The one sentence in your data, Bob, 'hodke tok ire chunkete posse', would seem to indicate a pidginized language, since most pidgins, I think, adopt Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) order (with the major exception of Mobilian Jargon, which maintained a verb-final order).<br>
<br>Great paper!<br><br>Dave<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM, ROOD DAVID S <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.rood@colorado.edu" target="_blank">david.rood@colorado.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Wow... sounds a little like the Hindi (and neighbors) shift from accusative to ergative in perfect tenses.<br>
<br>
Have you ever thought of any tests for "stativity" in Siouan besides the pronoun choices? Lakota stative verbs use a different pattern for reduplication than do active verbs, and there are separate rules for k-palatalization for statives (nikhuz^e without palatalization, e.g.). I don't have those facts clear in my head, however. Anything else?<br>
<br>
I appreciate Bob's description of the evolution of these patterns in OVS, blaming most of it on phonology, and I always prefer a phonological explanation to a semantic one. But the fact that motion verbs take patient pronouns here and there, as mentioned in some of the other contributions to this thread, makes one wonder if there's more to it than phonology.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David S. Rood<br>
Dept. of Linguistics<br>
Univ. of Colorado<br>
295 UCB<br>
Boulder, CO 80309-0295<br>
USA<br>
<a href="mailto:rood@colorado.edu" target="_blank">rood@colorado.edu</a><br>
<br>
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Marianne Mithun wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Ah, it's in the aspect suffixes, loud and clear. In Northern Iroquoian (which is all of Iroquoian except Cherokee), all verbs (except imperatives) are obligatorily inflected for aspect: Habitual, Perfective, or Stative. So for that, we just look at the marking on the end.<br>
<br>
Stative verbs include things that everyone would immediately agree are states: 'be rich', 'be new' . . . Here the choice of pronominal paradigm is interesting. For resultant states ('wet'), usually patient prefixes are used. For inherent states, usually agent forms.<br>
<br>
For transitive verbs, the statives are perfect, a kind of resultant state: 'I have eaten'. These have stative endings and patient pronominal prefixes. (I'm just sitting here full now.)<br>
<br>
An interesting wrinkle is that some formally stative verbs are things that we might think, from their translations, as say progressive: 'singing'. These are often activities without a tangible product. The verb 'go' could be interpreted as 'be in motion' perhaps, as one grasps at straws for an explanation.<br>
<br>
(Habituals and Perfectives usually occur with agents, but some occur with patients, such as 'to lose something', 'to yell', etc.) The agent or patient paradigm gets established with a particular verb stem, and will stick even if the stem meanders semantically.<br>
<br>
Iroquoian is thus a little more interesting, because there is a basically agent/patient system with an active/stative overlay (stative perfects obligatorily occurring with patients).<br>
<br>
Marianne<br>
<br>
<br>
--On Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:39 PM -0600 ROOD DAVID S <<a href="mailto:david.rood@COLORADO.EDU" target="_blank">david.rood@COLORADO.EDU</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Marianne, thanks for that little essay. What are the "stative"<br>
properties of Iroquoian 'go'? I'm used to relying on the pronoun choice<br>
to classify the verbs; how do you separate them?<br>
Best,<br>
David<br>
<br>
David S. Rood<br>
Dept. of Linguistics<br>
Univ. of Colorado<br>
295 UCB<br>
Boulder, CO 80309-0295<br>
USA<br>
<a href="mailto:rood@colorado.edu" target="_blank">rood@colorado.edu</a><br>
<br>
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Marianne Mithun wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Actually this is exactly why it is important to distinguish<br>
active/stative patterns from agent/patient patterns. Active/stative<br>
patterns are driven by Aktionsart, that is, the difference between<br>
events and states. Agent/patient systems are driven by the role of the<br>
referent, as instigating, volitional, in control, etc. Both occur,<br>
sometimes within the same language, but agent/patient systems are much<br>
more common cross-linguistically.<br>
<br>
The two often yield similar patterns. Events are often instigated by<br>
agents and states often impact patients. A verb like 'jump' denotes an<br>
event and would usually appear with an agent in agent/patient systems,<br>
and an active participant in active/stative systems; a verb like 'be<br>
sick' denotes a state and would usually appear with a patient in<br>
agent/patient systems, and a stative participant in active/stative<br>
systems. But it is exactly in situations like the ones we're discussing<br>
that the distinction is important. From there of course<br>
cross-linguistic details become interesting: whether instigation or<br>
control is criterial when they do not coincide, what is classified as<br>
volitional, what is classified as a state, etc.<br>
<br>
(In Iroquoian languages, 'go' is grammatically stative, but occurs with<br>
agent pronominals, not surprisingly.)<br>
<br>
Marianne.<br>
<br>
--On Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 PM +0000 "Rankin, Robert L."<br>
<<a href="mailto:rankin@KU.EDU" target="_blank">rankin@KU.EDU</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
That sounds very peculiar to me. I suspect that what you're seeing is<br>
the disjunctive (i.e., independent) pronominal for the 1st person rather<br>
than the patient. You may already have my active/stative comparative<br>
paper, but just in case, I'll attach a copy. The last section is an<br>
addition on OVS that attempts to explain the pronominals. Bottom line:<br>
I don't think Tutelo uses stative subjects with "go".<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>____________________<br>
<br>
From: Siouan Linguistics [<a href="mailto:SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu" target="_blank">SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu</a>] on behalf of David<br>
Kaufman [<a href="mailto:dvkanth2010@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">dvkanth2010@GMAIL.COM</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:13 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu" target="_blank">SIOUAN@listserv.unl.edu</a><br>
Subject: Tutelo verb 'go'<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
It seems Tutelo's verb 'go' takes a patientive/object rather than<br>
active/subject pronoun prefix, wi- instead of wa-. Does any other<br>
Siouan language do this? (I can't compare with Biloxi since it lost<br>
this agent/patient distinction in pronouns.) I'm particularly<br>
interested in this because two Lower Mississippi Valley languages,<br>
Atakapa and Chitimacha, also seem to take patientive/object instead of<br>
active/subject pronouns with the verb 'go.' At first I thought this<br>
was strange and counterintuitive, but now I'm seeing it may be a more<br>
common phenomenon well beyond the Mississippi Valley. Any thoughts?<br>
<br>
Dave<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
David Kaufman, Ph.C.<br>
University of Kansas<br>
Linguistic Anthropology<br>
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>David Kaufman, Ph.C.<br>University of Kansas<br>Linguistic Anthropology<br>