29.3959, Review: Dravidian; Morphology; Syntax: Amritavalli, Jayaseelan (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3959. Fri Oct 12 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3959, Review: Dravidian; Morphology; Syntax: Amritavalli, Jayaseelan (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:35:53
From: Sanford Steever [sbsteever at yahoo.com]
Subject: Dravidian Syntax and Universal Grammar (Part I)

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36346218


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3394.html

AUTHOR: K. A. Jayaseelan
AUTHOR: Raghavachari  Amritavalli
TITLE: Dravidian Syntax and Universal Grammar
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Sanford B Steever,  

SUMMARY

Dravidian syntax and universal grammar (DSUG) collects 28 papers written
individually or jointly over the past 30 years by the husband and wife team of
K.A. Jayaseelan (J) and R. Amritavalli (A). Two additional coauthors are
involved: Deepti Ramadoss (chap. 14) and M. Hariprasad (chap. 28). The authors
limit the Dravidian languages to the four literary languages Kannnada (Kan),
Malayalam (Mal), Tamil (Tam) and Telugu (Tel). The first two receive the
lion’s share of attention: Japanese is cited more than Tamil, Hungarian more
than Telugu; none of the 20+ nonliterary Dravidian languages figures in the
discussion. Universal grammar (UG) refers to the creation of models using
government and binding, minimalism and principles and parameters. K and A
introduce data from Kan and Mal to modify proposals in these models to shed
light on UG and the individual languages. Several solutions involve proposing
new functional projections in the left periphery to accommodate the data, e.g.
MoodP, PerspectiveP, or recharacterizing existing projections to facilitate or
block the interaction of certain grammatical elements. 

The 28 chapters are divided into five topic-oriented sections: I, Scrambling
and word order (chaps. 1-4); II, Syntax of questions and quantifiers (chaps.
5-10); III, Finiteness and negation (chaps. 11-16); IV, Case and argument
structure (chaps. 17-24); and V, Anaphors and pronouns (chaps. 25-28). There
are three indexes: Languages, Names and Subjects. The content and examples of
one chapter significantly overlap those of others, sometimes with subtle,
sometimes not so subtle differences. Negation and polarity for example are
discussed in chapters 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16; finiteness in chapters 9, 11, 13,
15, 16; questions in chapters 2, 5, 6, 8, 9. There is heavy repetition of
example sentences in chapters 5, 7 and 8. Due to the overlap, this review
focuses on sections rather than individual chapters; for this purpose, the
notation II.5.134 refers to Section II, Chapter 5, page 134 of DSUG.

Many chapters originated as seminar presentations, appearing in conference
proceedings or journals. Unaccountably, the authors decided not to rewrite the
chapters for DSUG (pp. x-xi), a decision that covers copyediting,
fact-checking and resolving inconsistencies. This has allowed substantial
problems to accumulate, often over decades, gain speed and snowball. As a
result, the volume contains proposals that are mutually inconsistent or even
contradictory. Since many of the errors function as material premises in the
authors’ arguments, they undermine their conclusions. To help readers navigate
these issues and better evaluate the arguments, I provide alternative
perspectives and data that general, non-specialist readers might not have
access to.

The decision not to revise has an immediate impact of the volume’s utility.
For example, one finds on page 63 a reference to ‘Jayaseelan (2001b)’, which
is now Chapter 5 of DSUG. Citations such as ‘XYZ (this volume)’, referring to
where they first appeared, may be traced only with difficulty; citations such
as ‘Cinque (to appear)’ not at all. This decision includes the systems for
transcribing Kan and Mal: several appear in the volume, sometimes two
different ones in one chapter; none is adequately explained. In language
examples, proper names are capitalized even though Dravidian writing systems
do not distinguish upper from lower case; this is problematic when
capitalization is used to indicate retroflexion (e.g., the reflexive form Taan
‘self’ on p. 647 should be taan). From page 6 onward examples use ‘John’ and
‘Mary’ as is, not as Dravidian phonology requires, viz. jaan, meeri. Even
Indic names such as moohan appear in their anglicized forms, i.e. Mohan. These
examples give the impression of carelessness. The morphological segmentation
and interlinear glosses are insufficient and follow no recognizable (e.g.
Leipzig) conventions.

EVALUATION

Section I, Scrambling and word order, addresses Clefting, Scrambling, the
placement of question words and word-order typologies. Several proposals
involve expanding the left periphery by introducing new projections or
repurposing existing ones. Traditionally, explicit case marking of nouns
facilitates the permutation of major constituents within a clause via
Scrambling. To explain IP-internal variations J appeals to the differential
movement of constituents into (multiple) topic (ToP) and focus (FP) phrases.
Differences in word order are thus referred to movement to different nodes and
to scope-like differences in the relative order of ToPs and FPs on the clausal
spine. This leads to all nonverbal elements occupying a ToP or FP. Overuse of
multiple phrases, suggesting very subtle scope distinctions among the
word-order variants, dilutes the utility of ToP and FP in identifying actual
topicalized or focused constituents. J develops Mahadevan’s (1988) observation
that in Mal non-Clefted questions, question words must appear immediately
before the verb: he claims question words occupy FP and FP occurs immediately
before the verb. This is likely related to the fact that in Mal Clefts the
element focused by Clefting appears immediately before the copular verb aaNe.
By contrast, Tam, Kan and Tel, whose Clefts lack a copular verb, permit the in
situ placement of question words; the solution for the Mal data does not apply
to them. 

Going big, in Chapter 4 Jayaseelan extends the idea of movement into different
phrases to explain differences between (S)VO and (S)OV word order. Earlier UG
proposals privileged VO word order as “basic” while OV word order was
“derived” through movement of constituents to before the verb, an implicit
criticism of antisymmetry. J attempts to mitigate this by arguing that
movement applies in both orders in two steps. First, in both orders movement
creates Stacking, bringing a V together with its inflectional suffixes.
Second, in VO languages the stacked elements are Stranded while in OV
languages they are Pied-piped. However, this difference amounts to one between
Pied-piping (OV order) and not Pied-piping (VO order): calling the
non-application of Pied-piping Stranding doesn’t make it an independent
process. Thus OV word order still undergoes an additional derivational step
that VO order does not. This further suggests that all OV word orders are
topicalized; that there is no “basic” (or untopicalized) order in Dravidian;
and, hence, that Topicalization means something different in the two
word-order patterns. Saying VO languages have Stranded constituents and OV
languages Pied-piped ones merely re-labels the problem. 

The preferential treatment of SVO word order in the authors’ model affects
their treatment of relative clauses in Sections I and III. The SVO treatment
requires relative clauses be finite and marked by a relative pronoun, which
moves in between the head noun and relative clause, leaving a trace behind.
That the relative marker is a (pro)nominal form is natural because in
canonical order, the head noun directly abuts a position in the relative
clause occupied by a nominal, viz. the subject, i.e. N’ (NP V NP). J’s
adherence to antisymmetry (I.3.55) requires SOV relative clauses receive the
same treatment. However, in SOV relative clauses the head noun abuts the verb
of the relative clause, viz. (NP NP V) N’. In Dravidian, subordination of the
relative clause to the following head noun is signaled by verbal suffixes
(relative participle or conditional) or by such clitics as =oo ‘or, any’
(Steever 2017), neither of which is nominal. The suffixes prevent the verb in
the relative clause from being finite; the clitic =o allows for the full
expression of finiteness, but is a quantifier not a pro-form. The relevant NP
in the subordinate clause is Gapped, not moved. Such differences with SVO
languages seem not to fall out from Pied-piping.  

In Section I and throughout DSUG the authors use the traditional term
‘relative participle’ (RP) to label the form that subordinate clause verbs
assume when they combine with a head noun to form a relative clause, e.g., Mal
ñaan kaNT-a kuTTi ‘(the) child whom I saw’ [I.NOM see-PST-RP child.NOM]
contains the RP suffix –a. However, this form also occurs in factive and
adverbial adjunct clauses. In Kan avanu edd-a saddu ‘the sound of him getting
up’ [he.NOM arise-PST-RP sound.NOM], the relative participle edd-a ‘getting
up’ combines with the head noun saddu ‘sound’ to form a complex nominal
complement; in Tam enakku.t teri-nt-a varai ‘as far as I know’ [I-DAT
know-PST-ADN limit] the verb teri-nt-a is a relative participle combining with
head noun varai ‘limit’ to form an adverbial phrase. However, in neither
sentence does the head noun relate to a theta-role in the subordinate clause:
neither is a relative clause. J and A apply RP to examples that are not
relative clauses, e.g. exx. (30b), (31a, b) on p. 375. Sometimes (III.16.399)
they call the relative marker –a an “augment”; sometimes they do not gloss it
at all (on IV.19.460 Mal oLiccu irikkum pooL ‘when X was hiding’ is glossed as
‘hide-sit when’ rather than [hide-CF be-FUT-RP time]). This illustrates an
uncritical use of labels. For these reasons, Steever (1988, 2005) prefers the
term ‘adnominal form’ (ADN) over RP. Curiously, J claims at several places
that the relative participle/adnominal form in –a, e.g. Mal vann-a kuTTi
‘(the) child who came’ [come-PST-ADN child] is the same as the distal deictic
marker aa- ‘that’. This fails in the future tense, e.g. Mal var-um kuTTi
‘(the) child who will come’ [come-FUT-ADN child], where the adnominal marker
is –um. The appeal to homophony dissolves when the data set is slightly
expanded; nor do the full range of Tam and Tel adnominal forms support J’s
claim.

Section II, Syntax of questions and quantifiers, discusses certain uses of
such forms as =um ‘and, all’ and =oo ‘or, any’ in Kan and Mal. While J and A’s
model concentrates as much of the combinatoric properties of linguistic
expressions as it can in syntax, this is an area where both morphology and
semantics (including logic) will be welcome. First, morphology. J and A treat
the forms =um ‘and, all’ and =oo ‘or, any’ as ‘particles’ or suffixes. As the
boundary marker = indicates, these are clitics: they attach to right of a
fully formed word; never figure in word-formation rules; and exhibit
restrictions independent conjunctions might not show, e.g., =um never attaches
to finite verbs. That these conjunctions occur “outside case” (II.5.130)
follows from the fact that case is marked by a suffix and conjunction by a
clitic; similarly, the ungrammatical sentences in exx. iii and iv on
(III.15.381, 383) are ill-formed because clitics cannot occur within a word.

In II.5.132-3, J claims questions and quantifiers belong together because in
Mal both can be signaled by =oo; however, in Kan, Tam and Tel, the
interrogative clitic is =aa, while =oo serves as a quantifier. J’s argument
rests on the homophony of two forms in Mal not on evidence elsewhere in
Dravidian. He claims (II.5.148) that in Mal a “correlative clause has the same
structure as a question.” However, they differ. In the Mal correlative aarǝ
manassǝ aTakkunnu.v=oo avannǝ samaadhaanam kiTTunnu ‘whoever controls his mind
obtains peace’ [who.NOM mind control-PRES=OR he-DAT peace get-PRES], the
question word aarǝ ‘who’ and the clitic =oo co-occur although they cannot do
so in a simple question; further, aarǝ is not adjacent to the verb aTakkunnu
as required in non-Clefted questions (see above). II.5.134 states that
disjunctive =oo is “completely parallel to English “or.” However, =oo must
appear on every conjunct in a list while English permits only one in a list,
e.g. ‘Peter, Bill or John’.

My glossing indicates that =um ‘all, and’ and =oo ‘any, or’ are general
between quantifiers and conjunctions, differing according as they apply to set
descriptions or enumerations, respectively. The authors embrace two policies
that mask this generalization. First, they assume a version of unrestricted
quantification, which does not define the domain over which the quantifier
ranges. Second, they require that conjunctions always apply to exactly two
conjuncts at a time (pp. 147, 153, 162) rather than indefinitely many. Both
policies hamper linguistic and logical analysis. Even so, they ignore their
pair-wise constraint when they write formulas with conjunction and disjunction
applying to just a single “conjunct,” e.g., CONJ(DISJ(one (child))) on p. 196
is logically incoherent. The pair-wise restriction on conjunctions also
obscures an interesting distinction in Kan between two forms that signal
disjunction: =oo ‘(inclusive) or’ and illa ‘(exclusive) or’. This distinction
is seldom instantiated in natural language: a language with just ‘and’ and
‘inclusive or’ can signal ‘exclusive or’ by conversational implicature or
locutions such as ‘A or B, but not both’. So when A likens Kan illa to English
‘or’ (II.6.162), she misses the fact that inclusive ‘or’ in English has a
different truth table. Here, greater clarity in logic could have informed a
potentially interesting exploration of inclusive and exclusive ‘or’.

The authors attempt to reduce several basic logical operators to a single
‘Disjunction’ operator. II.7.189 claims that ‘or’ in ⋁(A, B) is defined as
⋀(◊A, ◊B), but without proof. II.7.193 claims ‘if’ is a disjunction operator
like ‘or’, although both have different semantics (truth tables) and syntax.
II.7.203 states that “In … ‘if p, then q’, ‘if’ applies to a propositional
variable and outputs a disjunction of propositions.” However, ‘p’ represents a
proposition, not a propositional variable; ‘q’ also represents a proposition,
not a disjunctive of propositions. There are objections to taking one of
‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘if’ as basic and defining the other two in terms of it and
negation (see McCawley 1993); in any event, deductive equivalence is not
identity. J and A (II.10.241) try to set up different readings of ‘and’, based
on different historical sources and typological trajectories (outside
Dravidian), claiming ‘and’ comes from, e.g. ‘A then B’, ‘A along with B’. This
digression supports neither a synchronic analysis nor a semantically coherent
explanation. J asks (II.10.246), “What distinguishes conjunction and
disjunction?” While he finally answers, “Meaning,” he does not propose how to
incorporate that into his analysis. A basic command of semantics and logic
would place this question and its answer at the beginning of their
investigations, not the end.

In Section III, Finiteness and negation, J and A claim to offer an innovative
analysis of finiteness in Dravidian, rejecting what they call the traditional
view of finiteness as a combination of tense marking and personal endings for
subject-verb agreement (SVA) on verbs. They claim Dravidian languages do not
mark tense but aspect, and that SVA marking is not a feature of AGR but a
reflex of indicative mood in MoodP. Nonetheless, they continue to treat
finiteness traditionally: as a combination of a verbal category and SVA
marking, just referencing their sources in different functional projections.

Chapter 11 discusses two Kan negative compound verb forms: baral(u) illa ‘did
not come’ [come-INF be-NEG] and baruvud(u) illa ‘does/will not come’
[come-NPST-VN be-NEG]. The first is the negative counterpart of the finite
past tense, e.g. ban-d-e ‘I came’ [come-PST-1S], ban-d-evu ‘we came’
[come-pst-1P], etc. It consists of the infinitive of the main verb (baru-
‘come’) and the negative auxiliary illa, a defective verb. The second compound
is the negative counterpart of both the present (e.g. baru-tee-nee ‘I come’
[come-PRES-1S]) and the (literary) future tense (e.g. baru-v-enu ‘I will come’
[come-FUT-1S]) paradigms. It consists of the nonpast verbal noun of the main
verb and the negative auxiliary illa. Neither compound marks person or number;
exaggerating the difference between positive and negative forms, A claims that
neither marks tense. This cannot go unremarked. Their paradigmatic opposition
to tensed positive counterparts in negative contexts suffices to assure
marking for tense, even if there were no explicit markers (J and A allow for
‘zero’ and ‘unpronounced’ elements elsewhere). However, the sequence –uvu- in
the verbal noun baruvudu ‘coming’ is an allomorph of the nonpast/future tense
morpheme (DSUG’s frequent use of colloquial –oodu for –uvudu obscures this).
That it signals nonpast tense reflects the fact that Old Kan had an opposition
between past and nonpast tense, which continues in the modern negative
compounds. When Kan subsequently innovated a present tense paradigm, it did
not automatically innovate a present negative compound verb (across languages
negative polarity often has fewer distinctions than positive). Note, however,
the South Kannnara dialect has innovated a present/future negative, e.g.
maaD-al-ikk(u) illa ‘does/will not make’ [do-INF-DAT be.NEG], restricting
maaDuvud(u) illa to the present negative.

Attempting to show that negative markers have a patterning distinct from tense
markers, A claims that a negative allomorph –a- is infixed into nonfinite
negative verbs, e.g., she segments Kan baaraddu ‘not coming’ [come-NEG-VN] as
ba-a-raddu with an infix instead of baar-ad-du. Lengthening the verb root
baru- to baar- reflects an ancient pattern in which a handful of verb roots
had a long-vowel alternant in the negative (see Steever 1993). Such
alternation does not occur in the vast majority of Kan verbs. In finite forms,
the negative morpheme occurs in the same position where tense morphemes occur.

Amritavalli claims that negative forms mark aspect, not tense, but that
through convoluted (and unconvincing) reasoning, they come to signal tense.
The observation that “aspectual” negative compounds do not signal subject-verb
agreement is taken as evidence that SVA markers must originate in the
indicative mood option within MoodP. However, Kan (and other Dravidian
languages) have both modal and negative forms that mark SVA. For example, Kan
has a simple negative conjugation, consisting of a verb base, (zero) negative
marker and personal ending, e.g. tiLiye ‘I did/do/will not know’
[know-NEG-1S]. The authors call this paradigm ‘now absent’ (p. 257, 329),
‘archaic’ (p. 276), ‘erstwhile’ (p. 401). However, a quarter-hour’s perusal of
modern fiction yielded tiLiye ‘I do not know’ (two tokens), oppanu ‘he does
not agree’ [agree-NEG-3SM], ariye ‘I do not know’, [know-NEG-1S], kaaNaru
‘they do not see’ [see-NEG-3P]. While such forms are infrequent, the
conjugation is robustly preserved by the negative capabilitative auxiliary
verb aar- ‘not be able’, which has finite and nonfinite negative forms, e.g.
heeLidare niivu nambal aariri ‘If I told (you), you couldn’t believe (it)’
[tell-COND you-PL.NOM believe-INF be able.NEG-2P]. This is one of several
examples from a 2017 novella by Viveeka Shaanabhaaga, one of Kan’s hippest
contemporary writers. Although, this negative conjugation occurs in Old but
not Modern Tam, it is maintained in Modern Tel and other Dravidian languages
and cannot be dismissed as an archaism. To avoid the embarrassment that the
modern Tel negative conjugation poses to their proposal, e.g. weLLanu ‘he will
not come’ [come-NEG-3SM], they simply re-label it as “imperfective” without
comment (III.16.401). Additionally, despite A’s claim that it is ‘archaic’
(II.11.273), Modern Kan also has a contingent tense paradigm consisting of a
verb base, modal suffix and personal ending, e.g. biddiiye ‘you may fall, lest
you fall’ [fall-CONT-2S]; it is well established in the language (and in the
Rayalseema dialect of Tel).

J applies A’s analysis of ‘tense as aspect’ to the past and present negative
paradigms in Mal, but for different purposes. Mal lacks SVA marking (apart,
possibly, from some imperative forms). Past tense vannu ‘X came’ contrasts
with present tense varunnu ‘X comes’; their negative counterparts are the
compounds vann(u) illa ‘X did not come’ and varunn(u) illa ‘X does not come’,
respectively. Since vannu ‘came’, varunnu ‘comes’ and illa ‘not be’ are all
finite verb forms in their own right, the negative compounds appear to be the
juxtaposition of two finite forms. J rejects this analysis of vann(u) illa ‘X
didn’t come’ because he argues that a uniqueness constraint allows only one
marking of finiteness (III.16.396); for him, vannu ‘came’ in the negative
compound marks perfective aspect, not past tense, and varunnu marks
imperfective aspect while negative illa alone marks finiteness in both
compounds. Such forms cannot a priori be “doubly marked for finiteness”
(III.13.302), but this fails to explain how vannu or varunnu are finite when
they occur without illa. What J does not recognize is that vann(u) illa and
varunn(u) illa are both serial verb formations (SVFs) in the sense of Steever
(1988), constructions in which two finite forms may occur, either to signal
concord between the component parts or to express combinations of verbal
categories which cannot co-occur in any simple verb form of the language.
Because polarity and tense may not co-occur in any simple verb of Kan or Mal
(but may in Konda and Kuvi), SVFs are deployed (see Steever 1993, 2005). Such
constructions occur in each branch of the Dravidian family and commonly beyond
it, e.g. in Munda (Gorum), Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan and Ainu. The uniqueness
restriction cannot be maintained as the authors use it (Steever 1988 suggests
how to accommodate such data in terms of a contrast between functional and
formal finiteness). Although the authors ascribe perfective and imperfective
aspect to the past and present tense forms, respectively, of Kan and Mal, the
examples do not show the classical behavior of aspectual distinctions. Part of
the confusion stems from their uncritical acceptance of Stowell’s (1982)
treatment of infinitives and gerunds as being valid for Dravidian languages.
For example, what J and A call gerunds in Mal and Kan are tensed verbal nouns
whose subjects appear in the nominative case, not the genitive case, as in
English and, apparently, UG. The combinatorics of the Dravidian and English
forms differ, and there is no guarantee that one or the other is entirely
transparent to their model of UG.

Though not anthologized in DSUG, J’s (1991) review of Steever (1988), an
alternative approach to finiteness in Dravidian, is cited in the introduction
to Part III (p. 253) and several other places in that section. It encapsulates
the basic problems with J and A’s treatment of finiteness. J claims (p. 253) I
 represent the traditional approach to finiteness as a combination of tense
marking and personal endings on verbs. In fact, I argue such an approach is
flawed and propose a fundamentally different one involving not morphology, but
syntax: “… syntactic rules identify a specially designated position in the
constituent structure of a sentence where only finite predicates may occur. A
predicate is finite or not depending as it occurs in that specially designated
position or not …. The decision to apply the label of finiteness to some
predicates squarely rests, not on such morphological criteria as the ability
to bear certain verbal inflections, but on such syntactic criteria as the
ability to occur in that position in a sentence which is specially designated
for finite predicates [Steever 1988:2-3].” The primary motivation for this is
that Dravidian predicate nominals occupy the exact same position in
constituent structure as finite verb forms do; as nouns, they cannot take—or
be defined by—verbal morphology. While J and A note the occurrence of finite
predicate nominals (III.11.256, III.13.300), promising subsequent analysis,
they divert them into parentheses where they are never heard from again.

Jayaseelan (1991) rejects my approach for doctrinaire reasons. First, my
analysis permitted nonfinite relative clauses, which his model prohibited:
relative clauses had to be finite. After 1994, however, his approach to
finiteness in the Dravidian relative clause pivoted 180 degrees, claiming
(III.13.320) that “relative clauses … in Dravidian must be non-finite [my
emphasis].” His newer account now fails to account for sentential relative
clauses (aka correlatives) which have finite predicates in relative clauses
(and are exemplified in DSUG). This thwarts the attempt to displace Dravidian
tense into aspect with the aim of preserving a spurious relation between
tense, finiteness and relative clauses. Adherence to antisymmetry requires J
to correlate Relative Clause Formation with finiteness while the Dravidian
data show them to be independent variables (Steever 2017). Steever (1988)
analyzes the “double marking” of finiteness in SVFs such as Old Tam cel-v-eem
all-eem ‘we will not go’ [go-NPST-1P become-NEG-1P] as well as in many similar
forms throughout Dravidian. Unable to reconcile these counterexamples with the
uniqueness constraint, J ignores them as inconvenient. Despite claims of
novelty, J and A’s approach to finiteness remains traditional: it ignores
predicate nominals and pegs finiteness to a combination of verbal category and
personal endings on verbs. Claims of their model’s superiority founder on it
inability to provide even descriptively adequate analyses of finite predicate
nominals, finiteness in relative clauses, serial verb formations, the negative
conjugation or the contingent tense. The unsuccessful assimilation of tense to
aspect and SVA to MoodP has the unwelcome side-effects of emptying tense and
AGR of their usefulness in describing finite verb forms and deploying aspect
and mood to explain the behavior of forms that may not intrinsically exhibit
these categories.

Chapter 14, “The acquisition of negation in Tamil,” indicates Tamil children
acquire negative verb forms more readily than their English counterparts
acquire ‘not + V’. With a dearth of subjects (two primary, two secondary), the
chapter makes for an interesting pilot study. Though Amritavalli and Ramadoss
assert without proof that the Tamil form maaTTeen ‘I will not V, I refuse to
V’ is not negative (it marks SVA), it routinely functions as the future
negative auxiliary in the modern language, e.g. vara maaTTaan ‘he will not
come’ [come-INF FUT.NEG-3SM] (Steever 2005, Chapter 3). On III.15. 365, J
claims relative clauses cannot be coordinated. While they cannot be
coordinated with a clitic such as =um ‘all, any’, they may be coordinated by
simple juxtaposition in Kan, Mal and Tam or, in Kan, by use of the independent
conjunction mattu ‘and’, e.g. haNa eNisuva mattu byaaŋkige kaTTuva huDugaru
elli ‘where are the boys who count the money and deposit it in the bank?’
[money count-NPST-ADN and bank-DAT deposit-NPST-ADN boy-PL where]. Some
Dravidian compounds join two expressions which are interpreted with a
conjunction even though there is no overt marking, e.g. Kan avana-nanna
sneehita ‘his and my friendship, the friendship between him and me’
[he-GEN-I-GEN friendship.NOM]. Juxtaposition as a means of coordination
obviates the need for an overt conjunction, whether independent word or
clitic. The authors ask (III.13.325) why the Dravidian languages have so many
different markers of negation; one reason is a long history of restructuring
the Proto-Dravidian verbal system (see Steever 1993:129 ff.).

In the end the authors undermine their own analysis of finiteness and tense.
On III.11.266, A describes the three-way contrast of the Kan perfect auxiliary
verb iru- ‘be’, viz. idd-anu ‘he was’ ~ iddaane ‘he is’ ~ iruttaane ‘he will
be’, as perfective ~ present ~ imperfective, mixing the categories of tense
and aspect.  On III.15.366, J glosses Mal conjunctive forms (= ‘adverbial
participles’) as PAST, but then says they have no past tense meaning. On
III.13.313, A claims that tense and aspect morphemes in Kan are “homophonous.”
These equivocations set the scene for drawing any conclusion one wishes from
contradictory premises, a lapse in argumentation not confined to just this
topic. In chapters written later they revert to using the labels ‘past’ and
‘present’ rather than ‘perfective’ and ‘imperfective’ in the glosses or simply
utilize English past and present verb forms in the glosses, suggesting low
confidence in their earlier analysis.

References appear in Part Two.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sanford Steever has been engaged in the study of the Dravidian languages over
the past thirty-five years. He has written several books on the structure and
history of Tamil and other Dravidian languages. His latest book is ''Dravidian
syntactic typology'', 2017 (Dravidian Linguistics Association).





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3959	
----------------------------------------------------------