[Lingtyp] the favorative clitic

Wed Sep 13 07:05:58 UTC 2023

To continue on the apprehensive thread, it's interesting how they seem to
overlap with Christian's 'favoratives' in the context of prohibition: 'Let
it not be taken away (it is desirable that it is not taken away)', which is
a classic context where Oceanic languages would use the apprehensive: 'Let
it not be taken away (because its being taken away would be undesirable)'.
For those interested, may I recommend Ellen Smith-Dennis' paper on
apprehensives and prohibitives: "Don't feel obligated, lest it be
undesirable: the relationship between apprehensives and prohibitives in
Papapana and beyond", LingTyp 25:3 (2021).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2020-2070/html

Best,
Åshild

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:46 PM Bastian Persohn <
persohn.linguistics at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Christian,
> Adding to what Ellison said (with apprehensionals sometimes being analyzed
> as a combination of epistemic possibility and negative subjective
> evaluation of the state-of-affairs in question), I’d suggest the slightly
> more common label
>
> *desiderative*
>
> as the clitic seems to have a function (or one if its functions) somewhere
> in the realm of bouletic (a.k.a. boulomaic) modality/attitude in the sense
> of „indicates[ing]  the degree of the speaker’s (or someone else’s)
> liking or disliking of the state of affairs” (Nuts 2005: 12).
>
> Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William
> Frawley (ed.), *The expression of modality*. 1–26. Berlin: de Gruyter
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Best,
> Bastian
>
>
>
>
> Am 12.09.2023 um 12:03 schrieb Ellison Luk <ellisonluk at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230913/395f901e/attachment.htm>