Beyond Nouns and Verbs:
Typological Studies in Lexical Categorisation
Jürgen Broschart & Carmen Dawuda
Contents
1
0. Introduction
2
0.1. Previous work on alternative forms of categorisation
5
0.2. Some methodology for lexical analysis in "exotic" languages
9
1. A grammatical sketch of Tamil
12
2. A grammatical sketch of Nama
25
3. A grammatical sketch of Indonesian
38
4. A grammatical sketch of Arabic
49
5. A grammatical sketch of Turkish
56
6. A grammatical sketch of Laz
64
7. Some other types
69
8. Some generalisations
70
8.1. First set of generalisations
70
8.2. Second set of generalisations
71
8.3. Third set of generalisations
71
8.4. Fourth set of generalisations
72
8.5. Conclusions
73
9. Appendix
74
9.1. Abbreviations
74
2
9.2. Bibliography
75
3
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 lexicon”
1
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
1
Many 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, Düsseldorf. The project was headed by Hans-Jürgen Sasse, Köln, and partly by Sebastian
Löbner, Düsseldorf. Researchers were - apart from ourselves - Sevim Genc, Luisa Garcia, Anna Keusen-
Margetts, Silvia Kutscher, Elisabeth Löbel, Johanna Mattissen, Regina Pustet, Heinz Roberg, Eva
Schultze-Berndt, and Birgit Schwarze.
4
tendencies to distinguish predicative characterising constituents from referentially
identifying constituents, and by associating the predicative constituent with “action
words” (second order entities) and the identifying one with “thing words” (first order
entities). In a way, this is necessary consequence of the fact that a referent can be better
identified by means of a “timestable” (Givón 1984), “nominal” property, while a
“temporal”, dynamic predicate will naturally provide varying, and hence comparatively
relevant, information. “Adjectives” and “adverbs” will then simply be the most natural
modifiers of the “nominal” and the “verbal” constituents, respectively. Modifying
expressions used in an identifying function are (“adjectival”) attributes which tend to
denote qualities, and non-identifying modifiers which serve the purpose of
characterising a state-of-affairs tend to be “manner adverbs” etc.. This is summarised in
diagram (1):
(1)
Prototypes of categorisation
THING
+IDENT
PROPERTY
"Noun"
-MOD
"Adjective"
"Verb"
"Adverb"
-MOD
MANNER
ACTION
+MOD
+MOD
-IDENT
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)
der Mann (N) lachte (V)
vs. der Lachende (PART.N) ist ein Mann (COP+NP)
‘the man laughed’
vs. ‘the one laughing is a man’
5
(3)
das schnell-e (ADJ) Rennen vs. das schnell (ADV) Rennen
‘the fast race’
vs. ‘running fast’
(4)
er rennt schnell (ADV)
vs.
er ist schnell (ADJ)
‘he runs fast/quickly’
vs.‘he is fast/quick’
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)
vs. *Mann-end (man-PART), *alt-end (old-PART)
(6)
das alt-e Haus vs. das Haus des Mann-es
‘the old house’ vs. ‘the house of the man’
Occasionally, the paradigmatic potential of different word classes in a given language is
relatively similar, or the various forms stand in a predictable relationship to each other.
For instance, it may be argued that in many languages adjectives and manner adverbs are
so systematically related that one might conceive of the various forms as members of the
same paradigm (cf. (7)-(8)):
(7)
das schnell-e Auto, das Auto ist schnell, fährt schnell
‘the fast car’, ‘the car is fast’, ‘goes fact’
(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)
6
(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
7
forms of lexical categorisation and try to identify the parameters which are relevant for
the description of the languages in question.
0.1. Previous work on alternative forms of categorisation
In Broschart 1997 a classical noun/verb-language like Latin was contrasted with a so-
called “type/token-language” like Tongan. Tongan, just like any other language, exhibits
a certain tendency to predicate “action words”, and to refer to individuals. It even has
formal distinctions between various lexical classes as far as the general “paradigm” of
options in constructions is concerned, and action words form a separate paradigm
compared to non-action words. Nevertheless, the structural peculiarities of Tongan
cannot be explained from the point of view of classical noun/verb-languages. For
instance, there is no word class with specifically finite vs. non-finite forms, all action
words are compatible with determiners, and even thing words or syntagms denoting
individuals can enter tense constructions without being “verbalised” in the sense of
assuming action characteristics. First compare examples (13)-(14):
(13)
na’e ‘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
laioné
PRES lion just ABS
ART lion:DEF
‘lions will be lions’; (lit. ‘the lion is just (like a) lion’)
(16)
‘oku fu’u fo’i
‘ulu
lanu pulu: ‘a e kakaá
PRES CL.big CL.round head colour blue ABS
ART
parrot:DEF
‘The parrot has a big round blue coloured head’
(17)
na’e kau
faiakó
‘a e
Siasí
PAST
PLteacher:DEF
ABS ART
Church:DEF
‘The Church provided the teachers’; (lit. ‘the teachers were of the Church’)
(18)
te ta
ipu
kofi?
FUT 1DU.INCL
cup coffee
8
‘Shall we (have a) cup of coffee?’
(19)
‘oku
fiema’u
ha
taha ‘oku
high profile
PRES
want
ART.USP
one
PRES high profile
‘they want someone who has high profile’
(20)
‘oku pa’anga
‘e tolu
PRES dollar
LNK 3
‘it is three dollars (in value)’
The construction na’e kau faiakó ‘a e Siasí (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 faiakó (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 fu’u fo’i ‘ulu lanu pulu: ‘a e kakaá, 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) na’e ‘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
pa’anga
‘e
tolu
PRST ART
dollar
LNK
3
‘(it is) three dollars (as coins etc.)’
In (20) pa’anga ‘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 na’e
‘asi mai
‘i
he
viteoó
PRST ART lion
3.SG
PAST
appear to.me LOC ART video:DEF
‘it is/was a lion I saw on the video’
9
Nevertheless, these differences are contextually conditioned; there is no general
prohibition against using lexical items of different sorts in the different slots in question,
and items are compatible in a way which is absolutely impossible in Indo-European
languages (see the compatibility of tense, (“nominal”) number, definiteness (signalled
by a “definitive accent” in (17)). The only strict incompatibility in Tongan is tense and
article.
In such a situation it is necessary to ask what actually motivates the great structural
similarity and compatibility between items which are kept strictly distinct in classical
noun/verb-languages. The answer has to do with a different emphasis on different
parameters of categorisation in noun/verb-languages like Latin and so-called
“type/token-languages” like Tongan, which leads to a complementary kind of
typological structure:
Apparently, a clear distinction between different lexical categories is “bought” with a
relatively weak distinction between a lexical and a phrasal level of analysis. Conversely,
a clear distinction between lexical items and phrasal items seems to suppress a clear
differentiation of classical nouns and verbs. These matters in turn seem to be a
consequence of the different emphasis on the parameters [+/-predicative] vs. [+/-
referential] to be explained below. For instance, Latin is an extreme case of showing
hardly any overt distinction between a lexical word form and a phrasal item. Thus,
puella ‘girl’ can be regarded as a member of the (non-referential) lexical paradigm
puella, puellae ..., but it can also be regarded as a minimal (referential) NP (‘the/a girl’).
All classical noun/verb-languages show at least some overlap between lexical and
phrasal categories, while in Tongan this would never happen (e.g. fefine ‘woman’ could
never be a phrase, while e fefine (ART woman) ‘a woman’ can. Incidentally, this is also
true of pia ‘beer’ (lexical item) vs. e pia (ART beer) ‘beer’ (phrasal item)). On the other
hand, Latin differentiates between a word class of verbs, which is specifically
predestined for a predicative function (since verbs need formal effort to be made non-
finite), as opposed to nouns, which are not predestined for the predicative function (they
may be used predicatively, but they do not have any specifically finite forms to be made
non-finite in identifying function). Hence, Latin distinguishes primarily between a word
class which is inherently [+predicative] and another one which is not ([-predicative]). In
the sense of Jakobson (1971), the former is marked for the predicative function
(presence of the feature [+predicative]), while the latter is unmarked (absence/non-
signalling of the feature in question). In Tongan, by way of contrast, we do not find a
major differentiation between markedly predicative items and the ones which are
unspecified for predicative function (the action words of Tongan usually behave much
like (non-finite) gerunds). Rather, it is the differentiation between markedly referential
phrasal “tokens” (cf. Jackendoff 1983) and (non-referential) lexical “types” which is
particularly salient (as we saw above, a lexical word on its own can never function as a
(referential) phrase; one needs articles or tense markers to turn the expression into a
phrase which can be located in space or time (e fefine (ART woman) ‘a woman’ and e
lele (ART run) ‘an act of running’ refer to an individual or a concrete event, while na’e
fefine (PAST woman) ‘(so.) was female’ and na’e lele (PAST run) ‘(so.) ran’ refer to a
specific state-of-affairs in time)). Since it does not really matter which type of lexical
item enters any one of these phrases, there is no classical noun/verb-distinction. But
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 na’e 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):
curro
lele
[+TNS,+pred]
[-TNS,-pred]
[-ART,-ref]
[+ART,+ref]
N/V-language
type/token-language
puella
fefine
puella
puella
fefine
e fefine
[-ref]
[-ref]
[-pred]
[-pred]
X
N
X
X
V
N
N(P)
DP
Latin vs. Tongan: A typological comparison
(23)
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 tense-
phrase 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
TYPE
TOKEN
NOMINAL
VERBAL
TAM-PHR ART-PHR N(P) N(-stem)
[+ref] [-ref]
[-pred] [+pred]
[+pred] [-pred] [+ref] [-ref]
"IP" "DP"
Dominant vs. secondary distinctions
lexical item
Type/Token (Tongan) Noun/Verb (Latin)
finite form
(24)
Simultaneously, there is a universal tendency of combining non-referential lexical
material with predicative tokens (resulting in “verb phrases”/”IPs”) and lexical material
which is unmarked for predicativity with identifying referential tokens (resulting in
“noun phrases”/”DPs” (Abney 1987)). Hence, it is possible to combine a typical sign for
a predicative constituent (e.g. a tense marker) with a non-referential predicate and a sign
for a referential constituent (above all, an article) with an inherently non-predicative
form of a lexeme (s. (25)):
(25) Typical combinations
tense ([+pred]) is compatible with LEX ([-ref])
article ([+ref]) is compatible with LEX ([-pred])
Apart from that, the set of predicative expressions always includes tense-marked
expressions, and the set of tense-marked expressions always includes action word
expressions, but not every tense-marked expression is an action predicate, and not every
predicate is tense-marked.
0.2. Some methodology for lexical analysis in “exotic” languages
Having given these prerequisites for the understanding of what is cross-linguistically
generalisable and in which way we may reckon with variation,we have now set the stage
for further analyses of languages where the respective categorisations are again
somewhat different from the classical ones. Just as in the examples above, there is no
question that it is possible to somehow relate all language data to classical nouns and
verbs by means of decreasing similarity, and there is also no question that all languages
follow some universal tendencies of categorisation. But little is gained by simply being
able to show that languages have something very basic in common or that it is possible
to somehow compare a given distinction to classical nouns and verbs. As typologist we
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
- predications with complement clauses
- others (including negation etc.)
Problems with the above?
7. List of lexical categories
- with morphological paradigms (inflectional, derivational)
- if necessary: “paradigm” of various syntactic contexts
Problems with the above (transitions between categories, etc.)?
8. Summary: Specific problems of the language in question
9. Literature
Here it has only been assumed that it is possible to identify what constitutes one or more
predication types in the language in question, (see (26), criterion 3.) and that it will be
possible to give translational equivalents of what counts as a nominal predication, a
verbal predication etc. in the classical languages (e.g predications with “thing words”,
“action words” etc.). Quite conceivably, there would not be the same type of structural
mould in the language under analysis as compared to the classical languages, so it may
turn out that words from different semantic domains share one form of predication type,
or that the form of the predication would be structurally very different etc.. These
problems would then have to be listed in order to characterise the language system in
question (as compared to the behaviour of traditional categories).
Given the major predication types, the predications would be more and more expanded
(intransitive > transitive, grammatical relations > obliques, simple clauses > complex
predications, etc.). In this context we would gain information about (morphological or
adpositional) case marking, markers of subordination (non-finite forms, nominalisation),
strategies of negation etc.. Information about the structure of (expanded) referential
phrases would include the identification of attributive constructions (equivalents of
adjectives, relative clauses etc.) and introduce the various categories involved in the
referential phrase (e.g. number, gender, article, possessive, etc.). In this way we would
obtain data which are usually considered relevant in the context of classical word classes
(e.g. “nominal” case, gender, etc., “verbal” vs, “nominal” negation, finite vs. non-finite
forms etc.).
Finally, lexical categories would be analysed with reference to their morphological
paradigm as well as to their potential of occurring in different syntactic contexts with
systematic forms of derivation etc..
In each case, one would have to be aware of the following parameters for lexical
analysis (cf. Sasse 1993:196):
(27) Parameters of lexical analysis
- Formal parameter (inflection, derivation, distribution)
- Syntactic parameter (how does the lexical, paradigmatic level correspond to the
syntactic, syntagmatic level of analysis?)
14
- Semantic parameter (which classes of meanings are involved in the categorisation?)
- Discourse-pragmatic parameter (what are the syntactic functions typically associated
with the lexical categorisation (reference, predication, modification)?)
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
1. A grammatical sketch of Tamil
For the Dravidian language Tamil
2
it will be shown that above all the so-called category
of “adjectives” (as defined via idiomatic translation) is extremely heterogenous. There
are many formally distinct lexical subcategories on a “squish” between what behaves
more “nominally” and more “verbally”. For the delimination of the categories in
question it is necessary to focus on the “paradigmatic” aspect of listing various uses of
the same lexical item, since only one syntactic context will not sufficiently distinguish
between the categories in question.
As for the spelling, there is variation in our data, and we generally tried to give a
simplified version of the sounds in question, since the phonology is not important for
our concerns. Various so-called “euphonic” elements etc. can be assigned a rather
straightforward grammatical function. For detailed information turn to the grammars
listed in the index.
Predications in Tamil are of five major types. The most grammaticalised predications
consist of a simple word-form inflected for tense and person. There is an affixal element
(AE) between the tense and the person morpheme which we shall analyse later. The
expression of separate participant phrases is not obligatory. These predications are
always translatable as verbal predications:
(1)
(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)
2
This chapter was written in cooperation with Anna Keusen-Margetts.
3
The numbers in brackets refer to specific sources in our own data collection and are for internal use only.
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 so-
called “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]
(10) Raaman toottattile
Raman garden:LOC
‘Raman is in the garden’ [16]
It is possible to use different kinds of “be”-predicates for semantic equivalents of type
five. In this case, we are essentially back to type one predications:
(11) Kumaar
vakkiil-aaka/aay iru-kkir-a-an
Kumar
lawyer-ESS
be-PRES-AE-3.SG.M
‘Kumar is now a lawyer’ [13]
(12) Raaman toottattile
iru-kkir-a-an
Raman garden:LOC
be-PRES-AE-3.SG.M
17
‘Raman is in the garden’ [16]
Translational equivalents of “adjectival” predicates often allow the shortened essive
form on -aa (the so-called “adverbializer”) preceding an auxiliary predicate. Sometimes
the “adjective” is inflected for person:
(13) atu
nall-aa
irukkutu
that good-ESS
be:PRES:3.SG.N
‘that is good’ [AK, 5 April 95, 3]
(14) inta peenaa putu-c-aa
irukkutu
this
pen
new-3.SG.N-ESSbe:PRES:3.SG.N
‘this pen is new (something which is new/as a new one)’
[AK 5 April 95, 3]
With some “adjectival” predicates, the adverbial form takes a longer essive form on -
aan-a, which is a so-called “adjectival participle” form of some underlying ‘become’-
predicate (the essive on “nouns” is -aak-a). The final -a also functions as an “affixal
element” in the sense defined above:
(15) pen azak-aan-a
iru-kkir-a-al
girl
beauty-become-”ADJ.PART”/AE be-PRES-AE-3.SG.F
Existential predicates can either employ the fully inflected ‘be’-”verb” or an invariable
form untu::
(16) pani manusan
untu
snow man
be
‘there is such a thing as a yeti’ (Asher 1982:52)
There is also a possessive type of predication, which is historically reminiscent of type
three, but which now is more like type five. The so-called “genitive” is historically a
person affix -atu (3.SG.N), also compare the free form atu ‘that’.
(17) pallikkuutam Kumaar-atu
school
Kumar-”GEN”/3.SG.N
‘the school is the one of Kumar’ [5]
All these predications allow or require the expression of one or more free participant
phrases (arguments). The arguments are either case marked (the nominative is mostly
unmarked) or - as complement clauses - end in the so-called “infinitive” -a or the
“verbal participle” -i. For reasons which will be apparent later, we shall also group the
infinitive and the verbal participle among the “affixal elements” mentioned above. The -
a occurs in tensed as well as in non-tensed forms.
(18) paiyan caavi.y-aal
katav-ai.t
tira-nt-a-an
boy
key-INS
door-ACC
open-PAST-AE-3.SG.M
‘the boy open the door with a key’ [6, Leh 27]
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 ‘tree-
NOM.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)
vaank.in-a-an
Kumar
five
nice shirt-PL-ACC
buy:PAST-AE-3SG.M
‘Kumar bought five nice shirts’ [3]
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/non-
rational (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
pacanka
two
boy:PL
two
boys [3, Asher 1982]
(33) pacankal-le
rantu
peeru
boy:PL-LOC
two person
‘two boys’ [2, Asher 1982]
20
(34) nall-a
cattai-kal
aint-ai
nice-AE shirt-PL
five-ACC
‘the five nice shirts’ [3]
(35) aintu nall-a cattai-kal-(ai)
five nice-AE
shirt-PL-(ACC)
‘(the) five nice shirts’
(36) neerru
inkee va-nt-a
anta.p paiyan-ai
naan inru paar-tt-e-en
yesterday
here come-PAST-AE that
boy-ACC I today see-PAST-AE-1s
‘Today I saw that boy who came here yesterday’ [4]
Attributes are frequently created by combining a root with an “adjectival participle” of
expressions for ‘to become’, ‘to be’, ‘to have’:
(37) oru
azak-aan-a
pen
one
beauty-become:PAST.-”ADJ.PART”/AE
girl
‘a beautiful girl’ [3]
(38) oru panam ull-a
manitan
one
money be/have-”ADJ.PART” person
‘a person with money’ [3]
Possessive attributes are of very different kinds. One version has a special “oblique”
affix on the possessor “noun”:
(39) mara-ttu.k kilai
tree-OBL
branch
‘the branck of a tree’
The so-called “euphonic element” in other constructions is probably an old oblique, too:
(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 vaal
dog-”EUPH”-GEN
tail
‘the dog’s tail’
The genitive -atu is also found right next to the stem:
(42) aracan-atu muti
21
king-GEN crown
‘the king’s crown’
It is also possible to use a defective “adjectival participle” of utai ‘to possess’/’belong
to’:
(43) naay-utai.y-a
vaal
dog-possess-”ADJ.PART”/AE
tail
‘the tail belonging to the dog’
As we saw above, modifiers of predicate phrases (“adverbs”) either end in -a (like mell-
a ‘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 paiyan
this
good-AE
boy
‘this nice boy’ [1]
(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
naan keelvippat.t-e-en
minister yesterday
come-PAST-AE-3shon say-PAST-”VBP”
I hear-PAST-AE-1.SG
lit. I heard (it) said that the minister had come yesterday’
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
peec-in-a-an-ee
tavira
kumaar yaar-itam-um
I-LOC
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
Complements can also simply be unmarked:
(59) kumaar inru
oru
mantiri varu-kir-a-ar
en-r-a-an
Kumaar today a
minster come-PRES-AE-3.SG.HON say-PAST-3sm
‘Kumaar said that a minister would come today’
(60) inru
oru mantiri
varu-kir-a-ar
poolum
today
a
minister
come-PRES-AE-3.SG.HON
it.seems
‘It seems that a minister is coming today’
There is also asyndetic subordination (Andronov 1969:190):
(61) namo seyyale avaru seyraru
we
did.not he
does
‘he (honorific) does (what) we did not’
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
(62) A synopsis of Tamil word-forms (part 1)
BOX
etc.
BEAUTI-
FUL
NEW
GREEN
GOOD
PROUD/
BIG
SLEEP
WEEP
DO
DO, KILL
etc.
pettiy-ai
case-mkd
noun
‘to the
box’
ko-nr-a-
ar-ai
nominal.
verb
‘to those
who k.ed’
CASE
-AI
Kumar-
atu
case-m.
noun
‘Kumar’s’
azak-
aan-aval
nominal.
adjective
‘she who
is beaut.’
nall-
atu
nom.
adj.
‘that wh.
is good’
per-iy-
avan
nom.
adj
‘he who
is proud’
tuunk-iy-
avan
verbal
noun
‘he who
slept’
cey-t-
avan
verbal
noun
‘he who
did’
CASE/
PERSON
-ATU etc.
makan-
en
predica-
tive n.
‘I am the
son’
nall-
en
predic.
adj.
‘I am
good’
cey-t-a-
an
verbal
pred.
‘he did’
PERSON
-EN etc.
put-u-cu
predic.
adj.
‘it is new’
per-i-cu
pred.
adj.
‘it is big’
tuunk-iy-
a-an
verbal
pred.
‘he slept’
cey-t-a
-an
verbal
pred.
‘he did’
AFFIXAL
ELEM.
-U, I, A
vakkiil-
aak-a
case-m.
noun
‘as a law-
yer’
azak-
aan-a
adverb
‘beauti-
fully’
put-u-c-
aa
adverb
‘newly’
nall-
aa
adverb
‘well’
per-iy-
aa
adverb
‘proudly’
CASE/
ADVERB.
-AA(KA)
tuunk-iy-
a-an
verbal
pred.
‘he slept’
cey-t-
a-an
verbal
pred.
‘he did’
TENSE
-I, -T
azak-
aan-a
attrib.
adjective
‘b.ful’
pac-
a
attr.
adj.
‘green’
nall-
a
attr.
adj.
‘good’
per-iy-
a
attr.
adj.
‘proud’
tuunk-iy-
a
adjectival
partic.
‘having
slept’
cey-t-
a
adjectiv.
partic.
‘having
done’
cey-t-
a-an
verbal
pred.
‘he did’
ATTR./
PART./
PRED
-A
pac-i
nomin.
adj.
‘that wh.
is green’
tuunk-i
verbal
partic.
‘having
slept’
NOML./
PART.
-I
az-u-t(-)u
verbal
partic.
‘having
wept’
cey-t(-)u
verbal
partic.
‘having
done’
PART
-U
azak-u
attr. adj/
adj. noun
‘b.(ful)’
put-u
attr. adj
nom. adj
‘(sth) n.’
pac-u
attr. adj./
nom.adj
‘(sth) gr.’
tuunk-u-
verb stem
‘sleep-’
az-u-
verb stem
‘weep-’
STEM/
NOML
-U
26
(63) A synopsis of Tamil word-forms (part 2)
Translational equivalents of nouns can be case-marked (petti(y)-ai box-ACC, Kumar-atu
Kumar-GEN, vakkiil-aaka lawyer-ESS), and some have a special nominative stem
forms (mara-m ‘tree’). A separate relational class of nouns has a special predicative
form with a person ending (of type one), like makan-en (son-1.SG) ‘I am the son’.
Many translational equivalents of adjectives like azaku ‘beautiful’ behave rather
‘nominally’ inasmuch as the same form can be used as an adjectival noun (‘beauty’).
The same is true of words such as karu-pp-u ‘black(ness)’ (compare pac-a-pp-u ‘green
colour’ from pac-a ‘being green’). On the other hand, the vocalic stem ending -u is
different from the consonantal ending -m in mara-m ‘tree’, and very many words which
are not inherently nouns (or derived nouns) contain the -u-affix: cf. put-u ‘(sth.) new’,
pac-u ‘(sth.) green’, pac-u-mai ‘greenness’, per-u-mai ‘pride’ (from per-i(y)-a ‘proud’).
As for azak-u, some more explicitly attributive and adverbial forms are based on essive
endings (the essive is historically a ‘verbal participle’ of some verb of being or
becoming): azak-aan-a, cf. vakkiil-aak-a ‘as a lawyer’. Note again that the -u disappears
in these forms (so it is not a part of the root).
Another class of translational equivalents of adjectives has a quotation form which is
identical with the attributive form on -a, cf. pac-a ‘(being) green’, nall-a ‘good’. The
adverbial form of nall-a is nall-aa, which is also historically an essive form (cf. vakkiil-
aay ‘as a lawyer’). Nominalised forms require a personal ending like -atu (class two), as
in nall-atu ‘that which is good’. Note that the previously mentioned azaku has a
corresponding form with a person ending which is based on the “long” essive form:
azak-aan-aval ‘she who is beautiful’. With this person form, the -a of the attributive
form is always dropped (so -a is also not part of the root for nall-a). For a word like pac-
a ‘(being) green’ there is also a adjectival noun form pac-a-mai which translates as ‘the
state of being green’. Even more “nominal” is the form where -a becomes replaced by -u
as in pac-u-mai ‘greenness’ (corresponding to pac-u ‘(sth) green’). In other words, the -
a-”adjectives” tend to be interpreted less “nominally” than the -u-”adjectives” like azak-
u or put-u. Still, already put-u has a predicative form with a type one person ending (put-
mara-m
noun
quotation
‘tree’
azak-u
adj. noun
quotation
‘beauty’
put-u
attr. adj.
quotation
‘new’
pa-c-a
attr. adj.
quotation
‘green’
nall-a
attr. adj.
quotation
‘good’
per-iy-a
attr. adj.
quotation
‘proud’
tuunk-a
quotation
‘to sleep’
az-a
quotation
‘to weep’
cey-t-a
adj. part.
‘h. done’
cey-t-a-an
verbal
pred.
‘he did’
STEM/
INF/PRED
-M, U, A
pa-c-a-
mai
adj. noun
‘being g.’
cey-t-a-
mai
verbal n.
‘act. done
in the pst’
NOML
-A-MAI
azak-u
adj. noun
‘beauty’
pa-c-u-
mai
adj. noun
‘greenn.’
per-u-
mai
adj. noun
‘pride’
NOML
-U(-MAI)
cey-kai
verbal n.
‘deed’
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. cey-
tu/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 -i-
endings, 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 case-
marked “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 Dixon’s 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 Wetzer’s (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
2. A grammatical sketch of Nama
The next language to be discussed is Nama
4
, a Khoisan language from Namibia. Here
we shall discuss the determinants of unusual morphology in a language where the lexical
categorisation is largely similar to classical word classes. Nama clearly differentiates
between the paradigms of dynamic, “verbal” lexemes and “nominal” non-dynamic
concepts (including the translational equivalents of adjectives and substantives), but
only “noun phrases” receive a “predicative inflection” and take person “subject” affixes,
and the tense markers of “verbal” items are similar to affixes only inside
“nominalisations”. It will be argued that these peculiarities are a historical consequence
of extremely liberal syntactic permutations under pragmatic circumstances, bringing
items into contact with each other which would not be likely to coincide in languages
with a more rigid word order. A synopsis of the relevant syntactic processes of Nama
will be given, and a new appraisal of the interaction between syntax and lexicon will be
necessary.
Again, the phonology has been radically simplified for orthographic reasons, except
when the difference is essential for the argument. For details see Hagman (1977) and
Haake (1976, 1977) in the references.
Predications in Nama are of extraordinarily many different types. The simplest type of
predication translates as a nominal predication and consists of a base morpheme and a
so-called “accusative” or “rhematic” form of a person-number-gender inflection:
(1)
?ao-pa
man-3.SG.M:RH
‘it is the/(a) man’ [3]
Alternatively, a “nominal” expression in the so-called “nominative” or “thematic” form
of the person inflection can be juxtaposed to a grammaticalized copula ke.
(2)
?ao-p
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH COP
‘it is the man’
[3]
Another variant is a free pronominal topic or theme (also carrying pronominal
inflection), followed by the copula ke and a rhematic form of the “nominal predicate”:
(3)
kll?i-p
ke
?ao-pa
he-3.SG.M:TH
COP man-3.SG.M:RH
‘he is the man’
4
This chapter was written in cooperation with Heinz Roberg.
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
ke
?a
k!?ao?ao
man-3.SG.M:TH
COP1
COP2
hunter
‘the man is a hunter’
(7)
?ao-p
ke
?a
kai
man-3.SG.M:TH
COP1
COP2
big
‘the man is tall’
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 -?ií which we could call COP3:
(8)
?ao-p
ke
k!?ao?ao
ko-?ií
man-3.SG.M:TH COP hunter
REC.PAST-COP3
‘the man has been a hunter’
(9)
?ao-p
ke
kai
ko-?ií
man-3.SG.M:TH COP great
REC.PAST-COP3
‘the man has been great’
These constructions are also typical of stative predicates which occasionally may
translate as verbs:
(10) ?ao-p
ke
?a
k=?an
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
COP2
know
‘the man knows’
31
(11) ?ao-p
ke
k=?an
ko-?ií
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
know
REC.PAST-COP3
‘the man has known’
Ordinary “verbal” predications of a dynamic type contain temporal elements which
precede the nucleus. The preposed tense markers (like ra) occasionally contain the ?a-
copula: thus, ra comes from re+?a. Therefore, we can call the preposed tense markers
COP2-elements. It is possible to use additional COP3-items at the end of the
predication, too:
(12) ?ao-p
ke
ra
nllae
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
COP2.PRES.IMPF
sing
‘the man is singing’
(13) ?ao-p
ke
ko
nllae
ha-?ií
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1 COP2.REC.PAST
sing
REC.ANT-COP3
‘the man has just been singing’
Non-pronominal objects (in their “rhematic” form) precede the tensed phrase:
(14) ‘ao-p
ke
tara-sa
ra
muu
man-3.SG.M:TH COP1
woman-3.SG.F:RH
COP2.PRES.IMPF see
‘the man sees the woman’
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
muu
dog-3.SG.M:TH COP1
yesterday
woman-3.SG.F:TH REC.PAST
see
‘Yesterday, the dog saw the woman’
Pronominal equivalents of arguments enter the following structures:
(16) klli-p
ke
//?ari ko
muu-si
he/she-3.SG.M:TH
COP1
yesterday
REC.PASTsaw-3.SG.F:OBJ
‘yesterday, he saw her’
(17) klli-p
ke
//?ari
klli-sa
ko
muu
he/she-3.SG.M:TH COP1
yesterday
he/she-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST
see
‘yesterday, he saw her’
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
Another variant of predications is a so-called “passive”. Here we find another formerly
pronominal enclitic -he, which historically was an object ending, but which is nowadays
interpreted as a passive marker. The patient will be in the standard thematic form on -p ,
-s etc., while the agent may be in a special “non-topical subject” form on -pi, -si etc.;
alternatively, the agent can be expressed by an oblique phrase with the postposition xa
governing a thematic (or non-rhematic) form on -p, -s, etc..
(18) tara-s
ke
?ao-pi
ko
muu-he
woman-3.SG.F:TH COP1
man-NTS
REC.PAST
see-DEM/”PASS”
lit. ‘the woman, the man saw her’/’The woman was seen by the man’ [14]
(19) tara-s
ke
?ao-p
xa ko
muu-he
woman-3.SG.F:TH COP1
man-3.SG.M:TH of REC.PASTsee-”PASS”
‘the woman was seen by the man’ [18]
Under certain circumstances, the -pi- or -p xa-phrase can be fronted into regular topic
position, but usually in connection with an ?i-element before ke, which is cognate with
the demonstrative pronoun ‘it’ (for other functions of ?i see below):
(20) ?ao-pi (?ì)
ke
tara-sa
ko
muu-he
man-3.SG.M:NTS DEM
COP1
woman-3.SG.F.RH REC.PASTsee-”PASS”
‘the mán it is who saw the woman’/’the woman was seen by the mán’
(21) ?ao-p
xa ?ì
ke
tara-sa
ko
muu-he
man-3.SG.M:TH of DEM
COP1
woman-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST see-”PASS”
‘by the man the woman was seen’
Constructions like these are also frequent with intransitives:
(22) ?ao-pi
(?ì)
/?ao-p
xa ?ì
ke
ko
haa-he
man-3.SG.M:NTS DEM/man-3.SG.M:TH of DEM COP1 REC.PAST come-”PASS”
Lit. ‘by the man it has come’/’the man has come’
A similar form occurs with the predication of natural phenomena; here the
demonstrative ?i is more or less an equivalent of a copulative element:
(23) kla-pi
?ì
rain-3.SG.M:NTS
DEM/COP1
‘rain, him it (is)’/’it is raining’
Quite possibly, the regular thematic forms like khoe-p (man-3.SG.M:TH) ‘the man’ etc.
are historically also -pi-forms, since words on bilabials like om-i (hut-3.SG.M:TH)
‘(the) hut’ apparently originated in *om-pi. On the other hand, the -pi-form is
33
synchronically identical with a -pi-object ending on a transitive “verb”, i.e. it figures as a
non-canonical subject).
There are also instances when the rhematic or non-thematic forms on -pa function much
like subjects. In all these contexts (mainly in imperatives and questions), there is no
regular topic. Ke is missing here or is replaced by the interrogative kha (this means that
ke (COP1) is basically a marker of assertions (ASS)). Ke is also usually missing in
complement clauses, see below).
(24) saá-tsà
kha
nii
!uupee
you-2s:FOC
INT FUT run.away
‘will you run away?’ [Hd 6]
(as opposed to saá-ts ke nii !uupee ‘you will run away’).
(25) saá-tsà !uupee
(you) run away!
So far, we have recognized six types of pronominal forms or endings on “NPs” and
“verbs”, respectively: the free forms like kIIi-p (he/she-3.SG.M:TH) ‘he’ or tií-ta (I-
1.SG:TH) ‘I’, the “thematic” affixes -p (3.SG.M:TH) or-ta (1.SG.TH), the “rhematic”
affixes -pà (3.SG.M:RH) or -tà (1.SG:RH), the “non-topical subject” affix type -pi
(3.SG.M:NTS), as well as the verbal object affixes-pi (3.SG.M:OBJ) ‘him’ or -te
(1.SG:OBJ) ‘me’, as well as the demonstrative particle ?i. (the passive -he is historically
an object affix).
Two other pronominal items can be found in extended argument expressions, which will
be called pronomoid (like tií (1.SG)) and possessive (like tíi (1.SG)).
(26) tií
kai
?ao-ta
I
big
man-1.SG:TH
‘I, this great man’
(27) hoa
tíí
xuu-m
all
my
thing-3.PL.COMM:TH
‘all my things’
The free form tií-ta (I-1.SG:TH) is evidently composed of the pronomoid tií 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
RH; Free f.: TH/NRH RH
34
tií
tíí
-te
-ta(1)
-tà
tií-ta
tií-tà
saá
sáá
-tsi
-ts(2)
-tsà
saá-ts, ..-tsà
-pi
-pi-i/ -p(3sm)
-pà
kll?i-p, ..-pà
-si
-si
-s (3sf)
-sà
kll?i-s, ..-sà
(-he “pass”) ?ì (3.SG.N particle)
The general sequence in referential expressions is the following:
“Pronomoid”, Quantor, Demonstrative, Possessive, Numeral, Qualifier, Nucleus,
Person/Gender/Number/Case-Inflection.
(29) tií-ta
I-1.SG:TH
‘I’
(30) tií
kai
?ao-ta
I
big
man-1.SG.TH
‘I, this great man’
(31) hoa
tíí
xuu-m
all
my
thing-3.PL.COMM:TH
‘all my things’
(32) nee
!ona
xuu-m
this
three
thing-3.PL.COMM:TH
‘these three things’
(33) nee
tií
?ixa
tara-s
this
my
beautiful
wife-3.SG.F:TH
‘this, my beautiful wife’
As we can see in these examples, none of the attributes carries any inflection; the person
inflection marks the entire phrase. This is different if the attributes follow the nucleus.
Then every item has to be marked by the same person inflection: The order after the
nucleus is rather free, but it tends to be a mirror image of the preposed order:
(34) tara-s
?ixa-s
tií-s
nee-s
wife-3.SG.F:TH beautiful-3.SG.F:TH
my-3.SG.F:TH
this-3.SG.F:TH
‘this, my beautiful wife’
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
nllae-p
ke
man-3.SG.M:TH
PRES.IMPF
sing-3.SG.M:TH
ASS
‘it is the mán who is sínging’
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-sà ko muu
man-3sm:TH
ASS yesterday
woman-3.SG.F:RH REC.PAST
see
‘the man yesterday saw the woman’
As we saw above, in the ordinary construction, a prototypical human topic will be
followed by an assertion marker, an adverb, a referential nominal undergoer in its
“rhematic” or “predicative” form, a tense marker and a plain “verbal” predicate.
If for pragmatic reasons the undergoer phrase should become part of the thematic or
“non-rhematic” phrase, the undergoer expression is fronted and stacked before the
original pronominal subject ending. The original nominal subject or “theme”, however,
will turn into a “rhematic” NP, with a pronominal ending which is corefential with the
subject place-holder. In other words, one still knows what is the “real” subject under
standard conditions. I have set off the two pronominal endings on the first phrase by
means of a sign for cliticisation, since they clearly stand for two different constituents:
(38) tara-sà=p
ke
//?ari
woman-3.SG.F:RH=3.SG.M:TH
ASS
yesterday
?ao-pà
ko muu-si
man-SG.M:RH REC.PAST
see-3.SG.F:OBJ
‘as for the woman [tara-sà], he [=p], i.e. the man [?ao-pà], 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 ke
//?ari
?ao-pà
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=3.SG.M:TH
ASS yesterday
man-3.SG.M:RH
tara-sà
ko
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 ke
ko
//?ari
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=3.SG.M:TH
ASS REC.PASTyesterday
?ao-pà
tara-sà
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-pà
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-pà
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
?ao-pà
sing=PRES.IMPF=3.SG.M:TH
ASS
man-3.SG.M:RH
‘the one singing/he, singing, is the man’
(45) muu-si=ko=p
ke
?ao-pà
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) khoe-p
‘man’
(47) khoe-s
‘woman’
(48) muu-p
‘eye’ (‘seer’)
(49) muu-s
‘little eye’
(50) kao-p
‘ruler’
(51) kao-s
‘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
ko
haa-s
khan!aa-ta
ke
!hai-se
John-3.SG.M:TH REC.PAST come-3.SG.F:TH
behind-1.SG:TH ASS fast-ADVL
ko pee
REC.PAST
run.away
‘after (that) John had come, I ran away’
So in certain contexts kao-s could be interpreted either as ‘rulership’ or ‘the fact that so.
rules’.
Some intermediate stage between a derivation and a syntactic construction also presents
itself in “adverbializations” like muu-si=ra=se=p:
(53) muu-si=ra=se=p
ke ?ao-pa
see-3.SG.F:OBJ=PRES=ADVL=3.SG.M:TH ASS man-3.SG.M:RH
ko
=?uu
REC.PASTeat
‘when he saw her/while seeing her, the man was eating’
Here the adverbializer -se can be employed in a morphosyntactic function, while it is a
derivational affix in (54):
(54) kai-se
big-ADVL
‘greatly’
It is thus the freedom of syntactic permutations which leads to some unexpected
properties of Nama morphology and some apparent oddities with respect to the marking
of “nouns” and “verbs” in the language in question. For instance, one would not
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 ke
?à
man=1.SG:TH
ASS COP2
‘a man I am’
can even today be without ke, especially in subordinate clauses, in which case the
predication reads ?ao=ta ?à or ?ao=ta=?à; this looks almost like ?ao-tà, 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-tà
man-1.SG:RH
‘I am a/the man’
will probably go back to
(57) * ?ao=ta=?à
man=1.SG:TH=COP
‘a man I am’
It is also likely that ta once used to be a free pronoun in clauses like
(58)
* ta
?a ?ao
1.SG COP man
‘I am (a) man’
(which today would be tií-ta ke ?a ?ao (I-1.SG:TH ASS COP man)).
There are also reasons to assume that one might have been able to say
(59) * ?ì ?ií ti
DEM COP 1.SG:RH
‘it is me’
allowing the transformation
39
(60) * ti
?ì
?ií
me
DEM
COP
‘me it is’
(note the copulative ?ií in ... k!?ao?ao ko -?ií
‘... was a hunter’).
A combination such as
(61) * ti ?ì
?ií
ta
?à
me
DEM
COP
I COP
would then have read ‘me it is I am’. Through amalgamation ti+?ì+?ií+ta+?à might
eventually have yielded
(62)
tií-tà
‘it is me I am’
which is now the base form of the free pronoun (while tií (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)
tiíatà ‘it is me’< *ti ?ì ?í ?à ta ?à ‘me it is (?à) I am (?à)
Here the first ?à may have reinforced the copulative force of ?(i)í (cf. Haacke
1976:128)
A complex construction such as tií ?ao=tà ‘it is me, the man’ may then have originated
in * ti ?ì+?íí ?ao(=)ta ?à ‘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
?ì
he/she-3.SG:NTS
DEM/COP
‘he, him it (is)’,
contrasting with the rhematic form
40
(66) klI?i=pà
he/she=3.SG.M:RH
‘it is him’,
possibly in analogy with tií=tà ‘it is me’ or as a combination of a reduced *k//?i=p plus
?à. (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-pà might go
back to kII?i=pa=?à, since there is no base form pa for the third person (vs. ta in the
first)).
The present variants of predications such as ?ao=tà and ?ao=ta ke would then go back
to
(67) ?ao=tà
‘it is me, a/the man’ < *?ao ta ?à ‘a man I am’/’it is me, a man’
(68) ?ao=ta ke
‘it is me, a/the man’ < *?ao ta ke ‘a man I am’/’it is me, a man’
while the new versions of ‘a man I am’ and ‘I am a man’ are
(69) ?ao=ta
ke
?à
man-1.SG:TH
ASS COP
‘a man I am’
and
(70) tií=ta
ke
?à
?ao
I-1.SG:TH
ASS
COP
man
‘me, I am a man’
The “thematic” forms of ordinary lexical items are accordingly
(71) ?ao=ta
‘me, a/the man’
(72) ?om=(p)i
‘it/hé, the house’
(73) ?ao=p(i)
‘hé, the man’
Old obliques like -te (1.SG.OBJ) etc. survive as object affixes and as parts of
possessives (tí). 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) ?ao-s
‘womanish man’
(76) khoe-p ‘man’
(77) khoe-s ‘woman’
(78) ii-s
‘beauty’
(79) muu-p
‘eye’ (‘seer’)
(80) muu-s
‘little eye’
(81) kao-p
‘king’/’ruler’
(82) kao-s
‘rulership’
(83) //?ari-s ‘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
muu-si
yesterday=3sm:TH
ASS
see-3.SG.F:OBJ
‘yesterday, he saw her’
That =p is not literally part of //?ari ‘yesterday’ is suggested by comparing (84) with
(83) and (85):
(85) //?ari=s
ke
muu-pi
yesterday=3.SG.F:TH
ASS
see-3.SG.M:OBJ
‘yesterday, she saw him’
(The “abstract noun” ‘the time of yesterday’ in (83) is always feminine).
Another instance of a squish from cliticisation to lexical morphology is represented in
the phenomenon of nominalisation which we referred to earlier and which we will repeat
here: Historically, all these constructions can all be explained by the same pragmatically
conditioned process of fronting. But synchronically, we may also be dealing with
nominalisations:
(86) haa=ko=p ke
?ao-pà
come=REC.PAST=3.SG.M:TH ASS man-3.SG.M:RH)
‘having just come he did, the man’
‘having just come, he is the man’,
‘he, having just come, is the man’
‘the one who has just come is the man’
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-pà is written ?ao-p ?à. 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
‘(a) man’
khoe-s
‘(a) woman’
?ao-p
‘(a) man’
?ao-s
‘(a) womanish man’
?ao-re
‘manly’
?ao-re-p
‘a man person’
43
?ao-se
‘man-like’
?ao-si-p
‘manliness’
kai ‘big
(ATTR)’
kai-p
‘a big male person’
kai-s
‘a big female person’
kai-si-p
‘size’
?ii-s
‘beauty’
?ii-xa
‘beautiful (ATTR)’
?ii-xa-s
‘a beautiful female person’
muu-p
‘(an) eye <*muu ‘see’)
muu-s
‘(a) small eye’
muu(-)ko-p
‘someone who saw’
muu-pi(-)ra-p
‘the one who sees him (-pi)’
muu-pi(-)ra(-)se-p
‘when (ADV -se) he sees him (-pi)’
kao-p
‘king’/’ruler’
kao-s
‘rulership’/’the fact that someone ruled’
kao-si-p
‘rulership’
kai-se
‘greatly’
//?ari
‘yesterday’
//?ari-s
‘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=pà ‘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
3. A grammatical sketch of Indonesian
For Indonesian
5
it will be shown that there is little evidence for a clear-cut distinction
between different lexical paradigms; instead, there are regular derivational processes
leading to a distinction between various classes of word-forms.
Indonesian has two types of predication with various subtypes. One type is represented
by a simple juxtaposition of an identifying and a characterising expression, where the
former usually precedes the latter:
(1)
tombak senjata
spear weapon
‘a spear is a weapon’ [2]
(2)
kapur putik
chalk white
‘chalk is white’ [2]
(3)
panas sekarang
warm now
warm now [4]
‘warm it is nów’
(4)
saya tidur
1.SG sleep
‘I sleep’
The identifying term is often accompanied by a demonstrative:
(5)
kain ini sutera
material DEM
silk
‘this material is silk’
(6)
jalan ini
licin
road DEM slippery
‘this road is slippery’ [2]
Person pronouns may also accept a demonstrative:
(7)
saya ini
guru
1.SG DEM teacher
‘me here, I am a teacher’ [5]
Proper names may optionally carry “personal articles”:
5
This chapter was written in cooperation with Birgit Schwarze.
45
(8)
(Si) Ali tidur
PA Ali sleep
‘Ali sleeps’ [6]
Place expressions are introduced by prepositions:
(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 mínister’
(13) akan orang
itu,
maling-lah
ia
concerning man that thief-LAH 3.SG
‘as for that man, a thíef he is’
(14) tidak-lah
sakut saya
not-LAH
afraid
1.SG
‘I am nót afraid’
(15) bukan-lah sandagor
dia
not-LAH
businessman 3.SG
‘he is nót a businessman’
In questions, -LAH is replaced by -KAH
(16) apa-kah
dia?
> guru-lah
dia
what-KAH
3.SG
teacher-LAH 3.SG
‘what is he?’ [11]
‘he is a téacher’
46
(For imperatives and -lah see below)
All other predications are subtypes of these two major predication types. The locational
predicate ada ‘to be (there)’ is also used in the sense of ‘to be (like)’:
(17) dia ada
disitu
3.SG
be.(there) there
‘he is there’ [5]
(18) bapa-nya
ada
sandagor
father-POSS.3.SG
be
businessman
‘his father is a businessman’ [3a]
Ada can occur at the beginning of a clause without -lah:
(19) Ada suatu
dovongan keinginan dalam
hati-nya
Exist INDEF desire
inside
heart-POSS.3.SG
untuk mengetalmi yang tiada
dikenalnya
for
know
REL not.be 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 réally 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
‘grandmother’s 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, thát’s 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):
(26) padi ini
tidak tumbuk
rice DEM
not
grow/flourish
‘this rice does not grow here’
(27) obat
bukan
ratjun
medicine
no
poison
‘medicine is no poison’
Identifying expressions can be subdivided into many different types:
a) pronouns
(e.g. saya ‘I’)
b) proper name phrases
(e.g. si Ali, ‘Ali’)
c) YANG-phrases (e.g. yang dijual ‘which is sold’)
d) other phrases whose head is a lexical word form
As we said above, proper names often take a “personal article” si to form a referential
phrase. Yang- phrases are translational equivalents of headless relative clauses.
The structure of ordinary “NPs” is the following:
(28) sirop merah yang mahal
itu
yang hanya di-jual di kota
syrup red
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
itu
all
land
REL high
DEM
‘all the high ground’
(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
(38) gadis ini
dengan cepat
memehami kedudukannya
girl
DEM
with
speed
MEN:learn position:her
‘this girl quickly learned her position’/’learned her position with speed’ [11]
(39) saya sudah
mem-baca majalah
itu
I
already
MEN-read newspaper DEM
‘I have already read the newspaper’ [24]
Intensification of translational equivalents of adjectives also employs “adverbs” like
sungguh ‘truly’:
(40) beban ini sungguh berat
load DEM truly
heavy
‘this load is truly heavy’
(Sneddon 1996:177)
Equivalents of complement clauses may
a) be of the same form as ordinary clauses
(41) Ia tahu tentu akan ada-ada saja alasan si Kabayan untuk
he
know
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 Kabayan’s excuse for avoiding
work’/‘he knew Kabayan would surely have an excuse to avoid working’ [13.6.91-
3]
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
take a possessor corresponding to the subject in ordinary predications. Note, however,
that the form of the translational equivalent of a verb does not necessarily change its
structure if it is used as a head of a referential phrase or a predicate phrase:
(44) saya mem-biru-kan
1.SG MEN-blue-KAN
‘I dyed (it)’
(45) mem-biru-kan saya
MEN-blue-KAN 1.SG
‘my dyeing (it)’
The frequently quoted distinction between the negation used for “nouns” (bukan) as
opposed to the negation used for “verbs” (tidak) is also a rather inconclusive criterion.
Compare the following:
(46) murid
itu
bukan
pintar, melainkan bodoh
student DEM
NEG clever, fairly
stupid
‘the student is definitely not clever, but fairly stupid’ [8]
(47) bukan saya
bersedekah
kepada-nya, tidak
NEG
1.SG give.as.present
to-3.SG,
NEG
‘not that I gave it to her as a present, no’.
(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) anak yang Ali
child REL Ali
‘the child Ali’
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’, mem-
bebek ‘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)
meng-hujan-kan ‘to cause it to rain’, me-merat-kan ‘to make sth. red’
All fully transitive men-forms have a passive counterpart on di-:
g) di-buka ‘to be/get opened’
Another regular counterpart of men-forms are nominalised pen-forms:
h) pen-cetak ‘printer’ vs. men-cetak ‘to print (sth.)’
However, many pen-forms can figure much like adjectives (which get negated by tidak):
(56) dia tidak
pemarah
3.SG
NEG PEN:hot-tempered
he is not hot-tempered (Sneddon 1996:49)
A regular counterpart of most ber-forms are ber-forms:
i)
pel-ajar ‘student’
Pen- and Per-forms also often take -an:
j)
pen-ulis-an ‘the act of writing’ (vs. tulis-an ‘writing’)
k)
per-pustaka-an ‘library’, per-tanya-an ‘question’, per-adab-an ‘civilization’
There are similar words on ke- ...-an:
l)
ke-adab-an ‘civilized behaviour’
Some rare words only have ke- or only -an:
53
m)
ke-hendak ‘desire (n.)’
n)
tulis-an ‘writing’
Occasionally, ke- can also derive equivalents of verbs (usually corresponing to some ter-
form):
(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
concrete
permanent accidental active
transitive
causative
ter
ter
intr
ber
ber
ber
perm
per-(an)
per-(an)
conc
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
unmarked
ke-an
abstr
pen-(an)
active
men-
men-
men-
men(-i)
men-kan
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
In other words, there is a variety of word-forms which can be semantically organised on
a “continuum” of meaning from concrete to active etc., much like Indo-European nouns
vs. verbs. On the other hand, this classification is a classification of different word-
forms in Indonesian, not a classification corresponding to lexemes and word classes.
This means, the very fact that a language is somehow able to distinguish individuals
from actions by means of different wordforms is not sufficient to establish a lexical
distinction along these lines. There seems to be a great freedom of possible
combinations for all sorts of lexical bases.
What we could still do, however, is define lexical classes according to the predictable
set of possible combinations for all members of a certain class. Thus, quality words have
at least two generally applicable forms of manifestation, namely a zero-form and a ter-
form (the latter functionsing as a superlative). Instruments always allow ber- in the sense
of ‘to use the instrument’, etc. All transitives have both a men- and a di-form, unlike
many other lexical classes in Indonesian. Thus it appears that there are different lexical
classes in Indonesian, but these classes can only be established on the basis of the set of
possibilities that are regularly open to all the members of this class, while it is not
possible to identify class membership with reference to one particular wordform or to
one particular type of use in a syntactic environment. Here the paradigmatic aspect of
classification must not be confused with the syntactic type of classification, as these
domains will lead to rather different types of classification (lexical item vs. syntactic
constituent). I have discussed these matters in more detail with reference to the related
language of Tongan; for Indonesian more specific work would have to be done. In the
little space allotted here, we shall only refer to the problems which are peculiar of (or
particularly interesting in) Indonesian.
Compared to Tongan, for instance, Indonesian has far more derivations, but far less
grammatical particles. There are hardly any markers of phrase structure, and compared
to Indo-European, there is virtually no affix that could be properly identified as
inflection. On the other hand, the “derivations” of Indonesian occasionally serve similar
purposes as inflection, especially the passive. It has also been suggested that men- is a
sign of active orientation. In other words, these items happen to establish some sort of
relation to a referent, much like person inflection. At the same time, the derivations
establish relevant semantic classes (concrete vs. abstract, permanent vs. active, transitive
vs. intransitive) which are partly reminiscent of the wordforms of nouns and verbs etc.
On the other hand, traditional nouns and verbs are lexemes with very different
paradigms. There is no equivalent of this in Indonesian.
To conclude, the derivations mark an individual manifestion of lexical material, i.e. they
mark word-forms (of different semantic classes), which can only be items used in the
discourse. The exact syntactic position, however, is still not fixed at all, even if there are
preferences.
The classes of word-forms established are more or less the following:
(59) Major oppositions
55
NON-BASIC
BASIC
ke-an
zero
ABSTR
CONCRETE
pen-an
per-an
ACTIVE
PERMANENT
men
ber
TRANS
INTRANS
men-/di-
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
4. A grammatical sketch of Arabic
Arabic
6
exhibits a very regular process of forming different lexical stems and inflected
word-forms from acategorical roots. While the inflected forms usually behave much like
the classical word classes of Latin etc., Arabic displays some peculiar properties of the
category of numerals; undoubtedly, the numerals belong to some semantically coherent
lexical domain, but the behaviour of the items is extremely heterogeneous from the point
of view of the expression structure. In this domain there is a gradual order.
Arabic has two main predication types. In timeless predications translating as nominal or
adjectival, the subject precedes the predicate. Both the predicate and the subject are in
the nominative, followed by a nasal “nunation” element (clause-final case+nunation are
no longer pronounced in Modern Arabic). In classical Arabic grammar, this predication
type is called “gumlatun ismiyyatun” (“nominal clause”):
(1)
muhammad-u-n ragul-u-n
Muhammad-NOM-NUN
man-NOM-NUN
‘Muhammad is a man’
(2)
muhammad-u-n
kabir-u-n
Muhammad-NOM-NUN
great-NOM-NUN
‘Muhammad is great’ [5]
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]
Another subtype of “nominal” predications is an identifying construction. Again the
definite “NP” does not carry any nunation:
(4)
hada (a)r-rajul-(u)
this
DEF-man-NOM
‘this is the man’
The demonstrative hada is generally uninflectable. Leaving intonation aside, hada ar-
rajul-u could also be interpreted as this man (see below). In order to avoid ambiguity,
Arabic also has more explicit constructions such as
(5)
hada huwa ar-ragul-u
this
3.SG DEF-man-NOM
lit. ‘this he (is) the man’
6
This chapter was written in cooperation with Hans-Jürgen Sasse
57
The other main predication type is called “gumlatun fi’liyyatun” (“verbal/action
clause”), where the predicate marked for aspect and person precedes the subject:
(6)
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]
Questions are introduced by the particles hal or ‘a :
(8)
hal yagi’n
muhammad-u-n
Q
come
Muhammad-NOM.NUN
‘has Muhammad come?’ [21]
A subtype of the “verbal” predication type translates as tensed nominal predications,
using the word kana, acting much like the verb ‘to be’ in English. The “NP” functioning
as a predicate complement is in the accusative:
(9)
kana
(a)r-ragul-u
mu’allim-a-n
be
DEF-man-NOM teacher-ACC-NUN
‘the man was a teacher’
(10) kana
(a)r-ragul-u
fi-(a)l-bayt-i
be
DEF-man-NOM
in/at-DEF-house-GEN
‘the man was in the house’
Negation is carried out by means of las- , ma kana or lam yakun :
(11) las-ta
mu’min-a-n
not.be-2.SG.M
believing-ACC-NUN
‘you are not a believer’ [31]
(12) ma: kana
mu’min-a-n
not
be
believing-ACC-NUN
‘he was not a believer’
(13) lam yakun
mu’min-a-n
not
be(APOC.)
believing-ACC-NUN
‘he is not a believer’
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
sari’an
FUT-3.SG.M-come-IMPF
Muhammad-NOM:NUN
fast-ACC
‘Muhammad will come fast’ [6]
59
(16) (sa)-ya-gi’-u
muhammad-un
bi-sur’a
FUT-3sm-come-IMPF
Muhammad-NOM:NUN
with-speed
‘Muhammad will come with speed’ [6]
Local predications are again a subtype of the “nominal” predications:
(17) ar-ragul-un
fi-(a)l-bayt-i
DEF-man-NOM
in/at-DEF-house-GEN
‘the man is in the house’ [6]
In complex “verbal” predications the object follows the subject phrase and the indirect
object:
(18) kataba
(a)r-ragul-u
(a)l-kitab-a
write:PERF.3.SG.M
DEF-man-NOM DEF-book-ACC
‘the man has written the book’
(19) ‘ata
zayd-a-n
dirham-a-n
give:CAUS.PERF.3.SG.M
Zaid-ACC-NUN Dirham-ACC-NUN
‘he gave Zaid a dirham (coin)’
(20) ‘ata-hu
muhammad-u-n
give:CAUS.PERF.3.SG.M-3.SG.M.NONSUBJ
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-gi’a
he wants
that 3.SG.M.-come:SBJNCT
‘he wants to come’ or ‘he wants that he comes’ [24]
(22) qala
lahu
?anna-hu
ya-gi-?u
say:3.SG.M.PERF to.him
that-3.SG.M.NONSUB
3.SG.M-come-IND
(a)l-ragul-a
DEF-man-ACC
‘he said that the man comes’
(23) ad-dayf-u
wa-(a)l-gar-u
(a)l-ganib-u
DEF-guest-NOM
and-DEF-protege-NOM
DEF-foreign-NOM
60
ka-’anna-ma
habata
like-that-which
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
(a)r-ragul-a (a)lladi
recognise:3.SG.M.PERF
DEF-man-ACC REL
ra’a-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 ra’a-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
ha’ula’i (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
hada
book-POSS.1.SG
this
‘this my book’
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
‘Muhammad’s 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 waHid-un
man-NOM:NUN
one-NOM:NUN
‘one man’
(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
rigal-in
three-FEM-NOM
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
‘asar-a ragul-a-n
three-FEM-ACC
ten(M)-ACC
man(M.SG)-ACC-NUN
‘thirteen men’
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 saxS-a-n
40-PL
person-ACC-NUN
‘40 persons’
The numbers 100 etc. and 1000 govern the genitive singular:
63
(41) mi’at-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. ism-un ‘(a)
noun’
A change of gender often signals a change from collective to singulative:
(48) tuffah-un
apple(M)-NOM:NUN
‘apples/a collection of apples’
[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) fa’ala
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 (f’l 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 -ktb-
kitab
‘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-un‘bookseller’
(52) root -rgl-
ragul
‘man’
ta-raggal-a
‘he has behaved like a man’
ista-rgala
‘he has behaved like a man’
rugul-a
‘manliness’
rugul-iy
‘manly’
rugul-iy-a
‘manliness’
(53) root -flfl-
filfil
‘pepper’
falfal-a
‘he has put pepper on’
mu-falfal
‘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
5. A grammatical sketch of Turkish
Turkish
7
displays three major kinds of predication. The first major type is used as an
equivalent of nominal and adjectival predications:
(1)
bu
elma (dIr)
DEM apple
COP
‘This is an apple’
(2)
Ali asker
(dir)
Ali soldier
COP
‘Ali is a soldier’
(3)
Ali büyük
(tür)
Ali tall
COP
‘Ali is tall’
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 gül-üyor
(dur)
Ali lach-IMPF.PRES.3.SG
COP
‘Ali is laughing (perhaps/definitely)’
This predication type is negated by means of a negation affix:
(7)
Ali gül-mü-yor
Ali laugh-NEG-IMPF.PRES.3.SG
7
This chapter was written in cooperation with Sevim Genc.
67
Ali does not laugh
The third major type of predication represents existential clauses. Here an uninflected
existential element var is used.
68
(8)
para-m
var (dIr)
money-POSS.1.SG EX COP
lit. ‘my money is (truly/possibly) there’
‘I (truly/possibly) have money’
The negation is expressed by means of the negative copula yok:
(9)
para-m yok
money-POSS.1.SG NEG.EX
lit. ‘my money does not exist’
‘I have no maney’
As a variant of type I we find locative predications as in (10):
(10) Ali ev-de
(dIr)
Ali Haus-LOC
COP
‘Ali ist im Haus’
(11) Ali burda (dIr)
Ali here COP
Ali is here
The negation allows the use of degil as well as yok:
(12) Ali burda degil (dir)
Ali here NEG COP
‘Ali is (probably) not here’ (not here, but probably somewhere else)
(13) Ali burda yok (tur)
Ali here NEG.EX (COP)
‘There is no Ali’
Word order is SOV, with overt cases for accusative, dative, genitive, locative, and
ablative:
(14) adam köpeg-i döv-dü
man dog-ACC beat-PAST.3.SG
‘the man beat the dog’
(15) adam cocug-a
top-u ver-di
man child-DAT ball-ACC give-PAST.3.SG
‘the man gave the child a/the ball’
Occasionally, the accusative can be missing on indefinites:
69
(16) adam cocug-a top ver-di
man child-DAT ball give-PAST.3.SG
‘the man gave the child a ball’
Possessive constructions have the following structure:
(17) Possessive paradigm
(benim) ev-im
‘my house’
(sevin) ev-in
‘your house’
(onun) ev-i
‘his/her house’
(bizin) ev-imiz
‘our house’
(sizin) ev-iniz
‘your (PL) house’
on-lar-un ev(-ler-)i ‘their house’
(18) Ali-nin ev-i
Ali-GEN house-POSS.3.SG
‘Ali’s house’
(19) adam-un
ev-i
man-GEN house-POSS.3.SG
‘the man’s house’
In general, attributive constructions display the following structure:
(20) benim bütün bu
güzel tahta
bilye-ler-im
my
all
DEM
nice
wooden
ball-PL-POSS.1.SG
‘all these nice wooden balls of mine’
Equivalents of relative clauses (with gerundial verb forms) precede as in the follwing
construction:
(21) masa-nIn üst-ü-n-de
dur-an benim
...
table-GEN
above-POSS.3.-FM-LOC stand-GER my ....
‘(all these nice wooden walls of mine) which are lying on the table’
Alternatively, the free possessive, the all-quantor, and the demonstrative may precede
the relative clause:
(22) benim bütün bu masa-nIn ...
my
all
DEM table-GEN ....
There are a number of different types of extended predications. The simplest form
consists in adding an (uninflected) adverb:
70
(23) o hIzlI koS-uyor
he fast
run-IMPF.PRES.3.SG
‘he is running fast’
Complement clauses are of the following types:
(24) adam Ali-nin
gül-dügü-n-ü
söyle-di
man Ali-GEN laugh-PART/GER-LNK-ACC say-PAST.3.SG
‘The man said that Ali laughed’
Here the subordinate clause is a case-marked participial or gerundial form with a
genitival participant. In the next type, a nominalization on me- is used:
71
(25) adam Ali-nin
gül-me-si-n-i
iste-di
man Ali-GEN
laugh-NL-POSS.3.SG-LNK-ACC want-PAST.3.SG
‘the man wanted Ali to laugh’
The next constructions are infinitival:
(26) gel-mek-isti-yor-um
come-INF-want-IMPF.PRES-1.SG
‘I want to come’
(27) adam gel-mek-isti-yor
man come-INF-want-IMPF.PRES.3.SG
‘the man wanted to come’
Temporal adjuncts are formed with a gerundial construction governed by a postposition:
(28) adam gel-dikten-sonra
Ali ev-e
git-ti
man come-GER-after
Ali house-DAT go-PAST.3.SG
‘after the man had come. Ali went home’
There are various types of partial overlap between the different kinds of categories.
A minor case is the overlap between morphological endings in the nominal and verbal
paradigms. For instance, -ler/-lar is used both as a sign of nominal number as well as of
number concord:
(29) ev-ler
vs. sev-er-ler
house-PL
love-AOR-3.PL
‘houses’
‘they love’
There are also some similarities between possessive and person affixes:
(30) ev-im
vs. sev-er-im
house-POSS.1.SG
love-AOR-1.SG
‘my house’
‘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 verb-
forms 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) gül-üyor 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 gül-se
i-di
Ali laugh-COND COP-PAST.3.SG
= Ali gül-se-y-di
‘if Ali laughed’
But the difference is still visible in
(38) bu elma i-se
73
DEM apple
COP-COND
‘if this is an apple’
= bu elma-y-sa
(39) gül-üyor i-se
laugh-IMPF.PRES COP.COND
‘if he is laughing’
=gül-üyor-sa
‘wenn er lacht’
Other criteria for differences between the word classes are the following: Verbs need
some sort of derivation to be compatible with case (see above) or demonstratives.
(40) Su benim baba-m
DEM my
father-1.SG
‘this father of mine’
(41) bu /Su adam
DEM man
‘this man’
(42) bu gül-en-ler
DEM laugh-PART-PL
‘these laughing ones’
(43) bu gül-en
adam
DEM laugh-PART man
‘this laughing man’
(44) bu gül-en
adam-lar
DEM laugh-PART man-PL
‘these laughing men’
There are also characteristic differences in derivational behaviour, and it is also fairly
uncommon to find conversion strategies (s. (48/49) vs. (50)):
(45) erkek gibi olmak
man like become
‘to act like a man’
(46) köpek-les-mek
dog-DER-INF
‘to act like a dog’
(47) erkek-si
man-ADVL
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) öld-ür-mek
dead-CAUS-INF
‘to make dead’, ‘to kill’
By way of comparison, a typical nominal paradigm is exhibited by the following:
(53) The nominal paradigm
ev
(house)
75
ev-i
(house-ACC)
ev-e
(house-DAT)
ev-in (house-GEN)
ev-de
(house-LOC)
ev-den (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 sür-dü
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 yok-lar (yok-tur-lar)
friend-PL-POSS.1.SG house-LOC
NEG.EX-3.PL (NEG.EX COP-3.PL)
‘my friends are not home’
(58) arkadaS-lar-Im ev-de-(ler)
(*var-lar)
friend-PL-1.SG house-LOC-(PL)
(*EX-PL)
‘my friends are home’
(59) Ali burda mI (dIr)?
Ali here
INT (COP)
‘Is Ali here?’
(60) arkadaS-lar-Im burda(-lar)
mI(*lar)
friend-PL-POSS.1.SG here-(PL) INT
(*PL)
‘Are my friends here?’
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
6. A grammatical sketch of Laz
Laz
8
is a Caucasian minority language spoken mainly in Turkey.
Laz has two types of predications. The first one is used for all non-verbal predications:
(1)
ma koCi
bore
1.SG man COP.1.SG
‘I am a man’
(2)
ma Peteri bore
1.SG Peter
COP.1.SG
‘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’
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)
Peteri biCi var
on
Peter boy NEG COP.3.SG
‘Peter is not a boy’
(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)
b-zir-am
1.SG-see-PRES
‘I see/find him’
8
This 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’
Quite often, the verbs also contain preverbial affixes:
(26) ce-k-C-am
PV-2.SG-hit-PRES
‘I hit you’
Word order is basically SOV:
(27) KoCi laCi ce-C-ay
man dog PV-hit-3.SG.PRES
‘The man hits the dog’
(28) KoCi oxorza manto me-C-u
man woman coat
PV-give-3.SG.PERF
‘the man gave the woman a coat’
Equivalents of passives are unidiomatic:
(29) ? laCi
KoCi Kale c-i-C-en
dog
man side PV-OR-hit-MED
‘the dog was beaten by (on the side of) the man’
but with the agent, the phrase is acceptable:
(30) laCi c-i-C-en
dog PV-OR-beat-MED
‘the dog got beaten’
There are only two oblique adverbial cases, the instrumental and the motative (a general
case of motion). The plain locative is unmarked:
(31) araba benzini-te ulu-n
car petrol-INS
drive-PRES
‘the car drives with petrol’
(32) Peteri oxori-Sa
ulu-n
Peter home-MOT
go-PRES
81
Peter goes home
(33) Peteri oxori-Sa
mulu-n
Peter home-MOT
come-PRES
Peter comes from home
82
(34) Peteri livadi on
Peter garden COP.3.SG
Peter is in the garden
The genitive is a marked adnominal case:
(35) Peteri-Si oxori
Peter-GEN house
‘Peter’s house’
Complex NPs have the structure demonstrative-quantifier-possessive-quality-colour-
number-fabric-head-relative clause:
(36) hani biTumi SKimi msKva mCita xut diSka toPi masa na goo-z-un
these all
my
beautiful red 5 wood ball table REL PV-lie-3.PL.PRES
‘all these five beautiful red wooden balls which are lying on the table’
If number is marked, it will appear right on the head noun, while case goes on on the
outside of the phrase:
(37) oxore-pe Skimi-Sa bulur
house-PL my-MOT go:1SG:PRES
‘I go to my houses’
The na-relative clauses can accept “nominal” number and case marking in equivalents
of nominalisations:
(38) para na dvaCirertei-pe
money REL need:3PL-PL
‘the ones who need money’
There is no gender marking in Laz.
There is hardly any difference between equivalents of nouns and adjetives in Laz. Even
comparison is allowed with “nouns”:
(39) Metini Sevimi-Sa daha
didi on
Metin Sevim-MOT COMP tall COP.3.SG
‘Metin is taller than Sevim’
(40) Ali Metini-Sa
daha
laCi on
Ali Metin-MOT COMP dog COP.3.SG
Ali is more dog-like (sillier than) Metini
The clear distinction between non-verbal and verbal lexemes is supported by the fact
that most non-verbs end in vowels, while most verb-forms end in consonants.
83
There are also only comparatively few words of different clases which contain the same
root:
84
(41) uc-i ‘ear’
b-u-uc-am (1.SG-OR-hear/ear-PRES) ‘I hear’
vs.
(42) car-i ‘bread’
o-car-e ‘waterjug for preparing bread’
* b-i-car-um
Nevertheless, the o- of ocare also figures in many infinitival nominalisations:
(43) o-kos-ale
INF.PREF-sweep-NL
‘broom’
(44) o-kos-u
INF.PREF-sweep-INF.SUFF
‘to sweep’
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
7. Some other types
There is at least one other major type of categorisation which can be exemplified with
respect to Iroquoian Cayuga. The presentation given in Sasse 1993 is currently being
revised, and cannot be included here at this stage in due detail. Nevertheless, the most
striking characteristic of a Cayuga-type language is the great formal similarity between
many translational equivalents of nouns or adjectives with translational equivalents of
verbs. For instance, the word for ‘man’ or the word for ‘big’ happen to figure formally
like a stative “word sentence”, which is parallel to stative forms of some “verbs” (and
which again may be employed to express professions):
(1)
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 Mann vs.
der Geh-end-e
the man
vs.
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
vs.
ich bin ein Junge
I went
vs.
I am a boy
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:
das alte Auto
‘the old car’
das fahrende Auto
lit. ‘the driving car’, ‘the car running’
das Auto von dem Mann
lit. ‘the car of the man’, ‘the man’s car’
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
e
manu
fekai ‘a wild animal’
PRST ART
animal wild
87
(2)
ko
e
manu
puna ‘a flying animal’, ‘a bird’
PRST ART
animal fly
Russian
(3)
novaja kniga
‘the new book’
(4)
otzova kniga
‘the father’s book’ (lit. ‘the fatherly book’)
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)
na’e vave
‘ene
lelé
PAST fast his run:DEF
‘his running was fast’
8.2. Second set of generalisations
Translational equivalents of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs may
a) for structural reasons be roughly in the same class as in traditional Indo-European
languages
(e.g. Laz nouns and verbs)
b) behave partly like other classes from traditional Indo-European
(e.g. Cayuga ‘adjectives’, which are rather ‘verb-like’)
c) may be split into different classes compared to traditional Indo-European
88
(cf. Tamil and Japanes ‘adjectives’)
d) may be classified differently
(cf. Tongan general lexical "types", Indonesian classes of word-forms as opposed to
lexemes)
9.3. Third set of generalisations
There may be cross-linguistic differences relating to all sorts of parameters associated
with lexical categorisation and the grammatical contexts these items tend to occur in.
Compare, once again, the criteria mentioned by Sasse 1993:
a)
- Formal parameter (inflection, derivation, distribution)
b) - Syntactic parameter (how does the lexical, paradigmatic level correspond to the
syntactic, syntagmatic level of analysis)
c)
- Semantic parameter (which classes of meanings are involved in the
categorisation)
d)
- Discourse-pragmatic parameter (what are the syntactic functions typically
associated with the lexical categorisation (reference, predication, modification)
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 action-
concepts seem to be derived. Still, ontological categorisation seems to be relatable in
terms of continua (languages where translational equivalents of nouns may look “verb-
like” 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 schöne Frau, die Schöne, sie singt schön 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-qenímegl-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 Gänge ‘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 - kan-
derivation; 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 - non-
rhematic; 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 Petöfi and Jürgen S.
Bredemeier, 393-423. Hamburg: Buske.
93
Hazout, Ilan 1991. Verbal Nouns: Theta Theoretic Studies in Hebrew
and Arabic. Ann Arbor Dissertation Abstracts International
52(6):2126A-27A [DAI No.: DA9132863].
Hlal, Yahya 1990. “ Morphology and Syntax of the Arabic Language“ .
In: Computers and the Arabic Language, ed. by Pierre A. MacKay,
201-07. New York: Hemisphere.
Hussein, Lutfi 1990. “ Serial Verbs in Colloquial Arabic“ . Working
Papers in Linguistics (WPL) 39:340-54.
Kaye, Jonathan, Malika Echchadli and Souad El TI Ayachi1986. “ Les
Formes verbales de l'arabe marocain“ . Revue Quebecoise de
Linguistique (RQdL) 16(1):61-99.
Khalaily, Samir 1994. “ A Syntax of Verbs from a Nominal Point of
View“ . In: Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Reineke Bok-
Bennema and Crit Cremers, 95-106. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Killean, Carolyn G. 1968. “ Interesting Features of Gender-Number
Concord in Modern Literary Arabic“ . In: Papers from the Fourth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19-20
1968, ed. by Bill J. Darden, Charles James N. Bailey and Alice
Davison, 40-49. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.
Kouloughli, Djamel E. 1994. “ Indefini et structure thematique en
arabe“ . Faits de Langues: Revue de Linguistique (FdLang)
4:169-75.
Major I. 1972. “ Towards a Descriptive Grammar of Kapilar's
Kurincipattu“ . Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 26: 103-11.
Miller, Ann M. 1987. “ Morphological Idiosyncrasies in Classical
Arabic: Evidence Favoring Lexical Representations over Rules“ .
In: Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on
Linguistics, ed. by Fred Marshall, Ann M. Miller and Zheng
Sheng Zhang, VIII:393-404. Columbus: Ohio State Univ.
Noldeke, Theodor 1963. Zur Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch
[fotomechanischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Wien 1897]. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Owens, Jonathan 1988. The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduction to
Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Owens, Jonathan 1989. “ The Syntactic Basis of Arabic Word
Classification“ . Arabica: Revue d
!
tudes Arabes 36(2):211-234.
Puig-Montada, Josep 1988. “ Bemerkungen zum Begriff der
Determination im Arabischen“ . Acta Orientalia Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae (AOASH) 42(2-3):361-369.
Qafisheh, Hamdi A. 1977. A Short Reference Grammar of Gulf Arabic.
Tucson: University of Arizona.
Rhodes, Janice Deledalle 1979. “ Charles S. Peirce's Arabic
Grammar“ . Ars Semeiotica 2:365-68.
Snow, James Adin A 1966. Grammar of Modern Written Arabic Clauses.
Ann Arbor Dissertation Abstracts 27:468A-469A.
Stepanov, Arthur V. 1995. “ Automatic Typological Analysis of
Semitic Morphology“ . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics (JQL)
2(2):141-50.
Swed, Abdalla Abdalhamid 1982. The Historical Development of the
Arabic Verb. Dissertation Abstracts International 43(6):1960A.
Talaat, Hala Mohamed 1987. The Verb Phrase in Egyptian Arabic.
Dissertation Abstracts International 48(2):382A.
94
Ullmann, Manfred 1989. Das arabische Nomen generis. Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Folge 3:176.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
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 Cloudy-
on-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
Henry, Reginald 1985. “ Writing in Cayuga and Onondaga” . In:
Promoting Native Writing Systems in Canada, ed. by Barbara
Burnaby, 85-7. Toronto: OISE Press.
Keusen, Anna 1994. Analysis of a Cayuga Particle: ne:’ as a Focus
Marker. Arbeitspapiere NF 21, Köln: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Kick, Shirley, Marge Henry, Evelyn Jacobs and Geraldine Sandy 1988.
Cayuga Thematic Dictionary. A list of commonly used words in
the Cayuga language using the Henry Orthography. Brantford,
Ont.: Woodland Publishing. The Woodland Cultural Centre.
Michelson, Karin Eva 1988. A Comparative Study of Lake-Iroquoian
Accent. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Michelson, Karin Eva 1991. Language Patterns in Ontario Oneida,
Cayuga, and Mohawk. Manuscript.
Mithun, Marianne 1975. Revealing the Relations Between Cayuga and
Tuscarora. Paper presented at the Conference on Iroquoian
Research, Rensselaerville, New York.
Mithun, Marianne 1989. “ The Incipient Obsolescence of
Polysynthesis: Cayuga in Ontario and Oklahoma.” In:
Investigating Obsolescence. Studies in Language Contraction and
Death (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundation of
Language, 7.), ed. by Nancy C. Dorian, 243-257. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mithun, Marianne 1993. “ Indian Languages: Iroquoian“ . In:
Encyclopedia of the North American Colonies, ed. by Jacob
Ernest Cooke, III:37-39. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Mithun, Marianne 1997. The status of the Iroquoian noun category.
Paper presented at the ALT Conference in Eugene, Oregon.
Mithun, Marianne and Reginald Henry 1984. Wate_wayé_stanih. A Cayuga
Teaching Grammar. Brantford, Ont.: Woodland Indian Cultural
Educational Centre.
Mithun, Marianne and Hanni Woodbury (eds.) 1980. Northern Iroquoian
Texts (IJAL-NATS Monograph 4). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
O_:gwéh Goga:’. Voice of our people series. 1994. 10 Vols.
Translated from the Mohawk by Lottie Keye. Brantford, Ont.:
Woodland Cultural Centre.
Rudes, Blair Arnold 1973. Some Problems with the Cayuga-Andaste
Hypothesis. Paper presented at the Conference on Iroquoian
Research. Rensselaerville.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1988. Der irokesische Sprachtyp. Arbeitspapier
Nr.9 NF. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. [Also in:
Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7:173-213].
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1993a. “ Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?”
Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46:187-221.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1993b. “ Clause Combining in Cayuga” . In:
Studies in Clause Linkage. ASAS (Arbeiten des Seminars für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Nr.12.), ed. by Karen H. Ebert,
161-183. Zürich: Sem.f.Allg.Sprachwiss.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1997. Aspektsemantik und Lexikonorganisation:
Beobachtungen zum Cayuga (Nordirokesisch). Arbeitspapier Nr.28
NF. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen in prep. Cayuga. (= Languages of the
World/Materials, No. 182.) Oberschleißheim: Lincom Europa.
96
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen in prep. (in collaboration with Alfred Keye)
[Handbook of] Cayuga Verb Morphology. Brantford, Ont.: Woodland
Publishing.
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
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang 1984a. Deiksis dalam bahasa Indonesia.
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang 1984b. “ The categorial system in
contemporary Indonesian: pronouns“ . In: Towards a description
of contemporary Indonesian: preliminary studies Part II, ed. by
John V.M. Verhaar, NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and
other Languages of Indonesia Vol. 19:55-74.
Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang 1988. “ Nomina dan Pronomina“ . In: Seminar
tata bahasa baku bahasa Indonesia, ed. by Hans Lapoliwa dan
S.R.H. Sitangga, 43-60. Jakarta: Department of Education and
Culture.
Macdonald, R. Ross 1976. Indonesian Reference Grammar. 2nd. ed.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Myhill, John 1988. “ Nominal Agent Incorporation in Indonesian“ .
Journal of Linguistics (JL) 24(1):111-36.
Sarumpaet, J.P. 1977. The structure of bahasa Indonesia. 3rd. ed.
Melbourne: Sahata Publications.
Sarumpaet, J.P. 1980. Modern usage in bahasa Indonesia. Melbourne:
Pitman.
Shay, Erin 1993. “ Verbal Affixation and Grammatical Relations in
Modern Standard Indonesian“ . Colorado Research in Linguistics
12:111-22.
Simatupang, M.D.S. Reduplikasi morfemis bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:
Djambatan.
Sneddon, James Neil 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar.
London-New York: Routledge.
Tampubolon D.P. 1983. Verbal affixations in Indonesian: a semantic
exploration. Pacific Linguistics D 48.
Teeuw, A. 1983. “ The morphological system of the Indonesian
adjective“ . NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and other
Languages of Indonesia 3:1-18.
Verhaar, John W.M. 1984a. “ Affixation in contemporary Indonesian“ .
In: Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian:
preliminary studies, Part I, ed. by Bambang Kaswanti Purwo,
NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and other Languages of
Indonesia Vol 8:1-26.
Verhaar, John W.M. 1984b. “ The categorial system in contemporary
Indonesian: verbs“ . In: Towards a description of contemporary
Indonesian: preliminary studies, Part I, ed. by Bambang
Kaswanti Purwo, NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and other
Languages of Indonesia Vol 8:27-64.
Verhaar, John W.M. 1984b. “ Phrase syntax in contemporary
Indonesian: nonnominal phrases“ . In: Towards a description of
contemporary Indonesian: preliminary studies, Part III:47-62,
ed. by Bambang Kaswanti Purwo, NUSA Linguistic Studies of
Indonesian and other Languages of Indonesia.
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
études géorgiennes et caucasienne 5:79-105.
98
Anderson, Ralph D. 1963. A Grammar of Laz. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International.
Boeder, Winfried 1993. “ Lasisch” . In: Metzler Lexikon Sprache, ed.
by Helmut Glück, 352. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler.
Dumézil, Georges 1967. Documents anatoliens. IV: Récits lazes en
dialecte d'Arhavi. (parler de Senköy). Paris: Presses
universitaires de France.
Genç, Sevim, Silvia Kutscher and Johanna Mattissen 1997. “ Lasisch -
wie lange noch? Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen der
Sprachwissenschaft” . In: Forschung in Köln. Berichte aus der
Universität 1996(2):38-45. Universität zu Köln.
Genç, Sevim and Silvia Kutscher 1998. Arde
"
en narrates - Arde
"
eni
na isinapinenpe. Collection of Laz Spoken Texts with Glosses
and Translations into English, German, Turkish. (Languages of
the World / Text Collections). München-Newcastle: Lincom
Europa.
Harris, Alice C. (ed.) 1991. The Indigenous Languages of the
Caucasus. Vol.1. The Kartvelian Languages. (= Anatolian and
Caucasian Studies). Delmar-New York: Caravan.
Harris, Alice C. 1985. Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case.
Syntax and Semantics 18. Orlando et al.: Academic Press.
Harris, Alice C. 1991. “ Overview on the history of the Kartvelian
languages“ . In: The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. (=
Anatolian and Caucasian Studies), ed. by Alice C. Harris,
Vol.1:7-83. Delmar-New York: Caravan.
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1991. “ Laz“ . In: The Indigenous Languages of the
Caucasus. (= Anatolian and Caucasian Studies), ed. by Alice C.
Harris, Vol.1:395-472. Delmar-New York: Caravan.
Jorbenadze, Besarion A. 1991. The Kartvelian Languages and Dialects
(General Review). The Chikobava Institute of Linguistics.
Tblissi: Mecniereba.
Klimov, Georgij A. 1994. Einführung in die kaukasischen
Sprachwissenschaft. Hamburg: Buske.
Kutscher, Silva, Johanna Mattissen and Anke Wodarg (eds.) 1995. Das
Mut
⇐
afi -Lazische. Arbeitspapiere 24 NF. Köln: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Kutscher, Silvia 1995. “ Nomen und nominales Syntagma” . In: Das
Mut
⇐
afi -Lazische, ed. by Silvia Kutscher, Johanna Mattissen
and Anke Wodarg. Arbeitspapiere NF 24:21-35. Köln: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Kutscher, Silvia in prep. Nomen und Nominalsyntagma im Ardesen-
Lasischen. PhD-thesis. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Kutscher, Silvia and Johanna Mattissen in prep. A Reference Grammar
of Laz (Arde
"
en-Dialect). München-Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Lazo
#
lu, Fahri and Wolfgang Feurstein 1984. Lazuri Alfabe. Lazca
Alfabe: Entwurf eines lazischen Alphabetes. Parpali 1. Lazuri
Carelepe. Laz dili ve kültürü yay
nlar
. Schriftenreihe zur
lazischen Kultur.
Lüders, Ulrich J. 1992a. “ Ergativity and Variability - Actant
Marking in Pazar-Laz (Kartvelian)“ . Languages of the World
3:24-35.
99
Lüders, Ulrich J. 1992b. “ The Laz Verbal Complex: Principles of
Organisation“ . In: Caucasian Perspectives, ed. by G. Hewitt,
329-43. Unterschleißheim: Lincom Europa.
Lüders, Ulrich J. 1992c. “ Actant-Marking in the Verbal Complex“ .
CLN 23(2):44-49.
Mattissen, Johanna 1995. “ Verbmorphologie“ . In: Das Mut
⇐
afi -
Lazische, ed. by Silvia Kutscher, Johanna Mattissen and Anke
Wodarg. Arbeitspapiere NF 24:45-81. Köln: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft.
Memishishi, O.Kh. 1989. “ The Attribute in the Chan (Laz) Dialect of
Zan“ . Ezhegodnik Iberiisko Kavkazskogo Iazykoznaniia 16:51-61.
Rosen, Georg 1844. Über die Sprache der Lazen. Lemgo-Detmold:
Meyersche Hofbuchhandlung.
Nama
Dempwolff, Otto 1934/35. “ Einführung in die Sprache der Nama-
Hottentotten“ . Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 25 (1-
3):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.
Köhler, 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 2:30-
36.
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
Annamalai, E. 1968. The so-called adverbs in Tamil. Chicago:
University of Chicago M.A. Dissertation [unpublished].
Annamalai, E. 1969. Adjectival clauses in Tamil. Chicago: University
of Chicago Ph.D. Dissertation [unpublished].
Annamalai, E. 1982. “ Dynamics of verbal extensions in Tamil“ .
International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (IJDL) 11:22-
166.
Arden, A.H. 1942. A progressive grammar of the Tamil language.
Madras: Christian Literature Society.
Arokianthan, S. 1981. Tamil clitics. Trivandrum: Dravidian
Linguistics Association.
Asher, R.E. 1982. Tamil. Lingua Descriptive Studies 7. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company.
Beythan, Hermann 1943. Prakrische Grammatik der Tamilsprache.
Sprachkundliche Lehr- und Wörterbücher 42. Leipzig:
Harrassowitz.
Balusubramniam, K. 1973. “ Postpositions reconsidered“ . In:
Aintaavatu karuttaranku aayvu koovai. Madras.
Bhat, D.N.S. 1978. Pronominalization. Poona: Deccan College.
Burrow, T. and M.B. Emeneau 1961. A Dravidian etymological
dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Caldwell, R. 1856. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South
Indian family of languages. Reprinted in 1987 by Asian
Educational Sevice, New Delih.
Christdas, Prathima 1988. “ Do Dravidian Languages Have VP-Nodes?“ .
Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics (CWPL) 8:1-15.
Dasgupta, P., R.V. Dhongade and S. Rajendran 1982. “ On Complement
Verb Reparsing in Bangla, Marathi, and Tamil“ . Indian
Linguistics (IndLing) 42:1-4, 39-47.
Fedson, Vijayarani J. 1993. “ Complex Verb-Verb Predicates in
Tamil“ . In: Complex Predicates in South Asian Languages, ed.
by Manindra K. Verma, 63-76. New Delhi: Manohar.
Gair, James W. and S. Suseendirarajah 1981. “ Some Aspects of the
Jaffna Tamil Verbal System“ . International Journal of
Dravidian Linguistics (IJDL) 10(2):370-84.
Geetha, K. 1986. “ Indeclinable as a Nominative Case Assigner in
Tamil“ . International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (IJDL)
15(2):244-50.
Kothandaraman, R. 1982. “ Verbal Bases as a Sub-Class of Noun“ .
International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (IJDL)
11(2):207-25.
Lehmann, Thomas 1989. A Grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry:
Institute of Linguistics and Culture.
Lindholm, J. 1975. The conceptual basis of the Tamil adverbial
participle. Chicago: University of Chicago Ph.D. Dissertation
[unpublished].
Nagarajan, Sabita 1990. “ Tamil Serial Verbs“ . Working Papers in
Linguistics (WPL) 39:200-17.
Paramasivam, K. 1971. “ Verbal nouns in literary Tamil“ . In:
Peceedings of the first conference of Dravidian linguists, ed.
by V.I. Subramoniam. Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics
Association.
101
Radhakrishnan, R. 1972. “ A Note on a Contextual Grammar of
Semantics: The Tamil Tradition“ . Anthropological Linguistics
14:14-18.
Rangan, K. 1970. “ Modals as main verbs in Tamil.“ In: Preceedings
of the first All India Conference of Linguists. Poona: Deccan
Collage.
Schiffman, H.F. 1969. A grammar of spoken Tamil. Madras: The
Christian Literature Society.
Shanmugham, S.V. 1971. Dravidian nouns. Annamalai Nagar: Annamalai
University.
Singaravelan, C. 1971. “ Saint Appar's Contribution to Tamil
Grammar“ . In: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, ed. by R.E. Asher, 349-55.
Madras: Internat. Assn. of Tamil Research.
Steever, Sanford B. 1983. A studiy of auxiliation: the grammar of
the indicative auxiliary verb system of Tamil. Chicago:
University of Chicago Ph.D. Dissertation [unpublished].
Steever, Sanford B. 1987. “ Tamil and the Dravidian Languages“ . In:
The World's Major Languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie, 725-46. New
York: Oxford UP.
Veluppillai, A. 1971. “ Viiracoozhiyam as a Grammar of Inscriptional
Tamil“ . In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference
Seminar of Tamil Studies, ed. by R.E. Asher, 345-48. Madras:
Internat. Assn. of Tamil Research.
Veluppillai, A. 1985. “ Locative Terms in Tamil: A Semantic and
Historical Study“ . International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics (IJDL) 14(2):298-310.
Zvelebil, Kamil 1967. “ The Language of Perunkunrur Kilar“ . In:
Introduction to the Historical Grammar of the Tamil Language,
ed. by Kamil Zvelebil, Part I:9-109. Moscow: Nauka.
Zvelebil, Kamil, Y.Y. Glasov and Mixail S. Andronov 1967.
Introduction to the Historical Grammar of the Tamil Language.
Pt. 1: Preliminary Textual Analysis. Moscow: Nauka.
Turkish
Adamovi
$
, Milan 1988. “ Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen
Sprache“ . Wiener Zeitschrift für 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
Türkischen“ . Linguistische Studien 148:9-14.
102
Bassarak, Armin 1987. Numeralität und Transnumeralität im
Türkischen: Studien zur Morphologie und Phonologie II.
Lingistische Studien 156, Reihe A: Arbeitsberichte Berlin.
Bassarak, Armin 1990. “ Grammatikalisierungsphänomene im Türkischen
und Ungarischen“ . Proceedings of the Permanent International
Altaistic Conference 33:25-30.
Brendemoen, Bernt and Éva Á. Csató 1987. “ A Syntctic analysis of
Turkic gerundial clauses with subject control“ . In: Studies on
modern Turkish. Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish
linguistics, ed. by Hendrik E. Boeschoten and Ludo Th.
Verhaeven, 121-35. Tilburg: University Press.
Csató, Éva Á 1989. “ Non-finite verbal constructions in Türkish“ .
Proceedings of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference
32:75-88.
Dede, Mü
"
erref A
#
an 1978.
A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of
Turkish Nominal Compounds. University of Michigan Ph.D.
Dissertation.
Dede, Mü
"
erref A
#
an
1984. Causatives in Turkish. Türk dilbilimi
konferansi, 9-10 Agustos, ed. by Ayhan Aksu-Koç and Eser
Erguvanli-Taylan. Istanbul: Bogaziçi Univ. Publ.
Drimba, Vladimir 1992. “ La grammaire turque D´Antonio Mascis
(1677)“ . Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
82:109-20.
En
$
, Mürvet 1986. “ Topic switching and pronominal subjects in
Turkish“ . In: Studies in Turkish Linguistics , ed. by Dan
Isaac Slobin and Karl Zimmer. Typological Studies in Language
8:195-208. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Georg, Stefan 1989. “ Some thoughts on the etymology of the Turkic
plural suffix -lar/-ler“ . Proceedings of the Permanent
International Altaistic Conference 32:141-152.
Hazai, György (ed.) 1990. Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft
I. Wiesbaden-Budapest: Harrassowitz.
Jankowski, Henryk 1987. “ The opposition inclusive / exclusive as a
grammatical category in the Turkic languages“ . Ural-Altaische
Jahrbücher 59:97-106.
Johanson, Lars 1985. “ Pluralsuffixe im Südwesttürkischen“ .
Oriantalische Literaturzeitung 80(2):278-279.
Johanson, Lars 1989. “ Subjektlose Sätze im Türkischen“ .
Proceedings of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference
32:193-218.
Johanson,Lars 1992. “ Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen“ .
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82:201-211.
Karrde
"
tuneer, Aino E. 1982. “ A three-boundary system for
Turkish“ . Linguistic Analysis 10 (2):95-117.
Kawaguchi, Yuji 1992. “ Sur les adjectifs intensifs en Turc
moderne“ . Materialia Turcica 24:317-330.
Kenelly, Sarah 1987. “ Turkish gerunds“ . In: Studies on modern
Turkish. Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish
linguistics, ed. by Hendrik E. Boeschoten and Ludo Th.
Verhaeven, 136-48. Tilburg: University Press.
Kononov, A.N. 1956. Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo literaturnogo
jasyka. Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Sciences.
103
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1985: Case marking, agreement and empty categories
in Turkish. Harward Univ. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1987. “ Beyond binding conditions. The case of
Turkisch“ . In: Studies on modern Turkish. Proceedings of the
third conference on Turkish linguistics, ed. by Hendrik E.
Boeschoten and Ludo Th. Verhaeven, 105-20. Tilburg: University
Press.
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1988. “ NP-deletion and case marking in Turkish“ .
In: Studies on Turkish linguistics. Proceedings of the fourth
international conference on Turkish linguistics ,17-19 August
1988, ed. by Koç Sabri, 187-216. Ankara: Middle East Tec. Univ.
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1997. Turkish. Descriptive Grammars, ed. by Bernard
Comrie. London-New York: Routledge.
Kuribayashi, Yuu 1989. “ Accusative marking and noun-verb
constructions in Turkish“ . Journal of the Linguistic Society
of Japan 95:94-119.
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: University Press.
Muravyova, Irene A. 1989. “ K postrojeniju obshchej modeli
inkorporacii“ . In: Problemy semanticheskoj sintaksicheskoj
tipologii, 83-103. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies.
Muravyova, Irene A. 1992. “ Unmarked noun forms in Turkic languages:
a typological point of view“ . Proceedings of the Permanenet
International Altaistic Conference 33:257-261.
No, Yongkyoon 1989. “ Turkish inflection and copula cliticization“ .
Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 37:39-61.
Özsoy, Sumru A. 1988. “ On Complementation in Turkish: Posessed
Inpersonal Infinitives“ . In: Studies on Turkish linguistics.
Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Turkish
linguistics ,17-19 August 1988, ed. by Koç Sabri, 299-312.
Ankara: Middle East Tec. Univ.
Özsoy, Sumru A 1989. “ Subject properties in Turkish“ . Materialia
Turcica 13:40-50.
Perry, John R. 1989. “ Lexical doublets and triplets in the Turkic
languages of the USSR“ . In: The non-Slavic languages of the
USSR: linguistic studies, ed. by Howard I. Aronson, 176-86.
Chicago: Ling. Soc. Univ. of Chicago.
Róna-Tas, Andreas 1991. An introduction to Turkology. Studia Uralo-
Altaica 33. Szeged: Univ. of Szeged.
Savas
$
i
, Özgür 1983. “ Zur Klassifikation von ‘Suffixen’ des
Türkischen“ . Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
9:157-165.
Schaaik, Gerjan van 1992: “ The treatment of Turkish nominal
compounds in FG“ . In: Layered strukture and reference in a
functional perspektive: Papers from the Funktional Grammar
Conference in Copenhagen 1990, ed. by Michael Fortescue, Peter
Harder and Lars Kristoffersen, 252-81. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Steuerwald, Karl 1981. „Die türkische Pluralisierung in Verbindung
mit Kardinalzahlen sowie mit Kollektivbegriffen und
singularischen Fügungen“ . Materialia Turcica 5:101-118.
Swift, L.B. 1963. A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tura, Sabahat 1973. A Study on the Articles in English and their
Counterparts in Turkish. University of Michigan Ph.D.
Dissertation.
104
Underhill, Robert 1972. „Turkish participles“ . Linguistic Inquiry
3(1):87-99.
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 vydel’eniju
%
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 Pérennec (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.
Études sur les catégories linguistiques. Copenhague:
Munksgaard.
Broschart, Jürgen 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. Tübingen: Narr.
Broschart, Jürgen 1997. „Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial
Distinctions in a Language without Nouns and Verbs“ .
Linguistic Typology 1(2):123-165.
Broschart, Jürgen 1999. Beyond Linguistics. Language and Cognition
from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Habilitation-thesis.
Köln: Institut für 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
Croft, William 1990. “ A conceptual framework for grammatical
categories“ . Journal of Semanitcs 7:245-80.
Croft, William 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations.
The cognitive organization of information. Chicago-London:
University of Chicago Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other
Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin et al.: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Davis, Philip and Ross Sauders 1984. "Propositional organisation:
The s- and si-prefixes in Bella Coola". In: IJAL 50:208-231
Du Bois, John W. 1980. “ Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity
in discourse“ . In: The Pear Stories, ed. by Wallace Chafe,
Vol. 3:203-74. Norwood: Ablex.
Foley, William A. 1980. “ Toward a universal typology of the noun
phrase“ . Slang 4:171-200.
Frege, Gottlob 1892/1969. “ Über Begriff und Gegenstand“ . (=
Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16:192-
205). Reprinted in: Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Fünf logische
Studien , ed. by Günther Patzig, 3. Aufl. 66-80. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Givón, Talmy 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction.
Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heger, Klaus 1967. “ Temporale Deixis und Vorgangsqualität (‘Aspekt’
und ‘Aktionsart’)“ . Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie
83:516-582.
Heger, Klaus 1976. Morphem, Wort, Satz und Text. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hengeveld, Kees 1992a. “ Parts of speech“ . In: Layered Structure
and Reference in a Functional Perspective, ed. by Michael
Fortescue, Peter Harder and Lars Kristoffersen, 29-56.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hengeveld, Kees 1992b. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology,
Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus Jr. 1986. Morphosyntactic predication.
Arbeitspapiere des Kölner Universalienprojekts 62. Köln:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus Jr. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase:
Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hopper, Paul 1990. “ Where Do Words Come From?“ . In: Studies in
Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg
on His 75th Birthday, ed. by William Croft, Keith Denning and
Suzanne Kemmer, 151-60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson 1984. “ The discourse basis for
lexical categories in universal grammar“ . Language 60 (4):703-
752.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson 1985. “ The iconicity of the
universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’” . In: Iconicity in
Syntax., ed. by John Haiman, 151-86. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jackendoff, Ray 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Jakobson, Roman 1971. "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums". In:
Stephen Rudy (ed.), Roman Jakobson. Selected Writings. Vol 2.
The Hague: Mouton; 1-15
Labov, William 1973. “ The boundaries of words and their meanings“ .
In: New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, ed. by Charles
106
James Bailey and Roger Shuy, 340-73. Washington: Georgetown
University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. “ Nouns and verbs“ . Language 63:53-94.
Lazard, Gilbert 1984. “ La distinction entre nom et verb en
morphologie et en syntaxe“ . Modéles linguistiques 6:29-39.
Löbner, Sebastian 1985. “ Definites“ . Journal of Semantics 4:279-
326.
Marchand, Hans 1969. The categories and types of present-day English
word-formation. München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Mattissen, Johanna 1994. Subklassen des Nomens im Japanischen. MA-
thesis. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
Plank, Frans 1981. Morphologische (Ir)regularitäten. Aspekte der
Wortstrukturtheorie. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 13.
Tübingen: Narr.
Plank, Frans 1984. “ 24 grundsätzliche Bemerkungen zur
Wortartenfrage“ . Leuvense Bijdragen 73:489-520.
Rijkhoff, Jan 1992. The noun phrase: A typological study of its form
and structure. Universiteit van Amsterdam Ph.D. Dissertation.
Robins, R.H. 1952. “ Noun and verb in universal grammar“ . Language
28:289-98.
Rosch, Eleanor 1973. “ Natural Categories“ . Cognitive Psychology
4:328-350.
Ross, John R. 1972. “ The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort“ .
Chicago Linguistic Society 8:316-28.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1987. “ The thetic/categorical distinction
revisited“ . Linguistics 25:511-580.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1991. “ Aspect and Aktionsart. A
Reconciliation“ . In: Perspectives on Aspect and Aktionsart,
ed. by Carl Vetters and Willy Vandeweghe (= Belgian Journal of
Linguistics 6), 31-45. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1993. “ Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?“ .
Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46(3):187-221.
Schachter, Paul 1985. “ Parts-of-speech systems“ . In: Language
Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, Vol.
1:3-61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seiler, Hansjakob 1986. Apprehension. Language, Object, and Order.
Part III. The Universal Dimension of Apprehension. Tübingen:
Narr.
Spreng, Bettina 1994. Nomen-Verb-Distinktion als Universalie.
Stuttgart: Institut für Linguistik M.A. Thesis.
Stassen, Leon 1992. “ A hierarchy of main predicate encoding“ . In:
Meaning and Grammar: Croosslinguistic Perspectives, ed. by
Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera, 179-201. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Steele, Susan et al. 1981. An Encyclopedia of AUX: A crosslinguistic
Equivalence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Steinitz, Renate 1994. “ Lexikalische Kategorisierung: Ein Vorschlag
zur Revision“ . In: Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale , ed.
by Elisabeth Löbel and Gisa Rauh, 1-26. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. “ A discourse approach to the
crosslinguistic category ‘adjective’“ . In: Explaining Language
Universals, ed. by John A. Hawkins, 167-85. Oxford: Blackwell.
107
Tayler, John R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in
Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wald, Lucia 1971. “ On the formation of the opposition between noun
and verb“ . Linguistics 67:83-90.
Walter, Heribert 1981. Studien zur Nomen-Verb-Distinktion aus
typologischer Sicht. Struktura 13. München: Fink.
Wetzer, Harrie 1992. “ ‘Nouny’ and ‘verby’ adjectivals: A typology
of predicative adjectival constructions“ . In: Meaning and
Grammar: Croosslinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Michel Kefer and
Johan van der Auwera, 223-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wetzer, Harrie 1996. The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wetzer, Harrie 1995. Nouniness and Verbiness. A Typological Study of
Adjectival Predication. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen Ph.D.
Thesis.
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1945. “ Grammatical categories“ . Language 21:1-
11.
Wierzbicka, Anna 1986. “ What’s a noun (Or: How do nouns differ in
meaning from adjectives?)“ . Studies in Language 10:353-89.
Wierzbicka, Anna 1995. “ Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of
part-of-speech membership“ . In: Syntactic Iconicity and
Linguistic Freezes, ed. by Marge E. Landsberg, 223-46. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953/1984. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Teil
I und II. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 501. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
Wunderlich, Dieter 1994. “ Towards a lexicon-based theory of
agreement“ . Theoretical Linguistics 20(1):1-36.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
Nouns and the words they combine with
Nouns and prepositions
Nouns C and U
English Prepositions and Verbs
chapter 2 kitchen things and verbs
chapter 2 kitchen things and verbs
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions Q AND R
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions C AND D
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions M AND N
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions E AND F
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions K AND L
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions T AND W
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions A AND B
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions G AND H
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions I AND J
Verbs Adjectives Nouns with Prepositions O AND P
COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS, korepetycje - materiały
26 Countable and Uncountable Nouns, Tragedia Piotra Włostowica, Moje dokumenty
Check Your Vocabulary for Phrasal Verbs and Idioms
więcej podobnych podstron