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-/ 1st/2nd/Proper]
(2) Correl = Det [Def [t-] [(1st/2nd/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 (səphərčəndə)
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 mitrə ah-e t-o ‘ who is my friend
–he / that’
ma-jh-a -mitrə (əs-ṇ-ar-a) t-o (GTR
8a, b)
(t-o) ma –jh-a mitrə(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-əpekṣə
‘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 paṇḍurəŋg
paṇḍurəŋg
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 paṇḍurəŋgə 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 [S1] 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* S1....
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-]pəryyəntə ‘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 uncə ah-e; ǰ-itk-a uncə 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.