[Lingtyp] Locative-comitative homophony
Alexandre Arkhipov
sarkipo at yandex.ru
Wed Feb 23 10:06:12 UTC 2022
Dear Yi-Yang,
I would suggest a correction: I think Michael meant (and I second that
completely) that *inclusory* should not be equated with *comitative*
(accompaniment), this is indeed a separate function. In many languages
that do have inclusory constructions, they use the same marker as
comitative, but there are various alternatives as well (e.g.
juxtaposition, coordination or dedicated marking). See my paper
(Arkhipov 2009) for some discussion and references.
So what you have is probably locative-inclusory syncretism and not
locative-comitative.
But this does not mean that inclusory comes first -- especially given
the wide range of locative "flavours" that your markers cover, I would
rather expect the inclusory function to have developed from (some)
locative, but that's just a guess. A local typology would be indeed
fairly interesting!
Arkhipov, Alexander. 2009. Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid
category. In: P. Epps, A. Arkhipov (eds.) New Challenges in Typology 2:
Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions.
(available on academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/15009713/_2009_Comitative_as_a_cross_linguistically_valid_category)
All best,
Alexandre
22/02/2022 20:54, Yi-Yang Cheng пишет:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I see! If I understand correctly: the starting point would be the
> inclusory construction, which could be exploiting other grammatical
> phenomena in the language.
>
> Based on this, then, it looks like in Matu'uwal spatial locative
> markers are recruited in the inclusory construction, which is a very
> restricted environment in which these markers would be interpreted as
> indicating accompaniment.
>
> Going back to the original question/problem I had in mind, this would
> weaken any argument for establishing comitative as a case category in
> the language.
>
> It's still interesting how it's spatial locatives that are recruited
> here. I will need to check, but I think in other closely related
> (Atayal) languages, it might be the general coordinator (in the form
> /ru/) that serves a similar function in inclusory construction. This
> could lead to a nice typology project on inclusory constructions
> across these languages!
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Yi-Yang
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:36 AM Michael Daniel
> <misha.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me be more specific - my hunch is that you do not necessarily
> have to talk about locative - comitative homophony in case of
> accompaniment that is limited to inclusory construction. Think of
> this - in some languages inclusory constructions exploit
> juxtaposition and in some others, i think, coordination. I am not
> sure these are solid grounds for talking about homophony between
> whatever other functions of juxtaposition or.coordination and
> accompaniment.
>
> In other words, to my eyes, inclusory constructions represent a
> function apart, even if they have conceptually something in common
> with accompaniment and sometimes even originate from comitatives.
>
> Michael Daniel
>
> вт, 22 февр. 2022 г., 22:19 Yi-Yang Cheng <ycheng at ucsb.edu>:
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thanks so much for following up!
>
> Yes, it appears that this is a case of inclusory pronominal
> construction.
>
> We may need to do a dedicated elicitation session to find out
> more, but based on my impression and experience with the
> language this is only found in the first person.
>
> So the markers /ki/ and /cku/ always have locative usages
> unless they appear in a sentence with a 1PL agent/actor, in
> which case they would be interpreted as indicating
> accompaniment "with".
>
> Best,
> Yi-Yang
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:05 AM Michael Daniel
> <misha.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Yi-Yang,
>
> judging from your examples, this may be much more specific
> than comitative / locative homophony. If I understood
> well, is this not a case of not just accompaniment but
> more specificall an inclusory pronominal construction (we
> X = 'X and I'), somehow restricted to the first person?
> Are inclusory constructions attested elsewhere in the
> language, with the second and the third person, and if
> yes, how do they look?
>
> Michael Daniel
>
> вт, 22 февр. 2022 г., 20:21 Yi-Yang Cheng <ycheng at ucsb.edu>:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am working with a colleague of mine on Matu'uwal
> (Mayrinax Atayal), a Formosan language showing a lot
> of case homophony. When looking at spatial locatives,
> we noticed an interesting case of homophony where
> markers that indicate *location* are formally
> identical to what can be analyzed as *comitatives*.
>
> This is specifically seen in the markers */ki/ (proper
> noun)* and */cku/ (referential common noun)*. In the
> following sentences, they indicate participants
> construed as goals/recipients. To save space, I will
> not include more examples, but the two markers can
> indicate location and source as well.
>
> * /Muway kuing cu gaghap _*ki* Hayung_/. 'I gave
> some seeds *to Hayung.*'
> * /Pabuway kuing cu gaghap _*cku* ulaqi' hani_/. 'I
> will give some seeds *to this child*.'
>
> The two markers can also be used to indicate
> accompaniment, but this is possible only when the
> agent/actor is a first-person plural pronoun. Notice
> that the proper noun vs. common noun distinction is
> maintained, although the latter allows still another
> marker /kinku/ as well. (It looks like /kinku/ only
> has the comitative function. It is still unclear
> whether there is any semantic or functional difference
> between /kinku/ and /cku/, though.)
>
> * /Mitaal cami _*ki* Lawsing_ cu sinku'/. 'We
> checked on the hunting traps *with Lawsing*.' (We
> = me and Lawsing)
> * /Maglu cami _*cku//_*kinku*_/ * xuil_ musa' i
> ragiyax/. 'We went into the forest *with the
> dog*.' (We = me and the dog)
>
> We have been wondering whether we should posit two
> separate case categories here --- spatial locative vs.
> comitative --- and were wondering if anyone can offer
> us some suggestions or directions.
>
> Is it common for spatial locatives and comitatives to
> be formally identical? Is this an unusual case of case
> homophony?
>
> Also, if anyone can recommend any readings pertaining
> to whether a morpheme should be analyzed as a case
> marker instead of a preposition, it would be very
> helpful as well!
>
> Thank you all very much in advance for this!
>
> Best regards,
> Yi-Yang
>
>
> --
> Yi-Yang Cheng (he/him)
> Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics| University of
> California, Santa Barbara
> Visiting Scholar| Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies,
> Harvard University
> Graduate Student Affiliate | Center for Taiwan
> Studies, UC Santa Barbara
> http://cheng-yiyang.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> --
> Yi-Yang Cheng (he/him)
> Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics| University of California,
> Santa Barbara
> Visiting Scholar| Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard
> University
> Graduate Student Affiliate | Center for Taiwan Studies, UC
> Santa Barbara
> http://cheng-yiyang.org
>
>
>
> --
> Yi-Yang Cheng (he/him)
> Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics| University of California, Santa Barbara
> Visiting Scholar| Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University
> Graduate Student Affiliate | Center for Taiwan Studies, UC Santa Barbara
> http://cheng-yiyang.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220223/8afe4e32/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list