Biloxi nominal markers

[Koontz John E]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, David Kaufman wrote:
> According to the Siouan comparative dictionary that I looked at with
> Bob, the PS focus marker is shown as -ri.  This of course perfectly
> matches -di in Biloxi and -ri in Hidatsa.  Was that -(r)i considered
> epenthetic in PS?

By some, and by others not.  Where cases like this are involved, the ms of
the CSD is essentially a work in progress, and definitely a delicate and
perhaps not entirely consistent compromise between different views of
different people or perhaps even of the same people at different times.

> I've always thought this proposal about Polynesian roots ending in
> consonants seems a bit strange given that many of the languages, e.g.,
> Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori, don't allow words to end in consonants at
> all.  Looking at a Polynesian root ending in a consonant just seems,
> well, shocking.

(My apologies for this side excursion, valuable in the Siouan context
mainly for the parallel with occasional "extra" consonants appearing
between Siouan roots and following elements.  JEK)

Yes, of course, final -C is completely absent in all Polynesian languages
so far as I am aware.  All original CVCVC roots are reduced to CVCV form.
But I think it's well established though that the -C in the CVCV-Cia
passives of these CVCV roots is in principle a reflex of the final -C in
the original CVCVC forms.  I believe the evidence for this is that the
CVCVC form (or at least the final -C) is retained elsewhere in
Austronesian.

Of course, the analogical changes in -C of -Cia, or the paradigmatic
leveling and shifting of -Cia allomorphs, however you like to think of it,
results in the "attested -C" being unreliable in specific cases.  If you
find -t some places and -k others, you have to resolve the situation by
looking outside of Polynesian.

I'm mainly aware of this matter, I have to confess, as a result of
exercises in morphology books.  All things David Rood used with his
classes I was in, I think.   The examples stuck with me because of an
interest in Polynesian languages.

A few Net references:

http://crlc.anu.edu.au/seminars/series2_2001.html

> Andrew Pawley:  Proto-Polynesian *-Cia ABSTRACT: Individual Polynesian
> languages generally have between six and 12 suffixes having the shape
> -Cia (where C is a variable consonant), -ia, -a, -na, or -ina. In most
> languages the suffixes can be considered alternants of a single suffix
> (cover symbol -CIA). Among contemporary languages -CIA suffixes exhibit
> the following range of functions, though no one language has the full
> range: (i) marks imperative mood, (ii) derives passive verb, ...

Pawley concentrates on the function of the suffix.  For a discussion of
the allomorphy and its source in a limited context, see

http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers/Van%20den%20Berg-Vitu%20passive.pdf

(Discussing Vitu, non-Polynesian)

> Rene van den Berg:  From a historical perspective, this division between
> the three transitive verb classes is phonologically based. The verb
> roots in class 1 and 2 originally ended in in vowel, to which the object
> suffixes were directly attached. The verb roots in class 3, on the other
> hand, ended in a consonant, to which the Proto Oceanic transitivizing
> suffix *i was attached, followed by object suffixes. When final
> consonants were lost, the protected final consonants in these verb forms
> were retained as thematic consonants in presentday Vitu. Although there
> are a number of exceptions, this seems to offer a plausible analysis.
> Interestingly, most loanwords from Tok Pisin take the allomorph nia,
> e.g. peninia .to paint. (TP penim) and kikinia .to kick (a ball), ...

I couldn't find anything just showing widespread Austronesian cognate
sets, but I think this "protected context for old final consonant"
analysis is not restricted to students of Vitu and other Oceanic
languages.