prefixing verbal template and OV

[Guillaume Jacques]

Beste Willem,

Thank you for your message!
Siouan languages are indeed verb final and have verb template that allow
several prefixal slots. However, my statement was not specific enough, and
did not clearly convey my meaning. In terms of the proportion of prefixes
vs. suffixes, Siouan languages differ from Athabaskan and Rgyalrong, as
they also have many suffixal slots; for instance the negation -*šni*, the
irrealis -*kte *etc, and Rood and Taylor in their sketch of Lakhota list
more than ten suffixal slots.
Of course, there are "sentence final particles" in Athabascan and Rgyalrong
too (for instance the negation  *da *in Navajo). However, in Siouan, there
are morphological reasons to argue that the suffixal elements are indeed
suffixes (the -a / -e / -ĩ vowel alternation for instance), whereas I am
not sure whether the same could be argued of the sentence final particles
in Athabaskan (feedback from specialists would be welcome).
In any case, in any typological survey of OV+prefixing languages, I fully
agree with you that Siouan languages have to be included.

Guillaume



2013/9/15 De Reuse, Willem <WillemDeReuse at my.unt.edu>

>  Dear Guillaume, bonjour!
>
> Thank you for sharing this.  I will definitely send you comments.  One
> comment on your statement that "there are very few strict OV languages with
> mainly prefixing verbal templates (as far as I know only Na-Dene, Ienissean
> and Rgyalrong)".  I can think of one other language family, Siouan, which
> would also conform to this description.   So you might want to write to the
> Siouanist language discussion group as well. They are a pretty lively bunch.
>
> Best,
>
> Willem de Reuse
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* ATHAPBASCKAN-L [ATHAPBASCKAN-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] on
> behalf of Guillaume Jacques [rgyalrongskad at GMAIL.COM]
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:28 AM
> *To:* ATHAPBASCKAN-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* prefixing verbal template and OV
>
>   Dear Athabaskanists, yaě'aět'eěeěh !
>
>  I have just published an article (in Linguistic Typology) on the issue
> of disharmony between affix ordering and basic word order. Here is an
> offprint:
>
>
> http://www.academia.edu/2008163/Harmonization_and_disharmonization_of_affix_ordering_and_basic_word_order
>
>  The article mainly discusses the verbal template of Japhug Rgyalrong, a
> polysynthetic Sino-Tibetan language spoken in Eastern Tibet  (which, like
> Athabaskan languages, has strict verb final order with overwhelmingly
> prefixing verbal morphology) in a historical perspective (how particular
> morphemes were grammaticalized as prefixes rather than suffixes, despites
> the fact that the basic corresponding construction should have led to the
> grammaticalization as suffixes).
>
>  I did not really discuss Athabaskan in detail due to my insufficient
> knowledge of this field. However, I think that typologically similar
> phenomena are probably attested in Athabaskan.
>
>  I would be much interested to have feedback from Athabaskanists on this
> particular topic (in particular, concerning the idea proposed by Givoěn
> 2000 on the origin of some prefixes in Tolowa); there are very few strict
> OV languages with mainly prefixing verbal templates (as far as I know only
> Na-Dene, Ienissean and Rgyalrong), and typological comparison of the
> morphosyntax of these languages could be interesting, but it is not a
> one-man project.
>
>  Best wishes to all of you,
>
>  Guillaume Jacques
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Jacques
> CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO
> http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
> http://himalco.hypotheses.org/
> http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
>



-- 
Guillaume Jacques
CNRS (CRLAO) - INALCO
http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacques
http://himalco.hypotheses.org/
http://panchr.hypotheses.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/athapbasckan-l/attachments/20130915/946001c2/attachment.htm>