A Metaphorical Suggestion

[Ardis R Eschenberg]

> So, I take it that you argue that akha is unmarked generally, and that ama
> specificially marks plurality (when not otherwise marked) and movement
> (when noted to invoke a change of scene)?
Yes.
>I take it that the change of
> scene involves all the referents, so that the set of referents (other than
> the ama NP) should change, or, in some cases, everybody should be
> translated to another location or join another group?
The characters that are in motion as the scene changes are marked with
ama.  Not all characters always shift to the next scene, those are just
dropped.  New characters may occur at the new scene, these are not marked
with ama (except marked plurality).
>Also, it sounds as
> if, perhaps, a change of scene could occur with ama-marking if there is no
> movement (or is novement necessary?). I assume ama-marking of plurality
> can occur without a change of scene?
Ama marking of plurality can occur without scene shift.  Characters (esp.
the hero) tend to move from one scene to the next in narrative (even if
that movement is rather abstract.  For example in English narrative, we
don't say the scene now shifts to London or the store or wherever.  In
oral tales we move the character.  So Joe now goes to London or the store
of wherever.  Even though Joe may have flown or sailed or transmogrified
or whatever, we still move him not just the scene.  So, ama marking tends
to occur couple by a motion verb.  I guess a Rip van WInkle story would
involve scene shift without motion (just sleep).  That would be
interesting, but then again maybe not.  Only time, not scene would shift.
The scene would be different but the same location.  I doubt ama would pop
up.
If the scene changes and no character moves to it, all the characters are
new and no ama is involved.  Ama is motion to a new scene.
> Of course, it's very interesting having plural marking used with the more
> marked cases - it's a parallel with plural marking being used (in part) to
> code proximateness.
I like that ama is the marked member for both cases.  But the unmarked
member akHa is also proximate.
I needed narrative to understand (or at least attempt to understand) this
but it helps explain non-narrative contexts as well.
Regards,
Ardis