Hyman Paris Bantu PLAR
UC Berkeley UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report Title Disentangling Conjoint, Disjoint, Metatony, Tone Cases, Augments, Prosody, and Focus in Bantu Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/37p3m2gg Journal UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report, 9(9) ISSN 2768-5047 Author Hyman, Larry M Publication Date 2013 DOI 10.5070/P737p3m2gg eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2013) Disentangling Conjoint, Disjoint, Metatony, Tone Cases, Augments, Prosody, and Focus in Bantu Larry M. Hyman University of California, Berkeley Presented at the Workshop on Prosodic Constituents in Bantu languages: Metatony and Dislocations Université de Paris 3, June 28-29, 2012 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to disentangle a number of overlapping concepts that have been invoked in Bantu studies to characterize the relation between a verb and what follows it. Starting with the conjoint/disjoint distinction, I will then consider its potential relation to “metatony”, “tone cases”, “augments”, prosody, and focus in Bantu. 2. Conjoint/disjoint (CJ/DJ)1 In many Bantu languages TAM and negative paradigms have been shown to exhibit suppletive allomorphy, as in the following oft-cited Chibemba sentences, which illustrate a prefixal difference in marking present tense, corresponding with differences in focus (Sharman 1956: 30): (1) a. disjoint -la- : bus&é mu-la-peep-a ‘do you (pl.) smoke’? b. conjoint -Ø- : ee tu-peep-a sekelééti ‘yes, we smoke cigarettes’ c. disjoint -la- : bámó bá-la-ly-á ínsoka ‘some people actually eat snakes’ In (1a) the verb is final in its main clause and must therefore occur in the disjoint form, marked by the prefix -la-.
[Show full text]