[Lingtyp] the favorative clitic

[Ellison Luk]

Dear Christian,

Functionally, this seems to be comparable to the 'apprehensional' category
(found in many Australian, Austronesian, and South American languages).
Instead of conveying something undesirable or regrettable, the 'favorative'
seems to convey desirability or satisfaction. Apprehensional markers also
often have epistemic modal functions too (uncertainty), which might also be
a function of your marker, if I interpret the interrogative sentence
example correctly.

Best,
Ellison

On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 11:04, Christian Lehmann <
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:

> Here is a Cabecar clitic with which I have been struggling for years: The
> mobile enclitic *pa* attaches to almost any constituent in a clause S at
> almost any position and conveys something like 'S is/would be
> good/better/convenient/desirable'. The translation difference between 'is'
> and 'would be' depends on the mood of the verb of S.
>
> With the indicative:
>
>    1.
>
>    I ks-á=jka=pa.
>
> 3 sing-pfv=atp=fav
>
>             ‘Appropriately enough, he already sang.’
>
>    1.
>
>    Ká yís dä jawá kú̱na̱=pa=ba.
>
> neg 1.sg cop healer n.val=fav=acp
>
>             ‘I am not yet a healer (as would be desirable).’
>
> With the subjunctive:
>
>    1.
>
>    S’ kí̱s-ö́=pa bá kú̱ bë́rbë́na̱ !
>
> 1.sg wait-sbj=fav 2.sg erg for.a.while
>
>             ‘Please wait a moment for me !’
>
>    1.
>
>    Kë́ i bak-ó̱-n-ó̱=pa !
>
> neg 3 take.away-sbj-mid-sbj=fav
>
>             ‘Let it not be taken away !’
>
> In a subordinate clause:
>
>    1.
>
>    Ma̱ kú̱ jé w-ó̱=pa kí̱=ka, bá së́-r=mi̱ rä báá.
>
> [2.sg erg d.med do1-sbj=fav sup=lat] 2.sg feel:non-mid(ipfv)=pot tsa nice
>
>             ‘Once you would have conveniently done that, you might have
> felt good.’
>
> In an interrogative sentence:
>
>    1.
>
>    … i te i sh-á=ká̱  ijé wä́=na̠ i juë́-n-á̱=pa jé=ra ...
>
> 3 erg 3 say-pfv=asc [3.ps face=in 3 see2-mid=fav d.med=tmp]
>
>             ‘… they added: “Does he perhaps know?” ...’ (Historia p. 8)
>
> The subjunctive sentences would be imperatives and jussives without *pa*
> and are attenuated by it. I have never seen such a thing before; and since
> it is so unfamiliar, I cannot even translate it well into English. I had at
> first called it 'optative'. There is, however, a different particle with
> illocutionary force which converts a subjunctive sentence into an optative
> sentence ('Would that S!'), where S may or may not contain *pa*.
>
> I don't expect anybody to come up with an analysis of *pa* on the basis
> of the above examples. My question is: Has anybody ever seen such a thing?
> And if so, how did you call it? I am not particularly happy with my (or
> rather, my coauthor Guillermo's) most recent neologism 'favorative'.
>
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230912/54bbacea/attachment.htm>