Tolowa reflexives

[Victor Golla]

Tom--

I think that you're misremembering the topic of our earlier discussion.
I've got no problem with reflexives in Tolowa, which (as Gary says) are
well-behaved from the Athabaskan point of view.

What I took issue with was a rather different claim, viz:

> In many, perhaps most languages (and language families) known to us, the
dative/recipient object/argument (of verbs such as 'give', 'send',
'show', 'tell', 'bring') and the optional benefactive argument are
obligatorily coded as the DIR OBJ of the clause, ...

> Athabaskan (Tolowa) easily come[s] to mind, ...

To which I replied:

> Oh?  In all Athabaskan languages that I know of, a
> dative/benefactive argument is coded only as the object of an
> incorporated postposition,*never* as DIR OBJ.  Athabaskan is
> the exception that proves the rule,as it were, when it comes
> to the promotion of IND OBJ. Does Tolowa behave differently
> from all other Athabaskan languages?

I'll happily concede the point about the subject of reflexives,
but I'd be very surprised to find Tolowa promoting indirect
objects in benefactive constructions.  Normal Athabaskan
morphology simply doesn't allow this to happen.

--Victor


>
> Dear FUNK people,
>
>
> A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note,
that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the
subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my
Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded
to Vic that I may have been in error.
>
> I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my
great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument
with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of
the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another
grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker
/dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/.
Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic
is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on
the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb
morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave
Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals.
>
> For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion
cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been
> re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus  (U =
schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i):
>
>              yU-lh-ts'a's
>              TR-L-whip
>               's/he is whipping it/him/her'
>
>              dU-d-lh-ts'a's
>              REFL-D-L-whip
>              's/he is whipping him-/herself'
>
> For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion
is available:
>
>              'U-sh-k'Usr
>              THM-1s/SUBJ-shave
>              'I am shaving him/it'
>
>              dU-sh-d-k'Usr
>              REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave
>              'I am shaving myself'
>
>              na-sh-tlh-mi~sh
>              ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang
>              'I am hanging it/him/her'
>
>              naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh
>              ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang
>              'I am hanging myself'
>
>              ghee-s-ii-'i~'
>              THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see
>              'I saw it/him/her'
>
>              dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~'
>              REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see
>              'I saw myself'
>
>              naa-'ii~-tlh-te
>              ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care
>              'You care for it/him/her'
>
>              naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te
>              ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care
>              'You care for yourself'
>
> However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we
know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the
agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common
cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject.
>
> Cheers,  TG
>
>
>
>
> Dear FUNK people,
>
>
> A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note,
that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the
subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my
Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded
to Vic that I may have been in error.
>
> I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my
great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument
with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of
the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another
grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker
/dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/.
Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic
is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on
the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb
morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave
Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals.
>
> For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion
cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been
> re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus  (U =
schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i):
>
>              yU-lh-ts'a's
>              TR-L-whip
>               's/he is whipping it/him/her'
>
>              dU-d-lh-ts'a's
>              REFL-D-L-whip
>              's/he is whipping him-/herself'
>
> For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion
is available:
>
>              'U-sh-k'Usr
>              THM-1s/SUBJ-shave
>              'I am shaving him/it'
>
>              dU-sh-d-k'Usr
>              REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave
>              'I am shaving myself'
>
>              na-sh-tlh-mi~sh
>              ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang
>              'I am hanging it/him/her'
>
>              naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh
>              ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang
>              'I am hanging myself'
>
>              ghee-s-ii-'i~'
>              THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see
>              'I saw it/him/her'
>
>              dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~'
>              REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see
>              'I saw myself'
>
>              naa-'ii~-tlh-te
>              ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care
>              'You care for it/him/her'
>
>              naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te
>              ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care
>              'You care for yourself'
>
> However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we
know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the
agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common
cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject.
>
> Cheers,  TG
>
>
>