I
Technical terms used in the description of a language can be broadly divided
into three groups : (a) terms which truly belong to general linguistics, such
as phoneme, morpheme construction, an idiom, lexicon, category, level;
(b) terms which can be defined within general linguistics, if at all, only in
a provisional manner, such as vowel, accent, word, verb, gender, attribute
,interrogative, emphatic, proper name, and (c) terms which really fall outside
linguistics, but which are transferred from the practical world to things linguistic
by a kind of metonymy, such as pitch, bilabial, before, after, future, negative,
honorific, nursery (as in, nanny is a nursery version of nurse).
The term case belongs to the second group.
When
controversy surrounds the use of BASIC TERMS (our group a), it takes on a peculiar
character. A linguist will proceed to define a basic term
according to the kind of theoretical model he adopts. Indeed one of the principal features that differentiate
any school of thought in descriptive linguistics is its choice of basic terms
and the way they are defined. But once
we agree on them, we must rigorously apply them to any language that we may care
to describe. They are the only true "universals'
in language.
The VARIABLE TERMS (group b) should be approached in an altogether different
manner. They have to be defined afresh
for each language - what is a vowel in one language need not be a vowel in one
language need not be a vowel in the next language; and the same goes for accents,
words, and the rest. In turning its back
on the mirage of a "universal grammar", modern linguistics enjoins us
to be perfectly open-minded in describing any given language.
Now does this mean that we can never compare two languages and decide how
similar they are as to structure-type? Does it mean that a typological as distinct
from a historical comparison of language is an unattainable goal? Does it mean
that a linguist can be perfectly arbitrary and irresponsible in what he decides
to call vowel, word, gender, and so forth? It is to necessary to run to these
extreme and rather despondent conclusions. Given
the theoretical model, a variable term will still have not one definition but
a set of definitions - a series of definitions for these languages in describing
which we have use for the term concerned rounded off by a tentative inductively
arrived at general definition. The general
definition will form then on merely inform the linguist what are the sort of things
for which the term is available, so that he does not have a hunt for a new term
for each new language. A clear distinction
between basic terms and variable term will help us to avoid many a fruitless controversy
on a terminological issue.
Group (c)
we may label as SUBSTANTIAL TERMS as against the first two groups, both of which
are essentially formal in character. The
formal edifice that is language is anchored to our everyday "real" world
at two ends-the phonetic and the semantic. The muscular wiggles, the waves in
the air, the auditory sensations are all nonlinguistic events describable in terms
that have no reference to the fact that these events describable in terms that
have no reference to the fact that these events often happen to be related to
formal entities i a language such as phonemes, morphemes, words, gender, etc.
The same could be said about the thousand and one things in the practical world
which may at short notice become the objects of attention for the speakers of
a given language. When a formal category is specifically and
obviously related to some real-world fact, the linguist will find it convenient
to label it after that semantic context. He may as well have used numbers of the
letters of the alphabet-indeed he often does (witness, first person), but
there is harm in choosing a less colourless term like masculine, so long
as one does not expect all masculine nouns to refer to male organisms.
It is like providing a rough identificatory gloss, such as – ghor**ā (Hindi) 'horse', although ghor**ā may also sometime
stand for 'trigger of a gun'. All this
also applies, mutatis mutandis, to substantial terms at the expression and like
pitch or before.
Bearing in mind all the reservations implied in the foregoing discussion,
we can proceed to give a tentative general definition of the variable term case,
before turning to case in Marathi :
If a language happens to have nouns (another variable term!) and if these
nouns enter into regular paradigms (a basic term) such that the place occupied
by a form in the paradigm marks the constructional relations the form enters into
with other forms in the sentence in which it occurs, then the class of such mutually
exclusive markers may be called case-markers.
When
we try to make use of this term in describing Marathi, three classes of markers
offer themselves as suitable candidates to being called case. Although in defining (Marathi) case, I have
denied the name to two of them, the situation is worth examining as a whole.
Apparently closely analogous questions can be raised about other Indian
languages and a clarification of this kind will be helpful in avoiding the pitfalls
created by discrepant terminologies standing in the way of an intelligent comparison
between these languages.
Marathi throughout this paper means educated colloquial Marathi spoken
in Poona in mid-twentieth century. It
will not be within our scope to bring in dialectological or historical material. I have used myself as an informant, but I have
extensively checked things with my fellow speakers. All forms will be cited in phonemic transcription
(enclosed within slant lines). Names of morphemes will be enclosed within brace
brackets. No attempt is made here to present an exhaustive (and possibly exhausting)
account of all minutiae and exceptions that have no bearing on our main concern.
II
Let me now proceed to describe the relevant facts of Marathi grammar in
such a manner as not to prejudge the issue of what may be suitably called case
and of how then to replace the deliberately vague and tentative definition given
earlier by a more rigorous one valid for Marathi.
As a rule a Marathi stem belongs to one of three major classes depending
on its total privileges of occurrence-especially in formations that are longer
than a stem and shorter than or equal to a word.
These classes are nouns, verbs, and indeclinables. Occasionally, however, a stem may belong to
two or three classes by virtue of grammatical homonymy. (This last term is JESPERSEN'S
and more apt than BLOOMFIELD'S class-cleavage). Nouns are further divided into substantives
and adjectives according to their privileges of occurrence in formations longer
than a word.
The regular paradigm in which a noun stem enters can be set forth most
conveniently in the form of the following diagram (which reads from top to bottom):
A
Noun Stem
With
its appropriate Gender M, F, N
Either one of two
Numbers – Sg., Pl.
Direct
form Vocative form Oblique form Class
Y markers
Class X markers
Ready
to enter into larger constructions
Note that class Y markers (led to by a dotted arrow in the diagram) are
not quite a part of the regular paradigm, since only a few noun stems take these
and then too not all of them.
To
take a concrete example, the stem /ghod))-/ 'horse' may be either M, F, or N.
|
|
Masculine |
Feminine |
Neuter |
|
Sg.
Direct |
ghod))a |
ghod))i |
ghod))ə̃
: |
|
Sg.
Vocative |
ghod))ya |
ghod))e |
ghod))ya |
|
Sg.
Oblique |
" |
ghod)) |
" |
|
Pl.
Direct |
ghod))e |
ghod))ya |
ghod))i |
|
Pl.
Oblique |
ghod))ya
(n) |
ghod))ya
(n) |
ghod))ya
(n) |
The plural oblique takes the /-n-/
only when either class X markers or the vocative particle /-o/ follows. (Thus / ghod))yano ~ ghod))yanno/serves as
the plural vocative).
To the oblique forms—singular or plural-we
can add any one out of a whole class of X markers, which come in all shapes and
sizes. Some can themselves be declined
like noun stems, others not. Some are
single morphemes, others are complex forms exemplifying various constructions.
Some are phrase-bound and tend to have very little assignable content.
Others are phrase-free and may more justifiably be treated as independent stems
in their own right-the grammatical fusion with the noun in oblique is so incomplete
that they tolerate the insertion of emphatic particles like /-c/ 'only', /-hi/
'also' just after the noun in oblique. A
sample list follows :
(1) Indeclinable – (la) Bound: /-ni/
'agent, instrument' (after singular oblique/-ni ~ -nə̃:/); /-la/ 'object,
recipient, destination' (after plural oblique /-la ~ -na/); /-s/ 'ditto' (more
restricted in occurrence than the preceding); /-hun/ 'from, than'; /-ši/ 'near,
with'; /-niši/ 'along with'; '/-pekša/ 'than'; /-gәt/ 'like, as'; -/pəryyənt/ 'up to, until'; /-kəd))e/ 'towards'.
(1b) Free: /-ãt/ 'in' (regularly with loss of
vowel after oblique); /-šivay/ 'without'; /-səhə/ 'accompanied (by)';
/-vər/ 'on, over, above'; /-зvəl$,,/ 'near'; /ulət,,/
'opposed (to), against'; /-ad,,/ 'concealed (by), behind'.
(2) Declined like noun stems--(2a)
Bound : /-ca-či-cə̃ : / 'of, 's' (M, F, N respectively); /-зokta
- зokti - зoktə̃:/ 'suited to'.
(2b) Free:
/-vegl,,a-vegl,,i-vegl,,ə̃:/ 'different (from) apart (from)'; /-ãtla/
etc. 'inner (to)' (with loss of vowel after oblique); /-sarkha/ etc. 'like, as';
/-purta/ 'enough (for)'.
Coming to
class Y markers we find that the stem / ghod))-/ happens to take none of them.
A complete list follows roughly in order of list-frequency in relation to noun
stems which take them. Note they are all bound and, with one exception, indeclinable
:
/-ĩ/ 'place, time', as in gǝl),,ĩ/ (/gǝl),,a/ 'throat, neck'), /ghǝrĩ/ '(at) home', /ratri/ (/ratrә/ 'night'), etc.
Second/-ca –či -cǝ̄̄:/
'quality', as in (з akca/(/ з
aga/'place'), /ghərca/
'coming from, belonging to home' (cf. /ghəraca/ with the first /-ca/ 'of the house'), /hacca/ (/hat/'hand'),
etc.
/-un ~ -nǝ͂:/ 'from',
as in /ghərun ~ ghərnǝ͂:/, /hatun~hatnǝ͂:/, etc.
/- e͂͂/ 'instrument',
as in /əndaзe͂͂/ (/ənda з/ 'estimate'), /bəl,,ẽ/ (bə!/
'force'), etc.
Second /-ĩ/
'instrument', as in /paī/ 'on foot' (/pay/ 'foot'), /dhəd**pənī/
(dhəd**pənī/ 'undisturbed condition'), etc.
/-il/ 'belonging
to, from', as in /ghəril/ (colloquially /ghərãtla/ is more common),
/daril/ 'not belonging to home' (colloquially /darca/ is more common; /dar/ 'door'),
etc.
/-ã/ 'place,
time', as in /payã/ 'at the feet', /divsã/ 'by day' (/divəs/ 'day'), etc.
The Y markers, it may be noted in passing,
frequently participate in the formation of complex markers of class X, as in:
/ãtun/ 'from inside', /vəril/
'that which is on the top of', /pud**hẽ ~ pud**h ẽ : / 'in front (of)'.
It may be
urged that class Y markers can be dismissed as derivative endings. Indeed they could be, but for one consideration.
Compare the following :
(1) /candən,,i
+ rátrə/ 'moonlit night'.
(2) /candən,,ya
+ rátri + la/ 'to a moonlit night'. Note
that both the noun stems are in oblique, while only the substantive takes the
class X marker /-la/.
(3)
/candən,,ya + rátri/ 'on a moonlit night'. Note how the adjective takes an oblique in recognition of the Y
marker /-i/ added tot he substantive. If
we were to consider /ratri/ to be merely an adverb derived from /ratrə/,
this behaviour of the adjective will be without a parallel. On the other hand, if we regard (2) and (3)
as parallel formations having the same relation to (1), the adjectival oblique
makes more sense.
To summarize, in the noun paradigm three classes of endings satisfy the
tentative definition of case given earlier :
(a)
The class constituted
by {direct}, {oblique}, and {vocative};
(b)
Class X markers;
and
(c)
Class Y markers.
A
noun stem takes either (a) alone, or (a) followed by (b), or (c) alone. It is clear that (a) and (b) cannot both be
case-endings, since they occur together. It
is also clear that we have to decide for the classes as wholes, unless we can
find some acceptable criterion to accord the status of case to some members of
a class and withhold it from other members of the same class.
The procedure of traditional Marathi grammars whereby an arbitrary list
cutting across our three classes is drawn up can be hardly justified.
The list runs as follows :
|
Traditional case |
|
From (a) |
From (b) |
From (c) |
Other |
|
I (nominative) |
.. |
{direct} |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
II (accusative) |
.. |
{direct} |
-s, -la, |
-- |
-- |
|
|
|
|
*-tẽ |
|
|
|
III (instrumental) |
.. |
--- |
-ni, -ši, *-hi |
- ẽ,
-i2 |
-- |
|
IV (dative) |
.. |
-- |
-s, -la, *-tẽ |
-- |
-- |
|
V (ablative) |
.. |
-- |
-hun |
-un |
--- |
|
VI (genitive) |
.. |
-- |
-ca, etc. |
-ca, etc. |
-- |
|
VII (locative) |
.. |
-- |
-~t |
-i1,
-ã |
-- |
|
Vocative |
.. |
{vocative} |
-- |
-- |
-o |
The
two endings marked with an asterisk are now obsolete. Note that the distinction between the two /-nẽ:/s (alternants
to /-ni/ and to /-un/ respectively), and between the two /-ca/ series is ignored;
that the endings {direct}, /-s/, and /-la/ are artificially split into a pair
of homonyms each; and that the particle /-o/ (commonly cited as/-no/ is treated
as a case-ending though it is an alternant of /ho/ (as in /mitrə +hó/ 'friends!',
/cəlá + ho/ 'do come along!'). The several endings put under the same case
are by no means freely substitutable for one another, nor are they in complementary
distribution. All this has no apparent
motive except that is showing that Marathi, like a good daughter, has the same
eight cases as Sanskrit has!
Nothing has turned up in this discussion
that will show that the tentative definition of case forces any particular choice
on us. We clearly need an additional criterion.
That is provided by another variable terms –INFLECTION. A tentative general definition of inflection may be offered as follows:
When the respective paradigms into
which all the members of a (tentatively proposed) stem-class enter are matched
to each other in respect of form and distribution, the following things (arranged
roughly in order of their importance) may be observed :
(i)
all or nearly all stems agree in being combinable with a set
of markers;
(ii)
the distribution of the stem-plus-marker formation does
not match that of some other simple stem (of the same class of different) so much
as tie in with some syntactical relation;
(iii)
the presence of the marker closes the word;
(iv)
the set is small, compact, well-ordered, and not open-ended;
(v)
the markers are bound and determined by the stem.
When the paradigm or some specifiable subset of it fulfils
most or all of these conditions, the paradigm or the subset concerned is the inflectional
set for the stem-class in question (and may enter the definition of the proposed
stem-class).
Let us apply these tests to the three classes of markers.
Class Y disqualifies on the very first count.
Class X fails on the fourth count, and is surpassed by the other two on
the third and the firth counts. The set
constituted by {direct}, {oblique}, and {vocative} comes nearest to fulfilling
all the conditions. Case in Marathi is, therefore, the set of mutually contrasting
and exclusive morphemes {direct}, {oblique}, and {vocative}. Classes X and Y we
group together as POSTPOSITIONS –which is not a form-class so much as the second
position in the axis-and-postposition construction, which can be occupied by any
out of a large heterogeneous group.
In presenting the formal details of Marathi noun declension,
gender, number, and case cannot be kept apart. If we ignore the pronouns and other marginal
cases, the principal declensional patterns are follows :
Masculine stems – Type 1: /ghod,,a/ 'horse, stallion',
direct sg.; /ghod,,e/ direct pl.; / ghodya/oblique sg. and pl.
Type 2 : /vagh/ 'tiger', direct sg. and pl.; /vagha/
oblique sg. and pl.
Feminine stems – Type 1: /šal,,a/ 'school', direct sg.
and direct and oblique pl.; /šal,,e/ oblique sg.
Type 2 :
/vat,,/ 'way, direct sg.; /vata,,/ direct and oblique pl.; /vat,,,e/ oblique sg.
Type 3 : /rit/ 'method, customs', direct
sg.; /riti/ direct and oblique pl. and oblique
sg.
Type 4 : /kal,,i/ 'black', direct sg.; / kal,,ya/ direct
pl. and oblique sg. and pl.
Type 5 : /ghod,i/ ‘mare’,
direct and oblique sg.; /ghod,ya/ direct and oblique pl.
Neuter
stems – Type 1 : / з had,/ 'tree', direct sg.; / з had, ə̃
: / direct pl.; /з had,,a/ oblique sg. and pl.
Type 2 : /ghod,, ə̃̃:/ 'horse indifferently
male or female; indifferent horse, nag', direct sg.; / ghod,,i/ direct pl.; /
ghod,,ya/ oblique sg. and pl.
Notes : (1) The vocative singular is the same as the oblique
singular except for feminine stems of types 4 and 5 (/kal,,e~ kal,,i/ and /ghod,,e/ respectively). (2) There
is no vocative plural as such. (3) The oblique plural takes an additional /-n-/
when followed by a postposition (class X) or the vocative particle /-o/. (4) Feminine
type 4 stems are all adjectival and type 5 all substantival. (5) Many adjectives
come in triplets – M-1, F-4, and N-2; example: / kal,,a/, /kal,,i/, /kal,,ǝ̄:/ 'black'.
Finally we may point out that in verbal
paradigm case-morphemes show up in two places :
(1) Verbal stems regularly take the extensions /-t-/, /-l/,
/-lel-/, /-ṇ-/, /- ṇar-/ese
extended stems not only take further part in the verb-inflection set but also
function as noun-stems.
(2)
Extended stems ending in /-t-/, /-l-/, /-av-/ have special oblique forms in which
neither gender nor number morphemes enter; examples :
'/to + з áte+ vel,,i/ 'he going time-at, i.e. at the
time of his going'.
'/to + gélya +vər/ 'he gone upon, i.e. upon his going'.
'/to + з áyči +vel,,/ 'he going-of time, i.e.
the time of his going'.
The
description is complete. But two possibly doubtful points may be cleared up before
concluding. The first concern the morphenic status of {oblique}. Does it ever contrast with the other two cases?
Does it ever occur without any postposition following? Could we not possibly regard
oblique forms as grammatically conditioned allomorphs ? The contrast between /
ghərca/ with the second /-c/ and / ghəraca/ ~ / ghərá + ca/ with
the first /-c-/ has already been cited above while listing class Y markers.
The
oblique form can occur, moreover, with no postposition following in the following
cases :
(i)
the adjective in
oblique when the following substantive is oblique or followed by class Y postposition
:
/kal,,,ya + ghód,,i + vər/ 'on a black mare'.
/candən,,ya+ rátri/ 'on a moonlit night'.
(ii)
the first and the
second noun taking separate obliques in certain pseudo-compounds :
/k ә ̓̓pd,,ya + ləttya + sat,,hi /'for clothes and things' (oblique plural; compare direct
singular / k ә ̓̓pd,,a + lətta/).
(iii)
in
a few steriotyped expressions, like :
/déva
+ ghəri/ 'God-obl. house-in, i.e. in heaven'.
/lóka
+ sange + . . ./ 'other-people-obl. tell...' (beginning of a proverb).
/paht,,,e/ 'at daybreak'.
In
the face of this it will be difficult to show grammatical complementation; for,
the larger the frame within which to define it, the more tenuous the complementation
becomes – constantly rendered precarious by such "accidental" contrasts
like :
/ti
+ candәn,,ya +rátri+cәmәkte/
'it (fem.) shines on a moonlit night'.
/ti + candәn,,ya +rátri+cәmәkte/ 'that star shines at night.'
The second doubt concerns the way this analysis undermines
the easy "isolability" that we associate with the word.
In most "word-using" languages, the word is the most important
stopping point between the smallest unit in grammar—the morpheme- and the largest
– the sentence. But in Marathi that distinction apparently
goes to the PHRASE. Once we bear in mind that word is a variable term, this need
not be a disturbing conclusion.
COLOPHON
This was published in Indian Linguistics
20:131-9, 1959 (being Tumer Jubille Volume, Vol.2, Published October 1959)
