[Lingtyp] odd clitic behaviours

[Alexander Rice]

thanks to all for the comments, they are well taken, I'm going through them
and I may follow up later with some replies

for now though, as some have pointed out, it's worth reevaluating whether
these clitics are even clitics in the first place, I'll have to look into
that

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:49 PM Alexander Rice <ax.h.rice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear typologists
>
> I'm working with a variety of Quechua, I have a set of three morphemes.
> They and their equivalents in related varieties are traditionally analyzed
> as evidential enclitcs or suffixes.
>
> However in some data that I've been working with recently I've noticed a
> couple of interesting behaviours of these enclitics:
>
> 1) They sometimes manifest as pro-clitics but only on the copular verb and
> in a much more phonologically reduced from
>
> 2) At least one of the three appears to manifest as a phonologically
> independent "word'. A native speaker with whom I work sometimes transcribes
> the clitic as a separate word, and upon my review of the recordings, many
> of these do appear to be phonologically independent from what would usually
> be the phonological host, and in some instances, they occur at the
> beginning of an intonational unit.
>
> I wonder if any of you have encountered or know of similar phenomena, any
> references would be most appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20211205/6d5a8388/attachment.htm>