[Lingtyp] nominal classification (gender and classifiers)

[David Gil]

Dear all,

Misha writes:
> I am unaware of any language that has a reference-based 
> (overwhelmingly non-rigid) noun categorization device used for what is 
> an obvious typological instance of agreement. If you are aware of such 
> example, it would be interesting to know more about it. On the other 
> hand, Walter's message indicates that there are consistently rigid 
> systems that are not used for agreement - his Thai example.
As a possible example of a "language that has a reference-based 
(overwhelmingly non-rigid) noun categorization device used for what is 
an obvious typological instance of agreement", I offer Roon, a language 
of the South Halmahera West New Guinea subgroup of Austronesian, spoken 
off the northern coast of western New Guinea. (I believe the facts in 
closely related Biak, for which there are two recent reference grammars, 
are similar in the relevant respects.)

Roon has two genders, animate (encompassing humans, animals and plants) 
and inanimate. (Gender is only marked in 3rd person, leading me to 
wonder whether it can be collapsed with person into a single 
higher-level feature, though Grev Corbett has tried to talk me out of 
that!)  Agreement is straightforward: verbs agree with their subjects, 
and most nominal attributes agree with their head nouns, with respect to 
person, number and also gender (animate/inanimate). The agreement 
markers are prefixal, sometimes involving metathesis with the first 
segment of the root of the host agreement target.

What's less clear is whether this is a *reference-based* 
noun-categorization device.  Against its characterization as such are a 
*very* small set of lexical items, including for example the words for 
'coffee' and 'money' that are grammatically inanimate even though they 
are semantically inanimate.  On the other hand, many, perhaps most 
words, are flexible, and can belong to either class (animate or 
inanimate) with largely predictable semantic effects. Most commonly, the 
animate form refers to the animal/plant as a whole, while the inanimate 
form refers to either part of the animal/plant, or a substance or 
foodstuff made out of it.  For example, one word means 'pig' when 
animate and 'pork' when inanimate, similarly another word means 'coconut 
tree' when animate and 'coconut (fruit)' when inanimate.  (I must admit 
I haven't checked what happens with human referents, but given that they 
were still cooking the occasional missionary in the mid-1800s, I suspect 
I know the answer.)

So does this count as "reference-based"?

David

-- 
David Gil

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816