ON LANGUAGES

RELATIVE CLAUSES IN MARATHI

A PLEA FOR A LESS CONSTRICTED VIEW

ASHOK R. KELKAR

ABSTRACT: a propos: Indira Y.Junghare. Restrictive relative clauses in Marathi. IL 34:4. 251-62 (1973). Her analysis is good of its kind, but unsatisfactory in certain important ways. an alternative analysis (section i) covering roughly the same territory is presented. Then follows (section ii) an account of relative clause abbreviation. Possible extrapolations (section iii) of the analysis presented so far are sketched -to adjectival and adverbial relatives, multiple relatives, sentential nominalization, and, finally, to the so-called nonrestrictive relatives. Certain methodological considerations (section iv) now suggest themselves.

Indira Y.Junghare’s analysis of ‘restrictive relative clauses in Marathi’ (1973) is a good example of its kind – and i mean not only good as an example of its kind – and i mean not only good as an example but good as analysis. But I certainly do want to suggest that it does not exemplify a very good kind of analysis – it is typical of a good deal of current transformational –generative work on Indian languages. But I am anticipating. It will be simpler to start with presenting an alternative analysis whole cloth – analysis which covers roughly the same territory.

I

The Starting Point

It is not necessary here to concern oneself as to how and at what point a Noun Phrase is thrown up in the course of specifying a Sentence. Let it simply be assumed that it is so thrown up and has an S-node in it which triggers off the process of Relativization. The structural description that need be assumed at the start, therefore, is as follows:

(Operand 1) Relativization Operand

S

X NP Y

S₁ NP΄

X₁ NP₁ Y₁ Correl NP΄ Residue

Rel NP₁ Residue

It will be noticed that we have simply refrained from taking up any position on whether Marathi has a VSO or SOV or SVO order – that is, on whether X or Y or at least one of them is necessarily non-null. But we cannot refrain from having some notion as to how NP is specified in Marathi.

(Grammatical Formation Rule 1) NP Specification

NP → Det N

S NP

Conditions: (1) If S is present the operands NP corresponds to the NP in Opd 1 above.

(2) Det may or may not yield a Stem; and the same goes for N. But both Det and N cannot be Stem-less at the same time.

GFR 1 is thus capable of yielding strings like Det N, S Det N, S S Det N, S S S Det N, and so on.

(Opd 1 continued)

Conditions (1) Rel = Det Indef [⊙ /k-]

Def [t-/ 1_st/2_nd/Proper]

(2) Correl = Det [Def [t-] [(1^st/2^nd/Proper)]

(3) If an S-nәde is present in NP΄ Residue, it has already

been subjected to Relativization.

(4) If NP is a Predicative Complement in S, then Re1 = Det

[Indef [⊙] and NP΄ Residue = ]N [G No C [dir ] … ]

Note that G, m, f, n; No, sg, pl; C, dir, obl; P, 1st, 2nd, 3rd stand for gender, number, case, person features.

(Lexical Specification Rule 1)

Det [Indef [k-] ] = k-oṇ –t GnoC ‘ identity’

k-oṇ, k-uṇ -i ‘ identity human’

k-ay, k-ah-i ‘ identity non-human’

any of these Duplicated ‘exhaustive, distributed, or graduated’ in addition.

Where: k- ‘some … or other’

Note that k-also marks the Interrogative in Marathi, while j-marks the Relative, t-the Distal Demonstrative, and h-/ y-/ ⊙ the: Proximal Demonstrative. (Compare Hindi which has j- Relative, k- Interrogative / Indefinite, y- Proximal Demonstrative, v- Distal Demonstrative, and s-/ t- Correlative.) For the use of Marathi Proximal Demonstrative h-/y- as Correl see section III.

(Opd 1 continued)

Conditions: (5) Rel and Correl are coreferential. One cannot be human and

The other non-human, for example.

(6) NP1 Residue and NP Residue are congruent in Gender, Number,

and, if both N have N – stems, with identical N- Stems.

(7) Sˊ is not either Interrogative or Imperative.

(Example 1) j-e kah-i (pustәk)…. t-e (pustәk) ‘which (book)…

kay that (boek)’

koṇ -t- ә

t-e

(Ex.2) ǰ -i ko ṇ (ba-i) … t-i (ba-i ) ‘which (woman)…that (woman)’

ku ṇ -i

ko ṇ -t-i

(Ex 3) ǰ -i t-i ( ba-i ) ...t-i ⊙ ( ba-i )

mi indir-a mi indir-a

tu r rˊ tu

‘which that ( woman )... that ⊙ ( woman )

me Indira me Indira

you r you r rˊ

Where: r, ṛˊ = respectively

Compare ‘ǰ ‘ ci ‘bai’ /t/ (e) ti bai →’ ǰi’ ti ‘bai, also’ ǰi’ ǰi koṇi ‘bai ˊ tiˊ tiˊ bai

(Ex 4) S₁: mi koṇ-tə jaḍ pustək vik-ət ghet-l- ə

X₁ Rel NP₁ Residue Y₁

‘I bought some fat book or other’

S: ti-nə S₁ t-ya pustək-a č -i mag- ṇ-i- ke-1-i

X Correl NP/Residue Y

‘she asked for that book S₁’

Where : koṇ -t- ə (like any of the Indefinite k- words) can be optionally

Strengthened by the emphatic particle t- ər-i

(Ex 4a) Here are possible conversional exchanged that bring out the underlying

logic.

Ex 4 illustrates a typical operand. We are now ready to run through the family of transformations concerned with Relativization.

Relativization Transformation Family

We shall now take up the transformations one by one. The serial alphanumeric labeling is for ease of reference and for bringing out the family relationships. The order of application when it is not inherent in the rules concerned is made explicit under Conditions. Obligatory singleton operations are necessarily meaning-preserving – more accurately, meaning-neutral. Optional operations and the choice between alternate operations is naturally not so meaning-neutral. The stylistic difference is indicated under Conditions where this could be done with some confidence. obl means ‘wherever the operand emerges’ and opt means ‘optionally where the operand emerges’ (obl of course standing for ‘oblique case’). A semicolon stands for sentence-juncture. Opd 1 is presupposed in all grammatical trans-formations unless the contrary is indicated.

(Grammatical Transformation Rule 1) Relative – Correlative - marking

(1a) obl NP₁ [Det [=>NP₁ [Det [ j-

(1b) opt j- k- k- => j- j- k-

(1c) opt NPˊ [Det [t- => NP’ [Det [t- t- /NP1 [Det [j- j-

{ ǰekhi kahi] ambe əstil [te] kaḍhun ghe: (what any ) mangoes are, (these ) pickout.’

{ ǰekhi kahi] ambe] muṭhe əstil [teambe] kaḍhun ghe (what any mangoes) large are, (those)

ǰe ǰe ambe əstil te kaḍhun ghe ==>ambe ambe əstil te.... ==> ambe ambe ...whatever mangoes those pickout

ǰe ǰe ambe moṭhe əstil te ambe kaḍhun ghe ==> ambe moṭhe moṭhe teambe ... əstil

ð moṭhe moṭhe ambe...whatever mangoes are those mangoes pickout.

ð (cf. ǰe ambe moṭhe moṭhe əstil te ambeku ḍhun ghe => moṭhe moṭhe ambe... what mangoes quite large those mangoes pick out.

Does the Relativizer make a difference to the meaning? We shall take up this question in Section III.

(GTR 2) Relativizer Concord obl

Opd : j-

Operation: Copy out G, No, C from N under NP₁ after j- unless nothing

Intervenes j- and N [G, No, C]

(Ex 5) j-e koṇ (-t- ə) koṇ -t-ə pustək … t-e pustək

j-e j-e koṇ -t-e pustək … t-e (t-e) pustək

‘whichever book … that (each) book’ (pustək being neuter, singular, direct).

Actually GTR 2 is only a special case of a general rule governing any Declinable entering NP under the immediate domination of S, [AP], Det, or N.

(GTR 3) Extraposition in Matrix S opt

(3a) Opd : S [X NP-Pc Y]

1 2 3

Where: Opd 1 is not presupposed; Pc = a postclitic if any (such as a postposition

Or an emphatic particle) taken out of Y

Opn : (3a1) 2; 1 3

(3a2) 1 3; 2

Conditions: (1) NP is not dominated by a higher NP

(2) GTR 3a1 is favored, if NP-Pc is longish or if it is the Given

element in the communication. If Opd 1 holds, GTR 3a is favoured if Rel = Def or if X is likely to be mistaken for a part of X₁

(say X₁ being null).

(3) GTR 3a2 is colloquial and is favoured only if NP is the New

element in the communication.

(3b) Opd 1 is presupposed.

Opn : X NPˊ Pc Y; (ki) NP – Pc

Condition : S₁ is an afterthought.

(GTR 4) Extra-position in NP opt

Opd: NP [S1 NP’ [t-GnoC NP’ Residue ] ] Pc

Opn : (4a) NP [NP ˊ Pc(;) (ki) S1]

(4b) NP [NP ˊ Residue Pc(;) (ki) S₁ t-GNoC] Pc

Conditions: (1) GTR 4 is colloquial and is not common.

(2) ; is favoured if NP ˊ is longish.

(GTR 5) Extraposition in Embedded S opt

S₁ = > NP₁ – Pc₁ X₁ Y₁

Condition: GTR 5 is obl if GTR 3b or 4 is being applied; it is favoured if GTR 3a is being applied or X₁ is likely to be mistaken for a part of X (say, X being null).

Note that GTR 5 is in a way an extension of GTR 3a₁ to S₁ but without the sentence juncture.

(GTR 6) Extra-position in NP₁ opt

Opd: j Rel – Def (N)

1 2 3

Opn: (6a) 2 1 3

(6b) 2 3 1

(Ex 6) [ mi j-e koṇ -t- ə ja ḍ pustək vik- ət ghet-1- ə t-ya pustə k-a č -i ] ti-nə

mag- ṇ -i ke-1-i ‘which fat book I bought for that book she asked’

(GTR 3a1; putting [ ] last we get the result of GTR 3a2)

(Ex 7) ti-nə t-ya pustək – a č-i mag- ṇ -i ke -1-i; (ki) ǰ -e koṇ -t- ə jaḍ pustək

mi vik- ət ghet-1- ə t-ya pustək-a č-i (GTR 3b, 5)

(Ex 8) ti-nə t-ya pustək-a č -i mag- ṇ -i ke-1-i; (ki) ǰ -a pustək-a č -i mag-

- ṇ -i t-i kər- ṇ -ar n-ahi əs - ə mə -la vaṭ -1- ə ho- t-ya’ she asked for

that book which book I thought she wouldn’t ask for’ (where an

S-node intervenes S₁ and NP₁)

(Ex 9) h –e pustək [mi j-e k-o ṇ -t - ə jaḍ pustək vik- ət ghet – 1- ə t-e ] ah-e

‘this book is that which fat book I bought’.

(Ex10) ǰ -i t-i ba-i ; t-i ǰ -i ba-i ; t-i ba-i ǰ -i

mi mi mi

(Cf. Ex 3; GTR 6a, 6b.)

Ex 10 does not illustrate, as Junghare would presumably suppose, Antecedent-copying. Her examples (8) (ii), (8) (iii) also illustrate GTR 6, though she does not seem to be aware of the possibility of t- being a part of the Relative Clause also (Opd 1, Condition 1) contributing its distinctive meaning.

The fulfillment of Opd 1, Conditions 1, 2 and the implementation of GTR 1, 3b, 4a, 6 result in various types of interrupted sequences of j- and t-. The implementation of GTR 1, Condition 2 and Opd 1, Condition 6 result in various types of interrupted sequences of N-stem under NP and N₁-stem under NP. The next GT Rule is concerned with the simplification of such pronoun and noun-stem sequences.

(GTR 7) Relative simplification opt

(7a) Opd : S [S₁ [j* ] t* ]

S [t* ; S₁ [j* ] t* ] (cf. GTR 3b)

S [t* ; S₁ [j* ] ] (cf. GTR 4a)

Where : the sequences may be interrupted.

j* = j or jt or tj or tj (cf. GTR 1b, 6)

t* = t or it (cf. GTR 1c)

j = j-GnoC and t = t-GNoC

Opn : (7a1) j* loses j or jj (not t) if t* does not precede

(7a2) t* is lost if j* follows and N in NP is not zero-stem.

(7a3) t* is lost if t* j* precede.

Conditions: (1) GTR 7a1 is favoured if Rel = k-realized.

(2) GTR 7a2 is colloquial and is not common.

(7b) Opd : S [N₁ N ]

S [N N₁ N]

S [N N₁]

Opn: (7b1) delete one of two

(7b2) delete two of three

Conditions: (1) Not applying GTR 7b1 is ponderous; not applying GTR

7b2 even more so.

(2) In applying GTR 7b, don’t delete N or N₁, if A precedes it

(except very colloquially).

(Ex 11) ti-nə mi jaḍ pustək vik-ət ghet-1-ət –ya-č-i mag-ṇ -i ke-1-i

‘she asked for the fat book I bought’ (GTR 7b and Condition 2)

The absence of N-stems at all points is of course traceable to

GFR 1, Condition 2.

II

Relative Clause Abbreviation

Abbreviating Relative Clauses becomes particularly urgent when there are more than one of them in the same NP. In a sequence of the type NP [ S S S Det N] one carries out Relativization and its abbreviation beginning from the inmost S and working one’s way out to the highest NP, Relative Clause Abbreviation (GTR 8a, 8b) turns a Relative Clause (with a finite verb) into a Relative Phrase (without a finite verb). GTR 8c fuses the Relative Phrase with the NP’. GTR 8a below is the Marathi counterpart of the so-called Relative Participle construction in Dravidian languages.

(GTR 8) Relative Abbreviation opt

Condition : Apply GTR 8 after GTR 1a, when greater compactness is feasible

And desirable.

(8a) S₁ [X₁ NP₁ Y₁] = > S₁ [AP[ Residue of X₁ Y₁ V Aux*] ]

Where : Aux in the Operand and Aux* correspond in the following

Manner (C stands for the Concord endings GNoP, NoP, GNo as the case

May be)

Aux ending : Aux replacement

ah-C - ṇ -ar-GNoC

-t-C (present) -l-el-GNoC

Future

ho-t-C (past) -l-el-GHoC

-l-C (past) -l-GNoC

-t-C (present) -t-GNoC

- ṇ -ar - ṇ -ar

Future

-av-C -ay –c- GNoC

Conditions: (1) NP1 is Subject, Object, Axis of postposition, the last

possibility being rather colloquial.

(2) X₁ Y₁ is not inside an excessively long and complex sequence:

for example, NP₁ is not inside S embedded in S1 as in Ex.8.

(3) GTR3 has already been applied to any S more inward to NP

than the Operand S.

(4) Aux* ending in –l-GNoC, -l-GNoC, - ṇ -ar are less common and

tend to be confined to set expressions (i.e., call for appropriate

LS rules).

(5) - ṇ -ar, - ṇ -ar-GNoC are not used if NP₁ is not Subject, except

rather colloquially when V is intransitive and when certain

other conditions are fulfilled.

(6) –l-el-GNoC, -l-GNoC are not used if NP1 is not Subject V transitive, except rather colloquially in those cases where - ṇ -ar-GNoC is not available.

(7) –ay-c-GNoC is not used if NP₁ is Subject and V transitive.

(Ex 12) mi vik-ət ghet-l-el- ə/ghy-ay-c-ə t-e pustək ‘that book bought / to be bought by me’

(Ex 13) pustək vik-ət ghe-ṇ-ar-ya / ghet-1-el-ya t-ya mə -la ‘to me who buys or will buy / has bought the book’

(Ex 14) ǰ-a- č –i əš-i mət- ə ah-et t-o maṇus

əš-i mət-ə əs-l-el-a/əs-ṇ-ar-a-a t-o maṇus

‘that man whose such opinions are’

(Ex 15) ǰ-a-t bhaǰ-i miḷ -t-e t-o bajar

bhaǰ -i miḷ -ṇ -ar-a bajar

‘the market in which greens are available’;

bhaǰ-i miḷa-1-el-a bajar

‘the market in which greens have been available’ ;

bhaǰ-i miḷ-ay-c–a bajar

‘the market in which greens are to be available’

(Ex 16) ǰ-a-la tap a –1-a ah-e t-o maṇus

tap a-1-el-a maṇus

‘the man whom fever has affected’ ;

ǰ-a-la tap ye-t-o t-o maṇus ;

tap ye-ṇ -ar-a maṇus

‘the man whom fever affects'

(Ex 17) mə-la šikṣək vh-ay-c-ə n-ahi; j-e ma-jh-e vəḍil ah-et ‘I won’t become a teacher, which my father is’ (cf. Opd 1, Condition 4 ; GTR 8a and GTR 8b too, are inapplicable, since NP₁ šikṣək ‘teacher’ fails on GTR 8a, Condition 1 and the Opd for GTR 8b). (GTR 8 continued)

(8b) S1 [NP₁ Complement VAux] = > [S₁] [ AP [Complement*]

NP

Conditions: (1) V = əs / ah / ho ‘be’.

(2) Aux = Aux ending in ah-C, t-C (present), Future, ho-t-C (past), -l-C (past) (where C stands for GNoP, NoP, GNo as the case may be), i.e., where GTR 8a can yield əs-ṇ-ar-GNoC and əs-l-el-GNoC.

(3) When Complement is NP, then S₁ = NP [Complement *] and S₁ is called an Appositive Relative Phrase. In GTR 8a and elsewhere in GTR 8b, S₁ = AP and S₁ is called an Attributive Relative Phrase.

(4) Complement = NP, AP, NP-obl-c-GNoU = Complement*

(5) Where Complement = AdvP, Complement * = AdvP-c-GNoC,

Where Complement –AdvP ending in at, baher, vər, puḍh-e, mag-e, -kəḍ-e, khal-i, -eth-e –ith-e/uṭh-e, ghər-i, məddh-eševṭ-i, etc., Complement* is Complement –il or more coll-oquially Complement-l-GNoU (-e- and –i- being deleted).

(6) GTR 8 has already been applied to any S more inward to NP

than the Operand S.

(7) When Complement is NP, GTR 8b is favoured with the following pairs of Complement and NP :

Complement NP

N-Proper N-Role/N-Namable

N-Role N-proper

N-Proper-Human- N-Proper-Human-

given name surname

N-Role as Appositive to N-Proper sounds foreign (Perso--Arabic or English). N-namable is a common noun like ghər-aṇ-ə ‘agnatic lineage’, nəd-i ‘river’, kutr –a ‘dog’, bhaṣ-a ‘language’, etc.

(8c) Opd : NP [S₁ [ AP ] NP ’ [Det [t…] N]

NP

Opn : NP’ [Det N[ AP N] ]

NP

Where: Det tends to lose –t/ əs - especially if it weakly demonstrative.

Conditions: (1) GTR 8c is favoured if AP is short, characterizing rather than antifying or identifying, quantifying rather than identifying; or if NP is short and simplex (i.e., with zero Det, singular number, and without embedded Relatives).

(2) If N has no N-stem in it and Det is zeroed there is no way to distinguish a fused Attributive Relative Phrase from an ordinary AP (i.e., NPˊ [Det [ʘ] N [AP] from AP) if the syntactic context admits NPs as well as Aps. If N has no N-stem to start with, then there is no way to distinguish a fused Appositive Relative Phrase from an ordinary NP (i.e., NP’ [Det N [NP] ] from NP’ [ N ] N-stem]])

(Ex 18) (j-e) səgḷ -i-kəḍ -un lal ah-e t-e (səphərčənd^ə) ucəl

səgḷ -i-kəḍ -un lal (əs-l-el- ə) (t-e) (səphərčənd ^ə) ucəl (GTR 8a,b)

(t-e) səgḷ -i-kəḍ -un lal (əs-l-el- ə) (səphərčənd ^ə) ucəl (GTR 8c)

‘pick up the apple / the on which is red on all sides’ (if səphərčənd ‘apple’ is deleted, the ( ) around t-e ‘that’ are likely to operate in very colloquial speech; if t-e be replaced by əs-ə it will be no longer NP-

Relativization, but AP – Relativization for which se Section III).

(Ex 19) (j-o) ma-ih-a mitr^ə ah-e t-o ‘ who is my friend –he / that’

ma-jh-a -mitr^{ə (}əs-ṇ-ar-a) t-o (GTR 8a, b)

(t-o) ma –jh-a mitr^ə(əs-ṇar-a) t-o (GTR 8c)

‘my friend; that friend of mine’

This last example of course shows where Noun-stems is Noun Phrases come from – they come from Complements in Relative Clauses.

(Ex 20) t-i-c-ə a-i c-ə nir-əpekṣ^ə

‘her mother’s unselfish love, her unselfish mother’s love’ (her ‘mother’s’, = ‘motherly’ in either case).

(Ex 21) [čhətr-i la bəs- əv-1-el-i] [kimt-i] [paṇḍhr-i] [həsti-dənt-i]

muṭh ‘the costly white ivory handle fitted to the umbrella’ (this is [1][2] [3] [4] [N] ]]]] ; other orders such as 2 1 3 4, 1 2 4 3, etc., are possible but are marked, this being governed by considerations of style and situational context ; another possibility is illustrated by [1[ [ 2 & 3 & 4] [N]]]] where: & stands for aṇi ‘and’ )

The ordering of “Relative S-nodes in the nesting or conjoining deep structure is fairly flexible in Marathi – the unmarked order and the degree of usability of the marked orders depending on considerations similar to GTR 8c, Condition 1 and the culture-bound preconceptions about intrinsic and extrinsic attributes. S1 is not normally repeated in such nesting and conjoining;

(Ex.22) paṇḍhr-i paṇḍhr-i muṭh ‘white white handle’ (this parallels not to:

muṭh paṇḍhr-i ah-e ‘the handle is white’ taken twice but to:

muṭh paṇḍhr-i paṇḍhr-i ah-e where Duplication shows ‘intensity’)

There are some Relative Abbreviations that are too idiosyncratic to be reasonably handled by GT Rule. Lexical Transformations Rules will do the job.

(Lexical Transformation Rule 1)

j-[GNoC] _r t-[GNoC ]_r N-Stem P

j-[GNoC-P] _r t-[GNoC –P] _r

< = j-[GNoC] _r koṇ -i ah-e/bheṭ -e-l/miḷ -e-l –[GNoC] _r P

‘no matter which’ (where: P stands for postposition but not an emphatic particle.)

(Ex. 17) j-o (k-oṇ -i bheṭ -e-l) t-o (maṇus) t-ya-la sang- ət ho-t-a

‘whomsoever he met with was telling him, i.e., everybody was telling him’ (LTR 1 continued)

ǰ -a-c-GNoC t-GNoC where : the two GNoC concord ‘everyone as the case may be’

ǰ-a-c-GNoC t-GNoC where : the first GNoC concord with the implied

N = > ǰ-a-c-GNoC əs-e-l t-GNoC ‘whoever concerned’

nahi/nə -ko/vaṭ -e-l t-GNoC ‘that which isn’t the case / isn’t wanted ; any that one may think of’

(LTR 2)

Proximal deictic with Time-unit-in-a-cycle where the deictic identifies the Time-unit with reference to the present moment can also be used by being referred to some moment removed from the present moment:

(Ex 24) aj ‘today’; aj<= aj j-o var ah-e t-ya var-i ‘on the same day of the week as today’ (similarly: ‘on the same day of the month/year as today’; similarly with: udya ‘tomorrow’ etc.)

Similarly with: Place-deictics.

(Ex 24) aj t-ya-na suṭ -i əs-t-e ‘on any day of the week that is the same as

the day of the week today they have a holiday’ (cf. aj t-ya-na suṭ -i

ah-e ‘today they have a holiday’).

(LTR 3)

N₁ N₂ <= N₂ -obl-c-GNoC N₁

Where: N* and N* are from the following favoured pairs:

N₁ N₂

N-Proper ghər-aṇ- ə ‘agnatic lineage’

N-Proper-Human- N-Proper-Human of N₁’s family on

Given name father

mas-a ‘fish, Name of variety of fish, rice, etc.

tanduḷ ‘rice’, etc. respectively

(Ex 25) dad-o b-a paṇḍurə^ŋg

paṇḍurə^ŋg g-a c-a dadoba

‘Dadoba, son of Pandurang’;

dad-o b-a tərhəḍ -kər

tərkhəḍ -kər-a-nc-a dado –ba

‘Dadoba of the Tarkhadkara’;

Dadoba of the Tarkhadkars’;

dad –oba paṇḍurə^ŋg^ə tərkhəḍ -kər

(full name of the well-known grammarian of Marathi)

(Ex 26) rohu mas-a

rohu c-a mas-a

‘rohu fish’ (but not pimpəl jhaḍ by the side of pimp½-a c-ə jhaḍ and

pimpəl both meaning ‘a papal tree’)

III

Extrapolation by Restatement

The correct interpretation of coreferentiality in the following example (Opd 1, Condition 5,6) forces us to recognize AP- Relativization as distinct from NP-Relativization.

(Ex 27) ǰ -it-k-e k-iti gəhu t-it-k-e tandu ½ ‘as much wheat so much rice, i.e., rice

of that same quantity of which quantity the wheat …’ (coreferentiality

holds, inspite of ‘wheat’ being different from ‘rice’, between the

respective quantity indications)

The paraphrase under Ex 27, however, also suggests that AP-relativization is at bottom not different from the NP-relativization that GTR 1-8 deal with. Actually GTR 3a is quite general not only in the sense that it can be applied to any NP whether it has a relativizing S in it or not, but also in the sense that it is quite parallel to AP-Extraposition. These remarks also apply to AdvP-Relativization and Intensifier P-Relativization.

(Opd 1 Restatement)

Replace NP, NP΄, NP₁respectively by FP, FP΄, FP₁ where: FP (Focalizable Phrase) = NP, AP, AdvP, IntensifierP, Rel and Correl will be redefined in the appropriate manner so as to accommodate:

AP΄ [Det [Indefinite] A [Quality / Quantity / Size / Ordinality]]

k- əs (l), k-it (k) -, k-evḍh-, k-it-v-respectively

AdvP΄ [Det [Indefinite] Adv [Place/Time/Degree/other-Circum/etc.]

k-uṭh-e, k-evha, k-itpət, k-əs-, etc.

AdvP΄ [Det [Definite] Adv [Time –to / Place /etc.]]

AP΄ [[ Det [Indefinite ] Intensifier] [Det A]]

and the like. Proximal h-/y-/ ⊙ are more freely used under AP Correl and AdvP Correl.

GTR 1-8 will also call for suitable adaptations and the setting up of conditions to accommodate for gaps in the isomorphism.

All this of course leads to recognize a parallelism in the constituent structure of Focalizable Phrases.

(GFR 2) FP Specification

FP → Det F

S FP

Where: F = N, A, Adv, Intensifier (but not V ! )

Apart from the adjustments in the Relativization Transformation Family, some LT Rules similar to LTR 1-3 will have to be set up to account for abbreviations like:

(Ex 28) (i) j-əs-a t-əs-a ‘so so’

(ii) i-ith-ə-a ;t-ith-e ‘comme il faut’

(iii) t-o j-əs –a l-ah-i ma-jh-a mul-g-a (əs-av-a t-əs-a) ah-e

‘ he is, as it were, my son’

Confusions between different types of Relativizations must be avoided. The Rel and Correl markings may mismatch or be deceptive in other ways.

(Ex 29) j-e-k-iti gəhu ah-e-t t-e (gəhu) dy-a ‘what little wheat there is – give it’; this may be realized as: j-it-k-e gəhu ah-et t-e (gəhu) dy-a ‘as much wheat there is – give it’

Ex 29 still exhibits NP-realization, in spite of the surface collapse of j-k-A Base to j-Abase.

(Ex 30) ǰ -i- č -at t-o bəs-l-a ho-t-a-t-i khiḍk-i ‘the window in which he was seated’; alternately; ǰ-ith-e-t-o bəs-l-a ho-t-a t-i khiḍk-i, ‘the window where he was seated’

Ex 30 still exhibits NP-realization, in spite of the surface collapse of j-GNoC postposition to j-AdvBase.

(Ex 31) ǰ-it-k-e k-iti gəhu ah-e-t t-it-k-e- (gəhu) dy-a ‘as much wheat there is – give so much’; alternately j-e k-iti gəhu ah-e-t t-it-k-e (gəhu) dy-a ‘what wheat there is – give as much’

Ex 31 still exhibits AP-relativization, in spite of the surface collapse of j-Abase-GNoC to j-GNoC.

(Ex 32) j-o mn-a-t-l-ə ləp-əv-un thev-t n-ahi s-a maṇus; mə-la kal bheṭ-l-a’

I met yesterday a man of the sort that doesn’t hide what’s in his mind’

Ex 32 is, like Ex 31, one of AP-Relativization except that j-o cannot be ‘restored’ to j-əs-l-a without changing sense.

(Ex 33) ma-ǰh-i bəh –iṇ ǰ-i ek-da nigh-un ge-l-i t-i punha a-l-i n-ahi

‘once my sister was gone, she never came again’; alternately:

t-i punha a-l-i n-ahi; ma-jh-i bəh-iṇ ǰ-i ek-da nigh –un ge-l-i t-i

The alternate version with its two occurrence of t-I (first as ProNoun, second as declinable ProAdv) brings out that Ex 33 exhibits AdvP – Relativization, j- and t- acting adverbially.

Ex 34 exhibits not AP-Relativization but IntensifierP – Relativization.

(Ex 34) galič-a [khol-i ǰ-it-k-i k-ah-i lamb ah-e t-it-k-ya peka k-ah-i lamb] ah-e’ the carpet is somewhat long in relation to that extent to which extent the room is long’; more compactly:

galič-a [khol-i ǰ-it –it-k-i lamb ah-e t-ya –pekṣa lamb] ah-e;

even more compactly : galič-a [khol-i pekṣa lamb]ah-e

The respective bracketed portions of Ex 34 have the structure:

AP [IP₁ [PP [IP] [S₁I₂ ] Postp] I₁ ] A]

Where : (1) IP : Intensifier Phrase, I: Intensifier, PP: Postpositional

Phrase

(2) S₁ = [khol-i[ǰ-it-ki] lamb ah-e] with Rel-I₃= ǰ-it-k-i

I₂ = t-it-k-ya = t-ya = ⊙ (Correl)

Postp = pekṣa ‘in relation to’

I₁ = k-ah-i ‘somewhat’ = ⊙

It will be noticed that I₁ does not mean ‘more’. I₁ could have been ədhik ‘more’ with the same result or kəmi ‘less’ with the opposite result. Also, IP₂ could have been tacked straight on to A without using Postp or I₁.

(Ex 35) galič-a [khol-i ǰ-it-k-i lamb ah-et-it-k-a lamb] ah- e’ ‘the carpet is long to that extent to which extent the room is long’; more compactly : galič-a khol-i ǰ-it-k k-a lamb] ah-e

It should be obvious that the more extreme compressions shown under Ex 34 and Ex 35 would be impossible if S₁ were even a slightly more elaborate affair, say:

ǰ-it-k-i lamb khol-i mi½-a-l-i

‘the room long-to-which-extent was available’

On the other hand the more extreme compressions would be forced on us if the whole of Ex 34 or Ex 35 were to act as Relative Clause to t-i khol-i so as to yield the meaning ‘that room than / like which the carpet was more / as long’.

Comparisons of Degree involve us in IP-Relativization.

We just cannot have Postp-Relativization to Marathi. The best we can do is a paraphrase. Suppose the brilliant detective cannot pin down whether the criminal put the bottle on or under the chair yesterday. All that he can say with confidence is the following:

(Ex 36) S₁: t-ya-nə aj ṭebl-a-č-a [k-uṭh-e təri] kəp ṭhev-l-a

S: t-ya-nə kal khurč-i-č -a [S_1] t-ith-e-c] baṭl-i ṭhev-l-i

Thus we get:

t-ya nə kal khurči-č-a [[t-ya-nə aj ṭebl-a_č-a ǰ-ith–e kuṭh-e təri kəp t hev-la] t-ith-e-c] baṭl-i ṭhev-l-i

‘he put the bottle there around the chair yesterday where around the table he put the cup today’

Ex 36 actually exhibits AdvP –Relativization.

Nor can we have Verb Relativization in Marathi.

(Ex 37) t-ya –n ti-la-i-e ke-l-ə te-e mi tu-la ke-l-ə

‘I did to you just what he did to her’

Ex 37 actually exhibits NP-Relativization.

Can the Sentence as a whole take on a Relative S ? The answer to this is, perhaps surprisingly, yes. But this cannot be fitted into GFR 2.

(GFR 3) Circumstantial Insertion

S → Circum [S₁] S΄

Where : (1) S₁ = [Complement [AdvP] NP [Det [Indef] N [xistable / Happenable ]] V [ Exist / Happen ] Aux].

(2) NP and S₁ [are coreferential.

This triggers a transformation.

(GTR 9) Circumstantial Assimilation, obl

Opd: S [Circum [S₁] S΄ [X Y ] ; Opd 1 is not presupposed

Where : X is the first constituent (normally the subject) dominated by S;

Y is the residue which may have previously inserted Circum at the beginning;

S is specified by GFR 3.

opn: S [S΄{X Circum [AdvP ] Y]

(Ex 38) S₁ : bag-e-t kahi jh-a-l-ə ‘something happened in the garden’.

S: [S₁] t-ya –nə nəntər layṭər khiš -a-t ṭhev-l-a ‘[S₁]

[S₁] he later put the lighter in the pocket’

After GTR 9: t-ya-nə bag-e-t nəntər layṭər khiš -a-t ṭhev-l-a

‘in the garden he later put the lighter in the pocket’

Note the difference between English and Marathi. Relative Clauses and Circumstantial ‘normally’ follow their heads in English; in Marathi the Relative clause precedes its head and the Circumstantial precedes the bulk (i.e., Y in GTR 9) of its head.

(Ex 39) t-ya-nə nəntər bag-e-t layṭar khiš -a-t ṭhev-l-a

‘Later in the garden he put the lighter in the pocket’

Note the difference in the status of AdvP bag-e-t ‘in the garden’ as Circum and AdvP khiš -a-t ‘in the pocket’ as one of the Complements of the V ṭhev ‘put’. GFR 3 permits nesting-the more intrinsic the Circumstance the more inward it is normally placed. (Compare the order in Ex 38 and Ex 39).

GFR 3 is probably a special case of a more general rule in which Neg and other elements figure in place of Circum.

The next extrapolation to be considered is the possibility of Multiple Relativization.

(Opd 1 Restatement continued)

There may be more than one FP under S and correspondingly more than one FP₁ in S1. That is to say, Operand S may be a transform of the following sort:

S* S* S_1.... FP* FP**...

X * FP * Y* X** FP** Y**

..FP₁*..FP₁**...

S₁ FP΄* S₁** FP΄**

X₁ FP₁* Y₁ ^* X₁ ** FP₁ Y₁ ^**

Where S* = S**; S₁* = S**; on the other hand : FP** _≠ FP** ;

FP₁*_≠ FP₁** (Ex 40)

S₁ : koṇ-i kah-i iččh-i-1 ‘someone or other will desire something or other’

S : [S₁ ] t-ya-la [S₁ ] t-e-mi½-u de ‘let him get it’

After GTR la : j-o koṇ-i j-e kah-i iččh-i-l ; t-ya-la t-e mi½-u de

‘whoever whatever desires, let him get it’ (the English gloss, it may be

noted, turns S1 into a Circumstantial of the sort specified by GFR 3 and

GTR 9)

(Ex 41) ǰ-a maṇs – a la j-e-bəkis mi½-a-l-ə ho-t-i t-o maṇus t-ya bəkṣis-a

vər khuṣ ho-t-a ‘the man who got the prize was happy to get the prize

he got’.

The gloss for Ex 41 in English, which does not permit Multiple Relativization, of course recalls the Emmon Bach Conundrum. A more literal though un-English gloss would be ‘Which man which prize got that man was happy with that prize’.

The extrapolation now to be considered takes out a skeleton of long standing out of the linguist’s cupboard: the so-called Sentential Complementation. To understand its nature we have to go back to GFR2. Normally S₁ and S residue can change roles with suitable adaptation of Det of the respective focalizable phrases.

(Ex 42) mi ti-nə ǰ-a koṇ-t-ya pustək-a č-i mag-ṇ-i ke-1-i te jaḍ pustək vik-ət ghet-lə ‘I bought that book which she asked for’

This is of course by no means a paraphrase of Ex 6; though it could but needn’t be referring to the same events. The reasons for this difficulty will become apparent later. Such a difficulty will not arise if both Focalizable Phrases are carrying Det *Definite*.

(Ex 43) ǰ-i/t-i mi ba-i roj aṭh tas kam kər-ay-č-i t-i/ǰ-i mi ba-i aj don tas-a-t dəm-un jat-e ‘I who used to work for eight hours a day am tired out in two hours today (ǰi….ti) ; ‘I who am tired out today in two hours used to work for eight hours a day (ti….ji)’

Now can we look for such reversion of roles between S1 and the residual S in GFR 3? Compare Ex 44 with Ex 38 keeping this in mind.

(Ex 44) [t-ya-nə nəntər layṭər khiš a-t ṭhev-1-a;] t-e bag-e-t jh-a-l-ə] ‘he later put the lighter in the pocket; that happened in the garden’; OR‘ that he later put the lighter in the pocket happened in the garden’

(Ex 45) [t-ya-nə nəntər layṭəer khiš-a-t ṭhev-1-a;] j-e bag-e-t jh-a-l- ə ‘he later put the lighter in the pocket, which happened in the garden’;

The first-mentioned gloss for Ex 44 is of course not under consideration here; incidentally it calls for a different sentence-tone than the one we normally have for extra-posed phrases put at the beginning. Ex 44 under the second interpretation has a front-extra-posed abbreviated Relative Clause. Compare Ex 45 with Ex 44 and Ex 38. Ex 45 is closer in meaning to Ex 38. But in respect of form Ex 45 is closer to Ex 44, in that, in both Ex 44 and Ex 45, the bracketed clause is appositive to a Noun Phrase (t-e and j-e respectively). The apposition is essentially of the sort described in GTR 8b, especially Condition 7.

The following version of Ex 44 is unacceptable which would keep the Relative Clause intact.

(Ex 44, hypothetical version) * [ [j-e [ t-ya-nə nəntər khiš -a-t ṭhev-l-a] ah-e] t-e]

bag-e-t jh-a-l- ə,

Ex 45 is actually a Minor Sentence in which an NP stands by itself as a Sentence:

(Ex 45, Structure) S [ NP [ NP ΄ [ S]] NP ˝΄] ; S₁ [ j-NP₁ X₁ Y₁ ˝] (where

GTR 4 has been obligatory applied to NP and NP₁ could be t-e or zero)

In structures of this type S₁ is usually, perhaps always, ‘non-restrictive’.

(GTR 4, Restatement)

Add one more Condition : Normally opt, but obl if NP ΄ = [ S₁ [ NP [S] ] NP˝]

where j- has been inserted in S₁

Before we tackle the main question, let us go back to GTR 8c, Condition 2 which seems to promise that we can characterize all occurrences of N-stems inside Noun Phrases as appositives. In fact this has been seriously proposed. But this proposal as well as the similar proposal to introduce all Sentences under NP (other than the Relatives of course) as appositives land us in infinite regress. What we need is a restatement of Noun Specification.

(GFR 1, Restatement)

(1a) → Det N

S NP

Condition: If S is present, the operand NP conforms to Opd 1.

(1b) Det → Indefinite / Definite, Relative / Interrogative / … (Det-stem)

Condition: Det = Det-stem obligatorily if N = S.

(1c) N → Gender, Number, Case, Existable / Happenable, Human / Non-

human, …. (N-stem /S)

Condition: N = [ N-stem/S ] only if the Operand NP appears in the

Environment S[ -V [ Exist / Happen …] Aux]. Typical verbs are əs/ah/ho

‘exist’, ho/jha ‘happen’, ghəḍ ‘happen’.

(GTR 10) Distancing of N

(10a) Opd : S [ …NP […N ] …] Opd 1 is not presupposed

Opn : S [ …NP […⊙] …] ; ki [ N] (Viz)

(10b) Opd: S [ …FP […F ] …]

Opn: S [ …FP [[…F ] Viz ] …]

Where : Viz = mhəṇ - ǰe, mhәṇ -un

Conditions for (10a, b) : (1) Both bring about a certain distancing – it is

As if the listener is invited to look at N.

(2) If F = N = [N-Stem], GTR 10a doesn’t apply; GTR 10b is opt; it is

favoured if V-Aux = əs-t-GNoP.

(3) If F = N = [S] , GTR 10 is obl; either 10a or 10b applies. However,

GTR 10 does not apply if GTR 8d follows. (GTR 8d is yet to be stated.)

(4)Conditions 2, 3 presuppose that S is specified by GFR 1c, restated,

Condition. Elsewhere other conditions apply.

Now let us look at some typical sentences in which N [N-stem] and N [S] are permitted in the deep structures of the sort visualized in CSR 1c, Condition.

(Ex 46) t-e pustək ho-t-i t-i-nə t-e magit-l-i ‘There was that book. She asked for it’.

(Ex 47) k-oṇ-t-ə ek pustək ho-t-ə t-i-nə t-e magit-l- ə. ‘There was a book. She asked

for it.

(Ex 48) k-ah-i ek pustək mhəṇ-un əs-t-ə t-i roj t-e ek mag-t-e. ‘There is such a thing as a book. She asks for one daily.’

(Ex 49) k-ah-I ek pustək mhəṇ-un əs-t-ə j-e koṇ-t-ə pustək əs-t-e t-e-t-i-la avəḍ-t-ə. ‘There is such a thing as a book. Whatever is a book she likes it’.

These are examples of N [N-stem] sentences – respectively serving as starting points of Definite Specific, Indefinite Specific, Indefinite Non-Specific Non-Generic, and Indefinite Non-Specific Generic reference.

Now for some N [S] sentences.

(Ex 50) [ t-o cuk –1-a] mhəṇ -un k-ah-i jhal-ə

əs-ə kah-i jha-l ə ki [t-o cuk-1-a]

‘something happened – namely, he erred’

(Ex 51) [ t-o cuk –t-o] mhəṇ -un k-ah-i ho-t- ə

əs- ə kah-i ho-t-ə ki [t-o cuk-t-o]

‘such a thing happens –namely, he errs’

These then are the atomic propositions so to say that constitute the referential infrastructure of a discourse. They necessitate the awkward structures NP [Det N [Nstem] ] and NP [Det N [S] ] – precisely because this is the way to eliminate them from the rest of language. The skeleton in the cupboard turns out (pardon the mixing of metaphors) to be skeletal key, after all.

On the other hand, N and S enter only through appositives elsewhere. We must resist the temptation of recognizing NP [S] and NP [S N] on the same footing. The problems raised by Factivity have to be tackled by frontal attack. They cannot be ‘fixed’ by doctoring the NP specification Rule as Kiparsky does. Parenthetically, I may suggest that GFR 1c may have to provide for, say,

N [ Fact / Nonfact / Counterfact]

In the same way we have already provided for

N [Existable / Happenable]

All such features will be relevant when coreferentiality is defined for the NP1 of atomic propositions and the NP΄ to which they are in apposition.

Here are some example of NP [S1 NP [Det N]] where S₁ is a relativizable atomic proposition.

(Ex 52) j-e k –oṇ -t- ə ek pust ə k ho-t- ə t-e’ ‘what book existed – that’

pustək əs-ṇ-ar-ə / əs-l-e-l-ət-e ‘book-being that’ (GTR 8a)

pustək t-e ‘book that’ (GTR 8b)

t-e pustək əs-ṇ-ar- ə / əs-l-el- ə ‘that book be-er’ (GTR 8a, 8c)

t-e pustək ‘that book’ (GTR 8b, 8c)

(Ex 53) j-e h-e jha-l-ə t-e ….; ki t-o cuk-l-a ‘what happened – that …; that he erred’

(GTR 10a)

jha-l-el-ə t-e; ki t-o cuk-l-a ‘happen-er that; what he erred’ (GTR 8a, 10a)

t-o cuk-la-t-e ‘he erred-that’ (GTR 8b)

t-e jha-l-el- ə …; ki t-o cuk-l-a ‘tat happen-er; that he erred (GTR 8a, 8c, 10a)

te…; ki t-0 cuk-l-a ‘that…; that he erred’ (GTR 8b, 8c, 10a)

(Note that GTR 10 is obligatory at some points, only GTR 10a is illustrated here.)

It will be seen that such appositives are subject to GTR 8b, which needs to be restated.

Further, sentential appositives are also subject to another abbreviation. (GTR 8, Restatement)

Let 8a be relabeled 8a1 and 8b be relabeled 8b1. Then add:

Opd: NP [S1 [NP1 [ Det N] V Aux ] NP ΄]

Opn: (8a2) NP [S1 [ AP [ N V- ṇ -ar-/l-el-GNoC] ] NP ΄]

(8b2) NP [S₁ [ NP [ N ] ] NP ΄]

Conditions: (1) N = N-stem/S; if N = N-stem, : NP ΄ = Det N [⊙]

(2) V = [Exist / Happen]; e.g., əs/ah/ho ‘exist’ ho/jha ‘happen’,

ghəd ‘happen’

(3) Not applying GTR 8a2, 8b2 is ponderous; 8a2 is more ponderous

than 8b2.

(8d) Opd: NP [ S1[ NP [S ΄ [ …Aux ] NP ΄ ] ] ] ; GTR 10 hasn’t been applied to S.

Opn: NP [ S₁[ NP [S ΄ [ …Aux *] NP ΄ [⊙] ] ] ]

Where: Aux and Aux* correlate in the following manner:

Aux Containing Aux* Context

-t- -t-e - ve ½ -i

-av- -a-y- -la,c-

-l- -l-ya- -nəntər, vər, c--

-av- - ṇ -n-sg-C -vər, saṭh-i, etc.

also with direct Case

any -i/e- -pəryyənt ^ə (s)to

any zero

Condition: If Aux* = zero, then NP ΄ = [əs-GNoC] and not zero and the

Subject under S ΄ is obligatorily deleted.

When any sentence appears in S₁, as coreferential to NP, the Correl can be y/h- or əs- or ⊙ by the side of t-. So GTR 10, needs to be restated.

(GTR 1, Restatement)

Add (1d):

(1d₁) t- = > h/y- / əs- / ⊙

Conditions: (1) S1 = [NP1 [Det N [S₁ ] ] V Aux]

(2) Obligatorily t = > ⊙ if S₁ has undergone GTR 10b, and 8b2 (so that NP

ends up as NP [S ΄ Viz] )

(3) Optionally t = > h/y- / əs- elsewhere; unless GTR 8d has been applied.

Conditions governing the choice between mhəṇ -un, mhəṇ - ǰe, t-e, h-e, *s- and the use of ki need to be investigated.

(Ex 54) [t-o/t-ya-nə cuk-t-e] ve½ -i ‘at the time of him erring’

[…. Cuk-a-y-] la ‘for him to err’

[….cuk-l-y-a] nəntər ‘after him erring’

[… cuk-ṇ -ə] ‘he being in error’

[…. –e-]pəryyənt^ə ‘up to him erring, until he errs / erred’

Compare: t-ya-c-ə cuk-ṇ-ə ‘his being in in error’

(Ex 55) i-kḍe bəs; t-i kḍe utḥ; s-t-ya-nə ke-l- ə

‘sit here, get up there- so he did’

(Ex 56) [t-o cuk-l-ya ] c- ə mə -la ṭhauk n-vh –t- ə

‘I didn’t know of him being in error’

An idiomatic adjustment has caused some confusion in the discussion of Sentential Appositives in the past.

(GTR 11) –c-deletion opt

Opd: NP [S1 [AP [NP*-obl-c-GNoC ] Det N ] ]

Opn: obl-c = > dir

Conditions: (1) Apply when N = kəlpəna ‘idea’, təkrar ‘complaint’, həkigət

‘account’, šəŋk-a ‘doubt’ but not when N = karəṇ ‘cause, reason’,

ci ḍ ‘resentment’, etc.

(2) NP* = [NP [S] NP [ h-/t-] ] or = [ h-/t].

(Ex 57) (t-o cuk-el) h-ya- č -i/h-i kəlpəna mə-la ho-t-I ‘I had a notion of that /that

he will err; I had a notion of that / I had that notion’

Sentential Appositives are subject to one more rather peculiar Relative Abbreviation involving AdvP.

First, we need a GF Rule to bring about the following pairs (which are not like, say ǰ-evha…..t-evha ‘when….then’) :

j- ər ….t- ər ‘if ….then’

j- ər -i….t- ər -i ‘though…yet’

j- əṇu (k-ah-i) …. əs- ə ‘as if so’

j- əs- ə (k-ah-i) … əs- ə ‘as if ….so’

(GFR 4) AdvP Specifications (among other things; compare GFR2)

AdvP 8 NP-P [NP [ S NP ΄ [ Det N] ] P]

(Ex 58) t-o cuk-1-a h-ya karṇ -a saṭh-i ‘for the reason that he erred’

Now, the sequence [NP ΄ [Det N] ] P may be represented lexically be certain Adverbs. But the Relative S is attached not to Adv, but to the latent N.

(GFR 4 continued)

Adv P → NP [S] Adv

Where: Adv = mhəṇ ‘for that purpose or reason, therefore’, mhəṇ- ǰe

‘under that condition’, ki ‘under that condition’, t-ər ‘under that condition’,

t-ər‘even under that condition, yet’, əs‘in the manner recalling it’

(the last one also usable adjectivally)

(GTR 12) Appositive Relative Marking opt

Opd : AdvP [NP [S] Adv], OR : AP [NP [S] A]

Where : Adv = t- ər A = t- ə r-i əs-; A= əs-

Opn : Insert correspondingly j- ə r, j- ə r- i, j-əṇu (k-ah-i), j-əṇu (k-ah-i)

at the beginning of S. For əs-, alternatively, insert j-ə-s-

Condition: The resulting pairs are then subject to Relative Simplification

(GTR7) as also Relative Extrapositions (GTR 3b, 4, 5, 6) within certain limits.

(Ex 59)[j- ər/j-r-i/ j- əṇu (k-ah-i)/ j- əs –a (k-ah-i) t-o cuk-l-a] t- ər/ t- ər-i/ s-/ s-‘if he errs then, though he errs yet, as if he erred’.

Relative simplification of j-əs-a k-ah-i ….t-əs-a may lead to confusion.

Actually there are five similar-looking but distinct constructions with əs-, the first three being Appositives and the other two being the Standard Relatives.

(Ex 60) (i) [AdvP [NP [S₁] Adv [əs-] ] ] by GFR 4, GTR 12

(j-əs-ə ) (k-ah-i) mə-la kə½ - ət- əc n-ahi (ə) s-ə tu bol-t-o ah-e-s

‘as if I don’t understand at all – so you’re speaking’

(ii) [AP [NP [S₁] A [əs-] ] ] by GFR 4, GTR 12

(j-s- ə) (k-ah-I) mə -la kə½ - ət- əc n-ahi (ə)s- ə m ə -la jha-l- ə

‘as if I don’t understand at all – so I felt’

(iii) [NP [NP [S1] N []*s-] ] by GTR 8b, Sentential Appositive

m-la kə½ - ət- əc n-ahi (ə) s- ə /h-e pah-un t-o həs-l-a

‘seeing that I don’t understand things, he laughed’

(iv) [AdvP [S₁ AdvP [Adv [əs-] ] ] ] by GFR 2, AdvP-Relativization,

Relative Simplification

(j-s-ə) mə-la kə½-ət- əc n-ahi t- ə s / əs- / əs- tu-la hi kə½ət n-ahi

‘just as I don’t understand things, so you don’t understand’

(v) [AP [S₁AP ΄ [əs-] ] ] by GFR 2, AP –Relativization, Relative

Simplication.

(j-əs-ə) kam mə-la ye-t-ə t-ə s- ə / s- kam t-ya-la hi ye-t-ə

‘what sort of work I can do such work he can do too’

Note that əs- can be colloquially shortened to –s- in (i), (ii), (iii), especially in certain set of phrases; that əs- ə is much rarer that t- əs- ə in (iv) and (v) except in the so-called Non-Restrictive Relativization in cases of the sort illustrated by Ex 32, and in Attributive Relative Phrases; that under (iii) əs-ə and h-e tend to be differentiated: əs-ə for N [Nonfact / Fact] and h-e for N [Fact]; AP under (ii) and (v) is open to nominalization through GTR 8c. Concordwise there are two competing patterns: (a) Suspended Concord (i.e., neuter singular) for all five; (b) Adjectival Concord with an N for (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v).

Constructions (i), (ii) may be used very loosely -əs- acting almost as a recapitulative; as in : dis-e-na-s-a ‘couldn’t -be –seen + as’ (i.e. invisible) həv-a-s-a ‘is-wanted + as (i.e. desirable, that which can be desired)’, vər-č-a- patə½i vər-un əs-a ‘on a high level + as (i.e. as if on a high level, on a high level, so to say)’. Consider also (iii) as in tumh-I ge-l-a-t-s-e? ‘how come you went?’ or how come you went? And tumh-I-s-e ge-l-a-t? ‘how come you went?’ involving a LTR abbreviating S əs- ə ka? ‘S-why so?’

Before we take leave of Sentential Appositives there is the possibility to be considered that the appositives, S with h-, t-, əs, and Viz may be Interrogative or Imperative as much as Assertive. (This is of course not inconsistent with Opd 1, Condition 7, since S appositive is not the same as S₁ but dominated by S₁.) By the side of Ex 61, we have Ex 62, 63, 64 also.

(Ex 61) t-o cuk-1-a h-e mə -lapəṭ l-ə

h-e mə -la pəṭ -l-ə; ki t-o cuk –1-a (mhəṇ -un)

t-o cuk –la mhəṇ -un mə -la pəṭ -l-ə

‘that he erred I came to accept;’

(Ex 62) t-o cuk-l-a ka əš-i šəŋk-a; mə -la a-l-i

əš -i- šəŋk-a mə-la a-l –i; t-o cuk-l-a ka (mhəṇ -un)

t-o cuk-l-a ka mhəṇ -unšəŋk-a; mə -la a-l -i

‘whether he erred I came to doubt (of)’

(Ex 63) k-oṇ cuk-l-a h-e/ t-e mə -la ṭhauk n-ahi

h-e mə -la hauk n-ahi; k-o cuk-la t-e

‘who erred this / that I don’t know’.

(Ex 64) tu cuk –u nko-s əs- ət-ya-nə mə -la saŋgit-l- ə

əs-ə t-ya –nə mə -la sangit-l- ə; ki tu cuk –u nəko-s (mhəṇ -ucn

t-u uk-u nəko-s mhəṇ -un t-ya –nə mə -la saŋgit-l- ə

‘don’t you err-so he told me’

Note that GTR 10 will need a slight restatement.

(GTR 10, Restatement)

Add to Condition (3): If [S] is a Lacunal Question then Viz cannot be

Used with it, thus eliminating one alternative of 10a and the whole of 10b.

Ex 63 is of course distinct from Ex 65

(Ex 65) k-oṇ cuk-l-a t-o puḍh-e ye-i-l

‘who erred will come forward’ (j-o deleted before k- oṇ by GTR 7a1.)

And Ex 62 is distinct from Ex 66, which is exactly like Ex 61.

(Ex 66) t-o cuk-l-a əš -i mə -la šəŋk-a; mə -la a-l-i

əš-i šəŋk-a mə-la a-l-i; ki t-o cuk-l-a mhəṇ-un

t-o cuk-l-a mhəṇ un šəŋk-a; mə-la a-l-i

‘that he erred I came to guess’

Furthermore Ex 62 but not Ex 66 shows c-deletion (GTR 11). əs-i can be restored to h-ya-č-i ‘of this’ in Ex 62 but not in Ex 66.

Polarity question (as in Ex 62) and Lacunal questions (as in Ex 63) appearing as sentential appositives have two interpretations each –N [Question] (as in Ex 62) and N [Answer] (as in Ex 63).

Finally, we come to the so-called Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses. The problem afflicts not only the Relative Clauses attached to NP but also their abbreviated versions yielding Attributive Adjectives and Appositive Nouns (what I have called Relative Phrases).

(Ex 67) ma-jh-a mha-tar-a bap ‘my old father’

(Ex 68) bharət-a č-a məha-mantri indir-a-gandhi ‘Indira Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister’

(Appositive Relative Phrase)

(Ex 69) h-e ləhr-I gay-ək ‘these singers full of whims’ (usual interpretation Non-Restrictive, given the stereotypes about singers among Marathi speakers!)

It also afflicts Relative Clauses attached to AP, AdvP, Intensifier P and their respective abbreviations, and also Circumstantials (inserted by GFR3).

(Ex 70) t-o ek- še əyⁿši senṭi-miṭər unc^{ə ah-e;} ǰ-itk-a unc^ə t-ya –a thor –l-a bhau suddha n-ahi ‘he is 180 centimetres tall, to-which degree even his elder brother is not tall’.

(This incidentally strengthens our proposal for GFR 2.)

Junghare mentions the deletion of Correl as a distinctive feature of the Nonrestrictive. This is less than a half-truth. In the majority of cases (consider Ex 69) there is no overt difference; sentence-tone needs to be investigated but is not likely to amount to much. The only markers are:

(i) Non-Restrictive favours Extraposition of Re1 after Correl (GTR 3b, 4, 6); loss of t by GTR 7a3 (not 7a2); the use of h as Correl when it is after Rel.

(ii) Restrictive favours the use əs- (GTR 1b).

This is of course not to suggest that the distinction is not worth making; it is undoubtedly there but is poorly described as Restrictive / Non-Restrictive, which label suggests a wrong link with the Determiner System. There isn’t any. Since the distinction in question as well as the Determiner contrasts are more perspicuous in English, I shall offer English examples that contradict expectations normally raised by the terms ‘restrictive’ and ‘nonrestrictive’.

(Ex 71) He carries with him a certain notebook that is black.

(Det [Indefinite Specific] with ‘Restrictive’ Relative)

(Ex 72) Could you give me any clue that will reduce the mystery?

(Det [Indefinite Nonspecific Nongeneric] with ‘Restrictive’ Relative)

Ex 43 illustrates ‘Restrictive’ Relative with Det [Definite Specific] ; cf. Ex 6, Ex 67-70 illustrate ‘Non-Restrictive Relatives going with Det [Definite Specific]. They go with other types of Det also.

(Ex 73) He puts too much trust in human-beings, who are a bad lot any way.

(Det [Indefinite Nonspecific Generic] with ‘Non-Restrictive’ Relative)

(Ex 74) Get me some brown paper, with which I shall wrap this parcel (Det

[Indefinite Nonspecific Nongeneric] with ‘Non-Restrictive’ Relative)

A better labeling than Restrictive / Non-Restrictive Relatives will be Inbuilt and Appended Relatives. Indeed Appending is very close to Paranthesis. Inbuilt Relatives are a part of the message carried by the sentence that dominates the FP that dominates the Inbuilt Relatives. S and S1 are linked by the logician’s ‘such that’. S presupposes S1. Appended Relatives, on the other hand, offer information or opinion that is incidental to the message. They cannot, therefore, be looked upon simply as camouflaged and Coordinates.

(GFR 5) Appended Relative

S₀ → Appendage S S₁

Where: S and S₁ have FP and FP₁ respectively such that FP and FP₁ are

Coreferential and have Determiners that concord in respect of

Specificity and Genericity.

Logically, as with coordinates linked by and, S₀ entails S₁.

(GTR 13) Appended Relativization opt

Opd: S specified by GFR 5

Opn: S […FP [S1 [….[j*-FP₁] ….] FP ΄] …]

Where: j* = j [Appended]

What about Definiteness? GP1 (i.e. Rel) always carries Det [Definite], while FP ΄ (i.e. Correl) may or may not carry Det [Definite]. This is just the reverse of Inbuilt Relatives, where Rel may be Definite or Indefinite, but Correl has to be Definite. Inbuilt Relatives can be left as they are. Some of the Relativization Transformations will have to carry conditions that differentiate between j- with and without [Appended] ; this should account for the sporadic overt marking.

Thus, while Specificity and Genericity with their three-way contrast (Specific, Generic, Neither) bear some ‘deep’ semblance to the logical quantifiers (iota, universal, existential), the other two pairs Definite / None definite, and Inbuilt / Appended define the cohesion of communication, the quanta in which the universe of discourse and the truth claims are being staked out. The first pair is more Semantic, the latter two pairs are more Grammatical.

IV

It’s time we draw a moral

First, language universals must be hard-won to be genuine. Methodologically, we must proceed as if we are not very hopeful or even anxious to find language universals. If we still keep running into some, they must be worth celebrating. If Marathi or Hindi are not varieties of Sanskrit, nor are they dialects of English with trivially different surface-realizations. As long as there is no clear evidence to the contrary why postulate [Det N S] for Marathi rather than [S Det N]? Just because English has [Det N S]? There must be enough appreciation of the idiosyncrasies of a language. The close association of the Indefinite k- series with the Relative j- series and the occurrence of unsimplified sequences by the side of those achieved by GTR 7 will then be given their due. The reward of an honest ‘data-orientation’ is an unexpected clarification and strengthening of our model language. Thus, while the Marathi Determiner system is pretty murky compared to the English counterpart, the reverse is probably true of the Relativization System (including Appositives – sentential or otherwise).

A related point is the recent neglect of ‘surface’ possibly, a pernicious result of taking the deep-surface metaphor too seriously. Listening to some recent argumentation, one would come to believe that language takes some perverse delight in camouflaging ‘deep’ semantic structures by ‘surface’ syntactic structures! The ‘transformations’ that take us from the depth to the surface must be as few and simple as possible. Further, they must make some sense in terms of the communicative function. Consider, with this thing in view, the Antecedent-Copying of Junghare in comparison with the Correl-NP’ Residue in the operatum of GTR 3b; consider also GTR 3a, b and the conditions thereof. If two forms look different, you must assume that they are differently used till the contrary is proved.

The Lexicon is much more than a list of morphemes and idioms; it is a list of all the irregularities (as Bloomfield would say) or nipātas (as ancient Indian grammarians would say). The GFR and GTR capture the basic generalities, the ‘significant generalizations’ (the sāmānya kāryas) in terms of the Operand, the Operation, and the Context. The Conditions and the LTR plug the leaks and mop up the nipātas. Writing grammars is, like politics, the art of the possible-and not the art of sweeping things under the carpet of elegant design.

In writing a paper rather than a whole grammar it is quite legitimate to carve out a chunk for intensive study. Unfortunately this self-imposed myopia may lead the analyst to miss seeing the woods for the trees. If we tried to guess from the expanse of the territory investigated the elaborateness of the resulting map, we have to reverse the architect Gropiu’s dictum and say, More is less.

But this is not the whole story. Not only is there probably an optimal size for the chunk. The methodology of presentation has to observe a somewhat opposite principle. The description of language should be cast in parts or subparts (or components, to use the currently used hardware metaphor) in such a way that each part and subpart is as self-contained as possible. In the maintaining of cost accounts, imposing ordering conditions (apply before or after, don’t apply if) over and above the inherent order, imposing elaborate structural conditions on the Operand (especially conditions calling for the ‘or’ brackets { }), or imposing Context sensitivity add up to the cost in that they add to the wiring. If we can make the Relativization. Transformation Family independent of the problems of Pronominalization, Word-order, and so forth, it is a net gain. Thus, if Relativization analysis doesn’t force you to take up a position on the status of Pronominalization or on V, S, O order, don’t. But, honestly, this is more than the methodological wisdom of not putting all one’s eggs in one basket. There is also an underlying belief about natural language.

Language is probably more like a federal structure whose parts are relatively autonomous than like a monolithic structure where “tout se tient” with a vengeance. Such a federal structure will account for the fact that language can be learned piecemeal. Hence too the persistent appeal of hypotheses claiming at least a qualified autonomy for phonology (and phonological change), for grammar, for lexicon, and for semantics. When Harris showed by practice that grammar doesn’t have to worry about phonology all the time as Trager and Smith seemed to claim, or when it was shown that a componential analysis of certain vocabulary domains like kinship could be usefully carried out without worrying about the rest of language, or when syntax was separated as a ‘deep’ matter from ‘surface’ morphology – there was a sense of relief. On the other hand, the respective downfalls of autonomous phonology and autonomous grammar, the inroads of recursivity into the neat separation of ranks (size-levels), the exposure of the inadequacy of the building-block view of the phoneme – all these have left the linguist a little uneasy. But he need not feel uneasy, if we look upon these convulsions not as a blow for the monolithic view, but simply as rejected false starts in correctly locating the natural seams of language. (After all, the division between concrete and abstract phonology is staging a comeback – at a slightly different place.)

But of course we are not drawing several morals. All this adds up to a single moral. The unity of linguistic analysis is the unity of a basic tool kit and not the unity of an excessively constrained and constricting model of whatever persuasion.

COLOPHON

My sincere thanks are due to Mrs. Indira Y. Junghare for providing me with the stimulus and to Mr. V.S. Dongre for bringing –s-GNoC Formations to my notice.

The recent use of ‘Appositive’ for ‘Appended’ is careless, and probably due to the fact that Appositive Relative Phrases (other than Sentential Appositives) tend to be Appended rather than Inbuilt (as in Ex 68).

Those interested in evolving a modern Indian Sanskrit-based terminology may consider the following suggestions.

GFR vigaṭhana-sūtra

GTR purangaṭhana-sūtra

LSR parigaṭana-sūtra

LTR nipātana-sūtra

Operand sthānin

Operation kārya

Operatum ādeša (Opd as it appears ‘after’ the Opn)

Context nimitta

Where : jñtavya

Condition šart

Obligatory Operation nitya kārya

Optional operation vikalpa (-kārya)

Example udāharaūa (which ‘confirms’ the rule)

But: / Counterexample pratyudāharana (which ‘escapes’ the rule)

Exception apavādabhūta (which ‘disconfirms’ the rule and therefore calls

for modification in Opd, Opn, Context, or Condition so that it is

converted into a mere counterexample)

Definition paribhāṣa (e.g. Our definition of Opd 1, of Pc and so on)

Relative saṁbandhī

Correlative saṁbandhita

Inbuilt anusyūta (sewn-in)

Appended anuṣaṅgika

Relative phrase (attributive / appositive) saṁbandhi padabandha (višeṣaṇvat /

Saṁjñāvar)

Relative Clause saṁbandhī upavākya

REFERENCE:

Junghare, Indira Y. 1973. Restrictive relative clauses in Marathi. IL 34 : 4. 251-62.

[Received 27 December 1973]

COLOPHON

This was published in Indian Linguistics 34:4:24-300 December 1973.