<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Eitan,<br>
<br>
In Malay/Indonesian there's a content word "tukang" which
dictionaries gloss as 'craftsman'. However, depending on the
dialect, it seems to be taking first steps towards
grammaticalization as an agent nominalizer. In my original
description of Riau Indonesian, I characterized it as almost the
only disyllabic function word in the language, as I had never heard
it on its own, only in construction with a following word, and with
an "agent nominalizer"-like meaning. (Scare quotes are in
acknowledgement of my analysis of Riau Indonesian as not having an
N/V distinction, and hence, strictly speaking, not having
nominalizers.) But I now suspect that it still retains its original
meaning as 'craftsman' in Riau Indonesian. In eastern dialects of
Malay/Indonesian, however, the bleaching of "tukang" seems to have
proceeded further, and you get common expressions such as Papuan
Malay "tukang tipu" ('craftsman lie') for 'liar'. Also, in Papuan
Malay, the original agent nominalizer "peng-" that you mention in
your query has been almost completely lost, and survives in just a
very few words where it has lost its original meaning, eg. "pancuri"
for 'steal' (in other varieties of Malay/Indonesian, "pencuri" means
'thief'. So in Papuan Malay, 'thief' is "tukang pancuri".<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/01/2016 19:07, Eitan Grossman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAA00bNkDMX8pnk2MmJUqeqGskiOD0U28Qq2H2wefkSJDQ5X=7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
<br>
</div>
I am writing to ask a question about 'agent'*
nominalizations across languages. I am interested in agent
nominalizers that do or don't have known diachronic sources,
in the attempt to understand which diachronic pathways are
attested (and hopefully, their relative frequency/rarity).
For example, some languages have:<br>
<br>
(a) bound morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly
identifiable, whether lexical (Japanese -nin or -sya
'person; Khwe and Meskwaki are similar, or Japanese -te
'hand') or grammatical (Serbo-Croatian -l(o) from an
original instrumental meaning, perhaps similarly for
Afroasiatic m-).<br>
</div>
(b) bound morphemes whose diachronic source may be mysterious
or reconstructible as such to the proto-language (Quechuan
-q?, Malay-Indonesian peng-/pe-?).<br>
</div>
<div>(c) free morphemes whose diachronic source is clearly
identifiable (Ponoapean olen ''man of')<br>
</div>
<div>(d) more complex constructions involving the reduction of
modifier clauses of some sort (Coptic ref- < ultimately
from 'person who verbs')<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>(e) rarer morphosyntactic alternations, like
reduplication of the initial syllable (Hadze, Serer),
vowel length (Akan), vowel raising (+breathiness) (Nuer) <br>
</div>
<div>(f) no such nominalizer mentioned, or explicitly
mentioned that there is no dedicated agent noun
construction. In some languages, ad hoc formation via
relatives is the only (Tlapanec), main, or a supplementary
strategy (e.g., Indonesian relativizer yang).<br>
</div>
<div>(g) zero conversion<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is nice paper by Luschuetzky & Rainer in STUF
2011, but it deals almost exclusively with affixes and
only rarely mentions diachronic information.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>From a <u>very</u> preliminary survey of grammars, it
looks like the origin of agent nominalizers is often
pretty obscure, and the shortest and most bound morphemes
look to be very old, quite expectedly. Identifiable
lexical sources seem to converge around 'person, thing' or
body parts. Reduction of complex constructions to an affix
seems to be rare but attested. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div><b>So, here's the question: in your languages, is the
diachronic source of agent nominalizers identifiable? </b>
I'd be grateful for any information you might be willing
to share!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,<br>
</div>
<div>Eitan<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>*Disclaimer: even though this is a common term, most
languages I've seen don't single out the semantic role of
agent, and this is often noted in theoretical discussions.
Also, such nominalizations don't have to be derivational
or even 'morphological.'<br clear="all">
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
Eitan Grossman
<div>Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School
of Language Sciences<br>
</div>
<div>Hebrew University of Jerusalem</div>
<div>Tel: +972 2 588 3809</div>
<div>Fax: +972 2 588 1224</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-812-73567992
</pre>
</body>
</html>