<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
This is actually quite exciting, though not yet (I believe) immediately relevant
to the UA case (though perhaps Jason will see a connection). <br>
<br>
What the reduplication of person marking in short verbs like ya reminds me
more of is a case from Muskogean. The Muskogean languages, as Bob and perhaps
many others of you know, have a series of verbal ablauts called grades which
are used to mark aspect, e.g. the hn-grade of Chickasaw basha 'to be operated
on' (I'll write nasalized vowels with capital letters):<br>
<br>
basha 'he is operated on'<br>
bahÁsha 'he gets operated on a lot'<br>
<br>
sabasha 'I am operated on'<br>
sabahÁsha 'I get operated on a lot'<br>
<br>
What reminds me of the Ibláble case is what happens with a verb like isso
'to hit':<br>
<br>
ihÍsso 'he hits him a lot'<br>
sahÁsso 'he hits me a lot'<br>
<br>
Grade formation generally operates on the penultimate vowel of the verb stem.
But with a verb like sa-sso 'he hists me', that penultimate vowel is an inflectional
prefix, so grade formation operates on it. Thus what seems to me to be the
parallel to the reduplication of person-marked ya: normally these morphological
rules want to operate on stems, but if they are dealing with a short stem
they may target an inflectional marker.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Koontz John E wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midPine.GSO.4.40.0308030936520.489-100000@spot.colorado.edu">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Pamela Munro wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is actually interesting in terms of my question, since although
there are two inflections in this compound, as you explain it, the two
inflections both occur in the ya part, not the i part with which it is
compounded. But normally we do not see double inflection in reduplicated
verbs, even monosyllabic ones. (In Jason's and my data, the unexpected
double marking is in fact reduplication, but I don't see any other
immediate connections.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
David and Pam make a very good point here, and I am embarassed to have
overlooked it. I do know one instance of reduplicated inflection in
Omaha-Ponca, which involves the verb 'to say often'. Unfortunately, the
only available form is a second person, which is es^e's^e (cf. 'to say' A1
ehe', A2 es^e', A3 a=i, A12 aNdhaN=i).
Hypothetically, the first person might be *ehe'he. I'm not sure how a
third person would be handled without suppletion. In fact, most 'say
often' examples are based on the habitual enclitic =s^na ~ =hnaN ~ =na.
This is a complex verb, morphologically, with suppletive stems, but the
first and second persons seem to go back to *e=...he, so this is something
like e=s^-he-s^-he. Since the h-stems are few and of limited productivity
(this being an exception) and involve complicating preverbs in cases like
this, it's hard to conceive that speakers handle inflection generatively.
I think this very complexity is what allows the inflection to be included
in the reduplication, so that we have es^e's^e rather than, perhaps
*es^ehe.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>