[Lingtyp] Locative-comitative homophony

Wed Feb 23 20:52:04 UTC 2022

Thanks so much for following up and for your paper, Sasha!

As Michael pointed out I wasn't thinking in terms of diachrony. In terms of
the original question I had in mind, I think the fact that the "comitative"
function is so restricted to the inclusory construction would suggest
against establishing a comitative case category in the language.

I am very inclined to explore what you were considering, though, which is
that diachronically the locative functions may have come first. In fact,
the Matu'uwal locatives have a lot of non-locative functions. The patterns
are a bit messy, but some are used to mark the "E" argument (in what Dixon
calls the extended intransitive clause), and others are used to mark
temporal expressions.

These "extended" functions are very tricky in terms of how to organize them
into paradigms, compared to both the spatial locative functions and core
case markers (which may suggest a relatively short period of development?).

In any case, I think a local typology project would be a natural first step
for investigating this more!

Best,
Yi-Yang

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 2:06 AM Alexandre Arkhipov <sarkipo at yandex.ru>
wrote:

> 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 listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220223/94051979/attachment.htm>