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.
‘God is none <strong>of</strong> these things. They are merely God’s creations.’<br />
(see 5.6))<br />
(9.29) a. k w aRaSi, yas1, sesukana, w1Rakana, miaRakana, 1watakana, Roayatipa Dios?<br />
k w aRaSi yas1 sesu =kana w1Ra =kana miaRa =kana 1wata =kana Roaya<br />
sun moon star =pl.ms bird =pl.ms animal =pl.ms jungle =pl.ms neg<br />
=tipa Dios<br />
=interr God<br />
‘The sun, the moon, the stars, the birds, the animals, the forests, are they not God?’<br />
b. Roaya Dios muRa. aikiaRa upakatu maRainkana Dios yaw1k1maipuRa puRai muRa.<br />
Roaya<br />
neg<br />
Dios muRa<br />
God 3sg.ms<br />
aikiaRa upa =katu maRain =kana Dios yaw1k1 =mai =puRa<br />
dem.prox.ms all =intsf thing =pl.ms God make =inact.nomz =nom.pst<br />
puRai muRa<br />
contr.foc 3sg.ms<br />
‘They are not God. All these things are God’s creation.’<br />
(see (6.6))<br />
Turning to the responses, we find that they are slightly different in content, as evident in (9.28)<br />
and (9.29), reflecting the differences in the questions posed. As a result, the Full Catechism exhibits<br />
a noun with two prenominal modifiers aikiaRa upakatu maRainkana ‘all <strong>of</strong> these things’ with no<br />
counterpart in the Catechism Fragment. Significantly, this collocation shows the same reversed<br />
order <strong>of</strong> prenominal modifiers found in (9.25), confirming contributors to this text felt this to be the<br />
correct order. This response also exhibits what appears to be simple grammatical error, a thirdperson<br />
singular pronoun, muRa, that does not agree in number with its antecedents, namely those<br />
things that are not to be identified with God. The counterpart <strong>of</strong> this pronoun in the Catechism<br />
Fragment, Ranu in (9.28), does exhibit the correct agreement.<br />
Finally, the Catechism Fragment response exhibits the collocation nati maRai, which is clearly<br />
intended to mean ‘none’ or ‘none <strong>of</strong> them’ (cf. maRai ‘thing’). Interestingly, neither modern Omagua<br />
or modern Kokama exhibit a reflex <strong>of</strong> nati, which appears to function as a negation element here,<br />
nor has it yet proved possible to identify a corresponding element in Tupinambá or any other<br />
Tupí-Guaraní language.<br />
7th Question-Response Pair The questions in these pairs exhibit two differences, the most<br />
significant being the difference in choice <strong>of</strong> interrogative word. The Catechism Fragment question,<br />
in (9.30), employs reason interrogative (formed from maRai ‘what’ and =ikua reas), while the<br />
Full Catechism question, in (9.31), employs a purpose interrogative (formed from maRai ‘what’ and<br />
=Ra nom.purp) (see §2.3.5). The responses make clear that the purpose interrogative is correct,<br />
indicating that the use <strong>of</strong> reason interrogative in the Catechism Fragment reflects the failure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
contributors to that text to master the subtle distinction between reason and purpose interrogatives<br />
in Old Omagua. The fact that a contributor to the Full Catechism had mastery <strong>of</strong> the reasonpurpose<br />
distinction in Omagua interrogative formation suggests a fairly high degree <strong>of</strong> fluency.<br />
The Catechism Fragment does, however exhibit the correct ordering <strong>of</strong> prenominal modifiers to<br />
maRainkana, while the Full Catechism exhibits the reverse order.<br />
(9.30) a. maRaikuatipa Dios yaw1k1 upakatu aikiaRa maRainkana?<br />
147