draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Another difference between the questions concerns the prenominal modification <strong>of</strong> maRainkana<br />
‘things’. The Full Catechism exhibits two prenominal modifiers aikiaRa dem.prox.ms and upakatu<br />
‘all’ in the opposite order to that attested in modern Omagua, while the Catechism Fragment only<br />
exhibits the modifier upakatu. If we assume that the correct order in Old Omagua was the same as<br />
in modern Omagua, the prenominal modifier order exhibited in Full Catechism passage is incorrect.<br />
One final observation regarding the question passages concerns the position <strong>of</strong> the temporal<br />
adverb 1m1nua ‘long ago’ in the Full Catechism question, which appears between the verb yaw1k1<br />
and its object. Temporal adverbs very rarely occur in this position in the eccelsiastical texts, and<br />
it is ungrammatical for them to appear in this position in modern Omagua, suggesting that it<br />
appearance in this position in (9.25) is ungrammatical. Note that this adverb is entirely absent<br />
from the corresponding question in the Catechism Fragment.<br />
Turning to the responses, we see that the Full Catechism passage in (9.25) exhibits a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> additional features, some <strong>of</strong> them anomalous. First, this response includes an additional clause<br />
that clarifies that in God’s creation <strong>of</strong> the world by means <strong>of</strong> the Word, the Word was necessary,<br />
and God’s desire (= will?) alone did not suffice. Also <strong>of</strong> interest, the form expressing ‘word’ in<br />
this response, namely kumesa=mai, bears an overt nominalizer, in contrast to the zero-derived<br />
nominalization in the corresponding Catechism Fragment response in (9.25). In modern Omagua<br />
this form is also zero-derived, suggesting that the form bearing the overt nominalizer may represent<br />
an overgeneralization by the contributors to the Full Catechism. Finally, we see that the Full<br />
Catechism exhibits the exclusive focus clitic =semai (see footnote 177).<br />
4th Question-Response Pair The questions in this pair differ in the seemingly ungrammatical<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the interrogative clitic on the non-core argument interrogative word in the Catechism<br />
Fragment, in (9.26), providing another example <strong>of</strong> the overgeneralization <strong>of</strong> this clitic apparent in<br />
(9.24) above.<br />
A difference in the content <strong>of</strong> the responses is evident in the substitution <strong>of</strong> upakatu makati<br />
‘everywhere’ in the Full Catechism for muRiapai ‘always’ in the Catechism Fragment in describing<br />
God’s location in the world, where the articulation given in the Full Catechism seems more<br />
doctrinally felicitous. The Catechism Fragment also exhibits the use <strong>of</strong> weRanu, an NP coordinator<br />
(§2.3.6.1). The Full Catechism exhibits an optional sentence-final resumptive pronoun muRa 3sg.ms<br />
that is absent from the Catechism Fragment.<br />
(9.26) a. makatetipa Dios yuRiti?<br />
makate<br />
where<br />
=tipa Dios yuRiti<br />
=interr God be.in.place<br />
‘Where is God?’<br />
b. 1watimai Ritamakate, aikiaRa tuyuka Ritamakate, muRiapai RayuRiti weRanu.<br />
1wati =mai Ritama =kate aikiaRa<br />
be.high.up =inact.nomz village =loc dem.prox.ms<br />
muRiapai Ra= yuRiti weRanu<br />
uninterruptedly 3sg.ms= be.in.place coord<br />
‘He is always in Heaven as well as on Earth.’<br />
(see (5.4))<br />
(9.27) a. makate Dios yuRiti?<br />
makate<br />
where<br />
Dios yuRiti<br />
God be.in.place<br />
145<br />
tuyuka<br />
land<br />
Ritama<br />
village<br />
=kate<br />
=loc