[Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this instance
Joseph Brooks
brooks.josephd at gmail.com
Tue May 11 15:18:02 UTC 2021
Dear Thomas
Sorry if anyone else has already said this, but the enclitic you have there
is from Tok Pisin and is used to call people at a distance. (Hannah Sarvasy
has I believe talked about this somewhere). In the (Papuan) language Chini,
there are two vocative enclitics yet =o from tok Pisin is still used quite
a lot, exactly like your examples from Heyo. There being no vernacular
call-at-distance form, folks often use the =o construction and sometimes it
can look like a vocative. But then in the (also Papuan) language Yaw that
I've worked on, there is a call-at-distance enclitic already in the
vernacular (=no), and the Tok Pisin option is hardly if ever used. Hope
this helps!
Joseph
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:59 AM <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
wrote:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this
> instance (Thomas Diaz)
> 2. Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this
> instance (Arnold M. Zwicky)
> 3. Re: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this
> instance (JOO, Ian [Student])
> 4. Re: Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in
> this instance (Gilles Authier)
> 5. Re: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this
> instance (Vladimir Panov)
> 6. Re: Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ e" in
> this instance (fcosw5)
> 7. Re: Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ e" in
> this instance (Irina Nikolaeva)
> 8. Re: Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ e" in
> this instance (Randy J. LaPolla)
> 9. Re: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in this
> instance (Adam James Ross Tallman)
> 10. Re: Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ
> e" in
> this instance (Françoise Rose)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:11:03 -0400
> From: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in
> this instance
> Message-ID:
> <CAAnmQdB57bjRwYUrOSyTMkkeKEBP=
> gYdq3S92gjOPv0F+DkQ4g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
>
> boi=o!
> boy=VOC
> 'hey, boy!'
>
> Tawaks=o!
> tawaks=VOC
> 'hey, Tawaks!'
>
> However, its distribution is wider than a true vocative insofar as it can
> occur at the end of an indicative clause, like the following example (I am
> simplifying the glosses for the sake of clarity).
>
> naraha'aiun wat=o! habu darai=o!
> it.strike.me COMPL=VOC FUT run=VOC
> 'It has struck me! I will run away!'
>
> The example is made up of two clauses that, if one simply deleted the
> "vocative" clitic =o, would be standard indicative clauses. It is clear
> that the clitic serves to make the utterance more sonorous, analogous to
> the lengthening of stressed syllables when calling out in English. But I am
> not certain what would be a term for this form that would not be confusing
> to a reader.
>
> Thank you ahead of time for any input. I can try to provide more
> information if something needs clarification.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas S. Diaz (He/Him)
> PhD Candidate
> Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo (SUNY)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210510/de227d16/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 23:06:25 +0000
> From: "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> To: Linguistic Linguistic Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocative" in this instance
> Message-ID: <142E5BAD-3788-474D-AE4B-0A91A14DE973 at stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in
> this instance
> Date: May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:
> tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
>
> boi=o!
> boy=VOC
> 'hey, boy!'
>
> Tawaks=o!
> tawaks=VOC
> 'hey, Tawaks!'
>
> Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from my
> article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf
>
> (The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons" vs.
> "term of address".)
>
> >From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's
> attention, addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker
> and addressee.`
>
> But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify,
> characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem to
> be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an
> adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs (or,
> perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related
> function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic with an
> attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable
> possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related
> only historically). All that's for you to work out.
>
> Arnold
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210510/bc9e6ef7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 00:24:59 +0000
> From: "JOO, Ian [Student]" <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>, Thomas Diaz <
> tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative"
> in this instance
> Message-ID: <8dca7fcd-33b3-4360-a8a7-98908e8a7113 at Spark>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Perhaps "sentence-final particle":
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence-final_particle
>
> From Hong Kong,
> Ian
> On 11 May 2021, 2:11 AM +0800, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>, wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
>
> boi=o!
> boy=VOC
> 'hey, boy!'
>
> Tawaks=o!
> tawaks=VOC
> 'hey, Tawaks!'
>
> However, its distribution is wider than a true vocative insofar as it can
> occur at the end of an indicative clause, like the following example (I am
> simplifying the glosses for the sake of clarity).
>
> naraha'aiun wat=o! habu darai=o!
> it.strike.me<http://it.strike.me> COMPL=VOC FUT run=VOC
> 'It has struck me! I will run away!'
>
> The example is made up of two clauses that, if one simply deleted the
> "vocative" clitic =o, would be standard indicative clauses. It is clear
> that the clitic serves to make the utterance more sonorous, analogous to
> the lengthening of stressed syllables when calling out in English. But I am
> not certain what would be a term for this form that would not be confusing
> to a reader.
>
> Thank you ahead of time for any input. I can try to provide more
> information if something needs clarification.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas S. Diaz (He/Him)
> PhD Candidate
> Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo (SUNY)
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> [https://www.polyu.edu.hk/emaildisclaimer/PolyU_Email_Signature.jpg]
>
> Disclaimer:
>
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you should delete this message and notify the sender and The
> Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University) immediately. Any
> disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
> action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy or
> quality of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any
> views and opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not
> necessarily represent those of the University and the University accepts no
> liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any
> party as a result of the use of such information.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/2057721f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 06:32:45 +0200
> From: Gilles Authier <gilles.authier at gmail.com>
> To: "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> Cc: Linguistic Linguistic Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocative" in this instance
> Message-ID:
> <CAFcLiNnhfG2e=PtkTD9CKgyri0RHWbSSJ2jEGmiU0K=PQq-i=
> Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:
>
> - vocative 'case' -o
>
> - clause final quotative =o
>
> GA
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > *From: *Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> > *Subject: **Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative"
> > in this instance*
> > *Date: *May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> > *To: *Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> > Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> > dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> > call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> > vocative function as in the two following examples.
> >
> > boi=o!
> > boy=VOC
> > 'hey, boy!'
> >
> > Tawaks=o!
> > tawaks=VOC
> > 'hey, Tawaks!'
> >
> >
> > Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> > function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from
> my
> > article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> > https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf
> >
> > (The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons" vs.
> > "term of address".)
> >
> > From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's
> attention,
> > addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker and
> > addressee.`
> >
> > But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify,
> > characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem to
> > be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an
> > adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs
> (or,
> > perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related
> > function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic with
> an
> > attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable
> > possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related
> > only historically). All that's for you to work out.
> >
> > Arnold
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/ed6ab3cc/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:17:09 +0300
> From: Vladimir Panov <panovmeister at gmail.com>
> To: "JOO, Ian [Student]" <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
> Cc: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>, Thomas Diaz <
> tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative"
> in this instance
> Message-ID:
> <CALeR4d50=
> QT7O6xZDh0Exk9O2wxSg1zzKJGW4xpP6Dw8YDo-Hw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> There is the term "allocutive". The allocutive is not unlike the vocative,
> but it functions on the sentence level rather than the NP level.
> The example quoted by you seems to be an example of allocutive, although, a
> non-canonical one, because it does not agree with the addressee in gender
> as in Basque, for which this label was originally coined.
> The term "sentence-final particle" refers to morphosyntactic rather than
> semantic/functional properties, although it is used in very different
> senses in the literature. So, your example may be viewed as an example of
> allocutive sentence-final particle.
> Here is a very nice paper on the allocutive: Antonov, Anton. 2015. Verbal
> allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. *Linguistic Typology* 19(1).
> 55–85.
>
> Best,
> Vladimir
>
>
> вт, 11 мая 2021 г. в 03:25, JOO, Ian [Student] <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>:
>
> > Perhaps "sentence-final particle":
> >
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence-final_particle
> >
> > From Hong Kong,
> > Ian
> > On 11 May 2021, 2:11 AM +0800, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>, wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> > Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> > dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> > call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> > vocative function as in the two following examples.
> >
> > boi=o!
> > boy=VOC
> > 'hey, boy!'
> >
> > Tawaks=o!
> > tawaks=VOC
> > 'hey, Tawaks!'
> >
> > However, its distribution is wider than a true vocative insofar as it can
> > occur at the end of an indicative clause, like the following example (I
> am
> > simplifying the glosses for the sake of clarity).
> >
> > naraha'aiun wat=o! habu darai=o!
> > it.strike.me COMPL=VOC FUT run=VOC
> > 'It has struck me! I will run away!'
> >
> > The example is made up of two clauses that, if one simply deleted the
> > "vocative" clitic =o, would be standard indicative clauses. It is clear
> > that the clitic serves to make the utterance more sonorous, analogous to
> > the lengthening of stressed syllables when calling out in English. But I
> am
> > not certain what would be a term for this form that would not be
> confusing
> > to a reader.
> >
> > Thank you ahead of time for any input. I can try to provide more
> > information if something needs clarification.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Thomas S. Diaz (He/Him)
> > PhD Candidate
> > Department of Linguistics
> > University at Buffalo (SUNY)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> >
> > *Disclaimer:*
> >
> > *This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> > information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are
> not
> > the intended recipient, you should delete this message and notify the
> > sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University)
> > immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or
> > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be
> > unlawful.*
> >
> > *The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy
> or
> > quality of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any
> > views and opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not
> > necessarily represent those of the University and the University accepts
> no
> > liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any
> > party as a result of the use of such information.*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/c29326ac/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 15:51:57 +0800 (CST)
> From: "fcosw5" <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw>
> To: "Gilles Authier" <gilles.authier at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Linguistic Linguistic Typology"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>, "Arnold M. Zwicky"
> <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocativ e" in this instance
> Message-ID: <1620719517.223010.fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> There seems to be a somewhat similar element in at least Mandarin
> Chinese. I've noticed that the suffix (?) -a tends to be attached to
> various words -- not only nouns, but e.g. adverbs (`dui-a' = `that's
> right!') -- apparently to highlight them.
>
> (I have sometimes wondered if this usage is more prevalent in women's
> speech than in men's.)
>
> Best,
> Steven
>
> -----Original message-----
> From:Gilles Authier<gilles.authier at gmail.com>
> To:Arnold M. Zwicky<zwicky at stanford.edu>
> Cc:Linguistic Linguistic Typology<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:32:45
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocative" in this instance
> Hi,
>
>
> A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:
>
> - vocative 'case' -o
>
> - clause final quotative =o
>
> GA
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> wrote:
> meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in
> this instance
> Date: May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
>
>
> On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
>
> boi=o!
> boy=VOC
> 'hey, boy!'
>
> Tawaks=o!
> tawaks=VOC
> 'hey, Tawaks!'
> Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from my
> article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf (The distinction
> is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons" vs. "term of
> address".) From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's
> attention, addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker
> and addressee.` But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how
> to classify, characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o!
> You seem to be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of
> "basically") an adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used
> attached to verbs (or, perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or
> clause-finally) with some related function. But maybe it should be treated
> as a sentence-final clitic with an attention-getting function ('listen to
> this!'). Or other imaginable possibilites (even that there are two
> homophonous clitics here, related only historically). All that's for you to
> work out. Arnold
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/1056862d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 09:22:25 +0100
> From: Irina Nikolaeva <in3 at soas.ac.uk>
> To: fcosw5 <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw>
> Cc: Gilles Authier <gilles.authier at gmail.com>, Linguistic Linguistic
> Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocativ e" in this instance
> Message-ID:
> <CAEB-vJ_etz_v1vaC2cURPp5TAjQRhaT7QFwk=
> GhRW1QL+ifh6Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Vocatives are encoded in the same way as exclamatives ( > possibly also
> miratives/evidentials etc.) in some languages. So I would term this
> 'exclamative'.
>
> Irina Nikolaeva
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 08:52, fcosw5 <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw> wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a somewhat similar element in at least Mandarin
> > Chinese. I've noticed that the suffix (?) -a tends to be attached to
> > various words -- not only nouns, but e.g. adverbs (`dui-a' = `that's
> > right!') -- apparently to highlight them.
> >
> > (I have sometimes wondered if this usage is more prevalent in women's
> > speech than in men's.)
> >
> > Best,
> > Steven
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > *From:*Gilles Authier<gilles.authier at gmail.com>
> > *To:*Arnold M. Zwicky<zwicky at stanford.edu>
> > *Cc:*Linguistic Linguistic Typology<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > *Date: * Tue, 11 May 2021 12:32:45
> > *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> > "vocative" in this instance
> > Hi,
> >
> > A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:
> >
> > - vocative 'case' -o
> >
> > - clause final quotative =o
> >
> > GA
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> *From: *Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu>
> >> *Subject: **Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term
> >> "vocative" in this instance*
> >> *Date: *May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> >> *To: *Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> >> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> >> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> >> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve
> a
> >> vocative function as in the two following examples.
> >>
> >> boi=o!
> >> boy=VOC
> >> 'hey, boy!'
> >>
> >> Tawaks=o!
> >> tawaks=VOC
> >> 'hey, Tawaks!'
> >>
> >>
> >> Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> >> function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from
> my
> >> article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> >> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf
> >>
> >> (The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons"
> vs.
> >> "term of address".)
> >>
> >> From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's
> >> attention, addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker
> >> and addressee.`
> >>
> >> But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify,
> >> characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem
> to
> >> be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an
> >> adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs
> (or,
> >> perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related
> >> function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic
> with an
> >> attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable
> >> possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related
> >> only historically). All that's for you to work out.
> >>
> >> Arnold
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/9bb89e59/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 16:49:05 +0800
> From: "Randy J. LaPolla" <randy.lapolla at gmail.com>
> To: fcosw5 <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw>, "LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocativ e" in this instance
> Message-ID: <8DECE218-B837-4D8F-90CD-ADE8C89B9E50 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi All,
> Stephen is correct that there is a particle, or whatever you want to call
> it, ʔa in spoken Mandarin (and to some extent in other Sinitic varieties)
> that is used for both vocative and utterance-final emphatic uses. It is not
> generally talked about as a grammatical marker like a vocative case, but
> just an optional pragmatic marker for emphasis. It can appear within the
> utterance intonation unit or in the case of making sure someone is paying
> attention and has registered what you just said, particularly when giving
> advice or an order, it can appear stressed and in an intonation unit by
> itself.
>
> Sorry I don’t have natural examples to hand. A proper study should be done
> of the conditions for its use.
>
> Randy
> -----
> Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （羅仁地）
> Professor of Linguistics, with courtesy appointment in Chinese, School of
> Humanities
> Nanyang Technological University
> HSS-03-45, 48 Nanyang Avenue | Singapore 639818
> http://randylapolla.info/ <http://randylapolla.info/>
> (personal.ntu.edu.sg/randylapolla <http://personal.ntu.edu.sg/randylapolla
> >)
> Most recent books:
> The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2nd Edition (2017)
>
> https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324
> <
> https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324
> >
> Sino-Tibetan Linguistics (2018)
>
> https://www.routledge.com/Sino-Tibetan-Linguistics/LaPolla/p/book/9780415577397
> <
> https://www.routledge.com/Sino-Tibetan-Linguistics/LaPolla/p/book/9780415577397
> >
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 May 2021, at 3:51 PM, fcosw5 <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw> wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be a somewhat similar element in at least Mandarin
> Chinese. I've noticed that the suffix (?) -a tends to be attached to
> various words -- not only nouns, but e.g. adverbs (`dui-a' = `that's
> right!') -- apparently to highlight them.
> >
> > (I have sometimes wondered if this usage is more prevalent in women's
> speech than in men's.)
> >
> > Best,
> > Steven
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From:Gilles Authier<gilles.authier at gmail.com <mailto:
> gilles.authier at gmail.com>>
> > To:Arnold M. Zwicky<zwicky at stanford.edu <mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
> > Cc:Linguistic Linguistic Typology<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> > Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:32:45
> > Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocative" in this instance
> > Hi,
> >
> > A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:
> >
> > - vocative 'case' -o
> >
> > - clause final quotative =o
> >
> > GA
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu
> <mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>> wrote:
> > meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu <mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
> >> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative"
> in this instance
> >> Date: May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> >> To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu <mailto:tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu <mailto:
> tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
> >>>
> >>> boi=o!
> >>> boy=VOC
> >>> 'hey, boy!'
> >>>
> >>> Tawaks=o!
> >>> tawaks=VOC
> >>> 'hey, Tawaks!'
> >>
> >> Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from my
> article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> >> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf <
> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf>
> >>
> >> (The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons"
> vs. "term of address".)
> >>
> >> From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's
> attention, addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker
> and addressee.`
> >>
> >> But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify,
> characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem to
> be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an
> adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs (or,
> perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related
> function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic with an
> attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable
> possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related
> only historically). All that's for you to work out.
> >>
> >> Arnold
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/fd0179b7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:19:23 +0200
> From: Adam James Ross Tallman <ajrtallman at utexas.edu>
> To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>,
> "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative"
> in this instance
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAK0T6OhA-GZYKLM52Sv4Y59wC2ufxpCm-iNA3041NGeA7Dd2gg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hey Thomas,
>
> This reminds me of something I overlooked describing in my diss. on
> Chacobo. The imperative =wɨ́ can appear on plurals as a type of greeting or
> call to attention in meetings.
>
> tʃani=wɨ́
> speak=imper/voc
> Speak!
>
> honi=ba=wɨ́
> man=PL=imper/voc
> Gentlemen!
>
> But, why is it important to have a unified gloss though? In Chacobo
> ergative and genitive marking is formally the same - and maybe even
> semantically depending on your theory of semantics. Why not just think of
> prototype agent marking as the predicate version of prototype possessor
> marking? and provide these with some unified gloss... This has always
> occurred to me, but I never thought of it as important to provide some
> overarching gloss. Since glossing is just expositional anyways, can't you
> just give them separate glosses and then explain their semantic and
> distributional affinities in the grammar (and that *perhaps* they could be
> treated as one morpheme)? Or is there some interesting theoretical point
> that I am missing?
>
> best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:11 PM Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> > Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> > dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> > call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> > vocative function as in the two following examples.
> >
> > boi=o!
> > boy=VOC
> > 'hey, boy!'
> >
> > Tawaks=o!
> > tawaks=VOC
> > 'hey, Tawaks!'
> >
> > However, its distribution is wider than a true vocative insofar as it can
> > occur at the end of an indicative clause, like the following example (I
> am
> > simplifying the glosses for the sake of clarity).
> >
> > naraha'aiun wat=o! habu darai=o!
> > it.strike.me COMPL=VOC FUT run=VOC
> > 'It has struck me! I will run away!'
> >
> > The example is made up of two clauses that, if one simply deleted the
> > "vocative" clitic =o, would be standard indicative clauses. It is clear
> > that the clitic serves to make the utterance more sonorous, analogous to
> > the lengthening of stressed syllables when calling out in English. But I
> am
> > not certain what would be a term for this form that would not be
> confusing
> > to a reader.
> >
> > Thank you ahead of time for any input. I can try to provide more
> > information if something needs clarification.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Thomas S. Diaz (He/Him)
> > PhD Candidate
> > Department of Linguistics
> > University at Buffalo (SUNY)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
>
>
> --
> Adam J.R. Tallman
> Post-doctoral Researcher
> Friedrich Schiller Universität
> Department of English Studies
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/0f5f0cde/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 14:57:23 +0000
> From: Françoise Rose <francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr>
> To: fcosw5 <fcosw5 at scu.edu.tw>, Gilles Authier
> <gilles.authier at gmail.com>, Linguistic Linguistic Typology
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocativ e" in this instance
> Message-ID: <89cd4bae9f07476d864ef40ce4093e4f at univ-lyon2.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
> in my database on categorical genderlects, there is indeed a number of
> languages where men and women used different forms for the type of
> morphemes that have been called in this thread vocatives and sentence-final
> particles used to emphasize the contact between speaker and addressee (just
> to repeat Arnold Zwicky’s formulation), or morphemes that do the two jobs.
> In more general terms, gender indexicality is often found in items encoding
> various type of (inter)subjectivity.
> I very much welcome data on gender indexicality in this domain (as well as
> in any other linguistic domain!).
> Best,
> Françoise
>
> PS. For those interested, a questionnaire on gender indexicality can be
> found online (http://tulquest.huma-num.fr/en/node/136) in English,
> French, Spanish or Portuguese.
>
>
> De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> De la part de
> fcosw5
> Envoyé : mardi 11 mai 2021 09:52
> À : Gilles Authier <gilles.authier at gmail.com>
> Cc : Linguistic Linguistic Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocativ
> e" in this instance
>
> There seems to be a somewhat similar element in at least Mandarin
> Chinese. I've noticed that the suffix (?) -a tends to be attached to
> various words -- not only nouns, but e.g. adverbs (`dui-a' = `that's
> right!') -- apparently to highlight them.
>
> (I have sometimes wondered if this usage is more prevalent in women's
> speech than in men's.)
>
> Best,
> Steven
>
> -----Original message-----
> From:Gilles Authier<gilles.authier at gmail.com<mailto:
> gilles.authier at gmail.com>>
> To:Arnold M. Zwicky<zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
> Cc:Linguistic Linguistic Typology<lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:32:45
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Fwd: Uncertainty over the use of the term
> "vocative" in this instance
> Hi,
>
> A similarly ambiguous morph is found in Georgian:
>
> - vocative 'case' -o
>
> - clause final quotative =o
>
> GA
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu
> <mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>> wrote:
> meant to go to the list, not just to Thomas Diaz:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at stanford.edu<mailto:zwicky at stanford.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Uncertainty over the use of the term "vocative" in
> this instance
> Date: May 10, 2021 at 1:30:25 PM PDT
> To: Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>>
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2021, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Diaz <tsdiaz at buffalo.edu<mailto:
> tsdiaz at buffalo.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am writing a grammatical description of a language called Heyo, a
> Torricelli language spoken in northwestern Papua New Guinea, for my
> dissertation. I have come across a clitic =o that I am not sure what to
> call. I am currently calling/glossing it as a vocative, as it can serve a
> vocative function as in the two following examples.
>
> boi=o!
> boy=VOC
> 'hey, boy!'
>
> Tawaks=o!
> tawaks=VOC
> 'hey, Tawaks!'
>
> Not just a vocative function, but one of the two types of vocative
> function: it's a call, rather than an address. These are the terms from my
> article "Hey, Whatsyourname!" in CLS 10 (1974), available on-line in
> https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/hey-whatsyourname.pdf
>
> (The distinction is made by Schegloff 1968, under the names "summons" vs.
> "term of address".)
>
> From my 1974 paper: Calls are designed to catch the addressee's attention,
> addresses to maintain or emphasze the contact between speaker and
> addressee.`
>
> But this doesn't speak to your larger problem, namely how to classify,
> characterize the meaning/function of, and name the clitic =o! You seem to
> be assuming that it is (basically, in some sense of "basically") an
> adnominal clitic with call function, but can be used attached to verbs (or,
> perhaps, attached sentence-finally, or clause-finally) with some related
> function. But maybe it should be treated as a sentence-final clitic with an
> attention-getting function ('listen to this!'). Or other imaginable
> possibilites (even that there are two homophonous clitics here, related
> only historically). All that's for you to work out.
>
> Arnold
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/404118da/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 80, Issue 12
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210511/807b58be/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list