[Lingtyp] the favorative clitic

Thu Sep 14 11:57:17 UTC 2023

 Dear Michael,

In line with what Bastian said, I provided a very simplistic overview of
apprehension based on the comparability I saw with Christian's category.
Just as with Åshild's Äiwoo example, Australian apprehensional categories
can be used to mark hypothetical cause and negative purpose in clause
linkage. The linked clause can be to a warning (1), or to the motivation of
an intention (2). Both usages are well attested across the sample, but
warnings are probably the more frequent one.

(1) Kayardild (Evans 1995: 509)
*walmathi karn-da rajurri-n, ba-yii-nyarra yarbuth-iiwa-nharr!*
on.topNOM grass-NOM walk-NEG.IMP bite-M*-APPR* snake-VALL*-APPR*
‘Don’t walk across the grass, in case you get bitten by a snake.’

(2) Yidiny (Dixon 1977: 351)
*ngayu dyadya ngudyu badya-rh / bama:l ngudyu dyili+budi:l-dyi*
I-SA baby NOT leave-PRES / person-ERG NOT eye+put.down*-LEST*
‘I won’t leave the baby in case there’s no one to mind it.’

(For some additional context, in the Australian grammatical tradition,
apprehensional/apprehensive markers have also been termed 'admonitive',
'evitative', 'aversive' - labels that would seem to imply a specialisation
towards warnings - or with the English words 'fear', 'hurry before', 'lest'
or 'in case'.)

Also, while you are correct that apprehension almost always relates to the
potential domain, there do exist some examples to the contrary. In Kuuk
Thayorre (3), there is a 'potential detriment' marker used in what looks
like a malefactive expression (cmp. English 'eat on me'), as well as in
apprehensional expressions (a and b respectively). Example (3a) could well
be an atypical example of apprehension, but it at least provides a case
where negative evaluation does not necessarily coincide with potentiality.
(Incidentally, I did have 'benefactive' in mind when thinking of a
potential label for Christian's marker, but of course that has applicative
connotations.)

(3) Kuuk Thayorre (Gaby 2017: 412)
a. *pam nhunt ngene yat?*
*   DETR *2sg(NOM) why go:PST.PFV
   ‘why on earth did you go off (to my potential detriment)?’

b. *thaapirri kaar=p nhunt katp-nhan=unh ngul nhinh pam paath-r. awoy.*
    close NEG=PRAG 2sg(ERG) grasp-GO&:NPST=3sgACC then 2sgACC *DETR *bite-NPST
yes
    ‘don’t go holding it [crocodile] close or it might bite you. True.’

Best,
Ellison

On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 13:25, Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Åshild,
>
> the use of apprehensive in fear complement clauses (as well as in negative
> purpose clauses) is documented, and such contexts indeed do not include
> warning. We have suggested, for one of the languages, that the apprehensive
> may have evolved from fear complement clauses in the first place. On the
> other hand, unlike approbative, both fear complement clauses and negative
> purpose remain on the irrealis side.
>
> I should probably have been more careful and write just  "potential"
> rather than "future and potential", though I continue to think that the
> definitional uses of apprehensive do refer to the (undesirable) future.
>
> Michael
>
> чт, 14 сент. 2023 г. в 13:17, Åshild Næss <ashildn at gmail.com>:
>
>> I am not well acquainted with all the literature referred to here, but I
>> can add that in the Oceanic language Äiwoo, many of my examples of
>> apprehensives show up in contexts of past-time reference where people
>> explain their motivations for an act: 'I was afraid that/I was worried that
>> ...':
>>
>> I-ki-basiki-mana-kä go kâ-no=ngä nyenaa de-eobu-mä=dä
>> 1MIN-IPFV-run-very-DIR:3 because think-1MIN=CV tree APPR-fall-DIR:1=some
>> 'I ran hard, because I thought a tree might(APPR) fall down on me.'
>>
>> While this certainly refers to a potential situation, which did not in
>> the end come to pass, there is no element of warning involved, since the
>> speaker is simply referring to her own past apprehensions.
>>
>> Best,
>> Åshild
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 1:06 PM Bastian Persohn <
>> persohn.linguistics at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Michael,
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing up that point, which is indeed something where we
>>> (or at least I) have been simplifying a bit.
>>>
>>> However, not only in the cross-linguistic study of apprehensives that
>>> followed Lichtenberk (e.g. Dobrushina 2006, work by Eva Shultze-Berndt and
>>> Marine Vuillermet), but I think also in Lichtenberk himself the category of
>>> apprehesion is far from being equated with just negative evaluation, which
>>> would be the counterpart to your definition of the approbative. In this
>>> line of research, apprehensive is often considered as grammaticalization of
>>> warning, sometimes if not often including an element of manipulative speech
>>> act (causing the addressee to avoid an undesirable situation or an
>>> undesirable consequence; hence the short-lived alternative term
>>> preventive). This is how I've been reading it.
>>>
>>> I don’t think I would entirely agree. In line with what you said,
>>> Lichtenberk discusses these items under the term of „apprehensions
>>> epistemic“, i.e. a combination of epistemic possibility plus negative
>>> subjective evaluation of the potential state-of-affairs (together yielding
>>> the ‚risk of‘ meaning). Why I have been glossing over this dual modal
>>> analysis is because I wanted to avoid the (somewhat philosophical) question
>>> of whether the epistemic component is actually necessary as a separate
>>> meaning element, or whether the subjective evaluation („bouletic“ modality,
>>> to use that unfortunate term) entails epistemic possibility (i.e. can you
>>> evaluate what is not even considered possible?).
>>>
>>> As for the  subsequent works you refer to, I understood them as pointing
>>> to warnings as a type of speech acts that apprehensionals *tend* *to*
>>> surface in, but which are not a necessary prerequisite for a given element
>>> to qualify as an apprehensional. I would be very hesitant to equate these
>>> two, especially given that we are speaking about a semantic definition on
>>> the one hand, vs. usage patterns and pragmatic issues such as interlocutive
>>> force on the other hand.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Bastian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 14.09.2023 um 12:52 schrieb Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Dear Christian,
>>>
>>> (I put this message back to the original thread in order not to spoil
>>> your concise concluding message).
>>>
>>> I was a bit surprised when the discussion of the apprehensive came up as
>>> a potential category counterpart of the approbative (approbative,
>>> welcome!). I have a limited experience of working with apprehensives, and
>>> my intuitions are limited to the extension of this empirical domain in East
>>> Caucasian. It could be that the apprehensives in the data Ellison, Bastian
>>> and Åshild alluded to are very different.
>>>
>>> However, not only in the cross-linguistic study of apprehensives that
>>> followed Lichtenberk (e.g. Dobrushina 2006, work by Eva Shultze-Berndt and
>>> Marine Vuillermet), but I think also in Lichtenberk himself the category of
>>> apprehesion is far from being equated with just negative evaluation, which
>>> would be the counterpart to your definition of the approbative. In this
>>> line of research, apprehensive is often considered as grammaticalization of
>>> warning, sometimes if not often including an element of manipulative speech
>>> act (causing the addressee to avoid an undesirable situation or an
>>> undesirable consequence; hence the short-lived alternative term
>>> preventive). This is how I've been reading it.
>>>
>>> So, to me, the difference would be strong between the approbative with
>>> the core meaning of positive evaluation (with possible pragmatic inference
>>> to, and diachronic evolution towards contrastive uses or even, as Åshild
>>> pointed out, indeed manipulative uses 'P is good [->so do it]', as
>>> optatives may be leaning towards imperatives), on the one hand, and the
>>> apprehensive with the core meaning of warning ('there is a risk of P').
>>> Note that apprehensive always (?) relates to future and potential
>>> situations, while the approbative does not have to belong to the irrealis
>>> domain, as example 1 from your initial message shows.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> ср, 13 сент. 2023 г. в 09:06, Åshild Næss <ashildn at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20230914/8a976def/attachment-0001.htm>