An Analysis of the Syntax of Comanche Samantha Price Northeastern University 1 Introduction This paper discusses Comanche syntax, examining both its complexities and its unique relationship with the language’s morphological system. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the language: its historic roots, its evolution, and its current state. The following section (Section 3) supplies details about Comanche’s basic SOV word order, including instances where this word order is maintained and situations where irregular word orders arise. The typology of Comanche’s word order is examined as well, with an emphasis on whether it possesses the characteristics of a typical SOV language. Section 4 focuses on the formation of noun phrases and the structures that are commonly seen (basic nouns, nouns/determiners, objective/possessive nouns, nominal case markings). Section 5 transitions to verb phrases, specifically the structure of phrases with different verb types (intransitive, transitive, etc.), as well as the construction of questions. Lastly, two significant features of Comanche’s morphosyntax are highlighted in Section 6: case reference markers and oblique relatives. 2 Sociolinguistic Profile This section presents a brief overview of the Comanche language.1 Comanche is spoken by members of the Comanche Nation in Western Oklahoma. Although this tribe once dominated the Great Plains region of the Western U.S. and Mexico, historical mistreatment of Native Americans by westward-bound settlers led to its decline and present-day diminished state (Charney 1993:1). Today, the Comanche tribe is surrounded by a diverse collection of other Native American nations (see Figure 1); few 1 of these tribes are members of its Numic genus or Uto-Aztecan family due to the U.S. government’s tribal relocation policies. Figure 1: Map of Southeastern U.S.; Comanche Nation circled in red (Ethnologue 2009). According to WALS, languages within Comanche’s genus and family, like Chemehuevi and Kawaiisu, are found in California and its neighboring states. Comanche’s closest language relative is Shoshone; the Comanche and Shoshone tribes were once a united nation inhabiting the Plains-Plateau-Basin area of modern day Wyoming (Charney 1993:1). When a group of Shoshones migrated to the Plains after 1850, their communications became the linguistically distinct Comanche language (Charney 1993:2). As of the year 2007, there were 100 remaining native Comanche speakers (all over the age of fifty) within an ethnic population of 8,500. Since the language is no 2 longer transmitted to offspring, this number has likely decreased since then. English- Comanche bilingualism tends to exist among the older generation because of English’s dominance and wider appeal. While Comanche may have been utilized extensively during the tribe’s height of power, the lack of native speakers today results in the language’s confinement to a small area. Ethnologue classifies this language as 8a (moribund/nearly extinct, see Figure 2), and UNESCO characterizes it as severely endangered, meaning the language is solely spoken by older generations. Comanche’s relatives have fared slightly better; Shoshone and Chemehuavi are categorized as threatened, with evidence of occasional transmission to offspring. Figure 2: Comanche’s placement on the EGIDS scale (8a) (Ethnologue 2018). There is no concrete evidence to indicate the acquisition of Comanche by non- native speakers, though classes in the language were offered at the University of Oklahoma (as reported in 2007). Comanche is preserved in various texts, but it is rarely utilized functionally in private or public settings, and there is yet to be a widespread movement to revive the language. 3 This paper primarily derives its information from Jean Ormsbee Charney’s A Grammar of Comanche, as this grammar is both the most recent and the most comprehensive examination of the Comanche language (according to WALS). Charney constructed her grammar with the consultants Lucille McClung, Agnes Wermy, and Theresa Saupitty throughout the 1980s, favoring these firsthand accounts over other linguists’ dated evidence. Other notable resources (specified by WALS) include Elliott Canonge’s compilation of Comanche folklore and anecdotes (1958), Henry Osborn and William A. Smalley’s study of Comanche word formation (1949), and Venda Riggs’s Alternate Phonemic Analyses of Comanche (1949). Another related work is Lila Wistrand-Robinson and James Armagost ‘s Comanche Dictionary and Grammar (1990). As Charney mentions, that grammar employs Canonge’s Comanche texts rather than data from language consultants (1993:3). Wistrand-Robinson and Armagost’s work is consulted for this paper, but Charney’s grammar remains the predominant source unless otherwise stated. 2 3 Word Order This section analyzes the word order of Comanche, beginning with an explanation of its customary Subject-Object-Verb structure (Section 3.1). Although this structure defines the language, there is a degree of fluidity allowed in the placement of words, as morphological markers are favored to provide context and define grammatical categories. Consequently, Section 3.2 briefly describes common irregular word orders and their causes. Section 3.3 concludes with an analysis of the typology of Comanche syntax and 4 the characteristics of the language that might align (or differ) with the features of SOV languages in general. For the examples of this section (and the entire paper), Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) constituent projections are used to display the syntactical complexities of a polysynthetic language like Comanche. 3 For information about the Leipzig abbreviations and the phonemic symbols that are employed, consult Section 9.1 and Section 9.2 respectively. For more information about Comanche word order, see Charney (1993:194). 3.1 Basic Word Order As mentioned above, the general structure of Comanche sentences is Subject-Object- Verb. Although the subject usually precedes the object and verb, it is often not the first word in a sentence, as “there is a strong tendency in Comanche for the subject to be moved into sentential second position” (Charney 1993:94). The element in the first position is determined by the topicalized particles -tsa or -se (discussed further in Section 3.2). Example 1 provides two simple sentences with SV or SOV word orders and no adjuncts. (1) a. nɨ nːɨ-se pɑː -kʷɑpi-tɨ = 1PL.EXCL-CNTR water-lie.PL.SBJ-GEN:ASP ‘We swam.’ b. nɨ -se uhti mɑ kɑ -n 1SG-CNTR 3PL.OBJ feed-CMPL:ASP ‘I fed them.’ 5 The structures of both examples are consistent with what one would expect from an SOV language. Figure 3 provides an RRG projection for data point (1a); it demonstrates the straightforward, typical structure of an SV sentence. The subject argument comes before the verb nucleus. Figure 3: Simple SV structure with no adjuncts The placement of adjuncts in Comanche sentences tends to vary, depending on the types of sentences and other factors (discussed in 3.2). There is no definable pattern, but instrumental prefixes are a popular choice to add specific details to a sentence. Each instrumental prefix corresponds to some physical action that can make an intransitive verb become transitive (Charney 1993:117). For more information about instrumental prefixes and their functions, consult Charney (1993:117-123). Example 2 offers 6 instances of Comanche sentences which involve instrumental adjuncts. The instrumental prefixes and their corresponding meanings are highlighted in bold. (2) a. ɾ eɾ un-tsɑ huː tsuː -ʔɑ kɨ H-jɑː -kɑ =tɨ = name-TOP bird-OBJ INS.in.mouth-carry.SG.OBJ-have ‘Rerun (a dog) has a bird in his mouth.’ b. nɨ -tsoʔ nikɑ -ʔɑ nɨ ː tsɑ H-kʷ eʔ jɑ -i 1SG.POSS-hat-OBJ 1SG INS.with.hand-remove.SG.OBJ-CMPL:ASP ‘I took off my hat (with my hand)’. In both point (2a) and point (2b), the instrumental prefixes function as adjuncts because they are not necessary for each sentence to make sense. Figure 4 represents the RRG constituent projection for data point (2a). As can be seen by the diagram, the phrase ‘in his mouth’ is treated as a periphery; the sentence would still be complete without the phrase, indicating that it is not an argument. The verb’s meaning is already ‘hold/carry’, so the addition of ‘in his mouth’ only adds further information about how the object is carried. 7 Figure 4: Basic Subject-Object-Verb structure (with adjunct) in Comanche There are other, rarer variations of adjuncts and main clauses, but to explore them is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.2 Alternative Word Orders The main sources of variant word orders in Comanche are the topic suffixes -tsa and -se. Any morpheme that is suffixed with either of these particles becomes the first word in a given sentence, forcing the subject into a sentential second position (Charney 1993:194). As a result, Comanche sentences often begin with various word types. In the case where there is no topicalized particle attached to any morpheme, the subject moves to the second position automatically. Two common Comanche sentence structures, Object- Subject-Verb and Object-Verb-Subject, are formed in the latter way. Transitive 8 sentences (discussed further in Section 5.2.2) often have the OSV order when the object of the sentence is nominal. Example 3 demonstrates instances with and without the topic particle. (3) a. otɨ kʷɨ h-tsɑ nɑ nɑ -kʷɨ =-tu-i-nɨ kʷɨ h those.DU-TOP RECP-female-marry-CMPL:ASP-DU ‘Those two are getting married.’ b. nɨ -wɑ ʔ o nɨ ː nɑ suwɑ tsi-n my-cat.OBJ 1SG forget-CMPL:ASP ‘I forgot my cat.’ As can be seen by the bolded element in data point (3a), otikʷih suffixed with the topic particle begins the sentence. Figure 5 displays the RRG projection for data point (3a). Figure 5: Represents a sentence with the topic particle -tsa.