova -3 -ravova = 'one after the next' baririra -2 -ra = 'next' bariri -1 mare N uri +1 urira +2 uriranova +3 c) Modifier = numeral. This type of construction is not as common as one might expect. However, it does seem to be quite regularly used in a number of Oceanic and Mayan languages. These include: Lenakel: nhiksil '-3', tonhiksil '+3' (nhni < nihin '-2', ksil < kesil 'three', to- FUT). Kilivia: bogiyu '+1', bogitolu '+2' (bogi 'night', yu 'two', tolu 'three'). Wayan: (6) also has the base bogi 'night', to which numerals (rua 'two', tolu 'three', vā 'four', lima 'five', ono 'six', vitu 'seven' etc.) are affixed (see also section 7.3): (6) etc. a bogivitu -1 a = 3 SG PAST a bogiono -6 ei = 3SG FUT a bogilima -5 a bogivā -4 a bogitolu - 3 a bogirua -2 nanoa -1 nikua N nimataka +1 ez bogirua +2 ei bogitolu +3 e/ bogivā +4 e/ bogilima +5 ei bogiono +6 ei bogivitu +1 etc. Huixtec Tzotzil (7) and Veracruz Huasteco (15a) offer other, though slightly le transparent, examples:

5 (7) oxje - 3 cha'- & chab = < chib 'two' chabje -2 ox- = < oxib 'three' volje -1 avi c 'ac 'al to N oc'om +1 cha 'ej +2 oxej +3 (d) Modifier - "day". Carib: mony ne koinaro '-3', mony ne koro 'po '+3' (mony 'before/after', ne 'day', koinaro '-1', koro'po '+1'). Lachixio Zapotec: ye 'e bichia '+2' (ye 'e '+1', bichia 'day'). Azeri: isragha gün '-2', birisi gün '+2' (isragha '-2', 6/ra/ '+2', gün 'day'). Rhade: hruê mruê '-1', hruê mgi ‘+1’ (hruê 'day', mruê '-1', mgi '+1'). (e) Modifier = determiner. Tolo: ropo laka '+2' (ropo '+1', laka 'another').

TYPE II: LEXEME FOR "DAY" + MODIFIER(S)

a) Modifier = adverbial particle or preposition/postposition. Once again, this is the most common type of construction for day-names beyond -/+1. Northern Sámi: mannan beavvi '-2', don beaivvi '+2' (mannan 'bygone', don 'yonder', beavvi 'day'). Choctaw: himmak nittak 'N' (himmak 'now', nittak 'day'). Amatlan Zapotec: nalzhe 'N' (nal 'now', zhe 'day'). Lao: myy koon '-3' (myy 'day/time', koon 'before'). Tongan: 'ahoni 'N' ('aho 'day', ni 'now'). Turkish: evvelsi gün '-2' (evvelsi 'before', gün 'day'). Farsi: (see(18a)). b) Modifier = adjective. Mandarin: da4 qian2 tian1 '-3', da* hou4 tian1 '+3' (da4 'big', qian2 'ahead/forward/front', hou4 'behind/rear/back', tian1 'day') c) Modifier = determiner. Greek: simera 'N' (si- 'this', mera 'day'). Turkish: bugun 'N', öbürgün '+2' (bu 'this', öbür 'another', gün 'day').

6 Kannada: eedina 'N' (ee- 'this', dina 'day'). Motu: hari dina 'N' (hari 'this', dina 'day'). Kiribati: te bong aei 'N' (te 'the', bong 'day/night', aei 'this'). Carib: ero kurita 'N' (ero 'this', kurita 'day'). Sierra Popoluca: yɨp jama 'N' (yɨp 'this' jama 'day/sun'). Huixtec Tzotzil: avi c 'ac 'al to 'N' (avi to 'this', c 'ac 'al 'day'). Tswana: tsatsi jeno 'N' (tsatsi 'this', jeno 'day'). Tswana: kamoso o mongwe '+2' (komoso '+1', o mongwe 'the other'). Lao: myy hyy '+1' (myy 'day/time', yn 'other/another'). Mongolian: nököge edür '+2' (nököge 'another', edür 'day').

TYPE III: (a) Periphrastic phrase. English: the day before yesterday '-2', the day after tomorrow '+2'. Tahitian: i teie ne mahana 'N' ('at this day'). Hawai'ian: nehinei a ia lā aku '-2', 'apōpōa a ia lā aku '+2' (nehinei'-1', apōpōa '+1', a ia lā aku 'at this day forth').

(b) "Now" + modifier.

Eastern Otomi: nųya 'N' (nų- EMPHASISER OR WORD-FORMING PREFIX, ya 'now'). Paiwan (8) has a system with quite an eclectic day-name morphology, as it employs a number of the above categories: (8) tasikatjelu -2 nu- = FUT katiaw/tatiaw -1 ta-/ka- = PAST tutsu a qadaw N a = NP MARKER mutiaw +1 si- = 'belonging to a certain time in the past/future' musikatjelu +2 tutsu = 'this' qadaw = 'sun, day' tiaw ='-/+1' In Table 1 (page 8), which summarises the distribution of the various types of day-name structures for each day-name, we see that day-names for the diurnal spans -1, N, and +1 are mostly monomorphemic, whereas day-names for diurnal spans -/+2 and beyond are mostly polymorphemic. The latter are often formed from the distinct specialised lexeme for -/+1 (or -/+2 in the case of-/+3 etc. day-names) and a pre- or postmodifier.

7 The distribution of the monomorphemic and polymorphemic day-names within individual systems, shows three general patterns: • Pattern 1 systems - in which all expressions are monomorphemic non-transparent lexemes (10% - 16/157). Languages with this type of system include: Hindi (14a), Manchu, Cahuilla, Luiseno (3a), Cherokee, Copala Trique, Usila Chinantec (9a), and Eastern Mixtec (9b). • Pattern 2 systems - in which all expressions are polymorphemic (13% - 20/157). Languages with this type of pattern include: Swedish, Norwegian, Mandarin (23e), Thai, Southern Sotho, Choctaw (21c), Cheyenne, Eastern Otomi, Sierra Popoluca, and most of the languages of Polynesia. • Pattern 3a systems - with monomorphemic and polymorphemic expressions symmetrically distributed either side of N (41% - 64/157), and 3b systems - with monomorphemic and polymorphemic expressions asymmetrically distributed either side of N (36% - 57/157). Languages with this type of pattern comprise the remaining three quarters of the corpus.

3. Morphological Symmetry and Asymmetry 3.1. Morphological Symmetry The organisation of polymorphemic expressions especially beyond -/+2 is generally very symmetrical and uniform across languages. As I mentioned above, these expressions usually consist of a lexical base (often the lexeme for -/+1 or -/+2) with a pre- or postmodifier. The type, relationship and position of the modifying elements are normally parallelled on both sides of N as well. One hundred and three (66%) of the 157 day-name systems have this type of structural symmetry. Wayan (6) and Lithuanian (19) offer good examples of this type of system, as do many of the other systems depicted in this paper.

8 Table 1: Distribution of type of day-name structures Day-name Structure: Types of Polymorphemic/Monomorphemi Polymorphemic -6 Polymorphemic x 2 (100%) Type I x 2 Monomorphemic x 0 -5 Polymorphemic x 4 (100%) Type I x 4 Monomorphemic x 0

Polymorphemic x 9 (75%) Type I x 8 -4 Monomorphemic x 3 (25%) Type II x 1 Polymorphemic x 44 (88%) Type I x 34 -3 Monomorphemic x 6 (12%) Type II x 10 -2 Polymorphemic x 112 (75%) Type I x 80 Monomorphemic x 39 (25%) Type II x 30 Type III x 2

Polymorphemic x 40 (26%) Type I x 20 -1 Monomorphemic x 116 (74%) Type II x 20

Polymorphemic x 67 (43%) Type II x 64 N Monomorphemic x 89 (57%) Type III x 3 +1 Polymorphemic x 30 (19%) Type I x 22 Monomorphemic x 126 (81%) Type II x 7 Type III x 1 +2 Polymorphemic x 103 (69%) Type I x 78 Monomorphemic x 47 (31%) Type II x 23 Type III x 2 Polymorphemic x 39 (75%) Type I x 32 +3 Monomorphemic x 13 (25%) Type II x 7 +4 Polymorphemic x 6 (50%) Type I x 6 Monomorphemic x 6 (50%) +5 Polymorphemic x 2 (40%) Type I x 2 Monomorphemic x 3 (60%) +6 Polymorphemic x 0 (100%) N.A. Monomorphemic x 2

Systems whose day-names are all distinct specialised lexemes make up 22% (35/157) of the corpus. Luisefto (3 a), Hindi (14a), Malay (26) and many of the Oto-Manguean languages

9 have such systems. Two examples of the latter are: (9) a. Usila Chinantec: jo34 -2 tyie4 -1 ne34 N hie34 +1 yie4 +2 b. Eastern Mixtec: kani -2 iku -1 bitã N těě +1 ida +2 3.2. Morphological Asymmetry There are 19 systems (12% of the corpus) that exhibit an asymmetrical morphological day- name composition. Eight of these systems have distinct expressions (quite often monomorphemic) for each of the -N day-names, but compound expressions for each of their +N day-names, all of which use the +1 expression as their base. Examples include: Kiswahili (17) and: (10) a. Finnish: toissapäivänä -2 yli= ‘over’ eilen -1 tänään N huomenna +1 ylihuomenna +2 b. Lachixio Zapotec: énitsii -2 bichia= ‘day’ ne'ca -1 nee N ye'e +1 ye'e bichia +2 c. Motu (see also Hula (13)): vanegai -2 vanegai = ‘-2’ & ‘+2’ with kerukeru varani -1 varani = ‘-1’ hari dina N hari = ‘this’; dina = ‘day’ kerukeru +1 kerukeru = ‘chade’

10 kerukeru vanegai +2 d. Tswana: maloba -2 maabane -1 tsatsijeno N kamoso +1 kamoso o mongwe +2 e. Kalanga: zhulo lija - 3 zhulo -2 madekwe -1 nasi N mangwana +1 ngwani +2 ngwanuja +3 The other 11 systems with this type of asymmetry, display the asymmetry on the pposite side of N, with all the +N day-names being distinct expressions (quite often lonomorphemic) and the -N expressions being compounds formed from the lexical base of ic -1 expression. Examples include: Welsh (24) and: (11) a. Palauan: ideliseb -2 eliseb -1 elechang N klukuk +1 ngiaos +2 b. Kwaio: naaboni -2 boni = 'night' boni -1 naa = 'and so; and then' tala'i N gani +1 fule'e +2 c. Orochen (as yet an unwritten language): tiinƏwƏ čaawudu -2 tiinƏwƏ -1 Ənniyi N timaana +1 čaawudu +2

11 d. Southern Sotho: maōbeng -3 maōba -2 maōbanē0 -1 kajenō N hōsasanē +1 kamōso +2 Asháninca (12) displays an intriguing morphological asymmetry in that it has identical forms for its - N daynames and a compound form for +2 with the +1 expression as its base: (12) tsyapinki -2 tsyapinki -1 ironyaaka N onkitaitamane +1 (literally "it dawning") pashine onkitaitamane +2 (literally "it another dawning") Although genetically related languages often have the same or similar patterns, type and morphological structure of day-names, it is not uncommon for such languages to have systems that vary considerably in these regards. In general, it cannot be said that one type of system is favoured by any particular genetic group or sub-group of languages. With a corpus that is representatively small (perhaps less than 2% of the worlds's languages) and unbalanced (language families are not evenly represented and some not represented at all) it would be imprudent for me to draw any conclusions as to what types of systems may be favoured by specific language families or sub-groups.

4. Numerical Symmetry and Asymmetry 4.1. Numerical symmetry The most striking feature of the day-name systems (apart from their general morphological symmetry) is their overwhelming tendency to be numerically symmetrical (i.e. an identical number of diurnal units being identified on either side of N). One hundred and thirty-eight (88%) of the languages exhibit this kind of symmetry. This distinctive trait may suggest a universal inclination to view time extending out from N equidistantly and equilaterally - at least in terms of diurnal units. Numerically symmetrical systems range from those extending only as far as -/+1 (What I label, -1 N +1 systems - 3% of the corpus or 5/157, see Table 2) to those extending as far as -/+6 or more (-6 N +6 systems - 1% of the corpus or 2/157, see Table 5).

12 Table 2: -1 N +1 Systems PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s) INDO-EUROPEAN GERMANIC English

AZTEC-TANOAN Cahuilla, Luiseno IROQUOIAN Cherokee MACRO- ALGONQUIAN Cheyenne

Although languages such as those in Table 2 do not have deictic items identifying days beyond -/+1, this, of course, does not mean they cannot refer to the days -/+2 and beyond. Instead, periphrastic expressions are used. For instance, for days beyond -/+1 Cheyenne simply uses the expression lacunae, but mahvoona ‘o naa ma 'tahosevoona 'o is also used for +2, which literally means "when it is morning and when it is morning again". The expressions in English for -/+2 (the day after tomorrow and the day before yesterday) are also examples of periphrasis. The -2 N +2 type system (Table 3) is by far the most common, comprising 66% (91/138) of numerically symmetrical systems (or 58% of the total corpus).

Table 3: -2 N +2 Systems PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s) INDO-EUROPEAN GERMANIC Danish, Dutch, German, Icelandic, Low Saxon, Norwegian, Swedish ITALIC Catalan, French, Italian, CELTIC Gaelic (Irish & Scottish) HELLENIC Greek (Modern) SLAVIC Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Slovene, Serbian URALIC FINNOURGIC Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Northern Sami

ALTAIC TURKIC Kazakh, Kyrghyz, Salar, Tatar, Turkish, Tuva, Uyghur, Uzbek MONGOLEAN Bonan, Buriat, Daghur, Dongxiang, Mongolian, Kalmyk-Oirat, Tu~Monghur

TUNGUS Evenki~Solon, Manchu, Nanai, Orochen, Sibe

13 AFRO-ASIATIC SEMITIC Hebrew (Modern) OMOTIC Dorze NIGER-CONGO BANTU Tswana KHOISAN Ju/'hoasi, !Xu TAI Thai AUSTRONESIAN CHAMIC Rhade FORMOSAN Atayal, Paiwan INDONESIAN Chamorro, Palauan, Tagalog OCEANIC 'Are'are, Central Buang, Fijian (Standard), Hawai'ian, Hula, Kiribati~Gilbertese, Kwaio, Motu, Raga, Samoan, Tahitian, INDO-PACIFIC Ayiwo, Kope, Sulka

MACRO- ALGONQUIAN Naskapi ALGONQUIAN MUSKOGEAN Choctaw, Chickasaw AZTEC-TANOAN Mayo, South-eastern Puebla Nahuatl OTO-MANGUEAN CHINANTECAN Usila Chinantec MIXTECAN Copala Trique, Eastern Mixtec OTOMIAN Eastern Otomi POPOLACAN San Jeronimo Mazatec ZAPOTECAN Amatlan Zapotec, Guevea De Humboldt Zapotee, Lachixio Zapotec

MIXE-ZORQUE Sierra Popoluca ANDEAN- QUECHUAN Bolivian Quechua EQUATORIAL ARAWAKAN Ashaninca GE-PANO-CARIB Capanahua PIDGINS & CREOLES Mauritian & Seychelles Creoles, Solomon Islands Pijin & Tok Pisin

The -3 N +3 type system (Table 4) is the next most frequently used, comprising 22% (31/138) of numerically symmetrical systems (or 20% of the total corpus).3

3 It is interesting to note that Esperanto, a language concocted for simplicity and regularity, and with much of its lexicon derived from Germanic and Italic languages, should be furnished with a -3 N +3

14 Table 4: -3 N +3 Systems PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s) INDO-EUROPEAN ITALIC Rumanian

SLAVIC Serbo-Croatian ALTAIC TURKIC Azeri KOREAN Korean JAPANESE Japanese AFRO-ASIATIC SEMITIC Arabic (Classical) NIGER-CONGO BANTU Kalanga SINO-TIBETAN SINITIC Mandarin, Taiwanese AUSTRONESIAN OCEANIC Anejom, Cheke Holo~Maringe, Kilivia, Lenakel, Maori, Marshallese, INDO-PACIFIC Komba, Natleba, Varapu AZTEC-TANOAN Guerrero Nahuatl OTO-MANGUEAN ZAPOTECAN Albarradas Zapotec, Yatzachi Zapotec SUBTIABA-TLAPANEC Me'phaa~Tlapanec PENUTIAN MAYAN Huixtec Tzotzil, Veracruz Huasteco, Yucatec

ANDEAN- ARAWAKAN Guahibo GE-PANO-CARIB Carib ARTIFICIAL Esperanto

Deictic systems extending beyond -/+3 day-names are not as common. These comprise a mere 8% (11/138) of numerically symmetrical systems (or 7% of the total corpus) (Table 5, apge 15).

deictic system; all Germanic languages and almost all varieties of Italic languages have -2 N +2 systems!

15 Table 5: Systems beyond -3 N +3 SYSTEM TYPE PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB- Language(s) -4N+4 INDO-EUROPEAN INDO- Hindi

NIGER-CONGO BANTU Kiswahili DRAVIDIAN Kannada AUSTRO-ASIATIC NON-KHMER Khmu' AUSTRONESIAN INDONESIAN Malagasy OCEANIC Arosi OTO-MANGUEAN CHINANTECA Comaltepec Chinantec -5N+5 AUSTRONESIAN OCEANIC Erromangan~Sie CHIBCHAN Chibcha~Muisca -6N+6 AUSTRONESIAN OCEANIC Wayan (and beyond) INDO-PACIFIC Kalam

4.2. Numerical Asymmetry Whereas most languages tend to favour numerically symmetrical inventories, numerically asymmetrical ones do occur. Such systems are lop-sided in the number of days named either side of N. This lop-sidedness can be on either side of N (i.e. past time reference (-N) or future time reference (+N)). Unfortunately, the number of such systems in my sample is too small to say whether lop-sidedness towards -N or +N is more common - 10 systems are lop- sided towards -N, compared with nine towards +N. Numerically asymmetrical systems comprise 12% (19/157) of the corpus (Table 6, page 16), with three types of systems lop-sided towards -N, and three types lop-sided towards +N.

Table 6: Numerically Asymmetrical (Lop-sided) Systems SYSTEM TYPE PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

-IN +2 PAEZAN-BARBACOAN Cuaiquer~Awa Pit

-2N+3 INDO-EUROPEAN CELTIC Welsh BALTIC Lithuanian AFRO-ASIATIC SEMITIC Maltese AUSTRONESIAN INDONESIAN Malay INDO-PACIFIC Ipili OTO-MANGUEAN MIXTECAN Coatzopan Mixtec ISOLATE Basque

16 -2N+5 AFRO-ASIATIC CHADIC Hausa

-2N+1 MACRO-ALGONQUIAN ALGONQUIAN Maliseet- AZTEC-TANOAN Northern Paiute -3N+2 INDO-EUROPEAN ITALIC Portuguese (Brasilian), Galician

NIGER-CONGO BANTU Southern Sotho TAI Lao AZTEC-TANOAN Southern Tepehuan OTO-MANGUEAN AMUZGOAN Guerrero Amuzgo -4N+3 INDO-EUROPEAN INDO-IRANIAN Farsi PENUTIAN MAYAN Lacandon

It seems numerical asymmetry is brought about either by linguistic or socio-cultural factors. For instance, the numerically asymmetrical systems of Farsi and Ipili are the result of their morphological asymmetry (see (18a&b) section 5.2). On the other hand, socio-cultural influences seem to be responsible for the +2 expression in Hula (13) being very rarely used nowadays; making the system numerically asymmetrical for most of its speakers (see also section 7.3): (13) waomanai -2 walaani -1 eoma N rapaluga +1 rapaluga waomanai +2 Native speakers of Hula report they are quite conscious of this asymmetry, and account for it by maintaining village life in Papua New Guinea is such that people live on a "one-day-at- a-time" basis, and to talk about the future holds no pragmatic value for them. Hence, the apparent irregular use of rapaluga waomanai.

5. Dual Symmetry and Asymmetry 5.1. Dual Symmetry Some languages exhibit not only a numerical symmetry, but also a striking lexical symmetry. These systems are characterised by having their numerical symmetry complemented by the numerically opposing day-names on both sides of N sharing identical lexical items. Languages with such systems include Hindi, Komba and Capanahua:

17 (14) a. Hindi: tarsõ -4 narsõ -3 parsõ -2 kal -1 aaj N kal/bihaan +1 parsõ +2 narsõ +3 tarsõ +4 b. Komba: mara-nan - 3 mar a -2 muka -1 Irak N muka +1 mara +2 mara-nan +3 c. Capanahua: hoqueha bahquish -2 bahquish -1 rahma N bahquish +1 hoqueha bahquish +2 The distinction between -N and +N in these systems is made clear through tense; with future tense being used for +N expressions, and past tense for -N expressions. Fillmore (1975:48- 49) mentions that the dual symmetry of the 'Hindi-type' deictic systems occurs in numerous other languages, and cites Shiriana~Ninam [a Yanomam language of Brazil] as a further example. However, my data shows this phenomenon is perhaps not as common as Fillmore believes it to be. Partial dual symmetry is, however, a more common feature in day-name inventories. Two varieties may be distinguished. In the first, the language employs an identical (or near identical) set of specialised lexemes on both sides of N; but to the lexemes on one side adverbial/time particles or prepositions/postpositions are appended to distinguish between - N and +N. Examples of such languages include: Erromangan~Sie (3c), Wayan (6), Veracruz Huasteco and Kalam:

18 (15) a. Veracruz Huasteco: ti oxk ‘i’ -3 chab = ‘two’ ti chabk ‘i’ -2 ox = ‘three’ ti we’ él -1 ti = ‘at’ xo’ N k’i = ‘day’ kalám +1 chabk’i’ +2 oxk’i’ +3 b. Kalam: paben atk -6 tuguj atk -5 goson atk -4 ason atk -3 menk atk -2 toytk -1 mñi N toy +1 toy menk +2 ason +3 goson +4 tuguj +5 In the second, only some of the opposing day-names share identical lexical items. In Anejoñn and Bolivian Quechua, for example, only the day-names beyond -/+1 share identical forms: (16) a. Anejoñn hovid -3 vid -2 iyenev -1 inpiñ N imrañ +1 vid +2 hovid +3 b. Bolivian Quechua: minchha -2 qayna -1 kunan p 'unchay N q 'aya +1 minchha +2

19 An interesting mix of lexical symmetry and asymmetry can be seen in Kiswahili: (17) mtondogoo -4 mtondo -3 juzi -2 jana -1 leo N kesho +1 kesho kutwa +2 mtondo +3 mtondogoo +4 where the -/+3 and -/+4 expressions are identical, but where the expressions for -1 and -2 are lexically more differentiated than those for +1 and +2.

5.2. Dual Asymmetry Some deictic systems exhibit asymmetry at two levels: in numerical structure, and in the morphology of its attested forms. Such asymmetry is found, for instance, in Farsi and Ipili: (18) a. Farsi: pasanpariruz -4 ruz = 'day' paspariruz -3 di= 'last, yester' pariruz -2 pari (parir) = 'before, in front' diruz -1 pas = 'back, behind' emruz N pasan = '(the) last, posterior, hindmost' far da +1 pasfarda +2 pasanfarda +3 b. Ipili: lumane -2 tuni -1 andipa N anati +1 luma +2 lumale +3 Both languages' numerical asymmetry appears to be brought about by their morphological asymmetry. The "core" of Farsi's deictic system extends to -2 and +2. The prefixes pas- and pasan- may be affixed to pariruz (-2) which then allows the system to go back to -4. On the other hand, only pasan- can be affixed to pasfarda (+2) (since it already contains the prefix pas-) allowing this end of the system to extend only as far as +3. And since, in Ipili, both

20 lumane (-2) and lumale (+3) are derived from luma (+2), no additional derivational device exists for creating a - 3 form from that root. A similar asymmetry is seen in Lithuanian (19), where the prefix už- ('behind') is used as a recursive element to form day-names beyond -2 and +3. Recursion can commence with -3 since the -2 expression already contains už-, but can only commence with +4 for +N expressions (see section 7.2). (19) etc. (už - užvakar -3) už vakar -2 vakar -1 siandien N rytoj +1 poryt(oj) +2 užporyt +3 (už - užporyt +4) etc. Maltese offers another such example: (20) ilbieraħt lura -2 lura = 'backwards' ilbieraħ -1 illum N għada +1 pitgħada +2 pitpitgħada +3 This system does not have recursive forms for days beyond -2; the only expression possible for -3 is transparent phrase tlett ijem ilu 'three days ago' (literally "three days long").

6. Lexico-Semantic Symmetry and Asymmetry 6.1 Lexico-Semantic Symmetry Most languages exhibit what I, for want of a better expression, have temed a "lexico- semantic" symmetry in the structure of their day-name systems. By this I mean, most languages use the same type and class of modifier with lexical bases on both sides of N, e.g. either the use of locative or temporal modifiers, but not both. The use of the temporal prepositions after and before in English's the day before yesterday (-2) and the day after tomorrow (+2) is a case in point. More striking examples include Lithuanian's (19) use of the prefix už- ('behind') for its -2 and +3 expressions and:

(21) a Sāmoan: talātu ananafi -2 talātu = tala LOC. BASE + atu DERECTIONAL ananafi -1 MARKER – away from speaker le asō N taeao +1 talātu taeao +2 b Carib: mony ne koinaro -3 mony = ‘before/after’ mony koinaro -2 ne = ‘day’ koinaro -1 ero kurita N koro’po +1 mony koro’po +2 mony ne koro’po +3 c. Choctaw: mishshash -2 mish(a) = ‘beyond’ piláshash -1 himmak(a) nittak N onnakmã +1 mishshaskmã +2 d. Estonian: ɫeeile -2 ɫe = ‘over’ eile -1 täna N homme +1 ɫehomme +2 e. Arosi: nanora rahawou -4 wou = ‘yonder nanora howou -3 raha = ‘big’ nanora wou -2 ho = ADVERB OD DIRECTION nonora -1 nade`eni N ho’oa +1 ho’oawou +2 ho’oahowou +3 ho’oarahawou +4

22 All of which use the same type of modifier in their -N and +N expressions.

6.2 Lexico-Semantic Asymmetry There are quite a number of languages that show an asymmetry in the lexico-semantic composition of their day-name system. Russian (23a) displays a minor such asymmetry in that it uses the locative prefix poza-in pozavchera (-2) (derived from two locative prepositions, po- ‘about, along’ and za- ‘behind, to the back of’) but a temporal prefix in poslezavtra (+2) (derived from the temporal preposition 'posle- 'after'). The opposite occurs in many of the Germanic languages which use the prefixed temporal preposition 'before' in their expressions for -2 (eergisteren, vorgestern, i forgårs) and the prefixed locative preposition 'over' for their +2 expressions (overmorgen, übermorgen, i overmorgen). A very interesting lexico-semantic asymmetry is found in Modern Hebrew: (22) shilshom -2 etmol -1 hayom N maxar +1 moxrotayim +2 (literally "twice tomorrow") where the dimorphemic moxrotayim (+2) (derived from maxar '+1' + -ayim ‘dual’), is considered to be two days away from N. However, shilshom (-2), whose root shilsh means 'three', is considered to be three days away from N.

7. Taxonomic Considerations Determining the size and morphological structure of a language's deictic day-name system can be quite problematic. At least four inherent problems are encountered in this regard - some of which are related and can, in a number of languages, present themselves simultaneously.

7.1. Morphology The main difficulty in classifying day-names is distinguishing between expressions that are monomorphemic and those that are polymorphemic. At the heart of this problem lies the distinction between productive and analysable morphs. Most languages have clearly analysable polymorphemic day-names, but often their morphs are no longer productive and do not have any current discernible meaning. For instance, Anejoñn's (16a) expression for (- /+3), hovid, is most likely historically ho + vid (given vid for -/+2), however, ho- is no longer a productive morph, and occurs nowhere else in the language. Other examples include the Maltese expression for N, illum (il 'the', lum '?'), the Hawai'ian nehinei (-1) (nei 'this', nehi'?'), and the English expressions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The English expressions were originally polymorphemic, as each was regularly written

23 as two words until 1500, and usually so until about 1750 (OE Ʒeostran/Ʒystran doeƷ; tó doeg; OE to + morgenne and ME to + morwen) (OED 1989 Vol. XVIII: 182, 214). Furthermore, the 1928 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, transcribes today and tomorrow as "today" and "to-morrow" respectively (OED 1928 Vol. XI:99, 123), which implies that these expressions were not considered to be fully lexicalised in the eyes of the editors. The 1989 edition has, however, abandoned the hyphen, implying "official" recognition of full lexicalisation. Since the morphs to- (at least in this context), morrow, and yester are no longer productive (and not widely generalised), most naive native speakers of English would probably recognise yesterday, today, tomorrow and as monomorphemic. (The neutralisation of the initial vowel in today and tomorrow may be taken as further evidence of this.) The question arises whether synchronic descriptive and comparative studies, such as this one, should be concerned with diachronic interpretations. According to Bauer (1988:122) morphs and affixes that are no longer productive should not be recognised as forming separate morphs, and hence expressions in which they occur should be considered monomorphemic. This is a pragmatic and sensible approach if one is familiar with language's historical morphology and the current productivity of its morphs. However, since this study deals with a relatively large number of languages, I was not in a position to know such details, and I could not use productivity as a criterion for determining whether an expression is mono- or polymorphemic. Consequently, if a day-name showed some regular correlation between meaning and form, and could be segmented accordingly, I counted it as polymorphemic.

7.2. Recursion Many languages permit recursion (or reduplication) of modifying elements. The recursion generally commences with the -/+3 forms (cf. Lithuanian (19)), and can, in theory, continue indefinitely. Many European languages offer good examples of this practice: (23) a. Russian: etc. (poza-poza-pozavachera -4) (poza-pozavachera -3) pozavchera -2 vchera -1 segodnja N zavtra +1 poslezavtra +2 (posle-poslezavtra +3) (posle-posle-poslezavtra +4) etc.

24 b. Rumanian: etc. (ras-ras-alaltaieri -4) ras-alaltaieri - -3 alaltaieri -2 ieri -1 azi/astazi N miine +1 poimiine +2 ras-poimiine +3 (ras-ras-poimiine +4) etc. c. Dutch: etc. (eer-eergisteren -3) eergisteren -2 gisteren -1 vandaag N morgen +1 overmorgen +2 (over-overmorgen +3) etc. d. Irish Gaelic: etc. (arú arú inné -3) arú inné -2 inné -1 inniu N amárach +1 arú amárach +2 (arú arú amárach +3) etc. I suspect this practice is much more common than was normally indicated in and by my sources, because Mandarin and at least one Turkic, Algonquian and Oceanic language also use recursion to expand their base systems:

25 e. Mandarin: etc. (da4 da4 qian2 tian1 -4) da4 qian2 tian1 -3 qian2 tian1 -2 zuo4 tian1 -1 jin1 tian1 N ming2 tian1 +1 hou4 tian1 +2 da4 hou4 tian1 +3 (da4 da4 hou4 tian1 +4) etc. f. Azeri: etc, (daha-daha isragha gün -4) daha isragha gün -3 isragha gün -2 dünän -1 bu gün N gälän gün +1 birisi gün +2 daha birisi gün +3 (daha-daha birisi gün +4) etc. Notice, however, the recursion in Tuvaluan is of the lexeme for -/+1, and not of its modifying element as it is in all the other examples. Recursive forms in European languages, at least, are only used colloquially, jocularly, and predominantly by children, and remain, therefore, quite marked as linguistic expressions. Moreover, the extent to which recursion can be practised is, of course, limited by the pragmatic constraints of being able to count the number of recursive items and keep track of the number of the days being specified. Due to their markedness, I did not consider recursive forms as forming part of the standard or basic inventory of a language's deictic day-names.4

7.3. Frequency of Use In languages with deictic systems that go beyond -/+3, there is a need to distinguish between infrequently or rarely used (but nevertheless attested) forms, and forms that are in common

4 The Maltese recursive expression for (+3), pitpitghada, (18) does not fall into this category. It is used as frequently as all its other day-names.

26 use. In many cases, speakers of languages in my corpus with attested expressions beyond - /+3 are reported to use these expressions infrequently. For instance, the expressions beyond -/+2 in the -4 N +3 system of Farsi (18a) are now regarded as archaic by many speakers. Similarly, the expressions beyond -7+2 in Hindi's -4 N +4 system (14a) are now also used infrequently, at least in some regions (see section 7.4). As with other large systems, the Kalam (15b) and Erromangan~Sie (3c) expressions beyond -/+3 are seldom used nowadays. The only commonly used expressions beyond -2 are a bogilima (-5) and a bogidrau (-100) since they refer to the feasts held at those number of days after a person's death. Welsh (24) has an attested expression for +3 (i.e. tradwy), but it is only used occasionally in writing. (24) echdoe -2 doe -1 heddiw N yfory +1 trennydd +2 tradwy +3 Because the infrequently used expressions in these languages are, nonetheless, attested and most speakers are aware of them, I decided to include them as members of a language's basic deictic day-name inventory.

7.4. Regional Variation Regional differences add another interesting, though usually not a very significant, complexity to the classification of day-name systems. A few examples to illustrate this will suffice. In Basque there are some noteworthy regional variations: (25) herenegun -2 atzo -1 gaur (western), egun (eastern) N bihar +1 etzi +2 etzidamu +3 Apart from the east-west regional variation for the N lexeme, the eastern-most dialects have a term for -3, which is laurdenegun. This makes the system numerically symmetrical in that region. However, this word is apparently not used in the rest of the country, and appears to be unknown elsewhere. It is not possible to ascertain whether this word was formerly universal, and subsequently lost everywhere but in the east, or whether it is an eastern innovation.

27 Furthermore, a few eastern varieties have herenegunago for -3, whilst several central varieties have herenegundamu or herenegun-atzetik. The Malay system (26) is quite complex in that there are two distinct meanings for kelmarin and semalam. Speakers from the northern states of Malaysia use kelmarin for -1 and kelmarin dulu for -2. In the southern states semalam is used for -1 and kelmarin for -2. However, the official (national) language policy body claims in its latest dictionary that both kelmarin and semalam are synonyms for -1. The rest, esok, lusa etc., are standardised, except tonggeng which is used only colloquially. (26) kelmarin -2 semalam (or kelmarin) -1 hari ini N esok (or besok) +1 lusa +2 tulat +3 (tonggeng +4) In Fiji Hindi (see 14a) [a Fiji variety of Hindi which evolved from a koine of various dialects of Hindustani lingua franca of North India], the -/+3 and -/+4 expressions are in common use in Labasa (on the island of Vanua Levu) and western side of the main island, Viti Levu, but not in and around the capital, Suva (on the south-east corner of Viti Levu). Finally, the Standard Spanish deictic system (27) is numerically symmetrical with two days named either side of N, but in colloquial southern Spanish there is also an attested form for-3: (27) (tresantie -3) anteayer -2 ayer -1 hoy N manana +1 pasado manana +2 Where possible, I have used the standard variety of a language's deictic day-name system as the defining system.

8. Deictic Expresions for Other Temporal Spans Some languages have a rich vocabulary of deictic items for temporal spans other than diurnal units. A language with lexicalised (though transparent) names for weeks, months and years is Japanese:

28 (28) a. sensenshuu -2 senshuu -1 konshuu N 'present week' raishuu +1 saraishuu +2 b. sengetu -1 kongetu N 'present month' raigetu +1 c. ototosi -2 kyonen -1 kotosi N 'present year' rainen +1 sarainen +2 Welsh also has quite a rich inventory of deictic time adverbials. These include the non- transparent lexemes: (29) llynedd N 'present year' and beunos 'every night', beunydd 'every day', heno 'tonight', echnos 'the night before last', and yrhawg 'for a long time to come'. Other deictic time adverbials are found in: (30) a Modern Hebrew: eshtakad 'last year; emes 'last night'. b. Lachixio Zapotec: enchee 'last night'. c. Northern Sami: diibmá 'last year'. d. Swedish: i fjol 'last year', and the derived expression iförfjol 'the year before last' (Norwegian has a very similar set of expressions). A detailed investigation of the patterns in deictic systems of other temporal units is an obvious extension to this study. Such an investigation would, no doubt, provide us with further insights into the manner in which languages perceive and segment the time continuum.

9. Concluding Remarks As with any other linguistic system or paradigm, a deictic day-name system should not really be studied in isolation. It needs to be examined in connexion with how it meshes both linguistically and culturally with the language in question, for only then will we gain a full understanding of the system's structure and operation. Such a task, of course, lies beyond the scope and intention of this exploratory study. What my small survey of deictic day-name systems quite clearly shows is the overriding tendency for symmetry - in the numerical distribution of day-names on either

29 side of N; in the morphological structure of the individual day-names; in the overall distribution of day-name structures on either side of N; and in the lexico-semantic choice of the modifying elements. Though not as common, asymmetry in all these areas does occur. Further more comprehensive studies in this domain will need to take into account not only a language's tense/remoteness system, but also the measurement and perception the time dimsension. Dahl (pers. comm.) suggests the structure of a language's day-name system may be influenced by the structure of its tense or remoteness system. For instance, Southern Sotho's op-sided remoteness system (3 past tenses and 2 future tenses) (Koptjevskaja 1984:182-183) may be responsible for its analogously lop-sided day-name system: (31) maōbeng -3 maōba -2 maōbane -1 kajenō N hōsasanē +1 kamōsò +2 A culture's conception of the time dimension and how the time continuum itself is segmented, must also play a role in the composition of its day-name system. Metaphorically, time can be conceptualised in at least two perspectives: linearly and cyclically. The linear view can further be viewed along a horizontal or vertical axis, as is depicted in figure 1. PAST ← ← PRESENT → → FUTURE “behind” “here” “ahead” “before!” “now” “after”

PAST “up” “above” │ │ │ NOW │ │ │ FUTURE “down” “below” Figure 1. Linear view of time (horizontal & vertical).

30 In the linear view, time is conceived as uni-directional and is generally divided into three temporal zones (past, present and future), and allows the behaviour of time to be interpreted in two ways. In the first, the world (its people, objects and events) is anchored whilst time moves up onto it and then past it. In the second, time is the stable entity, anchored in space, with the world moving along or through it. This interpretation sees time as a spatial entity, allowing temporal events to be referred to in spatial (locational) terms. We can thus speak of an event being "ahead of us" or being "behind us". Most languages employ spatio-temporal metaphors in time reference, including their day-name expressions, e.g. German: übermorgen (+2) (über- 'over') Sāmoan: (21a) talātu ananafi (-2) (talātu > tala LOCATIVE WEBASE + atu DIRECTIONALMARKER - away from speaker) Southern Tepehuan: vasmutakaav (-3) (vas 'farther away') Guerrero Nahuatl: (4) ikwitlapanyewiptla (-3) (-kwitlapan 'behind') Northern Sami: don beaivvi (+2) (don 'yonder') Mandarin: (23e) da4 qian2 tian1 (-3) and da4 hou4 tian1 (+3) (qian4 'ahead, forward, front', hou4 'behind, rear, back') Maltese: (20) ilbieraht lura (-2) (lura 'backwards') Russian: (23a) pozavchera (-2) (poza- < po- 'about, along' and za- 'behind, to the back of). The horizontal linear view of time has two further perspectives. The world can face the future, with its "back" towards the past (as is the case with most Indo-European languages), as depicted in figure 1, or it can face the past with its "back" to the future, as depicted in figure 2. In the latter perspective, events and times in the past are referrred to as being "ahead of/in front of the coding time of the utterance, while future events are seen as being "behind" or "after" the coding time of the utterance. The logic behind this is very sound, since something which has not yet transpired is invisible or unknown - like something that is "behind" us. Whereas something which has already transpired is known, and so, is like something that is facing us and within our field of vision. PAST ← ← PRESENT → → FUTURE “ahead” “here” “behind, back” Figure 2. Linear view of time (world facing the past).

Languages in which the speaker (or the world) "faces the past" in terms of day-names include:

31 Mandarin (23e): da4 qian2 tian1 (-3) (qian4 'ahead, forward, front') and da4 hou4 tian1 (+3) (hou4 'behind, rear, back'). Taiwanese: au7jit8 (+2) (literally "behind day"). Kazakh, Kyrghyz, and Tuva: all have similar expressions for -2 which literally mean "the one in front". Aymará [an Andean-Equatorial: Andean language of Peru and Bolivia — not in my corpus]: +1 is q 'ipi uru (literally "back-day"), while the term for the past is nayra timpu (i.e. 'the time before my eyes'; literally "eye-time"). There are two languages in the corpus that have the word for "dark" in their day-names for the future. Cuaiquer~Awa Pit which contains the word tɨl ('dark', 'black') in +1, tɨlawa, and +2, kaztɨla. Motu's (10c) expression for +1 is kerkeru ('shade' , keru 'cold') and +2 is kerukeru vanegai (vanegai '-/+2'). These expressions suggest a metaphoric connexion between the future and darkness or shade, in the sense that the future is still to come and therefore can't be seen because it is in the dark. A culture that has an accurate and extensive system of quantifying and keeping track of time spans by use of weekday-names, month names and dates does not need an extensive diurnal deictic system. Rather than memorise a large set of deictic day-names, it is much easier and, of course, more accurate to refer to the -4 diurnal span as "last Tuesday", or "the 10th" rather than use a specialised lexeme or a recursive form such as eer-eer-eergisteren, ras-ras-alaltaierior andpozapozapozavachera. Industrialised societies could not function effectively without the kind of precision offered by weekday-names and dates. The reason for the contraction of large diurnal deictic systems to a more manageable -2 N +2 or -3 N +3 system, together with the adoption of weekday-names, (as seen in the Kalam system (15b)) may be seen as testimony to this. Further work in all the areas referred above needs to be carried out. One starting point is a cross-linguistic study of deictic expressions used for diurnal subdivisions, such as (this) morning, (this) afternoon, (this) evening, tonight etc. §§§

Acknowledgments I am much indebted to my colleagues John Lynch, Patrick Griffiths and France Mugler whose very useful comments and excellent suggestions have been incorporated into the final version of this paper. Errors and shortcomings are, of course, my own. I should also like to sincerely thank all the following individuals, whose generous contributions of data and comments made this investigation possible:

32 Adelaar W., Agee D., Anderson J.L., Asano Y., Asum AH Jan., Baraka R., Bayard D., Burt S.M., Butler I.M., Carrasco A., Chebanne A., Chung K.S., Clifton J.M., Coker C, Contini- Morava EX., Cook K., Corne C., Cosper R., Courtz H., Cowan M., Crowley T., Curnow T., Dahl, 6., Daly J., De Jong J.T., DeGiulio S., Dienes P., Doleschal U., Dopke S., Doron E., Button T., Eccles L., Echegoyen A., Elson B.F., Erjavec T., Eulenberg A., Faber A., Fabri R., Fernandez X.C.S., Fradkin R., Froes M.A.S., Geraghty P., Ghamari D., Gina D., Gramkow K., Hagberg L., Hahn R.F., Hall A., Hannan M-L., Harlow R., Harm H.J., Hendriks H., Hollenbach B., Hooley B.A., (the late) lelemia K., lotebwa M. & B., Ingemann F., Isimeli M., Jancewicz W., Jeep J.M., Jensen P.A., Julien M., Kausimae P., Kondo R., Koskela M., Kreikebaum W., Kreutz J., Krylov S., Kum-on L., Kuusisto P., Kvaran G., Leman W., Leona R., LeSourd P., Li W-C., Lindvall A., Lolomana'ia T., Loos E., Love N., Lucy J.A., Lynch J., Macrakis S., Maebuta J., Magdalen J., Mandel M.A., Maraga, B., Martin-Gonzalez J., Mason D., Melamed D., Mifsud, M., Moreton R.L., Muralidhar S., Muranaka H., Nahm W-H., Nara H., Neeri T., Newton D.E., Ostler N., ODonnaile C.P., Parkvall M., Pat F., Pawley A., Payne D., Penny R., Persons J., Phillips J., Picard M., Pullum G.K., Quah C.K., Rasekh A.S., Ravnholt O., Ravusiro, R., Rezaei S., Riggs D., Romans L., Rouhier-Willoughby J., Ruuskanen D.D.K., Saeky R., Salahshoor F., Senft G., Sherwood A., Sifuma D., Sigurdsson H., Siiroinen M., Simons L., Sinha L., Skinner L., Small P., Solomon T., Southwell N., Sperber D., Stavros M., Stuurman F., Taleghani-Nikazm C., Tekoriene D., Thomsen H.E., Torrejon A., Trask L., Vakareliyska C., Vance T.J., Voigtlander K., Walker, J., Walsh D., Weathers M., Wermter S.J., Willett T., Wong M.K., Yehuda F., Zhang C., and Zoeppritz M.

Appendix: Genetic Classification of languages in the data set.

EUROPE (x 34 languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s) INDO-EUROPEAN (x26) GERMANIC (x8) Danish, Dutch, English, German, Icelandic, Low Saxon (GERMANY), Norwegian,

ITALIC (X?) Catalan (SPAIN), French, Galician (SPAIN), Italian, Portuguese (Brasilian), CELTIC (X2) Gaelic (Irish & Scottish), HELLENIC (xl) Greek (Modern) BALTIC (Xl) Lithuanian SLAVIC (X?) Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croation, Slovene (YOGOSLAVIA),

33 URALIC (x4) FINNO-URGIC (x4) Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Northern Sami (FINLAND) ALTAIC (xl) TURKIC (xl) Turkish AFRO-ASIATIC (xl) SEMITIC (xl) Maltese

LANGUAGE ISOLATE Basque (SPAIN) ARTIFICIAL (xl) Esperanto

ASIA & MIDDLE EAST (x 37 languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

INDO-EUROPEAN (x2) INDO-IRANIAN (x2) Farsi (IRAN), Hindi

ALTAIC (x22) TURKIC (X8) Azeri (AZERBAIJAN), Kazakh (KAZAKHSTAN, CHINA), Kyrghyz (KYRGYZSTAN, CHINA), Salar (CHINA), Tatar

MONGOLEAN (x7) Bonan (CHINA), Buriat (CHINA), Daghur (CHINA), Dongxiang (CHINA), Mongolian, Kalmyk-Oirat (RUSSIA, CHINA), Tu~Monghur

TUNGUS (x5) Evenki-Solon (SIBERIA, CHINA), Manchu (CHINA), Nanai (SIBERIA), Orochen JAPANESE (xl) Japanese KOREAN (xl) Korean AFRO-ASIATIC (x2) SEMITIC (x2) Arabic (Classical), Hebrew (Modern) DRAVIDIAN (xl) Kannada (INDIA)

TAI(x2) Lao (LAOS), Thai (THAILAND) SINO-TIBETAN (x2) SINITIC (x2) Mandarin, Taiwanese

AUSTRO-ASIATIC (xl) NON-KHMER (xl) Khmu' (VIETNAM)

AUSTRONESIAN (x5) CHAMIC (xl) Rhade (VIETNAM)

FORMOSAN (x2) Atayal (TAIWAN), Paiwan (TAIWAN)

INDONESIAN (x2) Malay, Tagalog (PHILIPPINES)

34 OCEANIA (x 37 languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

AUSTRONESIAN (x28) INDONESIAN (x2) Chamorro (GUAM), Palauan

(PALAU)

OCEANIC (X26) Anejom (VANUATU), 'Are'are (SOLOMON is.), Arosi is.), Central Buang (PNG),

Holo-Maringe (SOLOMON is.),

Erromangan~Sie (VANUATU), Fijian (Standard), Hawai'ian,

Hula (PNG), Kiribati-Gilbertese

(KIRIBATI), Kilivia

is.), Kwaio (SOLOMON is.),

Lenakel (VANUATU), Maori

ZEALAND), Marshallese

(MARSHALL is.), Motu (PNG), Raga (VANUATU), Rotuman (ROTUMA), Roviana is.), Samoan (SAMOA),

(TAHITI), Tolo (SOLOMON is.), Tongan (TONGA), Tuvaluan

(TUVALU), Wayan (WESTERN

FIJI), Yapese (MICRONESIA) INDO-PACIFIC (x8) Ayiwo (SOLOMON is.), Ipili (PNG), Kalam (PNG), Komba

(PNG) Kope (PNG) Natleba (SOLOMON is.), Sulka (PNG), Varapu (PNG) PIDGINS & CREOLES Solomon Is. Pijin & Tok Pisin (English based)

35 AFRICA (x 10 languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

AUSTRONESIAN (xl ) INDONESIAN (xl) Malagasy (MADAGASCAR)

AFRO-ASIATIC (x2) CHADIC (xl) Hausa (NIGERIA)

OMOTIC (xl) Dorze (ETHIOPIA)

NIGER-CONGO (x4) BANTU (x4) Kalanga (BOTSWANA), Kiswahili (EASTERN-CENTRAL AFRICA), Southern Sotho

KHOISAN (x2) Ju/'hoasi (BOTSWANA), !Xu (BOTSWANA) PIDGINS & CREOLES Mauritian & Seychelles (xl) Creoles (French based)

NORTH AMERICA (x 9 languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

MACRO ALGONQUIAN ALGONQUIAN (x3) Cheyenne (MONTANA), (x5) Maliseet-Passamaquoddy (MAINE, NEW BRUNSWICK),

MUSKOGEAN (x2) Choctaw (OKLAHOMA), Chickasaw (OKLAHOMA) IROQUOIAN(xl) Cherokee (OKLAHOMA)

AZTEC-TANOAN (x3) Cahuilla (CALIFORNIA), Luiseno (CALIFORNIA),

CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA (x so languages) PHYLUM/FAMILY SUB-GROUP Language(s)

AZTEC-TANOAN (x4) Guerrero Nahuatl (MEXICO), Mayo (MEXICO), South-eastern Puebla Nahuatl (MEXICO),

OTO-MANGUEAN (x13) AMUZGOAN(x1) Guerrero Amuzgo (MEXICO) CHINANTECAN (x2) Comaltepec Chinantec (MEXICO), Usila Chinantec

MIXTECAN (x3) Coatzospan Mixtec (MEXICO), Copala Trique (MEXICO),

OTOMIAN ((x1) Eastern Otomi (MEXICO)

36 POPOLACAN(x1) San Jeronimo Mazatec

ZAPOTECAN (x5) Albarradas Zapotec (MEXICO), Amatlan Zapotec (MEXICO), Guevea De Humboldt Zapotec (MEXICO), Lachixio Zapotec

MXE-ZORQUE(x1) Sierra Popoluca (MEXICO)

SUBTIABA-TLAPANEC Me'phaa~Tlapanec (MEXICO)

PENUTIAN (x4) MAYAN (x4) Lacandon (MEXICO), Huixtec Tzotzil (MEXICO), Veracruz Huasteco (MEXICO), Yucatec ANDEAN- QUECHUAN (xl) Bolivian Quechua

ARAWAKAN (x2) Guahibo (COLOMBIA), Ashaninca (PERU) GE-PANO-CARIB (x2) Capanahua (PERU), Carib (SURINAM)

CHIBCHAN(x1) Chibcha~Muisca (Extinct - COLOMBIA) PAEZAN (x1) BARBACOAN(x1) Cuaiquer~Awa Pit (ECUADOR)

Works Consulted

ABO, T. et al. 1976. Marshallese-English Dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. BAUER, L. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. BENDER, B.W. 1969. Spoken Marshallese. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. DAHL, 6. and Kos-DlENES, D. (eds). 1984. Selected Working Papers from the Tense- Mood-Aspect Project. Stockholm: University of Stickholm, Institute of Linguistics. DOKE, C.M. & MOFOKENG, S.M. 1957. Textbook of Southern Sotho Grammar. London: Longman. EGEROD, S. 1980. Atayal-English Dictionary (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series No.35). London & Malmo: Curzon Press Ltd. ENGLISH, L.J. 1977. English-Tagalog Dictionary, np: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. FERRELL,R. 1982. Paiwan Dictionary. (Pacific Linguistics C-73). Canberra: Australian National University. FlLLMORE, C. 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

37 Fox, C. E. 1978. Arosi Dictionary. (Pacific Linguistics C-57). Canberra: Australian National University. JACKSON, G.W. 1993. Te Tikisionale o te 'Gana Tuvalu: A Tuvaluan-English Dictionary, Apia, Western Samoa: Geoffrey W. Jackson. JENSEN, J.T. 1977. Yapese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. KEESING, R.M. 1975. Kwaio Dictionary. (Pacific Linguistics C-35). Canberra: Australian National University. KOPTJEVSKAJA, M. 1984. Some Bantu Tense Systems. Selected Working Papers from the Tense-Mood-Aspect Project, eds. 6. Dahl & D. Kos-Dienes (eds). 1984: 158-194. LAL, B.V. 1992. Broken Waves: A History of the Fiji Islands in the Twentieth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. LEMAITRE, Y. 1973. Lexique du tahitien contemporain. Paris: ORSTOM. McMANUS, E.G. SJ. 1977. Palauan-English Dictionary. (PALI Language Texts: Micronesia). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. MERRIFIELD W.R. et al. 1967. Laboratory Manual for Morphology and Syntax. (Problem #20 Kamhu', by Smalley, W., p. 20). Santa Anna: SIL. MUNRO, P. & WlLLMOND, C. 1994. Chickasaw: An Analytical Dictionary. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. SHUMWAY, E.B. 1971. Intensive Course in Tongan. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. THARP, J.A. & Y-BHAM BUON-YA . 1980. A Rhade-English Dictionary with English- Rhade Finderlist. (Pacific Linguistics C-58). Canberra: Australian National University. The Oxford English Dictionary. 1928. Volume XI. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd ed. Volumes XVII & XX. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TOPPING, D.M., OGO, P.M. & DUNGCA, B.C. 1975. Chamorro-English Dictionary. (PALI Language Texts: Micronesia). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. WHILE, G.M. 1988. Cheke Holo (Maringe/Holgrano) Dictionary. (Pacific Linguistics C- 97). Canberra: Australian National University.