Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Beyond Nouns & Verbs
Beyond Nouns & Verbs
Contents
0.
0.1.
0.2.
Introduction
Previous work on alternative forms of categorisation
Some methodology for lexical analysis in "exotic" languages
2
5
9
1.
12
2.
25
3.
38
4.
49
5.
56
6.
64
7.
69
8.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
Some generalisations
First set of generalisations
Second set of generalisations
Third set of generalisations
Fourth set of generalisations
Conclusions
70
70
71
71
72
73
9.
9.1.
Appendix
Abbreviations
74
74
9.2.
Bibliography
75
0. Introduction
After many years of neglect, the question of word classes and variation in lexical
categorisation has come back to the attention of linguists and linguistic typologists,
respectively. Our project The noun in the lexicon1 has been trying to clarify issues
which once were responsible for the fading interest in this topic, and we have provided
alternatives to the never-ending debate whether the question of the universality of nouns
and verbs is nothing but a matter of terminology (cf. Schachter 1985 vs. Broschart
1997). Our main emphasis has been on method: How can we deal with languages which
pose at least intuitive problems to traditional terminology? We discovered that it is
possible to find solutions to these problems by using quite traditional tools of linguistic
analysis, and that one can go beyond the given without there being any need to
revolutionise extant theories of word classes. What is needed, however, is an accurate
application of the methodology in question and the occasional adjustment and
supplementation of traditional terminology (for instance, we showed that it is necessary
to be aware of the difference between a lexical, paradigmatic level of analysis and a
syntactic-syntagmatic level of analysis). With this publication we hope to provide some
extra data from mostly less-known languages we came across during our research and
which we found to illustrate basic traits of typological variation in the domain under
consideration. It is to be hoped that this paper will be of help to scholars studying
undescribed or exotic languages in their analysis of the lexical categories and
subcategories in question.
There is one major metatheoretical problem in word class typology, which consists in
finding a reliable Archimedian point from which to start the analysis. In word class
typology, this problem has led to a peculiar mixture of issues by using word class
terminology (e.g. noun, verb, noun phrase, verb phrase) as part of the metalanguage of
description. In other words, researchers approach the data with a given conception of
noun, verb, etc., just to find some sort of correspondences with these classical
categories. It is true that there have been attempts to approach these matters
independently at the time of American Structuralism, but this taxonomic approach
was ultimately rejected because it was hardly possible for a linguist to see the wood for
the trees. Nowadays, linguists are still torn between the issues: Empirically - at least at
some fine-grained level - all languages differ, but from the point of view of a
universalist linguistics there has always been an attempt to integrate these differences
in a common order.
Presently, the best-known typological approach of comparing and ordering word class
systems is a prototype model illustrated in Croft (1991) and Broschart (1991). It is
argued that the classical categorisation of words is not arbitrary but follows from general
1Many people
have been involved in the seven years period of the project (1991-1998), which formed the
sub-project A3 of the Sonderforschungsbereich 282 Theory of the lexicon chaired by Dieter
Wunderlich, Dsseldorf. The project was headed by Hans-Jrgen Sasse, Kln, and partly by Sebastian
Lbner, Dsseldorf. Researchers were - apart from ourselves - Sevim Genc, Luisa Garcia, Anna KeusenMargetts, Silvia Kutscher, Elisabeth Lbel, Johanna Mattissen, Regina Pustet, Heinz Roberg, Eva
Schultze-Berndt, and Birgit Schwarze.
Prototypes of categorisation
+IDENT
THING
PROPERTY
-IDENT
"Noun"
"Verb"
-MOD
-MOD
"Adjective"
+MOD
"Adverb"
ACTION
MANNER
+MOD
From this point of view, a language will possess the word classes noun, verb,
adjective and adverb, if the lexical items in question are specifically predestined for
being employed in a referential-identifying, predicative-characterising, attributive
(modifying-identifying), and adverbial (modifying-characterising) function. In simpler
terms, we can define four categories by the features [+/-identifying] in combination with
[+/-modifying], where a) a non-modifying, identifying constituent is nominal and
automatically tends to denote first order entities (things), where b) a non-modifying,
non-identifying constituent tends to be of a predicative, characterising kind and denotes
actions (verbal constituents), where c) identifying modifiers typically are adjectival
quality words, and where d) the characterising modifiers normally are adverbial
expressions of manner.
Predestined means either that the use in question requires relatively little
morphosyntactic effort compared to a non-canonical use (see (2)), or that the word
form of the word class will exhibit the greatest number of differentiating criteria in the
prototypical context (see (3) and (4)):
(2)
(3)
(4)
For instance, a clause like German der Mann lachte (the man laughed) in (2) is
shorter than the predication der Lachende ist ein Mann (lit. the laughing-one is a
man), where in the latter example an action-based concept is used for the identification
of a referent, and a time-stable concept is used in predicative function. On the other
hand, in (3) the typical adjectival attribute schnell-e (fast-ATTR.ADJ.WEAK) is
morphologically more complex than the corresponding unnatural adverb schnell , but
schnelle is at least clearly recognisable as an adjective especially in an attributive
function: The form schnell could also be used in a predicate slot, where there is no
morphological distinction between adjectives and adverbs in German (see (4)); thus
schnell translates either as quickly (adverbially) or quick (adjectivally)), and figures
as an unmarked form which does not specify class-membership unlike schnelle.
A word class distinction also typically implies that the paradigmatic options for a
lexical item will generally differ from the ones of another word class. For instance, only
verbs have participle forms (see (5)), and the attributive forms of nouns clearly differ
from attributive forms of adjectives (see (6)).
(5)
lach-end (laugh-PART)
(6)
(8)
the beautiful girl, the girl is beautiful, the girl sang beautiful-ly
Nonetheless, at a fine-grained level there are often differences (e.g. English friendly is
an adjective from which no adverb can be formed (see (9)); yet in German freundlich
friendly can be used in all contexts alike (see (10)):
(9)
the friendly man, the man is friendly, the man reacted in a friendly way
(*friendlyly)
(10) vs. German: der freundliche Mann, der Mann ist freundlich, der Mann reagierte
freundlich
There also appears to be an implicative relation between word class distinctions. Thus, it
is generally assumed that if a language has a formal distinction between the
morphosyntactic paradigms of adjectives and adverbs, there will also be a distinction
between nouns and verbs (cf. Hengeveld 1992b).
It is true that cross-linguistic generalisations work remarkably well in this prototypical
framework. For instance, as demonstrated in Broschart 1991, no language seems to
violate the assumption that the canonical construction type of der Mann lachte the
man laughed never needs more effort than the reverse der Lachende ist ein Mann the
one laughing is a man. There are languages (like Salish Bella Coola) where opposite
examples like the ones mentioned are about equal as far as morphosyntactic effort is
concerned (cf. (11) and (12)), but there will never be a complete reversal of markedness
conditions:
Bella Coola
(11) likm
ti-wac-tx
run(3)
DEIC-dog-DEIC
the dog is running
(12) wac
ti-likm-tx
dog(3)
DEIC-run-DEIC
the one running is a dog
(Davis/Saunders 1984:210)
Still, the prototype approach in its present form is unsatisfactory. If the order observed is
truly universal and unavoidable (and there is good evidence that it is), how can we
define what actually constitutes the difference between classical noun/verb-languages
etc. and languages where the classical distinction(s) is/are far less obvious? So far, it has
only been claimed that not all languages draw the classical noun/verb-distinction etc.
equally well (not all languages are prototypical N/V-languages, and not all languages
have structural equivalents of adjectives and adverbs), and that there is only a gradual
difference between the languages in question. But this argument is insufficient even
from the point of view of the logic of the prototype approach. A prototype never exists
on its own, but always in contradistinction to another one. So if there are prototypical
N/V-languages, there must also be some anti-type which is not just defined by the
absence of the features characterising the former prototype. In other words, if there is a
prototypical noun/verb-language there should be some other prototype explaining the
lack of evidence for a classical noun/verb-language. It is not sufficient to contrast a
good example only negatively with the category of examples which are not quite as
good. This publication will present and discuss some major alternatives to classical
forms of lexical categorisation and try to identify the parameters which are relevant for
the description of the languages in question.
nae
alu ()a Sione ki kolo
PRES go ABS Sione ALL town
Sione went to town
(14)
ko
e
alu
a
Sione ki
kolo
PRST ART go
GEN.AL
Sione ALL town
lit. it is a going of Sione to town,
Sione is going to town (visibly for the hearer)
These examples show that under certain pragmatic conditions an action word like alu
go can either be used in a tensed predication (without an article) or in a so-called
nominal type of predication involving a presentative case marker ko and an article. In
the next examples ((15)-(18)) translational equivalents of nouns or NPs are used as
tensed predicates - again without articles - but without changing their nominal
semantics:
(15)
oku
laione pe: a
e
laion
PRES lion
just ABS ART
lion:DEF
lions will be lions; (lit. the lion is just (like a) lion)
(16)
oku
fuu
foi
ulu lanu
pulu:
PRES CL.big CL.round head colour blue
The parrot has a big round blue coloured head
(17)
nae
kau faiak
a
e
Sias
PAST PLteacher:DEF
ABS ART
Church:DEF
The Church provided the teachers; (lit. the teachers were of the Church)
(18)
te
FUT
ta
1DU.INCL
ipu kofi?
cup coffee
a
e
kaka
ABS ART parrot:DEF
oku
fiemau
ha
taha oku
PRES want
ART.USP one PRES
they want someone who has high profile
(20)
oku
paanga e
tolu
PRES dollar
LNK 3
it is three dollars (in value)
high profile
high profile
The construction nae kau faiak a e Sias (see (17)) is particularly useful for
explaining the essential idea behind a Tongan kind of predication, irrespective of
whether or not the predicate appears to be a translational equivalent of nouns or verbs.
The tense marker does not turn kau faiak (PL teacher:DEF) (the) teachers into some
action expression to provide the teachers; it simply presents the notion (the) teachers
and relates them temporally with some referent in the current situation, much as in a
German predication like die Lehrer waren von der Kirche, lit. the teachers were from
the Church. The same goes for (16) oku fuu foi ulu lanu pulu: a e kaka, which is
literally much the same as there (is) big round blue-colored head (in relation to) the
parrot, the parrot has a big round blue-coloured head. Also in (19) the tense marker
oku just presents the notion high profile with respect to some reference (now there
is high profile (of someone), (someone) has high profile). In this sense, the verbal
clause (13) nae alu a Sione ki kolo , too, is literally more or less the same as in the
past (there was) going (of) Sione to town (for details see Broschart 1997).
This does not mean that there is no semantic difference between the tensed predicate without article - and the non-tensed predication with ko and an article; cf. (21) with
(20):
(21)
ko
e
paanga
PRST
ART
dollar
(it is) three dollars (as coins etc.)
e
tolu
LNK 3
In (20) paanga e tolu (after a tense marker) denotes three dollars as a value, while in
the construction (21) with ko and an article it will be interpreted as referring to concrete
coins or bills; apart from that, only article-marked NPs are referential in the discourse.
Hence e laione in (22) accepts a relative clause, while laione in (15) would not:
(22)
ko
e
laione ia
nae
PRST ART lion
3.SG
PAST
it is/was a lion I saw on the video
asi
mai i
he viteo
appear to.me LOC ART video:DEF
10
there is a very clear difference between a lexical and a phrasal level of analysis. Hence,
Tongan primarily distinguishes between the features [+/-referential] (separating phrasal
tokens from lexical types), while Latin distinguishes primarily between [+/predicative] (separating a word class of verbs with specifically finite, tensed forms
from other word classes (including time-stable nouns) without any specific finite
forms). Hence, in Latin we find a strict distinction between members of predicative,
finite tense paradigms like curro, curris ... and other lexical items, but no absolute
distinction between a lexical and a phrasal item (cf. puella); conversely, in Tongan,
there is a clear difference between lexical and phrasal items (e.g. fefine woman and e
fefine a woman, lele run and nae lele (s.o.) ran), but there is no absolute
distinction between lele and fefine with respect to the possibility of being used in
predicative tense phrases or non-predicative article phrases. Compare (23):
(23) Latin vs. Tongan: A typological comparison
N/V-language
curro
[+TNS,+pred]
puella
[-TNS,-pred]
X
lele
[-ref]
fefine
[-ref]
X N(P)
puella
[-pred]
puella
[-pred]
fefine
[-ART,-ref]
e fefine
[+ART,+ref]
DP
type/token-language
However, though the features [+/-predicative] and [+/-referential] are in principle
independent from each other, there is no language which completely fails to give some
expression of the opposite type of categorisation, at least in marginal domains of the
grammar. Hence, secondarily there are also minor indications for a differentiation
between [+/-predicative] in Tongan and [+/-referential] in Latin: Thus the Tongan tensephrase is [+predicative], while the article-construction is not, and Latin inflected
syntagms with demonstratives are clearly phrasal tokens, while lexical stems are clearly
non-referential types. Yet the specification of [+/-predicative] in Tongan syntax does not
yet involve the lexical level (unlike in Latin, where the distinction is relevant in syntax
and the lexicon), and the demonstratives of Latin are far less grammaticalised than the
Tongan articles. In other words, the languages essentially differ with respect to the
dominance of the distinction between [+/-referential] and [+/-predicative], but all
languages undoubtedly have some distinction of this kind (s. (24)):
11
(24)
Type/Token (Tongan)
TOKEN
[+ref]
TAM-PHR
[+pred]
"IP"
TYPE
[-ref]
lexical item
ART-PHR
[-pred]
Noun/Verb (Latin)
NOMINAL VERBAL
[-pred]
[+pred]
finite form
N(P)
[+ref]
N(-stem)
[-ref]
"DP"
12
should also be interested in differences on top of what can be taken for granted as
similar. The following analyses of languages try to pick out what is special in these
language types on top of what can generally be taken for granted. Sure enough,
language typology is only possible against the background of universals, but the proper
object of language typology is an account of the variation in languages against the
common background.
The languages will be described in a more or less comparable format, yielding a short
synopsis of the entire language system in question. In this way we hope to avoid the
common problem of giving isolated examples making it generally difficult to validate
the claims. The analyses given are largely our own, because the languages are either not
well-described or - even if they are - the previous analyses do not see the problems or try
to solve them within traditional terminology. The method employed here is very simple
and basically structuralist. We have been looking at formal differences and similarities
in the languages systems in question, and we have been looking for systematic order,
regardless of traditional labels. We did, of course, take traditional assumptions as a point
of departure, but if there was a problem, we would not try to debate the problem away.
The questionnaire-type format underlying the synopses has been formulated in a very
general sense, without forcing anybody to commit himself to traditional labels. For
illustration, the questionnaire will be listed below (see (26)):
(26) Questionnaire format
1. Name of language, language family
2. If necessary: phonological structure, reading advice, etc.
3. List of predication types
- translational equivalents of nominal predications
- ... of verbal predications
- ... of adjectival predications
- ... others
Problems with the above?
4. Basic predicate-argument structure
- translational equivalent of S and O (pronominal and non-pronominal)
- others
Problems with the above?
5. Simple and expanded referential phrases
- translational equivalents of (expanded) NPs with translational equivalents of
adjectives
- others
Problems with the above?
6. Expanded predications
- predications with translational equivalents of adverbs
13
14
In the following we shall be giving examples for this type of analysis, and we shall
concentrate on what is special for each language as compared to classical types of
lexical categorisation. We shall begin with an analysis of Tamil.
15
(naa) va-nt-e-en
1.SG
come-PAST-AE-1.SG
I came[19]3
(2)
nai
va-nt-a-an
dog
come-PAST-AE-1.SG
the dog came [19]
The second type of predication has the same person endings as in type one, but the
predicate is not inflected for tense and does not contain the affixal element. Some of
these predications translate as nominal predications, others as adjectival:
(3)
makan-en
son-1.SG
I am the son
(4)
nall-en
good-1.SG
I am good (elevated style)
2This
3The
16
The third type of predication uses a different type of pronominal inflection and is not
marked for tense. There is no affixal element which follows the stem. A referential
subject phrase is obligatorily juxtaposed to the predicate phrase, but there is no concord
between the free pronoun and the pronominal affix on the predicate (cf. Beythan
1943:127). These predications are typically translated adjectivally:
(5)
nan
nall-avan
1.SG
good-3.SG.M
I am good/a good one
Very similar to this type of predication is type four, in which case the predicates are socalled verbal nouns: These wordforms are inflected for tense, but otherwise behave
identically as type three:
(6)
nan
cey-t-avan
1.SG
do-PAST-3.SG.M
I am the one who did (it)
Predication type five simply juxtaposes a plain, uninflected predicate with a subject.
These predications typically translate as nominal or prepositional predications:
(7)
avan
manusan
3.SG.M
man
he is a man [13]
(8)
Kumaar vakkiil
Kumar
lawyer
Kumar is a lawyer [13]
(9)
avan
Kripa
3.SG.M
Kripa
that is Kripa [13]
17
18
(19) Kumaar
vara-a
veent-um
kumar
come-AE want-FUT(3.PL)
lit. they will expect Kumar to come [9]
(20) Kumaar va-nt-a
utan
naankal caappituvoom
Kumar come-PAST-AE immediately we
eat:FUT.1.PL
As soon as Kumar comes, we shall eat
(21) Raataa inimai.y-aaka.p paat-i
iru-kkir-a-al
Radha sweetness-ESS sing-AE be-PRES-AE-3.SG.F
Radha has sung sweet (with sweetness) [10]
The accusative is only obligatory with definite NPs and/or rational referents. It is
optional with indefinites and non-rationals:
(22) kumaar
oru petti(.y-ai) vaank-in-a-an
Kumar
a
box(-ACC) buy-PAST-AE-3sm
Kumar bought a box [6]
Some few words have a marked nominative stem as, for instance, mara-m treeNOM.ST. Most translational equivalents of adverbs are complexes formed with
essives, but also mell-a fast.
Though case is most typical on translational equivalents of nouns, it may occur on fully
inflected verbal forms, too, which then translate as expressions of individuals
(Beythan 1943: 111):
(23) konraar-ai
kaan-e-en
kill:PAST.3.PL-ACC (not)see-AE-1.SG
I did not see the ones who did the killing
Apart from that, case marking is generally a phrase marking device. Thus the accusative
in (24) appears on the phrase final numeral, not on the noun:
(24) kumaar
nalla
cattai-kal aint-ai
vaank.in-a-an
Kumar
nice
shirt-PL five-ACC buy:PAST-AE-3SG.M
Kumar bought (the) five nice shirts [3]
(25) kumaar
aintu
nalla cattai-kal-(ai)
Kumar
five
nice shirt-PL-ACC
Kumar bought five nice shirts [3]
vaank.in-a-an
buy:PAST-AE-3SG.M
Number, on the other hand, does appear on the nouns (the nucleus of the participant
phrase), cf. cattai-kal shirts in (.) or as a sign of concord on the verbs (the tensed
predicate) as in azukir-a-ar-(kal) weep:PAST-AE-3.PL.RAT-PL, they wept.
19
As for gender, Tamil has gender concord between the argument phrase and the predicate
phrase (providing it is a type one predication), but there is no gender concord inside the
participant phrase. The most important gender distinction in Tamil is rational/nonrational (with rational being subdivided into masculine and feminine, as opposed to
neutre). Note that even if the words in question are distinguished for sex (as katav-an
male ape vs. mant-i female ape) the concord is neutre (non-rational).
The internal structure of a typical argument phrase (a fully referential expression of an
individual) is quite variable. While demonstratives and the indefinite article always
precede the nucleus, quantifiers, numerals and translational equivalents of adjectives can
be placed before or after the nucleus (with a number of changes). The so-called
adjectives are typically non-tensed forms which end in an affixal ending -a (or
sometimes -u). So-called relative clauses end in tensed forms with an affixal ending -a
(adjectival participles):
(26) oru/inta.p nall-a paiyan
one/this
nice-AE boy
a/this nice boy [2]
(27) oru/inta.p put-u pustakan
one/this
nice-AE book
a/this new book'
(28) ellaa
ciri.y-a
kar-kal-um
all
small-AE stone-PL-INCL
all small stones taken together [2]
(29) paiyan-kal ellaa-m
boy-PL
all-INCL
all boys (taken together)
(30) cila ciri.y-a
kar-kal
few small-AE stone-PL
a few small stones [2]
(31) pustakan-kal cila.v-arr-ai
book-PL
few-OBL-ACC
a few books [3]
(32) rantu
two
two
pacanka
boy:PL
boys [3, Asher 1982]
(33) pacankal-le
rantu peeru
boy:PL-LOC
two
person
two boys [2, Asher 1982]
20
pen
girl
(40) aracan-in
muti
king-EUPH crown
the crown of the king
At the end of the euphonic item -in the new genitive -atu can be attached:
(41) naay-in-atu
dog-EUPH-GEN
the dogs tail
vaal
tail
21
king-GEN crown
the kings crown
It is also possible to use a defective adjectival participle of utai to possess/belong
to:
(43) naay-utai.y-a
dog-possess-ADJ.PART/AE
the tail belonging to the dog
vaal
tail
As we saw above, modifiers of predicate phrases (adverbs) either end in -a (like mella slowly), or -aa (nall-aa nicely), or some essive form on aana/aaka. The -aa is a
shortened form of the essive.
It is now time to discuss the proper nature of the affixal elements, and specifically the
-a-affix which occurs on so many different wordforms. All forms that carry -a (or
similar items) at the very end of the wordform cannot function as independent
assertions. Word-forms and phrases ending in -a are typically modifiers (translational
equivalents of attributive adjectives (cf. nall-a good), adverbs (cf. mell-a slowly),
and relative or adverbial clauses. The element -a also functions as an infinitive (cf. az-a
to weep or subjunctive:
(44) un talai.y-il
iti
viz-a
you head-LOC
thunder fall-INF/SBJNCT/AE
may thunder fall on your head
(45) inta.p nall-a
this
good-AE
this nice boy [1]
paiyan
boy
(46) mell-a
va-a
slowly-SC
come-AE/SBJNCT
come slowly [2]
(47) Kumaar vara-a
veent-um
kumar come-AE want-FUT(3.PL)
lit. they will expect Kumar to come [9]
(48) Kumaar
va-nt-a
utan
naankal caappituvoom
Kumar
come-PAST-AE immediately we
eat:FUT.1.PL
As soon as Kumar comes, we shall eat
As we can see in the examples above, -a is compatible with wordforms which either
carry or do not carry tense. If they carry tense, they are so-called adjectival participles.
Word forms translating as finite verbal predicates will usually just add person endings of
predication type one to these adjectival participles, and the -a undergoes phonological
changes, depending on the following vowel of the added person inflection (the
22
exceptional veent-um in (47) is already a future adjectival participle form; inside the
verbal paradigm it will be interpreted as third person future).
(49) azu-kir-e-en
weep-PRES-AE-1SG
I am weeping
(50) azu-kir-a-an
weep-PRES-AE-3SG
he is weeping
(51) azu-kir-o-om
weep-PRES-AE-1PL
we are weeping
In other words, the so-called finite verbforms of Tamil are built on or identical with
non-finite forms.
The base morpheme azu- in the examples mentioned above ends in a so-called
enunciative vowel (Lehmann 1989) -u, which is replaced by the infinitive -a in
quotation form (cf. az-a to weep). There are certain words, however, which do not take
-a, but keep the -u instead, at least in certain environments. One example is the
adjective azaku beautiful:
(52) ava ponnu
rompa azak-u
her daughter very
beauty-EV/AE
her daughter is very beautiful [15]
Note that the -u does not belong to the root, because the attributive and adverbial form
of azak-u is azak-aan-a. With some adjectives like put-u the situation is less clear,
because all forms contain the -u (putucu, putucaa). Still, in most cases it is best to
consider -u to be an alternant of the affixal -a, because there are very systematic
alternations between these two: compare pac-a to be green, pac-u green/greenish
yellow, pac-a-mai being green vs. pac-u-mai greenness. There is also an occasional
variation with -i: as in pac-i that which is green. Also compare per-i-ya proud vs.
per-u-mai pride. The suffix -i also occurs on so-called verbal participles as in:
(53) Raataa inimai.y-aaka.p paat-i
iru-kkir-a-al
Radha sweetness-ESS sing-VBP be-PRES-AE-3.SG.F
Radha has sung sweet (with sweetness) [10]
Very many so-called verbal nouns are derived by means of -mai, which is usually
added to the -u-affix as in pac-u-mai green-AE-ness, but it may be added to -a-forms,
too: cey-t-a-mai (do-PAST-AE-ABSTR) an action in the past. The -i-ending of certain
adjectival stems is replaced by -u before the addition of -mai: as in per-u-mai pride
from per-i.y-a big, proud. What is common to all the items ending in -a, -u or -i is
the fact that they are not markedly predicative, unlike forms with a type one person
23
ending, which are full predications. Secondly, wordforms without any of these endings
are typically translational equivalents of nouns.
Event-denoting complement clauses are of many different kinds:
One possibility are so-called nominalizations (Lehmann 1989:254). In such a
nominalisation, the affixal ending -a is dropped after tense and replaced by the third
person neutre pronoun -at(u) (that), to which the case morphemes can be attached.
That is, these forms are identical in form with the so-called verbal nouns (cey-t-atu
that which he did=that he did):
(54) mantiri
neerru
va-nt-at-ai
naan keet-t-e-en
minister yesterday come-PAST-NOM-ACC 1.SG hear-PAST-AE-1.SG
I heard that the minister had come yesterday
The other possibility are non-finite verbforms (l.c.) as in
(55) kumaar
amerikkaa.v-ukku.p poo.k-a
virumpu-kir-a-an
Kumar
America-DAT
go-INF want-PRES-AE-3.SG.M
Kumar wants to go to America
The next option involves a complementizing verb to say in its verbal particple
form:
(56) mantiri neerru
va-nt-a-ar
en-r-u
minister yesterday come-PAST-AE-3shon say-PAST-VBP
lit. I heard (it) said that the minister had come yesterday
naan keelvippat.t-e-en
I hear-PAST-AE-1.SG
Next to so-called complementizing nouns like utan immediacy one finds so-called
adjectival participles:
(57) kumaar va-nt-a
utan
naankal caappitu-v-o-om
Kumar come-PAST-ADJP immediacy we
eat-FUT-AE-1pl
lit. we eat (at the) immediacy (of) Kumar coming
In similar contexts, there may be a clause final clitic (Lehmann 1989:256) on the
subordinate clause (this -ee may be identical with the euphonic element in the
negative imperative singular):
(58) enn-itam
I-LOC
peec-in-a-an-ee
tavira kumaar yaar-itam-um
talk-PAST-AE-3.SG-CPL except Kumaar who-LOC-INCL
peec-a.v-ill-ai
talk-INF-be.not-3.PL.N
Lit. to all except to me that Kumaar talked to he did not talk
Except that he talked to me, Kumaar did not talk to anyone
24
poolum
it.seems
Given this analysis, we can isolate quite a number of different word classes and different
types of wordforms in Tamil. The table below illustrates some formal similarities across
different lexical items; in other words, the classes are not always clearly distinct:
25
BEAUTI- NEW
FUL
GREEN
azakaan-aval
nominal.
adjective
she who
is beaut.
makanen
predicative n.
I am the
son
vakkiilaak-a
azakaan-a
case-m.
adverb
noun
as a law- beautiyer
fully
PROUD/
BIG
SLEEP
nallatu
nom.
adj.
that wh.
is good
nallen
predic.
adj.
I am
good
per-iyavan
nom.
adj
he who
is proud
tuunk-iyavan
verbal
noun
he who
slept
put-u-cu
per-i-cu
predic.
adj.
it is new
put-u-caa
nallaa
pred.
adj.
it is big
per-iyaa
adverb
adverb
adverb
newly
well
proudly
paca
attr.
adj.
green
azakaan-a
attrib.
adjective
b.ful
pac-i
nomin.
adj.
that wh.
is green
azak-u
attr. adj/
adj. noun
b.(ful)
GOOD
put-u
attr. adj
nom. adj
(sth) n.
pac-u
attr. adj./
nom.adj
(sth) gr.
nalla
attr.
adj.
good
per-iya
attr.
adj.
proud
WEEP
DO
cey-tavan
verbal
noun
he who
did
tuunk-iya-an
verbal
pred.
he slept
DO, KILL
etc.
ko-nr-a- CASE
ar-ai
nominal.
-AI
verb
to those
who k.ed
CASE/
PERSON
-ATU etc.
cey-t-aan
verbal
pred.
he did
PERSON
cey-t-a
-an
verbal
pred.
he did
AFFIXAL
ELEM.
-EN etc.
-U, I, A
CASE/
ADVERB.
-AA(KA)
tuunk-iya-an
verbal
pred.
he slept
tuunk-iya
adjectival
partic.
having
slept
tuunk-i
verbal
partic.
having
slept
tuunk-u-
cey-ta
adjectiv.
partic.
having
done
cey-ta-an
verbal
pred.
he did
cey-ta-an
verbal
pred.
he did
TENSE
-I, -T
ATTR./
PART./
PRED
-A
NOML./
PART.
-I
az-u-t(-)u
verbal
partic.
having
wept
az-u-
cey-t(-)u
verbal
partic.
having
done
PART
-U
STEM/
NOML
-U
26
azak-u
adj. noun
quotation
beauty
azak-u
adj. noun
beauty
put-u
attr. adj.
quotation
new
pa-c-a
attr. adj.
quotation
green
pa-c-amai
adj. noun
being g.
pa-c-umai
adj. noun
greenn.
nall-a
attr. adj.
quotation
good
per-iy-a
tuunk-a
az-a
cey-t-a
attr. adj.
adj. part.
quotation quotation quotation
proud
to sleep to weep h. done
cey-t-amai
verbal n.
act. done
in the pst
per-umai
adj. noun
pride
cey-kai
verbal n.
deed
cey-t-a-an STEM/
INF/PRED
verbal
pred.
he did
-M, U, A
NOML
-A-MAI
NOML
-U(-MAI)
NOML
-KAI
27
u-cu it is new), which is the same group as the item -en in nall-en I am good (also cf.
makan-en I am the son).
A third class of so-called adjectives has a stem on -i or -i(y)-a, which becomes
changed to -u only in abstract nominalisations (per-i-cu it is big, per-i(y-a proud vs.
per-u-mai pride (but per-i(y)-avan he who is proud).
Certain verbforms look almost identical as some forms of this last class of adjectives.
Cf. per-i(y)-avan he who is proud vs. tuunk-iy-avan he who slept, but in the latter
form the -i is an allomorph of the tense marker (cf. cey-t-avan he who did). Verbs are
clearly distinct from other classes through their compatibility with tense, but tense also
occurs on a number of nominalised forms like the one just mentioned, the so-called
adjectival participle (e.g. cey-t-a having done), the verbal participle (e.g. ceytu/cey-t-u), a verbal noun like cey-t-a-mai action done in the past, and a
nominalised verbform as in ko-nr-a-ar-ai to the ones who killed (which carries an
accusative ending on a fully inflected verbal predicate form). The predicate forms of
verbs consist of stem plus tense marker, some sort of linking vowel (usually -a) plus a
person pronoun ending of type one predications, as in cey-t-a-an he did. The so-called
adjectival participle cey-t-a is just this form minus the person ending, and an infinitive
is just the latter form minus the tense ending: cey-a, az-a). The infinitive, in turn, looks
like the quotation form of the -a-adjectives, while some verb stems end in -u- or -iendings, which are reminiscent of the more nominal adjectical stems. Generally
speaking, the -u is least involved in signalling any active notion or truly predicative
form, while the -a is. The -i appears to be some intermediate marker (cf. pac-i that
which is green, per-i-ya big/proud.).
Because of the gradual nature of the phenomena in question it is virtually impossible to
give a clear-cut definition of each of the morphemes concerned, but it is fairly obvious
that there is a motivated order imposed on the system of word forms and morphemes in
question. The general order of the items in question seems to go from clear nouns like
mara-m tree via some -u- adjectives like azak-u, put-u to -a-adjectives like pac-a,
nall-a, per-i(y)-a to verb forms with various endings (mainly the -a-infinitive and the
linker in predicative forms, which is also mostly -a).
Apart from that, there are zero-forms which can figure as independent noun forms (e.g.
Kumar (Kumar, proper name) and makan son), while zero forms from other word
classes can only figure as stems. Then we find a gradual increase of verbiness via the
affixal elements -u, -i and -a (-u and -i are fairly common on rather nominal
adjectives, while -a occurs on infinitives as well as in most predicative verbs forms
apart from attributive forms and adjectives like nall-a; -u is also typical in abstract
nouns like per-u-mai pride). The inflectional affixes from case (accusative-ai and
genitive-atu) or via person (-atu and-en) to tense also show a steady increase of
verbiness. Tense can only be marked on members from the class of verbs, even though
tense may occur also on deverbal forms which syntactically behave rather nominally
(so-called participles and verbal nouns). The -en-person affix can be found on members
from all word classes, though it only figures on some relational noun predicates like
makan-en (son-1.SG) I am (his) son. The affix -atu can be a person marker on non-
28
finite predicates, a nominaliser, as well as a genitive case marker. The essive case aa(ka) creates adverbs.
To conclude, major paradigmatic distinctions in Tamil involve the criteria whether the
lexical paradigm of the words in question includes tense (verbs), and whether the
paradigm of the remaining (non-tensed) word classes includes word-forms which end in
-a (most adjectives used attributively) or -u (the nominal adjectives) or nothing
(usually nouns). Translational equivalents of adverbs are usually subtypes of casemarked nouns or essive derivations from adjectives (-aa). There is also no clear
distinction between finite and non-finite constructions (note that some forms from the
finite paradigm are identical with participial forms (veentum they come/are coming).
Like the adjectives, nouns also contain different subclasses: Relational items such as
son and eye allow personal inflecton of the -en-type (cf. predication type one), even
though they do not accept tense and they do not have affixal endings.
In contradistinction to Dixons claim (Dixon 1982), a word of human propensity like
per-iy-a proud is rather far on the verby side . Tamil has basically two sets of
equivalents of adjectives, of which one is more nounal and the other one is more verbal.
Since both classes are open classes, and since Tamil is a tense language, Tamil
contradicts Wetzers (1996:287) claim that if a language has an open class of verby
adjectives, it is a tense-less language. On the other hand, Tamil exhibits a clear
difference between tensed predicates (which must be verbal) and all non-tensed
categories (including adjectives). In spite of this clear difference relating to tense, in
many respects Tamil morphology is cross-categorial and leads to great difficulties in the
attempt of assigning clear-cut morphosyntactic functions to specific grammatical
markers (cf. the affixal elements).
29
?ao-pa
man-3.SG.M:RH
it is the/(a) man [3]
?ao-p
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH COP
it is the man [3]
(3)
4This
kll?i-p
he-3.SG.M:TH
he is the man
ke ?ao-pa
COP man-3.SG.M:RH
30
These constructions seem nowadays to be interpreted as definite (the man), but there
are examples in Dempwolff (1934/35) which also suggest an indefinite reading,
especially with words usually translating as adjectives or verbal participles:
(4)
?ao-p
ke kai-pa
man-3.SG.M:TH COP big-3.SG.M.RH
lit. the man is a big one/is tall
(5)
?ao-p
ke ra
nllae-pa
man-3.SG.M:TH COP PRES sing-3.SG.M
lit. the man is a singing one/is singing
While the adjectival predicates behave exactly like the nominal predicates in these
constructions, the (de)verbal ones combine with tense.
Another construction always translates as a non-referential predication (translated
nominally or adjectivally). Here the predicate has no pronominal or case inflection, but
it is preceded by a second copulative item ?a (for a discussion of ?a see below):
(6)
?ao-p
man-3.SG.M:TH
the man is a hunter
ke
COP1
?a
COP2
k!?ao?ao
hunter
(7)
?ao-p
man-3.SG.M:TH
the man is tall
ke
COP1
?a
COP2
kai
big
For the words which are compatible with these constructions it is also possible to
introduce tense markers, but these are different from the ones used with translational
equivalents of verbs (see below). Unlike ?a (and the basic tense markers of verbs),
they usually follow the predicate. The postposed tense marker is typically composed of a
tense element and some copulative element -?i which we could call COP3:
(8)
?ao-p
ke k!?ao?ao
man-3.SG.M:TH COP hunter
the man has been a hunter
ko-?i
REC.PAST-COP3
(9)
?ao-p
ke kai
man-3.SG.M:TH COP great
the man has been great
ko-?i
REC.PAST-COP3
These constructions are also typical of stative predicates which occasionally may
translate as verbs:
(10) ?ao-p
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
the man knows
?a
COP2
k=?an
know
31
(11) ?ao-p
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
the man has known
k=?an
know
ko-?i
REC.PAST-COP3
ra
COP2.PRES.IMPF
nllae
sing
(13) ?ao-p
ke
ko
nllae
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
COP2.REC.PAST sing
the man has just been singing
ha-?i
REC.ANT-COP3
Non-pronominal objects (in their rhematic form) precede the tensed phrase:
(14) ao-p
ke
tara-sa
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1 woman-3.SG.F:RH
the man sees the woman
ra
muu
COP2.PRES.IMPF see
As for the basic sequence of arguments in Nama, the following example gives a
canonical survey over the position of referential arguments, the tensed predicate
phrase, and adverbial adjuncts:
(15) ?ari-p
ke
//?ari
tara-sa
ko
dog-3.SG.M:TH COP1 yesterday woman-3.SG.F:TH REC.PAST
Yesterday, the dog saw the woman
muu
see
ko
muu-si
yesterday REC.PASTsaw-3.SG.F:OBJ
//?ari
klli-sa
ko
yesterday he/she-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST
muu
see
The first pronoun (kIIi-p) is of the kind of free forms mentioned above. The other person
reference is an object affix as in muu-si see-her. The latter items only occur on
transitive verb forms.
32
(20) ?ao-pi
(?) ke
tara-sa
ko
muu-he
man-3.SG.M:NTS DEM COP1 woman-3.SG.F.RH REC.PASTsee-PASS
the mn it is who saw the woman/the woman was seen by the mn
(21) ?ao-p
xa ?
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH of DEM COP1
by the man the woman was seen
tara-sa
ko
muu-he
woman-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST see-PASS
33
(26) ti
kai
?ao-ta
I
big
man-1.SG:TH
I, this great man
(27) hoa t
xuu-m
all my thing-3.PL.COMM:TH
all my things
The free form ti-ta (I-1.SG:TH) is evidently composed of the pronomoid ti and the
thematic affix -ta. However, there is no corresponding pronomoid *kIIi- in kIIi-p
(he/she-3.SG.M:TH) he.
The full set of pronominal items is illustrated below:
(28) The system of Nama pronominal forms
Pronomoid; Possessive; Enclitic: OBJ NTS TH/NRH
34
ti
sa
t
s
-te
-tsi
-pi
-si
-ta(1)
-ts(2)
-pi-i/ -p(3sm)
-si -s (3sf)
-t
-ts
-p
-s
ti-ta
ti-t
sa-ts, ..-ts
kll?i-p, ..-p
kll?i-s, ..-s
ti-s
my-3.SG.F:TH
nee-s
this-3.SG.F:TH
Equivalents of relative clauses may also appear before or after the nucleus, but notice
the inversion of the tense marker in (35), where the tense marker can be regarded as a
clitic (cliticisation will henceforth be marked by =; for the delimination of cliticisation
see below):
35
(35)
nllae=ra
?ao-p
sing=PRES.IMPF
man-3.SG.M:TH
the man who is singing
(36)
?ao-p
ra
man-3.SG.M:TH PRES.IMPF
it is the mn who is snging
nllae-p
sing-3.SG.M:TH
ke
ASS
Inversion and permutations are the most striking feature of Nama syntax, and we cannot
adequately deal with the question of word classes unless we understand the mechanisms
which sometimes cause confusion with respect to the inflectional capacity of word
forms in Nama.
In Nama every constituent can be fronted into thematic (or non-rhematic) position.
(37) ?ao-p
ke //?ari
tara-s
ko
man-3sm:TH
ASS yesterday woman-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST
the man yesterday saw the woman
muu
see
ke
ASS
//?ari
yesterday
?ao-p
ko
muu-si
man-SG.M:RH REC.PAST see-3.SG.F:OBJ
as for the woman [tara-s], he [=p], i.e. the man [?ao-p], saw her yesterday
It is also possible to front the action expression as in (39). Again, the real subject is
still indicated by the subject pronominal. The tense marker will be left stranded:
(39) muu-si=p
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=3.SG.M:TH
tara-s
ko
ke //?ari
?ao-p
ASS yesterday man-3.SG.M:RH
36
woman-3.SG.F:RH
REC.PAST
lit. as for seeing her, yesterday he, the man, it is the woman (he) did
The tense marker can also hop to the front, right next to the assertion marker:
(40) muu-si=p
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=3.SG.M:TH
ke ko
//?ari
ASS REC.PASTyesterday
?ao-p
tara-s
man-3.SG.M:RH woman-3.SG.F:RH
Lit. 'seeing her he did yesterday, i.e. the man the woman'
(41) n//ae=p
ke ko
sing=3.SG.M:THASS REC.PAST
as for singing, he did (it)
In a next step, the tense marker can be attached right to the fronted verbal predicate, and
the entire complex is stacked in front of the subject pronominal.
(42) n//ae=ra=p
ke ?ao-p
sing=PRES.IMPF=3.SG.M:TH
ASS man-3.SG.M:RH
being singing he is, i.e. the man/singing he is, the man
(43) muu-si=ko=p
ke ?ao-p
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=REC.PAST=3.SG.M:TH
ASS man-3.SG.M:RH
having seen her, he is, i.e. the man/having seen her did the man
Now at this particular moment, it is not so easy to know what the subject affixes stand
for and where they belong to. Constructions like nlIae=ra=p and muu-si=ko=p (which
above are interpreted as clauses with a cliticised pronoun) are also expressions which
can be interpreted as the one singing and the one having seen her, respectively.
(44) n//ae=ra=p
ke
sing=PRES.IMPF=3.SG.M:TH
ASS
the one singing/he, singing, is the man
?ao-p
man-3.SG.M:RH
(45) muu-si=ko=p
ke
?ao-p
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=REC.PAST=3.SG.M:TH
ASS
man-3.SG.M:RH
the one having seen her/he, having seen her, is the man
Since the different readings of the same surface constructions are clearly similar, we see
that there is a squish between simple cliticisation and lexical or derivational
morphology.
There are also other unclear cases between lexical morphology and syntactic processes:
37
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
khoe-p
khoe-s
muu-p
muu-s
kao-p
kao-s
man
woman
eye (seer)
little eye
ruler
rulership/that (so.) rules
For instance, in ordinary nouns like khoe-p (person-3.SG.M) man vs. khoe-s
(person-3.SG.F) woman the pronominal ending is more or less equivalent to gender
inflection, but for abstract nouns and nominalisations the issue is not quite as clear.
For instance, a form like kao-s (rule-3.SG.F) rulership could also occur at the end of a
complement clause, where the -s is simply a marker for syntactic subordination as in
connection with haa come in the following construction:
(52) Yohane-p
John-3.SG.M:TH
ko
REC.PAST
ko
haa-s
REC.PAST come-3.SG.F:TH
khan!aa-ta
ke !hai-se
behind-1.SG:TH ASS fast-ADVL
pee
run.away
38
normally expect that that nominal material takes some sort of predicative inflection
and person subject affixes, and that tense markers of verbal items are most similar
to affixes only inside nominalisations. Yet, these oddities are the consequence of fairly
straightforward grammatical phenomena, and it may be helpful to speculate a little bit
more on the history of the constructions in question (most of the following is taken from
Haake 1977):
Predications like
(55) ?ao=ta
man=1.SG:TH
a man I am
ke ?
ASS COP2
can even today be without ke, especially in subordinate clauses, in which case the
predication reads ?ao=ta ? or ?ao=ta=?; this looks almost like ?ao-t, which may
also (have) mean(t) he is a man, apart from he is the man, as it usually does today.
Accordingly, synchronic forms like
(56)
?ao-t
man-1.SG:RH
I am a/the man
* ta
?a ?ao
1.SG COP man
I am (a) man
39
(60) * ti
?
me
DEM
me it is
?i
COP
A combination such as
(61) * ti
me
?
DEM
?i
COP
ta ?
I COP
ti-t
it is me I am
which is now the base form of the free pronoun (while ti (actually me it is) still
continues as a pronomoid (see above)).
Note that there is also a dialectal variant (from Damara) of the free form for I which
carries an additional a, which is reminiscent of a copula:
(63)
A complex construction such as ti ?ao=t it is me, the man may then have originated
in * ti ?+? ?ao(=)ta ? it is me, a man I am.
The free third person pronoun
(64) kII?i-p
he/she-3.SG.M:TH
he
- for which there is no free pronomoid - probably used to be kII?i-pi in constructions
such as
(65) *kII?i=pi
he/she-3.SG:NTS
he, him it (is),
?
DEM/COP
40
(66) klI?i=p
he/she=3.SG.M:RH
it is him,
possibly in analogy with ti=t it is me or as a combination of a reduced *k//?i=p plus
?. (note that the present -p form will probably have been originally -pi, because there
are some nouns which have an -i - ending after bilabials, where the p could easily
have been lost (cf. omi hut). There is no synchronic evidence that kII?i-p might go
back to kII?i=pa=?, since there is no base form pa for the third person (vs. ta in the
first)).
The present variants of predications such as ?ao=t and ?ao=ta ke would then go back
to
(67) ?ao=t
(68) ?ao=ta ke
ke ?
ASS COP
and
(70) ti=ta
ke
I-1.SG:TH
ASS
me, I am a man
?
COP
?ao
man
Old obliques like -te (1.SG.OBJ) etc. survive as object affixes and as parts of
possessives (t). Other object affixes are identical with historical rhematic markers like
pi etc., which nowadays may be used on non-topical subjects, but not on topics.
This may have demonstrated that the strange person affixation in Nama reflects rather
natural phenomena of syntax, including a tendency for affixation upon inversion. As
soon as the light subject pronouns were placed behind lexical material, they were
cliticised. Once they had actually occupied this position, they could also become
partially reinterpreted as markers of definiteness, and of gender on the noun phrase.
Thus the pronominal endings often function much like gender markers:
(74) ?ao-p
(the) man
41
(75)
(76)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(82)
(83)
?ao-s
khoe-p
khoe-s
ii-s
muu-p
muu-s
kao-p
kao-s
//?ari-s
womanish man
man
woman
beauty
eye (seer)
little eye
king/ruler
rulership
the time of yesterday
But if the combinations are just due to syntactic reshuffling, the pronominal endings
still behave like syntactic place holders. Here we are not dealing with inflection, but
simply with cliticisation:
(84) //?ari=p
ke
yesterday=3sm:TH
ASS
yesterday, he saw her
muu-si
see-3.SG.F:OBJ
That =p is not literally part of //?ari yesterday is suggested by comparing (84) with
(83) and (85):
(85) //?ari=s
ke
yesterday=3.SG.F:TH
ASS
yesterday, she saw him
muu-pi
see-3.SG.M:OBJ
?ao-p
man-3.SG.M:RH)
This oscillation between syntax and morphology and cliticisation and inflection or
derivation follows a consistent order, which can be illustrated in the diagram below:
(87) From morphology to syntax
DERIV
V.INFL
N.INFL
CLIT
CLIT/FREE
FREE
?ii-xa-------muu-pi ---- khoe-p --------- n//ae=ko=p - ?ao-p(=)xa ---- ko nIIae
42
For instance, the word ?ii-xa represents an adjectival derivation from the base ?ii
beauty by means of -xa, which is a cognate of the postposition xa of. In this context, xa is clearly a derivational affix, and nothing can be inserted between the base and the
derivational affix.
The personal object affix -pi on a verbal stem is partly separable inasmuch as it
disappears as soon as there are full NP arguments. Nevertheless, the object affixes are
strictly reserved for transitive verbs and form part of this special inflectional paradigm.
Nominal forms like khoe-p are at the borderline between inflection and cliticisation. On
the one hand, the -p-element is rarely separated from the stem (only in characterizing
predicates, where -p etc. is lacking), and there are paradigmatic oppositions of gender as
in khoe-p vs. khoe-s. On the other hand, the same -p-item may be a clitic on syntactic
permutations like n//ae=ko=p singing he was, but this can also be interpreted as an ad
hoc nominalisation (the one who is singing), where it represents some nominalized
form of the verb.
A postposition xa is no longer strictly combined with any word form (there may be
intermediate attributes in the phrase), but as light and postposed material, it will be
felt to be at least phonologically bound. The least bound kind of grammatical markers
are preposed tense markers in Nama.
Note that the squish between free and bound forms also presents a problem for Nama
orthography. In Nama grammars, the tense markers are generally still written as free
items, even if they follow (muu-pi ra-p the one who sees him), but in Dempwolff also
the rhematic form ?ao-p is written ?ao-p ?. This shows that there is some indecision
about the word status of the elements in question.
However, the unclear status of the items with respect to lexical morphology vs. syntax,
inflection vs. cliticisation etc. does not affect the rather clear criteria for distinguishing
between various word claseses in Nama. Thus, only forms of the verbal paradigm ever
combine with a special type of tense marker, and while there are some inherent
adjectives which can become attributes as bare stems, there are others which must be
derived like ?ii beauty; the latter must be turned into ?ii-xa lit. of beauty to become
an attribute. A plain adverb is //?ari yesterday, while kai-se greatly is a derived form
of kai great.
(88) Derivations and similar constructions
khoe-p
khoe-s
?ao-p
?ao-s
?ao-re
?ao-re-p
(a) man
(a) woman
(a) man
(a) womanish man
manly
a man person
43
?ao-se
?ao-si-p
kai
kai-p
kai-s
kai-si-p
?ii-s
?ii-xa
?ii-xa-s
muu-p
muu-s
muu(-)ko-p
muu-pi(-)ra-p
muu-pi(-)ra(-)se-p
kao-p
kao-s
kao-si-p
kai-se
//?ari
//?ari-s
man-like
manliness
big (ATTR)
a big male person
a big female person
size
beauty
beautiful (ATTR)
a beautiful female person
(an) eye <*muu see)
(a) small eye
someone who saw
the one who sees him (-pi)
when (ADV -se) he sees him (-pi)
king/ruler
rulership/the fact that someone ruled
rulership
greatly
yesterday
the time of yesterday
As a result, Nama is a language which exhibit rather traditional word class distinctions,
even though its morphosyntax is fairly different from a standard Indo-European
language.Through the free choice of permutations units get into contact which are
otherwise unlikely to combine in languages with a more rigid word order. As a
consequence, even though a wordform like nIIae=ra=p singing he is looks
structurally quite like a verbform (sing-TNS-PERS:PRED), it is paradigmatically also
interpretable as a rather nominal form of construction (it is the one who sings). In
this context, it may appear rather odd that the tense markers only behave more or less
like affixes when the construction may also be interpreted as a nominalisation. However,
the affix-status in these constructions is determined exclusively by the fact that the
tense markers happen to get postposed when the verbal predicate gets fronted into
topical position. Nama does not violate any standard assumptions about lexical
categorisation; at best, certain pragmatic processes may override some purely semantic
determinants of morphology. The syntactic permutations give rise to a peculiar squish
between syntactic cliticisation and lexical morphology.
44
tombak senjata
spear weapon
a spear is a weapon [2]
(2)
kapur putik
chalk white
chalk is white [2]
(3)
panassekarang
warmnow
warmnow [4]
warm it is nw
(4)
saya tidur
1.SG sleep
I sleep
kain
ini
sutera
material DEM silk
this material is silk
(6)
saya ini
guru
1.SG DEM teacher
me here, I am a teacher [5]
5This
45
(8)
(9)
dia di Jakarta
3.SG LOC Jakarta
he is in Jakarta
As these examples show, this first major type of predication is open to words of any
kind of translational equivalent of traditional word classes. The predication is not
obligatorily specified for time:
(10) (Si) Aminah babu
PA Aminah servant
Aminah is/was a servant
(11) Rumah itu
rumah model lama
house DEM house model old
that house (was) an old-fashioned one [SDJ, 3a]
If the characterising expression (i.e. the predicate) precedes the identifying one, -lah is
normally added to the focussed term. This is predication type two:
(12) menteri-lah tuan
itu
minister-LAH gentleman DEM
that man is a mnister
(13) akan
orang itu, maling-lah ia
concerning man that thief-LAH 3.SG
as for that man, a thef he is
(14) tidak-lah sakut
not-LAH afraid
I am nt afraid
saya
1.SG
> guru-lah
dia
teacher-LAH 3.SG
he is a tacher
46
hati-nya
heart-POSS.3.SG
dikenalnya
know
there was a desire in his heart to know that which he did not know [16]
The affix -lah may also be used in clauses of regular word order as a means of emphasis:
(20) surat kabar itu
ada-lah
suatu
pendapatan yang penting
Surat Kabar DEM be-LAH INDEF
invention REL important
(The newspaper) Surat Kabar is rally an important invention [3a]
A mixed form of predication is also represented in constructions such as
(21) Peng-hasil-an nenek
ia-lah men-jual sayursayur-an
PEN-earn-AN grandmother it-LAH MEN-sell vegetables-AN
grandmothers way of making a living, (it) was to sell vegetables
(13.6.91, 3)
(22) Amerika, ia-lah
negeri rekor
Amerika 3.SG-LAH land
record
America, thts a land of records
Here ia (3.SG) and -lah form a unit which translates as a copula, but system-internally
we are dealing with a focussed pronoun after a topic phrase and preceding a predicate
phrase.
47
Topic phrases can also be set off by maka ... pun in old Indonesian. Here the predicate
may be marked by -lah:
(23) maka tuan puteri
pun ter-tidur(lah)
TM lord princess TM TER-sleep(-LAH)
As for the princess, she fell asleep
A reference to time etc. is only possible by means of free wordforms added to the basic,
non-temporal predication:
(24) Saudara akan berjalan
ke rumah saya
2.PL
FUT BER-go DIR house 1.SG
you will go to my house
(25) saya
sudah
mem-baca majalah
itu
1.SG
already
MEN-read newspaper DEM
I have already read the newspaper [24]
Negation of translational equivalents of nouns usually requires bukan, while verbal
equivalents take tidak (for exceptions see below):
(e.g. saya I)
yang mahal
itu yang hanya di-jual di kota
REL expensive that REL only DI-sell LOC city
48
that expensive red syrup which is only sold in the city [14]
(29) se-batang rokok
kretek
one-CL
cigarette carnation
one carnation cigarette
(30) tiga botol bir
3
bottle beer
three bottles of beer
(31) utas
pandai dua orang
craftsman clever two CL:man
Two clever craftsmen
(32) segala tanah yang tingitingi
all
land
REL high
all the high ground
itu
DEM
(33) perempuan di
pondok dekat tempat pembuangan sampah itu
woman
in
hut
near
...
dump
garbage DEM
the woman in the hut near the garbage dump [14]
(34) hikayat-nya
yang termasyhur itu
epos-POSS.3.SG REL famous
DEM
that famous epos of his
(35) anak-ku
child-POSS.1.SG
my child
(36) anak saya
child 1.SG
my child
(37) suatu pendapatan yang penting
a
invention REL important
an important invention
In other words, quantifiers as well as the indefinite suata precede the nucleus, while
all other information follows. Except for rather inherent characteristics of the referent in
question (cf. red syrup, ...cigarette) all attributes tend to be introduced by the linker
yang which is also typical of the equivalent of relative clauses. The yang-expressions
translating as adjectives may apparently still precede the demonstrative, while proper
equivalents of relative clauses follow the demonstrative.
Adjuncts are of different types, too. Many are prepositional phrases, plain adverbs are
often markers of tense/aspect/mood:
49
tahu
know
tentu
akan ada-ada saja alasan si Kabayan untuk
certain FUT be
only excuse PA K. for
men-gelak-kan
perkerjaam
MEN-avoid-KAN work
lit. he knew for certain that there would just be Kabayans excuse for avoiding
work/he knew Kabayan would surely have an excuse to avoid working [13.6.913]
b) be subjectless
(42) Oposisi
ini mau-nya
cuma menjatukkan
kabinet
Oppostion DEM desire-POSS.3.SG only MEN-bring.down-KAN cabinet
as for the opposition, their desire is only to bring down the cabinet
Situational complements may also simply occur in the same syntactic construction as
ordinary NPs:
(43) mem-biru-kan
itu
terlangsun dalam pasu tanah
MEN-blue-KAN DEM happen
in
bowl earthen
the act of dyeing cloth blue happens in a bowl of clay
What is different from expressions referring to individuals is that the men-prefix
(usually for transitive actions), which would have to change to pen- in order to refer to
someone who performs the action. Apart from that, all event-referring expressions can
50
tidak
NEG
(48) saya-pun
bukan tidak percaya
1.SG-TM
NEG NEG belief
As for my part, I do not not believe it > I do believe it [8]
(49) Tak seorang juga yang dapat sungguh-sungguh tidur sepanjang malan
NEG a.man also REL could really
sleep during
night
there was not anybody/it was nobody who managed to sleep last night
(50) Tidak semna lelake
NEG all
men
not all of them were men
(Reduplications may indicate plurality on nouns, but not necessarily).
Another criterion which often seems to differentiate between verbs and nouns in
Indonesian is also not fully conclusive. Thus, the linker yang which is typical before
non-inherent attributes does occur before translational equivalents of nouns, too:
51
So from the point of view of the syntactic slots that are available there is little structural
difference between members from semantically distinct domains (the only clear
difference is the additional possessor of the act for action words, which is not possible
for ordinary thing words).
But even the criterion of the possessor of the act is a weak one if we do not look at
individual wordforms but look at the potential of different lexical items to combine with
certain affixes, especially ber-, ter- and men-. Apparently, there are members from any
semantic class which can take one or the other of these affixes. There is no strict
delimination between what counts as a verbal and what counts as a nominal affix. The
affixes often do change the meaning of the base, but there is no special form of
derivations for verbs as distinct from nouns, as is typical of Indo-European.
For details, we must now turn to a proper analysis of the various wordforms of
Indonesian.
One type of wordform is the simple base. Most of these forms translate as nouns, but
words from any semantic domain have zero-forms:
a) anak child, pikir thought, merat red, baik good, cepat fast/speed, datang
come, jalan road/walk, tidur sleep, pukul a blow
Transitives usually take a men-prefix (or di- in the passive), but even this semantic class
may be represented by zero-forms:
(52) saya akan mem-buka pintu ini
I will open this door
1.SG FUT MEN-open door DEM
(53) pintu ini akan saya buka
This door will be opened by me
door DEM FUT 1.SG open
(54) pintu ini akan ku-buka
This door will be opened by me
door DEM FUT 1.SG-open
(55) pintu ini akan di-buka (oleh) orang itu this door will be opened by the man
door DEM FUT DI-open (by) man DEM
Most intransitives carry a ber-prefix. The base can be from any semantic domain, but
quality words are rare (ckkk):
b) ber-guru be/work as a teacher, ber-mobil have or use/drive a car, ber-garpu use
a fork, ber-anak have children, berwarua ckk merat be of red colour, ber-tiga
be three, ber-bicara talk, bel-ajar to learn
Other intransitives take ter-, especially if the state has come about accidentally. With
quality words, ter- functions as the superlative (i.e. something unusual):
c) ter-karang hit a reef/run ashore, ter-tidur to fall asleep, ter-lihat be visible,
appear, ter-baik the best
52
Men- is the most frequent marker of transitives, but it does occur on some intransitives,
especially if the concept is active. If the base translates as a noun, the men-form can also
mean to be like X, which might be an extension of to behave/work like/as X:
d) meng-huja like rain, mem-batu like a stone, meng-guli work as a kuli, membebek do the duck/talk without thinking, men-garpu pick something up with a
fork, mem-bubur make porridge, men-detik go tick, me-merat turn red
mem-ukul to hit, lit. make a blow, men-yurat write a letter, men-cat to put
colour on, mem-buka to open (it)
Men-forms often take additional markers of transitivity (-i) and causation (-kan).
e)
men-gatap-i to put palm leaves on sth., meng-guli-i to tear the shin off sth,
me-merat-i to dye sth. red, me-naik-i to climb on sth., men-datang-i to come to
visit so., men-hujan-i to let it rain on sth.
f)
pel-ajar student
k)
53
m)
n)
tulis-an writing
Occasionally, ke- can also derive equivalents of verbs (usually corresponing to some terform):
(57) ke-tawa to laugh vs. ter-tawa to laugh accidentally
Men- can be combined with per-forms in constructions such as o)
o) mem-per-laki take as husband
In this example, memperlaki is based on ber-laki have a husband, be married.
The classication of the meanings of most of these wordforms yields the following
picture:
(58) Forms and their meanings
basic
zero
concrete
per-(an)
zero
ber
per-(an)
zero
ke-an
pen-(an)
men-
transitive causative
ter
ber
ter
ber
zero
zero
zero
zero
men-
men-
men(-i)
men-kan
intr
perm
conc
unmarked
abstr
active
trans
There are two related dimensions of comparison in the diagram. Vertically, on the right
hand side, we find mirror-images of fundamental oppositions: concrete vs. abstract,
permanent vs. abstract, and intranstive vs. transitive. On the horizontal line we find a
continuous deviation from basic lexical concepts via concrete, but derived, non-basic
concepts, then permanent, but not necessarily concrete concepts, then accidental, active,
and finally transitive and causative concepts. The zero-form is typical for basic, concrete
concepts, but it is also the most generally available form with least restrictions. The per(an)-forms typically express concrete and permanent, but no longer basic concepts. The
ber-forms are typical for permanent, intransitive relations, ter-forms are always
intransitive but for the most part express accidental relations. Ke-an-forms are always
abstracts, but only pen-forms also express actions. Men-forms are typically active,
transitive, and non-permanent (the most typical uses are underlined).
54
55
NON-BASIC
ke-an
ABSTR
pen-an
ACTIVE
men
TRANS
men-/di-
BASIC
zero
CONCRETE
per-an
PERMANENT
ber
INTRANS
ter
Ke-an-forms are abstract, non-basic items as opposed to zero-forms which are usually
expressions of basic, concrete concepts. Pen-an-forms are abstract action expressions as
opposed to concrete permanent concepts expressed by per-an. Men-forms are usually
active transitives, as opposed to permanent intransitive ber-forms, and to active, yet
intransitive ter-forms.
It is quite obvious that Indonesian usually considers concrete, permanent and intransitive
concepts as more basic than others (transitive actions are men-/di-forms, abstract units
are derived compared to zero forms) etc. Since in Indo-European nouns are typical for
the expression of these basic concepts, there is a correlation between the forms of
nouns and basic word-forms in Indonesian and the forms of verbs and men-forms. Yet
the system behind this classifciation is very different. The most essential distinction in
Indonesian seems to be
(unmarked) ZERO vs. (marked) DERIVED WORDFORMS
(including the expression of individuals (basic, concrete, permanent, intranstive) vs.
non-individuals (non-basic, abstract, active, transitive)).
And as we said above, this is a distinction of word-form classes, not of word classes.
And even these classes of word-forms are not yet specialised for syntactic positions.
56
muhammad-u-n
Muhammad-NOM-NUN
Muhammad is a man
ragul-u-n
man-NOM-NUN
(2)
muhammad-u-n
Muhammad-NOM-NUN
Muhammad is great [5]
kabir-u-n
great-NOM-NUN
Constructions without nunation on the subject are definites. The sign of definiteness is a
prefix:
(3)
ar-ragul-u
mu-allim-un
DEF-man-NOM teacher-NOM.NUN
the man is a teacher [29]
hada (a)r-rajul-(u)
this DEF-man-NOM
this is the man
The demonstrative hada is generally uninflectable. Leaving intonation aside, hada arrajul-u could also be interpreted as this man (see below). In order to avoid ambiguity,
Arabic also has more explicit constructions such as
(5)
6This
57
dahika
muhammad-u-n
laugh:3.SG.M.PERF Muhammad-NOM-NUN
Muhammad laughed [5]
Only in the case of the particle inna behold (governing the accusative) can the order
be reversed:
(7)
inna (a)r-ragul-a
dahika
behold DEF-man-ACC
laughed
behold, the man laughed [15]
kana
(a)r-ragul-u
muallim-a-n
be
DEF-man-NOM teacher-ACC-NUN
the man was a teacher
(10) kana
(a)r-ragul-u
be
DEF-man-NOM
the man was in the house
fi-(a)l-bayt-i
in/at-DEF-house-GEN
58
Like las- there are also other equivalents of adverbial modifiers which behave like
verbs (it is again, it is continually so that, etc.). Other equivalents of adverbial
modifiers are case-marked items (the cases are either grammatical suffixes or rather
semantised prefixes added to obliques):
(14) (sa)-ya-gi-u
muhammad-un
gadan
FUT-3.SG.M-come-IMPF Muhammad-NOM:NUN tomorrow:ACC
Muhammad will come tomorrow [6]
(15) (sa)-ya-gi-u
muhammad-un
FUT-3.SG.M-come-IMPF Muhammad-NOM:NUN
Muhammad will come fast [6]
sarian
fast-ACC
59
(16) (sa)-ya-gi-u
muhammad-un
FUT-3sm-come-IMPF
Muhammad-NOM:NUN
Muhammad will come with speed [6]
bi-sura
with-speed
muhammad-u-n
Muhammad-NOM-NUN
dirham-a-n
dirham-ACC-NUN
Muhammad gave him a dirham (coin)
Equivalents of complement clauses take variants of the particle ?anna that.
(21) yuridu
?an ya-gia
he wants
that 3.SG.M.-come:SBJNCT
he wants to come or he wants that he comes [24]
(22) qala
lahu
say:3.SG.M.PERF to.him
?anna-hu
that-3.SG.M.NONSUB
ya-gi-?u
3.SG.M-come-IND
(a)l-ragul-a
DEF-man-ACC
he said that the man comes
(23) ad-dayf-u
DEF-guest-NOM
wa-(a)l-gar-u
(a)l-ganib-u
and-DEF-protege-NOM DEF-foreign-NOM
60
ka-anna-ma
like-that-which
habata
climb.down:PERF.3.SG.M
the guest and his foreign protege appeared as if they had climbed down [31]
Nominalisations of clauses may either govern the genitive or the accusative:
(24) lawn-i
ah-i/a-ka
reproach-1.SG.POSS
brother-GEN/ACC-2.SG.M.POSS
my reproaching your brother
The equivalents of relative clauses take the relative pronoun alladi. Occasionally the
interpretation may be ambiguous:
(25) arafa
recognise:3.SG.M.PERF
(a)r-ragul-a
(a)lladi
DEF-man-ACC REL
raa-hu
see:PERF.3.SG.M-3.SG.M.OBJ
he recognized the man who had seen him or .. whom he had seen [23]
The sequence of constituents in a referential phrase is the following:
(26) ragul-un kabir-(un)
man-NOM:NUN great-(NOM:NUN)
a great man
(27) ar-ragul-u
(a)l-kabir-(u)
(a)lladi raa-hu
DEF-man-NOM
DEF-great-NOM REL
see:PERF.3.SG.M-3.SG.M.OBJ
the great man whom he had seen/who had seen him
(28) kull-u
haulai
(a)r-rigal-i
(a)l-kubara-i
entirety-NOM DEM.PL.M DEF-man:PL.M-GEN DEF-great:PL.M-GEN
all those great men/the entirety of those grate men [9]
(29) al-alam kull-u-hu
DEF-world entirety-NOM-POSS.3.SG.M
the entire world/the world in its entirety [15]
While constructions like hada ar-rajul-u can either be interpreted as this man or this
is the man, possessive predicate constructions such as hada kitab-i this is my book are
regularly distinguished from referential ones:
(30) kitab-i
book-POSS.1.SG
this my book
hada
this
61
(31) kitab-i
hada
(a)l-gamil-u
book-POSS.1.SG this
DEF-beautiful-NOM
this beautiful book of mine
(32) kitab-u
muhammad-i-n
book-NOM Muhammad-GEN-NUN
Muhammads book
In possessive constructions no article will be used on the head. Possession is also
expressed differently for various persons. There is a masculine-feminine-distinction
from the second person onwards, and while there is no reflex of case on the possessed
item in the construction with the first person singular, case is marked on the possessed
item for all other persons. The possesive pronominals are identical with object affixes
on verbs except for the first singular, which is i: as a possessive and -ni as an object
affix.
(33) kitab-i
book-POSS.1.SG
my book [11]
(34) kitab-u-ka
book-NOM-POSS.2.SG.M
your (m) book
(35) kitab-i-ka
book-GEN-POSS.2.SG.M
of your (m) book
Translational equivalents of numerals are of many different types. The words for 1 and 2
are postposed attributes which agree with the preposed head. For 2, the phrase is in the
dual:
(36) ragul-un
man-NOM:NUN
one man
waHid-un
one-NOM:NUN
(37) ragul-ani
(itn-ani)
man-DU
2-DU
two men [Sasse Ex.]
The words for 3-9 are basically heads and precede the expression of the individuals
counted, which are in the genitive plural. The numerals appear in the masculine if the
items counted are feminine and vice versa. There is no nunation on the numerals, but
they carry case:
(38) talat-at-u
three-FEM-NOM
rigal-in
man:PL.M-GEN
62
three men
The numbers 11-19 are combinations of numbers below 10 and the number 10. The
word for 10 takes the same gender as the items counted. All the numbers above 9 and
below 20 as well as the head are in the accusative (take an a-suffix). The head is always
in the singular.
(39) talat-at-a
three-FEM-ACC
thirteen men
asar-a
ten(M)-ACC
ragul-a-n
man(M.SG)-ACC-NUN
The tens between 10 and 100 are unchangeable plurals with no gender agreement. The
items counted are again in the accusative singular.
(40) arba-una
40-PL
40 persons
saxS-a-n
person-ACC-NUN
The numbers 100 etc. and 1000 govern the genitive singular:
63
(41) miat-u
ragul-i-n
100-NOM man-GEN-NUN
100 men
Leaving the exceptional numerals and demonstratives aside, attributes agree with their
head in case, gender, and number.
Accordingly, the inflectional paradigms of so-called nouns include case, gender, and
number. As for number, Arabic grammar distinguishes between the external (suffixed)
and the internal/broken plural by means of stem changes:
(42) muslim-u:na
muslim-M.NOM.PL
muslims [14]
(43) muslim-a:t-un
muslim:FEM.PL-NOM:NUN
female muslims
(45) rigal
man:NOM.PL
men vs. ragul man [8]
(46) aflam
film:NOM.PL
films
vs. film film
The internal plural forms may always agree in the feminine singular. The nouns can be
quoted in the pausal form (without an overt nominative and nunation):
(47) ism name/noun
vs.
[33]
(49) tuffah-at-un
apple-FEM.SG-NOM.PL
a single apple
As for so-called verbs, these forms are inflected for person and aspect . The citation
form is the perfective aspect of the 3rd person singular masculine
(50) faala
64
make:PERF.3.SG.M
he made
In this form the so-called radicals (items making up the lexical root structure) can be
identified most easily (fl in the case of -make-).
This root structure never changes throughout the uses of a lexical item in question. For
every grammatical use there is a fixed pattern of variation on the entire wordform with
the same root.
(51) root -ktbkitab
book
katab-a
he has written
katab-a-hu
he has written it
kutib-a
it is/has been written
ka:taba
write to each other
ya-ktub-u
he is writing
ya-ktub-a
that he may write
(u-)ktub
write! (2.SG.M)
katb-un
to write
kitbat-un
writing
kitab-at-un
the act of writing, a piece of writing
ma-ktub-un something written
ka:tib-un
writer
kutub-iy
relating to books
kutub-iy-unbookseller
(52) root -rglragul
ta-raggal-a
ista-rgala
rugul-a
rugul-iy
rugul-iy-a
man
he has behaved like a man
he has behaved like a man
manliness
manly
manliness
pepper
he has put pepper on
hot with pepper
Because of the predictability of these changes, the root level is a structurally well
established primary basis of lexical categorisation in Arabic. The so-called nouns and
verbs of Arabic are different inflectional paradigms for different stems created from
65
the same root. Therefore it is safe to say that there is no equivalent of a lexical
distinction of nominal and verbal units on root level. From the stem level onwards,
however, Arabic behaves very much like Indo-European. Like in Latin, too, Arabic
treats most translational equivalents of adjectives like the equivalents of nouns.
Numerals constitute a comparatively heterogeneous structural class in Arabic, in spite
of comparable semantic functions of the items in question.
66
bu
elma
(dIr)
DEM apple COP
This is an apple
(2)
Ali asker
(dir)
Ali soldier
COP
Ali is a soldier
(3)
Ali byk
Ali tall
Ali is tall
(tr)
COP
In these constructions, the predicate may, but need not combine with a copula of the
verb ol-mak to be(come), which carries information about tense/aspect and
person/number. In context, the predicate on its own can be interpreted as a full clause:
asker he is a soldier. But usually, the predicate is juxtaposed to a subject. The negation
of this predication type is done with the help of degil:
(4)
bu
elma degil
DEM apple NEG
this is not an apple
The second major kind of predication corresponds to verbal predications. Here the
predicate is marked for tense and aspect, person and number. If a copula is added here, it
serves the purpose of modal assurance or reservation:
(5)
sev-er-im
love-PERF-1SG
I love
(6)
Ali gl-yor
(dur)
Ali lach-IMPF.PRES.3.SG COP
Ali is laughing (perhaps/definitely)
7This
Ali gl-m-yor
Ali laugh-NEG-IMPF.PRES.3.SG
chapter was written in cooperation with Sevim Genc.
67
68
(8)
para-m
var (dIr)
money-POSS.1.SG EX COP
lit. my money is (truly/possibly) there
I (truly/possibly) have money
para-m
yok
money-POSS.1.SG NEG.EX
lit. my money does not exist
I have no maney
69
my house
your house
his/her house
our house
your (PL) house
their house
There are a number of different types of extended predications. The simplest form
consists in adding an (uninflected) adverb:
70
71
sev-er-ler
love-AOR-3.PL
they love
There are also some similarities between possessive and person affixes:
(30) ev-im
house-POSS.1.SG
my house
vs. sev-er-im
love-AOR-1.SG
I love'
However, while sev-er-im is interpreted as I love (sb.), baba-m can only be interpreted
as (it is) my father, and not as I am (a) father (of sb.)). Apart from that, finite verbforms do not accept determiners/demonstratives like bu, but the nouns do:bu baba-m
this father of mine vs. *bu sev-er-im.
Other types of overlap are more significant. Turkish allows the copula ol-mak to be
integrated in the nominal predicate wordform, in which case the wordforms look similar
to verbal wordforms:
(31) asker-di-m
72
soldier-COP.PAST-1.SG
I was a soldier
(32) sev-di-m
love-PAST-1.SG
I loved
However, with vocalic stems the difference is visible, since only the nouns have a
linking vowel:
(33) elma-y-di
apple-LV-COP.PAST.3.SG
it was an apple
(34) ata-dI
transport-PAST.3.SG
he transported
Nevertheless, this difference is weakened again in subordinate constructions, where the
copula olmak in its subordinate form also receives a linker y- in front of the inflected
copula:
(35) bu elma
ol-sa
i-di
DEM apple be-COND COP.PAST.3.SG
if this were an apple
= bu elma ol-sa-y-dI
DEM apple be-COND-LV-PAST.3.SG
(36) gl-yor
ol-sa-y-di
laugh-IMPF be-COND-LV-PAST.3.SG
if he would be laughing
In other words, a conditional form of a verb like ol-mak behaves quite nominally.
The same goes for other subordinate verb forms:
(37) Ali gl-se
i-di
Ali laugh-COND COP-PAST.3.SG
= Ali gl-se-y-di
if Ali laughed
But the difference is still visible in
(38) bu
elma
i-se
73
74
manly
(48) icki
drink
(a) drink
(49) icmek
drink
(to) drink
but: (50) yemek food, to eat
By comparison, common forms from a typical verb paradigm of Turkish are exemplified
by the following:
(51) The verbal paradigm
sev-er-ler
(love-AOR-3.PL) they love
sev-di-m
(love-PAST-1.SG) I loved
sev-iyor-um (love-PRES.IMPF-1.SG) I love (continually)
sev-eceg-im (love-FUT-1.SG) I shall love
sev-er-di-m (love-AOR-PAST-1.SG) I would love
sev-se-y-di-m (love-COND-LV-PAST-1.SG) if I would love
sev-miS-im (love-REP-1.SG) I may have loved, I loved allegedly
sev-miS-ti-m (love-REP-PAST-1.SG) I loved once
sev-elim
(love-IMP.1.PL) let us love
sev-in
(love-IMP.2.PL) love!
sev-i
(love-NL) love
sev-i-m
(love-NL-1.SG) my love(d one)
sev-en
(love-PART) the one who loves
sev-i-len
(love-NL-PASS.PART) the one who is loved
sev-me
(love-GER) (the act of) loving
sev-mek
(love-INF) to love
sev-iS-mek (love-REFL-INF) to love oneself/each other
Many verbs also have special causative forms:
(52) ld-r-mek
dead-CAUS-INF
to make dead, to kill
(house)
75
ev-i
ev-e
ev-in
ev-de
ev-den
(house-ACC)
(house-DAT)
(house-GEN)
(house-LOC)
(house-ABL)
Rather nominal postpostions are used for more specific spatial relations:
(54) ev-in alt-I-n-da
houseunder-POSS.3-LNK-LOC
at the underside of the house, under the house
It ist rather common to employ predications with nominalised action predicates in
Turkish:
(55) gel-me-si
uzun sr-d
come-GER-POSS.3.SG long last-PAST.3.SG
his coming takes long, he is delayed
(56) gel-miS-lig-im
var
come-REP-NL-POSS.1.SG EX
lit. my having been here once exists
I have been here once before
Further complications in Turkish syntax apply to the proper position of the plural
marker. In the first example, the plural is a sign of concord on the copula, correposnding
to the plural marker on the noun phrase. In the second and fourth example, the plural is
attached on the locative of the place expression:
(57) arkadaS-lar-Im
ev-de
friend-PL-POSS.1.SG house-LOC
my friends are not home
yok-lar
(yok-tur-lar)
NEG.EX-3.PL (NEG.EX COP-3.PL)
(*var-lar)
(*EX-PL)
76
Generally speaking, Turkish allows some major functional overlap between nouns and
verbs in predicate position; in referential function the categories are very clearly
distinguished. Like Tamil, Turkish allows nominalisations which still contain temporal
and aspectual information. There are some cases of transcategorial use of certain
morphemes, especially in the area of plural (concord) and person/possessive marking.
77
ma koCi bore
1.SG man COP.1.SG
I am a man
(2)
ma Peteri
1.SG Peter
I am Peter
(3)
ma kirali bore
1.SG king COP.1.SG
I am (the) king
(4)
ma didi bore
1.SG tall COP.1.SG
I am tall
bore
COP.1.SG
The verbal predications are basically marked for person and tense/aspect/mood:
(5)
b-ziG-am
1.SG-laugh-PRES
I laugh
Negation is expressed by var in nominal predications and by the prefix va- in verbal
predications:
(6)
(7)
Peteri va-ziG-ay
Peter NEG-laugh-3.SG.PRES
Peter does not laugh
Laz has complex verb paradigms in connection with the orientiation of the action.
(8)
8This
b-zir-am
1.SG-see-PRES
I see/find him
chapter was written in cooperation with Sevim Genc and Silvia Kutscher.
78
(9)
g-zir-am
2.SG-see-PRES
I see you
(10) m-zir-am
1.SG-see-PRES
you see me
(11) m-zir-ay
1.SG-see-3.SG.PRES
he sees me
(12) b-i-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
I hide
(13) i-mpul-am
OR-hide-PRES
you hide
(14) i-mpul-ay
OR-hide-PRES.3.SG
he hides
(15) b-a-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
I hide from him
(16) a-mpul-am
OR-hide-PRES
you hide from him
(17) m-a-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
you hide from me
(18) g-a-mpul-am
2.SG-OR-hide-PRES
I hide from you
(19) b-o-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
I hide him
(20) g-o-mpul-am
2.SG-OR-PRES
I hide you
79
(21) m-o-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
you hide me
(22) m-o-mpul-ay
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES.3.SG
he hides me
(23) o-mpul-am
OR-hide-PRES
you hide him
80
(24) b-u-mpul-am
1.SG-OR-hide-PRES
I hide something from him
(25) u-mpul-am
OR-hide-PRES
you hide something from him
ulu-n
go-PRES
81
82
83
There are also only comparatively few words of different clases which contain the same
root:
84
Of all the languages discussed, Laz presents the clearest distinction of word classes.
Like in the other examples, it is tense marking, dynamic semantics, and relationality
which is maximally distinct from basic words for individuals.
85
h-okwe-h
KA-man-STAT
(he is) a man
(2)
ha-kowane-h
KA-big-STAT
he is big
(3)
ha-tetse?-s
KA-heal-STAT
he habitually heals, (he is a) doctor [ONT 14]
(4)
e-k-hni:no-
FUT-KA-buy-STAT
I will buy (it)
All these forms can figure as free predications, but if we use any of these expressions
after an article-like marker of reference (ne), the entire construction can figure much
like a relative clause without further derivation. There are word-forms which are
apparently not identifiable with such inflected word-sentences, and there are
differences in the expression of individuals and actions also in Cayuga, but the degree of
formal overlap and the prominence of descriptive, predicative strategies also in the
context of translational equivalents of nouns is rather great. And virtually all expressions
for relatives (a subgroup of translational equivalents for relational nouns) are treated
much like transitive verbs (expect for a reduced tense/aspect-system).
Interestingly, Cayuga has some clearly distinct lexical roots: Only roots of a
nominal kind can be incorporated, while verbal material needs derivations (and so
would the items which behave like inflected verbs), s. Sasse 1993. So here we find a
language which does not have a complete indistinction on root level like in Arabic, but
if it comes to actual inflection, many items which are treated strictly nominally in Arabic
or Latin behave rather verbally.
Other data oo different categorisation have been published in Mattissen 1994 on
Japanese, where the subclassification of lexical categories cuts across classical divisions,
especially in the area of adjectives, but also in the area of nouns and adverbs.
86
8. Some generalisations
From the discussions of the languages illustrated and the languages discussed elsewhere
in publications of the project we can deduce the following generalisations:
8.1. First set of generalisations
a) All languages which have referential phrases will be able to use translational
equivalents of nouns in a referential phrase. The use of the translational equivalents of
nouns is never more marked than the use of translational equivalents of other classes in
this function.
Typical:
der Geh-end-e
the one who goes
But not all languages must differentiate between translational equivalents of nouns and
verbs according to the criterion (s. Salish etc.).
b) All languages which have predicative phrases will be able to use translational
equivalents of verbs in a predicative phrase. The use of the translational equivalents of
verbs is never more marked than the use of translational equivalents of other classes in
this function.
Typical:
ich ging
I went
vs.
vs.
But not all languages must differentiate between translational equivalents of nouns and
verbs according to the criterion (Cayuga comes close to the extreme of using many
transitional equivalents of nouns and verbs much like inflected word-sentences).
c) All languages which have attributes will be able to use translational euqivalents of
adjectives in this function. The use of translational equivalents of adjectives is never
more marked than the use of translational equivalents of other classes in this function:
Typical:
It does not follow that there are only adjectival attributes (see above), and it does not
follow that other attributes formed from translational equivalents of non-adjectives are
generally more marked than or different from adjectival ones:
Tongan
(1)
ko
PRST
e
manu fekai a wild animal
ART animal wild
87
(2)
ko
PRST
e
manu puna a flying animal, a bird
ART animal fly
Russian
(3)
novaja kniga
(4)
otzova kniga
It also does not follow that the attributive use of adjectives is always less marked than
another use of the item in question:
Russian
(5)
novaja kniga the new book vs. kniga nova(ja) the book is new
d) All languages which have adjuncts will be able to use translational equivalents of
adverbs in this function. The use of translational equivalents of adverbs is never more
marked than the use of translational equivalents of other classes in this function:
Typical: he came fast
he came speedily/with speed
From this it does not follow that translational equivalents of adverbs are necessarily (or
even normally) used as adjuncts:
Tongan
(6)
nae
vave ene lel
PAST fast his run:DEF
his running was fast
88
a)
b)
c)
d)
ad a), inflection: There are languages which differ in terms of the degree of inflection
(cf. the isolating language of Tongan as opposed to the inflecting language of Latin). It
is conceivable that isolating languages may have a greater number of conversions than
inflecting ones.
ad a), derivation. There are languages which differentiate mainly between derived and
underived items (cf. Indonesian). The underived items of Indonesian tend to translated
nominally.
ad a), distribution. There are great differences with respect to the distributional potential
of lexical items. In Tongan, the distributional potential for all lexical items is very much
comparable.
ad b), syntactic parameter. There are languages which do not distinguish very much
between a syntactic and a lexical type of categorisation (see Latin); in other languages
like Tongan the lexical, paradigmatic categorisation is largely independent from the
syntactic, syntagmatic one.
ad c), semantic parameter. Not all languages classify ontological classes like individuals,
actions, qualities, etc. in the same way (cf. Cayuga). There may also be differences in the
interpretation of basic forms: In Salish, for instance, a dynamic concept appears to be
basically conceived as a dynamic property (participle-like). Independent actionconcepts seem to be derived. Still, ontological categorisation seems to be relatable in
terms of continua (languages where translational equivalents of nouns may look verblike will tend to also treat translational equivalents of adjectives in a verby way (see
89
Cayuga)). Yet there may also be a number of different subdistinctions (cf. Tamil,
Japanese) which cut across traditional labels.
ad d), discourse-pragmatic parameter. In all languages we find reflexes of the relevance
of the parameters of predication, reference and modification, together with certain
prototypical semantic interpretations. Yet languages may place different emphasis on
the formal differentiation of (+/-predicative, s. Latin), (+/-referential, s. Tongan), (+/modifying (in German the distinction between modifiers and non-modifiers is less strict
than in English, cf. die schne Frau, die Schne, sie singt schn vs. the beautiful
woman, ?the beautiful, she sings beautifully). Apart from that, discourse-pragmatic
considerations may override prototypical semantic expectations (cf. the case of Nama,
where strange cliticisation is due to pragmatically determined syntactic permutations).
8.4. Fourth set of generalisations
There appears to be a hierarchy of compatibility for translational equivalents of nouns
and verbs with typical features of the opposite class in the way already postulated in
Broschart 1991 and further exemplified in Broschart 1999. For instance, it is quite
common for nominal predicates not to be in need of a (verbal) copula, but there are less
languages where these nominal predicates are compatible with the same person markers
as verbal predicates (but see relational nouns in Tamil like makan-en (son-1.SG) I am
(his) son, and Turkish sair-im I am (a) poet). It is even rarer to find the same tense
markers in the context of translational equivalents of nominal predicates (cf. Turkish
sair-di-m I was (a) poet, irrespective of further differences). The equal treatment of
translational equivalents of nouns and verbs in the context of the formation of abstract
concepts is even more restricted (but see Salish s-cum-s (NL-cry-3.SG.POSS) his
crying, s-qenmegl-s (NL-mosquito-3.SG) its being a mosquito, its mosquitoness.
But all langauges employ at least some means for signalling a difference between
dynamic and non-dynamic items.
Conversely, it is not uncommon for languages not to require a special infinitival
derivation in non-finite contexts (cf. English to go vs. German zu geh-en). This entails
that there may be some similarity between verbal and nominal complements (cf. to
(complementiser)go vs. to (case) London). But it is less common to be able to combine
an underived (de)verbal item with articles as in *to the send vs. to the send-ing. Still
more restricted is the compatiblity with nominal number and numerals as in Germ.
*zwei Gehen vs. zwei Gnge two walks. And in no language will translational
equivalents of verbs be equally inherent of gender as translational equivalents of nouns
(cf. der , die, das Gehende (the one going (masc., fem. neutre)) vs. der Mann (the
man, masc.).
Usually, the stronger criteria will entail the weaker ones (if a nominal predicate
accepts the same tense affix as a verbal predicate, then the nominal predicate will
also accept the same pronominal affix as the verbal predicate, providing the language
in question has pronominal affixes. The reverse is not true (while some Tamil nouns
accept the same person affix as verbs, no Tamil noun accepts a tense marker). And
90
relational nouns generally tend to be more easily employed in verbal slots than
absolute ones (s. Tamil and Cayuga).
8.5. Conclusions
Through the fact that the categorisation of words and word-forms depends on a very
great number of different criteria, which can all significally contribute to typological
variation, it is necessary to make a list of the criteria in question (see above) and to
check each of criteria separately. It is not possible to generalise classical word classes to
the categorisation in the languages of the world beyond the level of some absolutely
trivial, prototypical correspondences between predication and dynamic concepts and
referential identification in combination with dominantly timestable material. For the
typology of word classes, these trivials can only be a point of departure. The actual
typological differences need far more careful attention.
91
9. Appendix
9. 1. Abbreviations
ABS - absolutive; ACC -accusative; ADJ - adjective, adjectival; ADJP - adjectival
participle; ADV - adverb, adverbial; ADVL - adverbialiser; AE - affixal element; AL alienable; ALL - allative; AN - an- derivation; ANT - anterior; APOC - apocopatus;
AOR - aorist; ART - article; ASS -assertion marker; BER - ber-derivation; CAUS causative; CL - classifier; COMM - communis; COND - conditional; COP - copula;
DAT - dative; DEF - definite; DEIC - deictic; DEM - demonstrative; DER - derivation;
DI - di-derivation (passive); DU - dual; DP - determiner phrase (Abney 1987); EV enunciative vowel; ESS - essive; EUPH - euphonic; EX - existential; F(EM) - feminine;
FUT - future; GEN - genitive; GER - gerund; HON - honorific; IDENT - identifying;
IMPF - imperfective; INCL - inclusive; IND - indicative; INDEF - indefinite; INF infinitive; INS - instrumental; INT - interrogative; IP - Infl-phrase (Abney 1987); KA (intransitive, active) ka-paradigm; KAH - interrogative marker kah; KAN - kanderivation; LAH - emphatic marker lah; LNK - linker; LOC - locative; LV - linking
vowel; M - masculine; MED - medialis; MEN - men-derivation; MOD - modifying,
modifier; MOT - motative; N - noun, nominal or neuter; NEG - negation; NL nominaliser; NOM - nominative; NONSUB - nonsubject; NP - noun phrase; NRH - nonrhematic; NTS - non-topical subject; NUN - nunation; O(BJ) - object; OBL - oblique;
OR - orientation marker; PA - personal article; PASS - passive; PAST - past tense;
PART - participle; PEN - pen-derivation; PERF - perfective; PL - plural; POSS possessive; PRED - predicative, predicate; PRES - present tense; PRST - presentative
preposition; PV - preverbal affix; REC - recent; REF - referential; REFL - reflexes; REL
- relationaliser, marker of relative clause; RH - rhematic; S - subject; SBJNCT subjunctive; SG - singular; STAT - stative; TER - ter-derivation; TH - thematic; TM topic marker; USP - unspecific (article); V- verb, verbal; VBP - verbal participle; X
variable
92
9.2. Bibliography
Arabic
Akesson, Joyce 1991. The Strong Verb and Infinitive Noun in
Arabic . Acta Orientalia 52:35-48.
Al-Harbi, Abdallah 1991. A Syntactic Approach to Arabic Verbal
Morphology. Dissertation Abstracts International 52(5):1729A
[DAI No.: BRD-93390].
Al-Khrisat, Mohammad Mustafa 1993. Structuring the Arabic Lexicon
and Thesaurus with Lexical-Semantic Relations to Support
Information Retrieval. Dissertation Abstracts International
53(9):4769B [DAI No.: DA9301975].
Al-Sweel, A. Aziz I 1987. Verbal and Nominal Forms of Najdi
Arabic . Anthropological-Linguistics 29 (1):71-90.
Ayoub, Georgine and Georges Bohas 1981. Les Grammariens arabes, la
phrase nominale et le bon sens . Historiographia Linguistica
8(2-3):267-284.
Barbot, Michel 1990. La Structure du mot en arabe litteral .
Modeles Linguistiques (Mling) 12(2):7-32.
Becker, Valerie 1965. A Transfer Grammar of the Verb Structures of
Modern Literary Arabic and Lebanese Colloquial Arabic. Ann
Arbor Dissertation Abstracts 25: 4694.
Borg, Albert J. 1980. An Aspectual Distinction in Verbs and Nouns
in Maltese . Archivum Linguisticum 11:107-17.
Caspari, Carl P et al. 1967. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd
revised ed. London: Cambridge UP.
Coutinho, Dick 1969. Some Remarks on Verb-systems, Especially in
Relation to Arabic . In: Nomen: Leyden Studies in Linguistics
and Phonetics, 17-21. The Hague: Mouton.
Ditters, Everhard 1986. An Extended Affix Grammar for the Noun
Phrase in Modern Standard Arabic . In: Corpus Linguistics, II:
New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer
Corpora, ed. by Jan and Willem Meijs, 47-78. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Erwin, Wallace M. 1963. A Short Reference Grammar of Iraqui Arabic.
Washington: Georgetown UP.
Guillaume, Jean Patrick 1988. Le Discours tout entier est nom,
verbe et particule. Elaboration et constitution de la theorie
des parties du discours dans la tradition grammaticale arabe .
Langages 92:25-36.
Haddad, Fuad 1969. Alfarabi's Views of Logic and Its Relation to
Grammar . Islamic Quarterly 13:192-207.
Harrell, Richard S. and Louis Brunot 1962. A Short Reference Grammar
of Moroccan Arabic. With an Appendix of Texts in Urban Moroccan
Arabic. Washington: Georgetown UP.
Hartmann, Regina 1977. Klassifikation arabischer Substantive
anhand ihrer Morphologie . In: Das Lexikon in der Grammatik die Grammatik im Lexikon, ed. by Janos S Petfi and Jrgen S.
Bredemeier, 393-423. Hamburg: Buske.
93
94
Cayuga
Benger, Janet 1984. The Metrical Phonology of Cayuga. University of
Toronto M.A. Thesis.
Benger, Janet 1985. Stress and Vowel Length in Cayuga. Unpublished
paper. University of Ottawa. Presented at the Symposium on
Canadian Native Languages in Theoretical Perspective, SUNY
Buffalo.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1974. The Relation of Cayuga to the Other Northern
Iroquoian Languages. Manuscript. Paper read at the Conference
on Iroquoian Research, Rensselaerville, New York.
Chafe, Wallace L. and Michael K. Foster 1981. Prehistoric
Divergences and Recontacts Between Cayuga, Seneca, and the
Other Northern Iroquoian Languages . IJAL 47:121-42.
Doherty, Brian Fitzjohn 1993. The Acoustic-Phonetic Correlates of
Cayuga Word-Stress. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics,
Harvard University. (Abstract reprinted in Algonquian and
Iroquoian Linguistics 19(1):10.) [University Microfilms order
number DA 9330898].
Dyck, Carrie 1990. Cayuga Syllable Structure and Epenthesis.
University of Toronto M.A. Thesis.
Dyck, Carrie 1993. The Definition of Word in Polysynthetic
Languages . In: Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of
the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Carrie Dyck,
Vol.1:187-203. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics: Dept. of
Linguistics, University of Toronto.
Foster, Michael K. 1972. The Obsequies for Howard Sky, or Cloudyon-both-Sides . American Anthropologist 74:762-763.
Foster, Michael K. 1974a. From the Earth to Beyond the Sky: An
Ethnographic Approach to Four Longhouse Iroquois Speech Events.
(The Mercury Series, Ethnology Div., paper 20.) Ottawa:
National Museum of Man.
Foster Michael K. 1974b. When Words Become Deeds: An Analysis of
Three Iroquois Longhouse Speech Events . In: Explorations in
the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman and Joel
Sherzer, 33354-67. London: Cambridge University Press.
Forster, Michael K. On the Relationship Between Cayuga and Seneca.
(with Comments on Two Complementary Methodologies.) Manuscript.
Ottawa: National Museum of Man.
Forster, Michael K. 1977. Some Notes on Vowel Length and Accent in
Cayuga with Comments on Seneca . Manuscript.
Foster, Michael K. 1980. Thanksgiving Address: Cayuga and
Personal Anecdote: Cayuga . In: Northern Iroquoian Texts
(IJAL-NATS Monograph 4), ed. by Marianne Mithun and Hanni
Woodbury, 9-25, 149-55. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Foster, Michael K. 1982. Alternating Weak and Strong Syllables in
Cayuga Words . IJAL 48:59-72.
95
96
Indonesian
Alieva, N.F. et al. 1991. Bahasa Indonesia: deskripsi dan teori.
Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Arakin, V.D. 1967. Tipologicheskie osobennosti
slovoobrazovatel'noi sistemy v nekotorykh jazykakh
indoneziiskoi gruppy . In: Iazyki Iugo-Vostochnoi Azii, ed. by
I.A Gorgoniev, L.N Morev. and N.V Solntseva, 193-212. Moscow:
Nauka.
Badudu, J.S. 1984. Inilah bahasa Indonesia yang benar. Jakarta:
Gramedia.
Badudu, J.S. 1986. Inilah bahasa Indonesia yang benar II. Jakarta:
Gramedia.
Chaer, Abdul 1988. Tata bahsa praktis bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:
Bhratara Karya Aksara.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono 1978. Sentence patterns of Indonesian.
Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono 1983a. Beberapa aspek linguistik Indonesia.
Jakarta: Djambatan.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono 1983b. Some problems in the theory of
generative morphology: a case in Indonesian verbal formation .
In: Papers from the Third International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington
and S.A. Wurm, Vol. 4:215-38. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics
C77.
Dreyfuss, J.V. 1979. Towards a definition of nouniness in
Indonesian . In: Miscellaneous Studies in Indonesian and
Languages in Indonesia, Part IV (= Linguistic Studies in
Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia Vol 7), ed. by A. Halim,
1-10. Djakarta: Badan Penjelenggaran, Seri NUSA Universitas
Atma.
Dyen, Isodore 1967. A Descriptive Indonesian Grammar. Preliminary
Ed. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Gil, David 1994. The Structure of Riau Indonesian . Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 17:179-200.
Johns, Yohanni 1978. Bahasa Indonesia: Langkah baru, a new approach.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Johns, Yohanni 1978. Bahasa Indonesia Book Two: Langkah baru, a new
approach. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Kamus Besar Behasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, Department of
Education and Culture.
Kana, Marit 1983. The syntax and semantics of verbal prefixes in
bahasa Indonesia . In: Papers from the Third International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Amran Halim,
Lois Carrington and S.A. Wurm, Vol. 4:21-33. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics C77.
Kana, Marit 1986. Grammatical relations in bahasa Indonesia. Cornel
University Ph.D. Thesis.
97
Laz
Amse-DeJong, Tine 1989. The morphology of the pre-root elements in
the Laz verb form, and the meaning of ko-. In: Revue des
tudes gorgiennes et caucasienne 5:79-105.
98
99
Nama
Dempwolff, Otto 1934/35. Einfhrung in die Sprache der NamaHottentotten . Zeitschrift fr Eingeborenensprachen 25 (13):30-66,89-134,188-229.
Hagman, R.S. 1977. Nama Hottentot Grammar. Language Science
Monographs 15. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Publications.
Haacke, Wilfried H.G. 1976. Nama grammar. The noun phrase.
University of Capetown M.A. Thesis.
Haacke, Wilfried H.G. 1977. The so-called personal pronoun in
Nama . Khoisan Linguistic Studies 3:43-62.
Khler, Oswald 1981. Les langues khoisan. Les langues dans le monde
ancien et moderne 3, ed. by J. Perrot. Paris: Centre National
de Recherche Scientifique.
Meinhof, Carl 1909. Lehrbuch der Nama-Sprache. Berlin: Reimer.
Tamil
Agesthialingom, S. 1972. Verbal constraints on the use of
indefinite pronouns in Tamil . Journal of Tamil Studies 2:3036.
Agesthialingom, S. 1984. Anaphorization in Dravidian . CIEFL
Working Papers in Linguistics 1:1-31.
Agesthialingom, S. and Kumaraswami Raja, N. (eds.) 1978. Studies in
Early Dravidian Grammars. Proceedings of the Seminary on Early
Dravidian Grammars. Tamilnadu: Dept. of Ling.
Anderson, S.R. and E.L. Keenan 1985. Deixis . In: Language
typology and semantic description, ed. by T. Shopen, Vol.
III:259-308. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.
Andronow, M. 1969. A standard grammar of modern and classical Tamil.
Madras: New Century Book House.
Andronow, M. 1972. Notes on the nature and origin of the adjective
in Tamil . In: Third seminar on Dravidian linguistics, ed. by
S. Agesthialingom and S.V. Shanmugham, 167-78. Annamalai Nagar:
Annamalai University.
100
101
Turkish
Adamovi$, Milan 1988. Konjugationsgeschichte der trkischen
Sprache . Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
78:318-319.
Aissen, Judith and Jorge Hankamer 1980. Lexical extension and
grammatical transformations . BLS 6:238-49.
Bainbridge, Margaret 1987. Loan conjunctions in Turkish versus
negative syntax . In: Studies on modern Turkish. Proceedings
of the third conference on Turkish linguistics, ed. by Hendrik
E. Boeschoten and Ludo Th. Verhaeven, 42-56. Tilburg:
University Press.
Barulin, A.N. 1984. Teoreticheskije problemy opisanija tureckoj
imennoj slovoformy. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Stidies Ph.D.
Dissertation.
Bassarak, Armin 1986. Zur Grammatikalisierung der Zahligkeit im
Trkischen . Linguistische Studien 148:9-14.
102
103
104
General bibliography
Abney, Steven 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sententential
Aspect. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Alpatov, V.M. 1986. O raznych podchodach k vydeleniju %astej
re%i [Different approaches to the classification of the parts
of speech] . VJa 4:37-46.
Alpatov, V.M. (ed.) 1990. &asti re%i: Teorija i tipologija.
Moskva: Nauka.
Andrews, Avery 1985. The major functions of the noun phrase . In:
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy
Shopen, Vol. 1:62-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Babby Leonard H. 1974. Towards a formal theory of part of
speech . In: Slavic Transfomational Syntax, ed. by Richard
Brecht and Catherine Chvany. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Bach, Emmon 1969. Nouns and noun-phrases . In: Universals in
Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert T. Harms, 91-124. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bach, Emmon 1994. The semantics of syntactic categories: A cross
linguistic perspective". In: The Logical Foundations of
Linguistic Theory, ed. by John Macnamara and Gonzalo E. Reyes.
264-81. New York: Oxford UP.
Backhouse, A.E. 1984. Have all the adjectives gone? . Lingua
62:169-86.
Basset, Luis and Marcel Prennec (eds.) 1994. Les classes de mots:
Traditions et perspectives. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de
Lyon.
Bath, D.N.S. 1994. The Adjectival Category: Criteria for
Differentiation and Identification. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Br'ndal, Viggo 1948. Les parties du discours. Partes orationis.
tudes sur les catgories linguistiques. Copenhague:
Munksgaard.
Broschart, Jrgen 1991. Noun, verb, and PARTICIPATION. A typology
of the noun/verb-Distinction . In: Partizipation. Das
sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, ed. by Hansjakob Seiler
and Waldfried Premper, 65-137. Tbingen: Narr.
Broschart, Jrgen 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial
Distinctions in a Language without Nouns and Verbs .
Linguistic Typology 1(2):123-165.
Broschart, Jrgen 1999. Beyond Linguistics. Language and Cognition
from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Habilitation-thesis.
Kln: Institut fr Sprachwisssenschaft
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca 1994. The evolution
of grammar. Tense, Aspect and Mood in the Languages of the
World. Chicago et al.: UCP.
105
106
107