Lakota wa- 'variety object'

Tue Dec 16 19:45:52 UTC 2003

Regina,

All your messages except that very first one have
been just fine.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "REGINA PUSTET" <pustetrm at yahoo.com>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Lakota wa- 'variety object'

>
> (Regarding the difficulties with the format of
some of my previous messages, I'm working with
Yahoo, and I'm not sure if there is a way of
getting around html format with Yahoo. I'm now
trying to convert my message into txt format --
please let me know if this looks nicer.)
>
>
>
> Here's some more data on Lakota wa-. This time,
I'm mainly interested in constructions with
multiple wa-, but I'm afraid that the following
data complicate, rather than clarify, the
situation. Using iyuNg^a 'to ask' for the purpose
of demonstration, in Lakota, this verb may take
three (seemingly direct) objects:
>
>
>
> (1)        John itowapi ki taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> (2)        John iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John'
>
>
>
> (3)        taku ota iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him many things'
>
>
>
> (4)        itowapi ki iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask him about the picture'
>
>
>
> although there is a tendency to mark the 'about'
phrase explicitly by means of a postposition:
>
>
>
> (5)        taku ota John itowapi ki
el/etaN/uN/thaNtahaN iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> With w-iyuNg^a-pi (WA-ask-PL), the acceptability
of objects seems to be more restricted. Putting
all three objects is ungrammatical:
>
>
>
> (6)        *John itowapi ki taku ota
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John  picture the things many
WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things about the
picture'
>
>
>
> In all wiyuNg^api-examples elicited so far, the
NP John may appear, which is not surprising since
John, as an animate referent, can never be
coreferential with wa-, which requires inanimate
referents. The same is true for the
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi-examples (WA-WA-ask-PL). But only
one of the other two object NPs is admissible. So
a possible working hypothesis is that with
wiyuNg^api, either the 'about'-phrase or the
'object of the question'-phrase (for lack of a
better term) are eliminated by the presence of w-.
>
>
>
> 'object of question'-phrase present:
>
>
>
> (7)        John taku ota w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John things many WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John many things'
>
>
>
> However, if the 'about'-phrase is explicitly
expressed, it must apparently be coded by means of
a postposition:
>
>
>
> (8)        John itowapi ki thaNtahaN
w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture the about WA-ask-PL
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> (9)        *John itowapi ki wiyuNg^api
>
>             'they ask John about the picture'
>
>
>
> One more thing worth checking is if the presence
of a postposition such as thaNtahaN in the 'about'
phrase would make the triple-object example (6)
acceptable. On the basis of the above working
hypothesis, we might expect now that with double
wa-, both inanimate object NPs, i.e. the
'about'-phrase and the 'object of
question'-phrase, will be "banned" from the clause
as independent constituents. However, very much to
my surprise, the following example is grammatical
on several trials:
>
>
>
> (10)      John itowapi ki    taku    ota
wa-w-iyuNg^a-pi
>
>             John picture  the  things  many
WA-WA-ask-PL
>
> 'they ask John many things about the picture'
>
>
>
> At this point, the hypothesis about the
object-eliminating function of wa- collapses
since, unless the verb iyuNg^a 'to ask' can take
some mysterious additional types of semantic
object whose exact nature could, so far, not be
determined by my elicitation techniques, we have
to interpret wa- and w- in (10) as coreferential
with the full NPs itowapi ki 'the picture' and
taku ota 'many things', respectively. I realize
that these data do not really take us in the
direction in which they hoped they would take us,
since my initial idea was that by putting full
object NPs and checking which wa-s would be
eliminated by their presence, we'd get some more
insight into the semantic reference of the wa-s.
In this context, I also experimented with Rory's
suggestions about wa-:
>
>
>
> (11)      sapa i'uN  'to paint black'   is
grammatical, and so is
>
>
>
> (12)      itowapi ki he wi'uN 'to paint that
picture'.
>
>
>
> I also elicited
>
>
>
> (13)      John itowapi ki he zi i'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'
>
>
>
> (14)      John itowapi ki he zi wi'uN
>
>       'John paints that picture yellow'.
>
>
>
> In other words, again, it does not seem to
matter much if the wa-s are there or not, they do
certainly not eliminate the full object NPs they
should be coreferential with. So, structurally
speaking, these wa-s do not really detransitivize
verbs, although I agree with Bob saying that in
other cases, via "piecemeal grammaticalization",
wa- might actually function as a true
detransitivizer.
>
> As for Carolyn's Osage data, in with wa- is
glossed by 'repetitive action', I think they are
really good examples of something that is in the
semantic range of "variety object". So if variety
wa- in Lakota indicates diversification of the
object in the material world, the Osage version
expresses diversification of action in time. I
tried to track down this usage in Lakota as well,
but I always ended up with examples in which
repetitive action is coded by the
progressive/continuous/repetitive marker -hAN/-he,
rather than by wa-:
>
>
>
> (15)      thi-'i-wa-'uN-he
>
>             house-paint-1SG.AG-paint-REP
>
>             'I paint the house over and over, I
paint and paint the house'
>
>
>
> Regina
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
>