PARTICIPANT
PLACEMENT IN ALGONOQUIAN AND GEORGIAN
- Introduction:
- A Conspectus of the Algonquian data
- Potowatomi analysis
- Red Pheasant Cree analysis
- Blackfoot analysis
- Loose ends
- Georgian data and analysis
- General comments
0. What follows is essentially
an exercise in restatement. The
data–namely, certain paradigmatic. The data–namely, certain paradigmatic
sets in phonemic transcription and
accompanied by glosses – have been taken over from others.*
*A brief account of how this paper came about
will not be out of place. The
Potawatomi analysis was first arrived at in its essentials in 1957
during my study at Cornell. The
Red Pheasant Cree material. Was recently made available to me through
the kindness of Richard S. Pittman, who encouraged me into extending
my analysis to Cree and Blackfoot and permitted me to use his material
in this paper. In each case I worked out my analysis (including the re-tabulation
of the corpus) first before consulting other treatments – Hockett’s
and Pike’s of Potawatomi; Gleason’s, Meeussen’s, and Pittaman’s of
Cree; and Meeussen’s of Blackfoot (C.c. Uhlenbeck on Blackfoot being
inaccessible). In retrospect
I notice some of the germs of my analysis anticipated in these treatments. The present treatment, however, is believed
to the “sufficiently different from each.
The Georgian data and some elements of the analysis wee taken
from Tschenskéli; Vogt was inaccessible.
The rest were utilized in one way or another: C.F. Hockett,
Potawatomi – I – IV, IJAL 14. 1-10, 63-73, 139-49, 213-25 (1948).
(Especially III; I have taken the liberty of substituting the
symbol ə for his u.); K.L. Pike and Barbara Erickson, Conflated
field structures in Potawatomi and in Arabic, IJAL 30.
201-12 (1964); H.A. Gleason, Jr., Introduction to descriptive
linguistics, New York: Holt, 1st ed. 1955, pp. 116-22,
151, 2 (2nd ed., 116-22,230-1); A.E. Meeussen, Tabulation
of the Independent Indicative in Algonquian, SIL 15, 19-23 (1960)
(based on Gleason’s Cree data and Uhlenbeck’s Blackfoot data, the
source of my Blackfoot data); R.S. Pittman, The fused subject and
object pronouns of Red Pheasant Cree, Linguistics (hague: Mouton,
in a forthcoming number. He has used Gleason’s phonemic notation without
change – the /a/ being phonetically a rather low [ə]); C.C. Uhlenbeck,
Some general aspects of Blackfoot morphology, Verhandelingen der Koninklije. Akademie van Wetenschappen afted. Lett. 14:5
(Amsterdam); idem, A Concise Blackfoot grammar based on material from
the Southern Peigans, VKAW 41 (1938); Kita Tschenskéli, Einfuhrung
in die georgische Sprache, Zürich: Amirani, 2 vols, 1958 (especially
I. 3374-5); Hans Vogt, Esquisse do la structure grammaticale do géorgien
moderne, NTS 9-10 (1936).
I
am grateful to Professors Hockett and Pittman for encouragement
and comments.
The indication of subject and object
as a part of verb inflection in Algonquian languages has always been
regarded as a bafflingly complex matter, something of a challenge
to the analyst’s ingenuity. The
present attempt is one more such.
The
Georgian situation offers some striking similarities and dissimilarities
and has, therefore, been included as a pendant.
1. We are going
to consider portions of the inflectional paradigms of the transitive
animate verbs in three languages of the A1-gonquian family–Potawatomi,
Red Pheasant Cree, and Blackfoot.
Table 1 presents the indicative non preterite mode in the independent
order in each language. The
verb-stems are respectively wāpam see, wapəm see, and
tsiksipo bite. The
subject and the object indications in the glosses have been symbolized
as follows: 2) second person, I first person, 3 third person,
21 the so – called inclusive plural of first person, p plural (its
absence implying singular), 3′ obviated third person, 3″
double – obviated third person; ( ) enclose optional features; - separates
the preceding subject from the following object.
Thus 2-1 p means you (sing.) V us (excl).
The hyphens anticipate the morph boundaries of the analysis presented
later. The reason for putting
second person first will be apparent later.
The matching paradigms in Potawatomi
for the inductive preterit, the negative non-preterit, and the negative
preterit modes of the independent order are not reproduced here1. but have been taken into account in the analysis
that non-preterite mode in the independent order reproduced in Table.
1.ollows. For Red Pheasant
Cree and Blackfoot the analysis is confined to the indicative non-preterite
mode in the independent order reproduced in Table 1.
2) The basic commuting elements in the Potawatomi paradigm are the following:
V 0 The transitive animate verb {wapəm} see {someone}.
k-1, n-1, w-1 The three pronominal elements; the last one happens to be realized
as zero in this paradigm.
a+1, b+3, c+1, d+1 The first is zero; the other three are morphemes
sometimes realized as {én1} {a,}{əko} respectively.
P+4, q+4, r+4 The first is zero; the other two are morphemes
sometimes realized as {nan}, {əmwa) respectively.
X
+ 6, y + 6 The morphemes sometimes realized as {ək}, {ən2}
respectively.
P+5, N+2, The morphemes {Preterite)} and {negative} respectively;
non-preterite and indicative are unmarked.
The glosses of these elements (excluding
{wapəm)}, {preterite}, {negative}, but including the zero elements)
will be provided later. The
31 x 2 x 2 combinatory possibilities are set out in Table 2 (to be
read from left to right). This
is the first, grammatical step.
The second step is to obtain the non-distinctive
left-to-right order of the morphs. Rearrange the elements in accordance
with the numerical exponents (-1, +1, +2, +, +4, +5, +6 in that order).
The third step is morphophonemies.
V (wapəm) wapəm in – ap#; wapm elsewhere, {k} k.{n}
n.{w} . before the phoneme w; w elsewhere2 b (ən1)
en. e {a} a. d {əko} əko in _px, _py; _ək elsewhere
(a is of course ʘ.)
q {nan} nan with d present and P absent; əmna in N – P,
a – P, e – P; əmna in b-P; məna in d-P, əymən
with a preeeding and P not following; mən elsewhere, r {əmwa}əmwa
with ad absent and P present; wa either with a present and P absent
or with d present; əm elsewhere, (p is of course(ʘ)).
X {ək} ək y (ən2) ən.
P {preteried} ənapən with
both a and p present; napən in bp - ; pən finally elsewhere;
pənin elsewhere. N negative əs.no
in – b, əsi in a – s i elsewhere.
There is a general morphophonemic
rule; a after a vowel drops out.
The glosses can be set forth as follows.
The whole series of elements from k to y above do duty for
what we are accustomed to treat as categories of person, number, and
diathesis (the last including voice). Collectively these elements may be said to
effect the identification and placement of the participants in the
action. The first group k, n, w identifies the first
participant (with out specifying whether he is agent or goal).
Specifically:
The addressee
is involved … k
This is not the case:
But
the speaker is involved ….n
Nor
is the speaker involved…w
The second group a, b, c, d identifies the counter participant
in relation to the first. The
action is between the addressee and the speaker.
With
the addressee as agent …a
With
the address as goal …b
This is not the case;
With the first participant as agent …e
Table
– 1
Algonquian
Paradigms
|
POTAWATOMI
|
RED
PHEASANT CREE
|
BLACKFOOT
|
|
Action
between second and first persons:
|
|
2-1
|
(1)
|
k-wapәm
|
2-1
|
(1)
|
ki-w
āpam-in
|
2-1
|
(1)
|
kii-tsisipo-ki
|
|
2p-1
|
(2)
|
k-wapm-әm
|
2p-1(p)
|
(2)
|
ki-w
āpam-in āw āw
|
2p-1(p)
|
(2)
|
ki-tsiksipo-ki-xpi-nan
|
|
2(p)-Ip
|
(3)
|
k-wapәm-әymәn
|
2-1p
|
(3)
|
ki-w
āpam-i-n ān
|
2-1p
|
(3)
|
ki-tsiksipo-ki-xpu-au
|
|
1-2
|
(4)
|
k-wamp-әm
|
1-2
|
(4)
|
ki-w
āpam-it-in
|
1-2
|
(4)
|
ki-tsiksip
|
|
1-2p
|
(5)
|
k-wapm-әm-әm
|
1(p)-2p
|
(5)
|
ki-w
āpam-it-ināw āw
|
1(p)-2p
|
(5)
|
ki-tsiksipo-xpi-nan
|
|
1p-2(p)
|
(6)
|
k-wapm-mәn
|
1p-2
|
(6)
|
ki-w
āpam-it-i-nān
|
1p-2
|
(6)
|
ki-tsiksipo-xpu-au
|
Action
between second and third persons:
|
2-3
|
(7)
|
k-wapm-a
|
2-3
|
(7)
|
Ki-wā pam-ā
w
|
2-3
|
(7)
|
Ki-tsiksip-au
|
|
2-3′
|
(8)
|
k-apm-a-n
|
2-3′
|
(8)
|
Ki-wā pam-im-ā
wa
|
2-3
|
(8)
|
Ki-tsiksip-a-inai
|
|
2p-3
|
(9)
|
k-wamp-a-wa
|
2p-3′
|
(9)
|
Ki-wā pam-ā
w-āw
|
2p-3
|
(9)
|
Ki-tsiksip-au-au
|
|
2p-3
|
(10)
|
k-wamp-a-wa-n
|
2p-3
|
(10)
|
Ki-w ā pam-im- ā
w-
ā wa
|
|
|
|
|
2-3p
|
(11)
|
k-wapm-a- -k
|
2-3p
|
(11)
|
Ki-w ā pam- ā
w-ak
|
2-3p
|
(10)
|
Ki-tsiksip-a-iau
|
|
2p-3p
|
(12)
|
k-wapm-a-wa-k
|
2p-3p
|
(12)
|
Ki-wā pam- ā
w-āw-
ak
|
2p-3p
|
(11)
|
Ki-tsipsip-au-a-iau
|
|
3(′)-2
|
(13)
|
k-wapm- ə k
|
3-2
|
(13)
|
Ki-w ā pam-ik
|
3-2
|
(12)
|
Ki-tsiksipo-k
|
|
3(′)-2p
|
(14)
|
k-wapm- ə k-wa
|
3′ -2
|
(14)
|
ki-w ā pam-iko-yiwa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-2P
|
(15)
|
ki-w ā pam-ikow-
ā w-
|
3-2P
|
(13)
|
Ki-tsiksipo-ko-au
|
|
3p-2
|
(15)
|
k-wapm- əko-k
|
3′ -2p
|
(16)
|
ki-w ā pam-ikow-
ā w- ā wa
|
|
|
|
|
3p-2p
|
(16)
|
k-wapm- ək-wa-k
|
3p-2
|
(17)
|
ki-w ā pam-ikw-ā
k
|
3P-2
|
(14)
|
ki-tsiksipo-k-iau
|
|
|
|
|
3p-2p
|
(18)
|
ki-wā pam-ikow-ā
w-āk
|
3P-2P
|
(15)
|
ki-tsiksipo-ko-a-iau
|
Action
between the first two persons and third person:
|
21-3(′ /p)
|
(17)`
|
k-wapm-a-mən
|
21-3
|
(19)
|
ki-wāpam-ā-naw
|
|
(16)
|
siksip-au
|
|
|
|
|
21-3′
|
(20)
|
ki-wāpam-im-ā-nawa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-3p
|
(21)
|
ki-wāpam-a-naw-ak
|
21-3p
|
(17)
|
siksip-aiau
|
|
3(′)-21
|
(18)
|
k-wapm-ək-man
|
3-21
|
(22)
|
ki-wāpam-iko-naw
|
3-21
|
(18)
|
siksipo-k-iu
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23)
|
ki-wāpam-iko-nān-āwa
|
|
|
|
|
3p-21
|
(19)
|
k-wapm-ək-nan-ək
|
3p-21
|
(24)
|
ki-wapam-iko-naw-ak
|
3p-21
|
(19)
|
siksipo-k-iau
|
Action
between first and third persons:
|
1-3
|
(20)
|
n-wapm-a
|
1-3
|
(25)
|
ni-wāpam-āw
|
1-3
|
(20)
|
ni-tsiksip-au
|
|
1-3
|
(21)
|
n-wapm-a-n
|
1-3
|
(26)
|
ni-wāpam-im-āwa
|
1-3
|
(21)
|
ni-tsiksip-ainai
|
|
1p-3(/p)
|
(22)
|
n-wapm-a-mən
|
1p-3
|
(27)
|
ni-wāpam-ā-nān
|
1p-3
|
(22)
|
ni-tsiksip-a-nan
|
|
1-3p
|
(23)
|
n-wapm-a-k
|
1p-3
|
(28)
|
ni-wāpam-im-ā-nān-āwa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3p
|
(29)
|
ni-wāpam-āw-ak
|
1-3p
|
(23)
|
ni-tsiksip-a-iau
|
|
|
|
|
1p-3p
|
(30)
|
ni-wāpam-ā-nān
-ak
|
1p-3p
|
(24)
|
ni-tsiksip-anan-iau
|
|
POTAWATOMI
|
RED PHEASANT CREE
|
BKACKFOOT
|
|
Action between first and third persons (continued):
|
|
3(′)
|
(24)
|
n-wamp-ək
|
3-1
|
(31)
|
ni-wāpam-ik
|
3-1
|
(25)
|
ni-tsiksipo-k
|
|
|
|
|
3΄-1
|
(32)
|
ni-wāpam-iko-yiwa
|
|
|
|
|
3(΄)-1p
|
(25)
|
n-wamp-ək-nan
|
3-1p
|
(33)
|
ni-wāpam-iko-nān
|
3-1p
|
(26)
|
ni-tsiksipo-ki-nan
|
|
|
|
|
3΄-1p
|
(34)
|
ni-wāpam-iko-nān-āwa
|
|
|
|
|
3p-1
|
(26)
|
n-wamp-əko-k
|
3p-1
|
(35)
|
ni-wāpam-ikw-ak
|
3p-1
|
(27)
|
ni-tsiksIpo-kiau-
|
|
3p-1p
|
(27)
|
n-wamp- ək-nan-ək
|
3p-1p
|
(36)
|
ni-wāpam-iko-nān-ak
|
3p-1p
|
(28)
|
ni-tsiksipo-ki-nan-iau
|
|
3-3′
|
(28)
|
wapm-a-n
|
3-3′
|
(37)
|
wapam ew -
|
3-3′
|
(29)
|
siksip-iu
|
|
3p-3′
|
(29)
|
wapm-a-wa-n
|
3p-3′
|
(38)
|
wapam-ew-ak
|
3p-3′
|
(30)
|
siksip-iau
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-3′ p
|
(31)
|
siksip-iu-aiks
|
Action
between third person and third person:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3p-3′ p
|
(32)
|
siksip-iau-aiks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3’-3’’
|
(33)
|
siksip-inai
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 ′ -3 ″p
|
(34)
|
o-tsksip-inai-aiks
|
|
3’-3
|
(30)
|
wapm- əko-n
|
3’-3
|
(39)
|
wapam-ik
|
3 ′ -3
|
(35)
|
o-tsiksipo-k
|
|
3’-3p
|
(31)
|
wapm- ək-wa-n
|
3’-3p
|
(40)
|
wapam-ikw-ak
|
3 ′ (p)-3p
|
(36)
|
o-tsiksipo-ko-a-iau
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 ′ p-3
|
(37)
|
o-tsiksipo-k-aiks
|
TABLE
Potawatomi System
|
vo
|
k-1
|
a+1 (1 to 3)
b+3 (4 to 6)
|
9 + 4
r + 4
q + 4
|
|
|
|
|
c + 1 (7 to 12 and 17)
|
p + 4
p + 4 y + 6
r + 4
r + 4 y + 6
|
x+6
r + 4 x + 6
q + 4
|
|
|
|
d + 1 (13 to 16and 18, 19)
|
p + 4
r + 4
x + 6
|
r + 4 x + 6
q + 4
q + 4 x +6
|
|
|
n – 1
|
c + 1 (20 to 23)
|
p + 4
p + 4 y + 6
|
q + 4
x + 6
|
|
|
|
d + 1 (24 to 27)
|
p + 4
q + 4
|
x + 6
q + 4 x +6
|
|
|
w- 1
|
c + 2 (28, 29)
d + 1 (3-0,31)
|
p + 4y + 6
r + 4 y + 6
|
|
The figures in parentheses refer to the 31 forms listed in Table 1,
To these P +5 and /or N+2 may be added optionally, yielding 31 x 2 x 2 forms in all.
With
the first participant as goal…d
It will be noticed that semanitically a and b can be combined
with k but not with n or w; and this is just the case.
The third group p, q, r, x tells us whether more than two are
involved/
Nobody else is involved …p.
Yes, more than two are involved, say:
Somebody along with the speaker ….q.
Some third person
along with the first participant ….r
Some third person along with the second participant ….x
Here
along with implies identify of role agent or goal.
There is a temptation to define r {əmwa} simply as somebody
along with the speaker; but No.s 29 and 31 force on us the choice
made above. It will be noticed
that p cannot be combined with the other three, that q cannot be combined
with w, and that q combined with ke
(No. 17 a in Table 1) or with kd (Nos. 18, 19) will serve to
indicate that the addressee and the speaker are in the same role,
all of which is indeed the case.
The whole system has the addressee
(and not the speaker) for its point of reference. Broadly the third group of elements presupposes the first two groups;
and the second group presupposes the first.3
Finally comes the obviation marker
y. It signifies that the second participant is the obviated third person, that is, a person other
than either the interlocutors or the other person claiming attention
so far. Naturally y is incompatible
with a or b and redundant if combined with w, which is exactly the
case.
A sample derivation may be offered
at this point: V 0 k – 1 d + 1 r + 4 x + 6 is a possible, generable,
grammatically well formed combination (see table 2). By rearranging the elements, we obtain; kV drx-that is, k-wapem
eko-emwa-ek. By applying the
morphophonemic rules, we get; k – wapəm əko-wa-k. This should mean according to the glossing
rules: seeing (V) takes place (absence of P and N)
involving the address (k) as goal and a non-speaker as agent
(d read with k), there being others also as goals (r read with
d and k) and agents (x read with d), in plain, non Whorfian
English they see you all.
This we recognize as No. 16 in the
corpus, Q.E.F. By inserting P + 5 and /or N+ the following well-formed
sentences are obtaineable: kwapməkawapəninək they
saw you all kwapməksiwak they do not see you all kwapməks
iwapəninək they did not see you all.
3) The Red Pheasant Cree and Blackfoot
systems of participant placement have obvious similarities with the
Potowatomi one. Nevertheless
the three systems are sufficiently different from one another to be
severally interesting and to invite a a historical probing.
The same letter is used for commuting elements when a structural
and ôr etymological correspondence is suggested.
The basic commuting elements in the
independent indicative non-prreterite paradigm in Red Pheasant Cree
are the following:
V0: The transitive animate verb {wapām} see
(someone).
K
– 1, n – 1, w – 1: The three pronominal elements; the last one happens
to be realized as zero in this paradigm.
B+2,
c+2, d+2: The morphemes sometimes realized as {in}, {ā} {iko}
respectively.
S + 1, t + 1, The first is zero; the other is {it}.
P+, q + 3, r + 4: The
first is zero; the other two are the morphemes sometimes realized
as {nān},{āwāw} respectively.
X+5: The morpheme {ak}.
Y+1 and y+5 together constitute
the obviate morpheme realized as in slot +1 and āwa etc. in slot
+5.
The 40 combinatory possibilities are
set out in Table 3 (to be read from left to right).
After the next step of rearranging
the elements properly from –1 to +5 is taken, the following morphophonemic
rules may be applied:
V {wāpam} wāpam. K {ki} ki. N {ni} ni. W zero in this paradigm.
B {in}
I in – q; in elsewhere c {a} āwa in y-p; ā in –q; ēw
with w present; ā w elsewhere d {iko} ikow in – r, ikw in – x;
ik in – p#; iko elsewhere.
t {it}
it (s is course ʘ.)
q (nān) nawa in kVye
- #; naw in kVc-, kVd- #, kVd – x##, nān elsewhere, r (āwāw)
in b-; āwa in yc-c; āw elsewhere. (p of course isʘ .)
x {ak} ak.
Y {obviative} im in –
c (slot + 1); yiwa in d – (slot +5); awa elsewhere (slot + 5).
The glosses for k, n, w, c, d, p. q,
and y are the same as the ones for the corresponding porawatomi elements. For b,s,t,r and x the glosses are as follows:
The action is between
the addressee and the speaker….b
With the addressee
as agent ….s
With the addressee
as goal....t
In effect bs and bt act like Potawatomi a and b respectively.
Yes, more than two are involved, say some third person along
with the addressee….r
Some third person along with the non-obviated third person….x
Note that x and not r co-occurs with w (Red Pheasant Cree
Nos. 38, 40, cf. Potawatomi Nos. 28, 31) and that y does not redundantly
co-occur with w.
Table – 3
Red Pheasant Cree System
|
vo
|
k-1
|
b
+ 2 s+1 (1 to 3)
t+3 (4 to 6)
|
p + 3
r + 4
q + 3
|
|
|
|
|
c + 2 (7 to 12, 19 to21)
|
p + 3
p + 3 y + 1
r + 4
r + 4 y + 1
x + 5
|
x + 4 x + 5
q + 3
q + 3y + 1
q + 3 x5
|
|
|
|
d + 2 (13 to 18,
22 to 24)
|
p + 3
r + 3 y + 5
r + 4
r + 4 y + 5
x + 5
|
r + 4 x + 5
q + 3
q + 3 y +5
q + 3 x + 5
|
|
|
n – 1
|
c + 2(25 to 30)
|
p + 33
p + 33y + 1
q + 3
|
q + 3y + 1 y +5
x + 5
q + 3 x + 5
|
|
|
|
d + 2 (31 to 36)
|
p + 3
q + 3y + 5
q +3
|
q + 3 y + 5
x + 5
q + 3 x + 5
|
|
|
w- 1
|
c + 2 (37, 338)
d + 1 (39, 40)
|
p + 3
r + 5
|
|
The
figures in parentheses refer to the 40 forms listed in Table 1.
4. The basic commuting elements in the Blackfoot paradigm are
the following:
Vo the transitive animate verb {tsiksipo} bite (someone).
k-1,
n-1, w-1 The three pronominal elements; {ki1}, {ni}, {o}
the last one is commonly realized as zero.
A +1, b+1, c+1, d+1 The second is zero; the other three are
respectively the morphemes {ki } {au}and {ko}.
U+, v+2 The morphemes {xpi} and {j)} respectively; the latter
is sometimes zero.
P+3, q+3, r+3 the first is zero; the other two are respectively
the morphemes {nam}, {au2}.
X+4, y+4, z+5 the morphemes {iau} {inai}, and {aiks} respectively.
The 37 combinatory possibilities are set out in Table 4 (to
be read from left to right).
After the next step of rearranging the elements properly from
–1 to +5 is taken, the following morphophonemic rules may be applied:
V {tsiksipo} drops the initial t after and the final o when
not followed by a consonant; all the four possibilities are illustrated
in paradigm.
K {ki1} ki n {ni} ni. W {o} o with d present and
v absent; ʘ. elsewhere.
D {ko}_ ko in – r; ki in – q; k elsewhere. (b of course isʘ.)
U {xpi} xpi in –q; xpu in –r, v (iu) . in – x; iu elsewhere.
Q {nan} nan, r {au2} au in - #; a elsewhere. (p
of course is ʘ.)
X {au)}iau. Y {inai} inai. Z {aiks} aiks.
The flossing rules are significantly different from those in
Potawatomi and in Red Pheasant Cree.
The grouping is on similar lines though.
K
The addressee is involved, but not along with the speaker.
Table
– 4
Blackfoot
System
|
vo
|
k-1
|
a+1 (1 to 3)
b+3 (4 to 6)
|
p + 3
q + 2 q +3
u + 2 r + 3
|
|
|
|
|
c + 1 (7 to 11)
|
p + 3
p + 4 y +4
r + 3
|
x+4
r + 3 x + 4
|
|
|
|
d + 1 (12 to 15)
|
p + 3
r + 3
|
x + 4
r + 3 x + 4
|
|
|
n – 1
|
c + 1 (20 to 24)
|
p +
3
p + 3 y + 4
q + 3
|
x + 4
r + 3x + 4
|
|
|
|
d + 1 (25 to 28)
|
p + 3
q + 3
|
x + 4
q + 3x + 4
|
|
|
w- 1
|
c + 1 (16, 17)
d + 1 v + 2 (18, 19)
|
p + 3
x + 4
|
|
|
|
|
v + 2 ( 29 to 32)
|
p + 3
x + 4
|
z + 5
zx + 4z + 5
|
|
|
|
d + 1 (35 to 37)
|
p + 3
x + 4
|
z + 5
|
|
|
|
y+ 4 (33,
34
|
p +
|
z + 5
|
The figures in parentheses
refer to the 37 forms listed in Table 1
n The speaker is involved,
but not the addressee.
w some third person is involved, k and n being inapplicable
a The addressee is the agent and the speaker goal
b The addressee is the goal and the speaker agent
c The agent is one
or both of the interlocutors. But the action is not between the addressee
and the speaker (i.e. a and b are inapplicable).
d The remoter participant
is the agent, a and b being inapplicable./
u The Action is between
the address and the speaker but not confined to them.
v Some unobviated third
person is the agent,
k and n being inapplicable.
Note that a third person
is remoter than an interlocutor and an obviated third person is remoter
than an unobviated third person.
Note also that u is redundant in the presence of q and r; and
its privileges of occurrence (see No. 2,3,4,6) do not leave any room
for contrast, its morphemic status is questionable.
(The condition that makes it predictable is somewhat complicated
though: k.q. ѵ {r ~ {c ѵ
d}. Note that zero elements
like b cannot be utilized in stating the condition.)
P The following are inapplicable: q,
r, x, and z.
Q pluralizes the speaker (exclusive of the addressee).
R pluralizes the addressee (exclusive of the speaker).
X pluralizes
the innovated third person
Z pluralizes
the remoter third person
Y obviates the third person
(s) involved, d being inapplicable.
There is plain sailing on the whole
so far as forms beginning with (ki) or (ni) are concerned. For the rest some gymnastics are called for
before we can translate the glosses into something familiar; specifically;
wc into21
– 33(p) (Nos. 16, 17)
wdv into3(p) -21 (Nos.
18, 19)
wv into 3(p) –3 ′ (p) (Nos. 29 to 32)
wd into 3 ′ (p)-3(p) (Nos. 35, 37)
wy into 3 ′ (p)
–3” (p) (Nos. 33, 34).
5)
There is something suspicious about the following intersecting allomorphies
in Red Pheasant Cree and Blackfoot:
Red Pheasant Cree: c {ā}
ā
w ā,
ā,
ew, ā
w; r { ā
w ā
w} ā
w ā
w, ā
w ā,
ā
w; y {obviative} in yiw ā, ā w ā; but x
{ a k}ak.
Blackfoot: c {au1} au, a;
r {au2} au, a; cf also x {iau} iau; y {inai} inai.
This calls for further comparative
and historical study. The
same can be said about Red Pheasant Cree No. 28, n Vycqy with its
twice marked obviation.4
The glosses presented above leave one loophole, consider, for example, potawatomi
forms 7,8 13:
7) 2-3
kVep
8) 2-3’ kVepy
13) 3(‘)-2 kVdp
The presence of y yields the obviated 3rd in No.8
– this is simple enough But
its absence is interpreted as an uninvited 3rd in No.7
but a non specified
3rd in No.13, Similar comments may be
made about q and r pluralizes in No.s 2,3,4,6 of each language. My suspicions is that the absence of the obviate
y leaves the 3rd person non specified in all cases (thus,
Potawatomi No.7 should really be glossed 2-3(‘) and not 2-3) and that
barring the joint absent of all the pluralizes {q, r, x, z} symbolized
in the present analysis as p, the absence of any one pluralize does
not entail the corresponding singular (thus, No. 2,3,4,6 should be
glossed as 2p-1 (p), 2(p) – 1(p) –2p, 1p 2(p) respectively in each
of the three languages.”5 in this particular case, however,
there is the possibility of genuine homonymy between the Red Pheasant
Cree forms Nos 2 and 5:6
2)
kiwāpamināwāʘw is either kVsbr ki wapam
- ʘ- i nāw-āw
– 2p – 1 (possibly p – 1 (p)) or k Vsbqr ki-wāpām
- ʘ nāw
–āw
2p-1p (introducing a new allomorph nāw for q {nān}.
5)
kiwāpamitināwāw
is either kVtbr kiwāpam –it-in-āwāw
1-2 p (possibly 1 (p) – 2p.or kVtbqr ki-wāpām-it-i-nāw 1p-2p.
On the whole, however, one should be chary of recognizing such homonymy
or morphemic neutralization (syncretism) – especially the former. What looks like ambiguity or neutralization
may simply be breadth of range or the absence of a marker. Ethnocentric prejudice of a marker. Ethnocentric prejudice or historical preoccupation
(with, for example, the double ethymology of English – ing) on the
analyst’s part is apt to obscure the issue in such cases.
Finally, the Blackfoot forms, 2,3,4,6,
and 36 stick out like sore thumbs.
The analysis presented in $4 above would generate not the forms
given in Table 1 but the following:
2)
2p-1(p) ki-tsiksipo-ki-zpu-au
3)
2-1p ki-tsiksipo-ki-xpi-nan
5)
1(p)-2p ki-tsiksipo-xpu-au
6)
1p-2 ki-tsiksipo-xpi-nan
36)
3’(p) – 3p o-tsiksipo-k-iau
Frankly,
I think this is how they should be, and the discrepancy is to be attributed
to a scribal error somewhere along the line. (Consider for one thing
the forms cited by Meeussen for the intransitive animate verbs: 2p
ki-V-xpu-au, 1p ni-V-xpi – nan which are expectable from the present
analysis).
6) The Georgian
data (presented in Table 5) considered here is the paradigm of a transitive
verb in the non-past, past-durative and past-punctual tenses.7
The transitive verb chosen here xatav paint is of the type
that has a special alternant in the past – punctual forms; cer write
on the other hand has the same shape everywhere.
Further, the indirect object forms have been ignored. The conventions adopted in Table 1 also apply
to Table. 5.
Table – 5
Georgian
Paradigm
|
|
Non Past
|
Past Durative
|
Past Punctual
|
|
1) 1-2
2) 1-2p
3) 1p-2p
|
g –xatav
g-xatav-t’
|
g –xatav - di
g-xatav – di – t’
|
g –xat -e
g-xat – e-t’
|
|
5) 2-1
6) 2-1p
7) 2p-1
8) 2P – 1p
|
m-xatav
gv – xatav
m – xatav-t’
gv-xatav-t’
|
m-xatav - di
gv – xatav - di
m – xatav – di –di’
gv-xatav-dn-en
|
m-xat -c
gv – xat - e
m – xat –e t’
gv-xat – e – t’
|
|
9) 3-1
10) 3-1 p
11)3p-1
12)3p – 1p
|
m-xatav -s
gv – xatav -s
m – xatav - en
gv-xatav – en
|
m-xatav – d -a
gv – xatav – d -a
m – xatav – dn – t’
gv-xatav – dn – en
|
m-xat -a
gv – xat -a
m – xat x e-s
gv-xat x e-s
|
|
13) 3-2
14) 3-2 p
15) 3p - 2
16) 33p – 1p
|
g-xatav – s
g-xatav-t’
g-xatav-en
|
g-xatav – d -a
g-xatav d – a – t’
g-xatav-dn – en
|
g-xat – a
g-xat –a-t’
g-xat e-S
|
|
17) 1-3 (p)
18)1p - (p)
19) 2-3(p)
20) 2p – 33 (p)
21) 3-3 (p)
22) 3p – 3 (p)
|
v-xatav
v-xatav-t’
xatav
xatav-t’
xatav-s
xatav-en
|
v-xatav - di
v-xatav-di – t’
xatav - di
xatav – di – t’
xatav – d -a
xatav-dn – en
|
v-xat e
v-xat – e-t’
xat - e
xat – e-t’
xat -a
xate – s
|
Table – 6
Georgian System
|
|
Agents
-2 + 2
|
Goals – I (+3)
|
Tenses +1
|
|
Vo
|
1 sg
1 pl
|
2 sg
2 pl
33 sg. Pl
|
NP
PD
PP
|
|
2 sg
2 pl
|
1 sg
1 pl
3 sg. Pl
|
|
3 sg.
3 pl
|
1 sg
1 pl
2 sg
2 pl
3 sg. Pl
|
There are 18 + 19 phonemically distinct
forms. The Georgian paradigm
seems to have greater symmetry and balance than the Algonquian ones. In order to take the maximum advantage of this,
we interpret the paradigm as one of 22 + 22 + 22 grammatically distinct
forms, thus ignoring the phonemic identify between the Non past No.
14 and Nos. 2, 3, 4 (compare the corresponding past durative and past
punctual forms); recognizing that there is no contrast between 3rd
singular goal; and accepting a six way contrast for agents (cf. Nos.
17 to 22 with an unmarked 3rd singular – plural goal) and
a five-way contrast for goals (cf. No.1, 2, 5, 6, 19 with
unmarked 1st singular and 2nd singular
agents). The system generating
22 X 3 forms is presented in Table 6 (to be read from left to right).
The commuting elements
are as follows:
V 0 {xatav} paint:
xat before PP; xatav elsewhere.
Agents: 1 sg. V – 2, 1 pl v-2 t ‘+ 2.2 sgʘ–
2.2 pl. (ʘ)-
2 t’ + 2.3 sg. S + 2. 3 pl. en +2.
Goals: 1sg. M – 1, 1 pl. gv – 1, 2 sg. G – 1. 2 pl. g – 1 t
+ 3.. sg. Pl. ʘ 1.
Note that (t’) recurs as a pluraliser in 1 pl. agent, 22
pl agent, and 2 pl goal; that (g) recurs in sg. Goal and pl. goal;
that /v/ recurs in 1sg agent and 1 pl agent, remaining unexpressed
in the presence of (g) 2 goal. The forms {-s}, {-en)} {m-} and {gv}
fuse number and person.
Tenses: Non-Past ʘ+1,
Past Durative di + 1, Past + Punctual e + 1.
After the proper rearrangement of the morphs from – to +3,
the following unordered morphophonemic rules are to be applied simultaneously
to the morphonemic writings.
a)
e, i. before s →a
(PD, PP forms, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21)
b)
en after e →
s (PP forms 11, 12, 15, 16 22)
c)
I before en →
n (PD forms 11, 12, 15, 16, 22)
d)
T’after t’ en →ʘ
forms 4, 16
e)
V before g →ʘ
(forms 1 to 4)
f)
S between consonants →ʘ
(nP form 14).
The honomymy between forms 2 and 3 is apparent even before
these rules are applied.
The glossing does not call for any special comment. The Georgian system has a more familiar look in this respect than
the Algonquian, in spite of the baffling appearance of the paradigm.8
Note the varying treatment of the apparent
homonymies of the data in Table 5: that between ‘3-‘ and ‘3-p’ in
Nos. 17 to 22 is a case of number neutralized with third person golas;
that between No.s 15 and 16 is a consequence of the morphophonemic
rule (d); the case of nP 14 is a consequence of rule (f); the conflation
of Nos. 2, 3, 4 should certainly give us pause in spite of the convenience
of rule (d); perhaps we should say that {t’} pluralizes any or all
of 1 agent and 2 agent and 2 goal that happen to be present; since
the co-presence of 1 agent and 2 agent or that of agent
and 2 goal is grammatically ruled out, ambiguity will arise only with
I agent and 2 goal co-present.
7) One
has to agree with Garvin9 that the grammatical systems
(or specified portions of them) of some languages maybe more recalcitrant
to analysis than those of some other languages.
Nevertheless, the linguist must not lose his patience or humility:
for him language (like the king and like the customer) can do no wrong.
(Individual language users may of course slip up and fool about.) The successive attempts (including the present one) to untangle
participant placement in Algonquian should prove to be an interesting
and instructive case history for the student of linguistic analysis.
Some of the morals that can be drawn
are the following: (a) The Saussure Sapir – Whorf warning that each
language manages things in its own way cannot too often be repeated
the Algonquian analysis was seriously hampered by the good old 1st
– 2nd – 3rd singular – plural, subject – and
– object – slots apparatus. (b) Occam’s razor is as useful today as
it was in the 14th century.
Before multiplying their methodological apparatus and risking
terminological inflation, linguists would be well to consider if they
have made the maximum use of older tools. (e) Other things being equal,
an analysis which attributes the minimum inefficiency to the language
in question is the best. This
would imply minimizing homonymy’s, redundancies, zero allomorphs,
suppletive or bloated allomorphies, and similar other desperate or
fancy or marginal remedies. (For example, rather than define (əmwa)
as 2nd plural and explain wa in Potawatoni 29 and
1 away as an allomorph of {ek} 3rd plural, I preferred
to put those wa’s along with others in Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 i.e.
as allomorphs of {əmwa} first participant plural).
If anyone should carry away the impression
hat one must ever be hunting happily for exotic un Indo–European
categories the Georgian example should be a healthy corrective. First appearances to the contrary, Georgian
seems to be content with the traditional person-number-subject-object
apparatus.
1. They are available in Hockett,
pp. 142-4
2.
For this piece of information, I depend on Hockett, p. 142
- Gleason’s
omitting the pronominal prefixes form his Cree paradigm (p. 118)
is, therefore, unfortunate: it leaves the system sadly mutilated
and the analyst desperate.
- In general the present analysis minimizes this kind
of tautology. In this respect
the Red Pheasant Cree analysis here compares favorably with Pittman’s.
- Admittedly a field check may prove rather difficult
in such cases. Compare,
however, Hockett’s statement (P.143) strengthening my guess: “when
there is no separate form for a 3’ or 35
[= 3p] reference, that for a 3 reference is used’.
- These two cases of homonymy are the only ones recognized
in Pittman’s treatment of Red Pheasant Cree.
7.
Tschenskeli’s names for these are Present Imperfect, and Aorist.
In each of these an aspect contrast maybe introduced by prefixing
da-to the forms listed in Table 5 (slot- 3).
- The present analysis of course
excludes from its scope the selection of the cases of the actor
and the goal nouns by the tense
(respectively; nominative and objective with nP, PD; ergative
and nominative with PP; and objective and nominative in Perfect)
and the corresponding shifts in the verbal conjugation of the
Perfect group.
COLOPHON
This was published International Journal of American Linguisties
131:3: 195-205, JULY 1965
