<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [An-lang] Suppletive forms of 1sg+2sg personal pronounclusters</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">What I find of some interest (although it may not have any more significance than the clustered form itself) in _kita_ is that it is a cluster of two forms with different grammatical functions (genitive and nominative; at least _kata_ is nominative - nominative) AND what it can tells us, if anything, on the issue of the structure of the Tagalog verbal clause (whether expressions like _nakita ko_ is nominal or verbal), as well as the extent of morphology's disrespect for syntactic boundaries. I can understand the weak boundary, at some level, between Ilocano's _-ak_and the verb (for example, _nabisinak_), but the boundary between Tagalog _ko ikaw_ in sentences like _nakita ko ikaw_ => _nakita kita_, that is to say between the subject and the object, is much too strong, in the traditional sense, to be so disregarded, unless of course the boundary is not that strong after all. Incidentally, _kita_ is ambiguous with two readings: Nakita kita sa tindahan 'I saw you at the store' and 'You and I were seen at the store.' That is, it allows for a nominative-nominative reading. Does anybody know have examples of _nita_?</FONT></SPAN></P>
<BR>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Loren A. Billings [SMTP:billings@ncnu.edu.tw]</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:03 AM</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">an-lang@anu.edu.au</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Subject: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE="Arial">Re: [An-lang] Suppletive forms of 1sg+2sg personal pronounclusters</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Dear colleagues,</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Paz Naylor (to the list) and Bob Blust (just to me) pointed something out</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that I was hoping to avoid. Here are the relevant parts of their messages:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">On 11/13/03 10:46 AM, "Paz B. Naylor" <pnaylor@umich.edu> wrote to the list:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> From what I learned ages ago from sources I can no longer recall, KITA is</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> the old DUAL - a remnant of the old pronominal number system; i.e., it</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> wasn't always simply singular vs. plural. (Most linguists would have heard</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> of systems that even have - or had- a TRIAL form.) Given that Tagalog (and</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> Cebuano and I don't know what other CP languages) make a formal distinction</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> between 1rst-person INCLUSIVE vs. EXCLUSIVE plural, the notion of the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> existence of an earlier DUAL form would not be far-fetched.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">On 11/13/03 10:03 AM, "Robert A. Blust" <blust@hawaii.edu> wrote to to me:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> I'm note sure that I would call kita in languages like Tagalog a</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> 'suppletive' form. It simply reflects PAN *kita '1pl in', with a shift to</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> dual reference, evidently because the basic conversational unit is the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> personal dyad. This has happened independently in the central Philippines</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> and in some languages of northern Sarawak (as Kelabit). The pragmatic basis</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> for the semantic change seems fairly straightforward: if you are using a 1st</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> person plural inclusive pronoun most of the time for speaker + hearer rather</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> than for speaker + hearers then it would gradually come to have a dual</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> reference.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I agree, for the most part, with what Paz and Bob have written. It's clear</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">from nearly every other Central Philippine (CP) language that _kita_ was the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Nom 1Pl inclusive form (as in Bikol and Cebuano)--indeed, in PAn. Tagalog</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">now has _tayo_ for the Nom1PlIn form. I agree with Bob's rationale for the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">shift of _kita_ from being the 1.Pl.In. to the portmanteau 1SgGen+2SgNom</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">form via the idea of the speaker-addressee dyad.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">As an aside, I write "for the most part" above because I don't know exactly</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">how the now archaic dual forms _kata_ (Nom) and _nita_ (Gen)--cited in the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">pronoun tables of Schachter (1973) and Schachter and Otanes (1972)--might</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">bear on this hypothesis. I know nothing about these two forms aside from</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">their mention in Schachter (and Otanes). I can, however add that in one</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mansakan language (Tagakaulo Kalagan) that _kita_ is strictly 1.Dl.In., with</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_kitamayu_ (i.e., _kita_ + 2.Pl. _mayu_) as the 1.Pl.In. form.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">All that is tangential to the query I was initially trying to pose to you. I</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">would like to know how widespread the unusual 1sg+2sg pronoun forms are</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">outside of CP and Atayalic. I'd also like to know about complicated orders</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">of Gen and Nom bound pronouns in languages around these areas. So far, I've</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">received a few responses on Atayalic but nothing on the Philippine side.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Aside from Bob and Paz (to whom I am also grateful), thanks so far to the</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">following list members: Naomi Tsukida (Teruku Seediq), Edith Aldridge</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">(Takdaya Seediq), Waruno Mahdi (referring me to another's work). I hope to</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">have the pleasure to acknowledge other people's help in the future.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Sincerely, --Loren Billings</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<BR>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Loren A. Billings, Ph.D.</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Associate professor of linguistics</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Department of Foreign Languages and Literature</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">National Chi Nan University</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Puli, Nantou, Taiwan 545 Republic of China</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">E-mail: billings@ncnu.edu.tw</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">An-lang mailing list</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">An-lang@anu.edu.au</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"><A HREF="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang">http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang</A></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>