draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

‘Where is God?’
b. 1watimai Ritamakate, aikiaRa tuyuka Ritamakate, upakatu makate Dios yuRiti muRa.
1wati =mai Ritama =kate aikiaRa tuyuka Ritama =kate upa
be.high.up =inact.nomz village =loc dem.prox.ms land village =loc all
=katu
=intsf
makate
where
Dios
God
yuRiti
be.in.place
muRa
3sg.ms
‘God is in Heaven, on Earth, everywhere.’
(see (6.4))
5th Question-Response Pair The interrogative words differ in the corresponding questions in
(5.5a) and (6.5a), where in the former we see aw1R1, and in the latter aw1R1ka ‘how many’. The
form in the Fragment is reconstructable to Proto-Omagua-Kokama, on the basis of its appearance
in Kokama, but the latter form is attested in modern Omagua. In (5.5a), aw1R1 combines with the
interrogative clitic =pa, 380 but in (6.5a) aw1R1ka does not combine with either interrogative clitic,
a restriction that is maintained synchronically (i.e., *aw1R1kapa). The responses to these questions
differ (trivially) in whether Dios ‘God’ is present or not.
6th Question-Response Pair The basic doctrinal issue addressed in the corresponding questions
in Catechism Fragment and Full Catechism is the same, but the structure of the questions is
somewhat different. In the Catechism Fragment, the question posed, regarding a number of entities
in the natural world, is ‘Which of these is God?’, where the expected answer is ‘None of them’,
while in the Full Catechism the question is ‘[are these things] not God?’, where the expected answer
is ‘No, they are not God’. The Full Catechism also includes miaRa ‘animal’ (see footnote 180) in
its list of possible entities with which God might be identified, while the fragment does not. With
respect to grammatical issues, it is noteworthy that the Full Catechism employs the interrogative
word maRi ‘what’ with an interrogative clitic in (9.28) to express ‘which’, where in the modern
language we expect makatimai ‘which’, with no interrogative clitic. The Catechism Fragment does
not have a corresponding element due to the different structure of the question, making it difficult
to determine if the use of maRi ‘what’ in the Full Catechism would have been grammatical in Old
Omagua at the time.
(9.28) a. k w aRaSi, yas1, sesukana, w1Rakana, 1watakana weRanu, to maRitipa aikiaRakana Dios
muRa?
k w aRaSi yas1 sesu =kana
sun moon star =pl.ms
aikiaRa
dem.prox.ms.pro
=kana
=pl.ms
w1Ra =kana
bird =pl.ms
Dios muRa
God 3sg.ms
1wata =kana weRanu to maRi =tipa
forest =pl.ms coord ? what =interr
‘The sun, the moon, the stars, the birds and the forests, which of these is God?’
b. nati maRai aikiaRa Dios muRa. Dios yaw1k1maipuRakana puRai Ranu.
nati maRai aikiaRa
Dios muRa
neg.indef dem.prox.ms.pro God 3sg.ms
Dios yaw1k1 =mai =puRa =kana puRai Ranu
God make =inact.nomz =nom.pst =pl.ms merely 3pl.ms
380 Note that this is one of the few instances in the ecclesiastical texts of =pa, which is the interrogative clitic used in
the modern language. The clitic =tipa is much more common in the catechisms, but is absent in modern Omagua
(see §2.3.5).
146