draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

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