floating clitics

[Wolfgang Schulze]

> Matthew S Dryer wrote:
>
>   I am interested in finding examples of what I call "floating clitics",
>   clitics which must attach phonologically to some other word, but where the
>   host phrase or word cannot be defined in terms of some specific position
>   in the clause (like second position or final position) or in terms of some
>   specific host (like subject or verb).  My impression is that this sort of
>   clitic is not uncommon, but does not seemed to be discussed much in the
>   literature on clitics that I have looked at.
>
Some East Caucasian languages seem to correspond to a mixed type. For
instance, in Udi (South East Caucasian - Lezgian) personal clitics that
generally show an S=A (accusative) behavior are floating 'subject/pivot'
indices AND indicate topicalization, cf.:

(1)    bez wich-en ash b-esa-na
        my brother-ERG work:ABS do-PRES-3SG:S=A
        'My brother is WORKING'

(2)    bez wich-en ash-ne b-esa
        my brother-ERG work-3SG:S=A do-PRES
        'My brother does a WORK'

(3)    bez wich-en ich ash-n-ux k'uax-ne b-esa
        my brother-ERG REFL work-SA-DAT2 at=home:3SG:S=A do-PRES
        'My brother does his work AT HOME'

(4)    bez wichi t'eghi-ne ar-e
        my brother:ABS today-3SG:S=A come:PAST-PERF
        'My brother has come TODAY.'

(5)    bez wichi-ne ar-e
        my brother:ABS-3SG:S=A come:PAST-PERF
        'My BROTHER has come.'

Note that endoclitization (EC) may apply, cf.:

(6)    bez wich-en sa khäshil u-ne-k-i
        my brother-ERG one pudding:ABS eat-3SG:S=A(EC)-AOR
        'My brother ATE a pudding.'

There are certain restrictions to the floating of clitics, such as the
negation clitic (!) _te_ which must be followed by the personal clitic
as in:

(7)    bez wich-en me ash-n-ux te-ne b-esa
        my brother-ERG PROX work-SA-DAT2 NEG-3SG:S=A do-PRES
        'My brother does NOT WORK.'

(8)    bez wich-en me ash-n-ux b-esa-te-ne
        my brother-ERG PROX work-SA-DAT2 do-PRES-NEG-3SG:S=A
        'My brother DOES not work.'

Note that NEG + PERSONAL CLITIC create some kind of 'clitic cluster'
that itself obeys to the restrictions of clitization, e.g. clitics must
follow the verb in case it is marked by the optative or the 'future1',
cf.

(9)    bez wich-en me ash-n-ux b-al-le [-le < -ne]
        my brother-ERG PROX work-SA-DAT2 do-FUT1-3SG:S=A
        'My brother WILL DO this work.'

(9')   *bez wichen me ashnux-ne bal
        *bez wichenne me ashnux bal         etc.

(10)  bez wich-en me ash-n-ux b-al-te-ne
        my brother-ERG PROX work-SA-DAT2 do-FUT1-NEG-3SG:S=A
        'My brother WIL NOT DO this work.'

(10')    *bez wichen me ashnux tene bal
            *bez wichen tene me ashnux bal        etc.

The reasons for these restrictions are not yet fully understood. It
seems that both functional aspects (standard topicalization of modality)
and historical aspects (FUT1 and OPTATIV stemming from old inflected
infinitives) apply.- In some other East Caucasian languages (e.g.
Tsakhur, Rutul) the Udi system is paralled by the clitization of class
markers.

Best wishes,

Wolfgang

*****************************
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut fuer Allgemeine und Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet München
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.: +89-21805343 / Fax: +89-21805345
Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~wschulze/
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/19991203/d7322481/attachment.htm>