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.
aikiaRa musap1R1ka persona =kana uyepe =semai Dios muRa<br />
dem.prox.ms three person =pl.ms one =verid God 3sg.ms<br />
santísima trinidad<br />
Holy Trinity<br />
=nani Ra= SiRa<br />
=contr.foc 3sg.ms= name<br />
‘They are not three Gods. These three persons are truly one God. The Holy Trinity is<br />
its name.’<br />
(see (5.10))<br />
(9.35) a. aikiaRa musap1R1ka personakana, Roayapa musap1R1ka Dioskana?<br />
aikiaRa musap1R1ka persona =kana Roaya =pa musap1R1ka Dios =kana<br />
dem.prox.ms three person =pl.ms neg =interr three God =pl.ms<br />
‘These three people, are they not three Gods?’<br />
b. Roaya [musa]p1R1ka Dioskana. aikiaRa musap1R1ka personakana persona uyepe titi Dios<br />
muRa. santísima trinidadnanimai RaSiRa.<br />
Roaya<br />
neg<br />
[musa]p1R1ka<br />
three<br />
Dios =kana<br />
God =pl.ms<br />
aikiaRa musap1R1ka persona =kana persona uyepe titi Dios muRa<br />
=pl.ms three person =pl.ms person one be.alone God 3sg.ms<br />
santísima trinidad<br />
Holy Trinity<br />
=nani =mai Ra= SiRa<br />
=contr.foc =? 3sg.ms= name<br />
‘They are not three Gods. These three persons are one God alone. The Holy Trinity is<br />
its name.’<br />
(see (6.10))<br />
The responses, each <strong>of</strong> which we analyze as consisting <strong>of</strong> three short sentences, differ in a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> important ways. In the first sentence, which is a non-verbal clause, the Full Catechism lacks the<br />
pronominal form muRa 3sg.ms, found in the corresponding Catechism Fragment sentence. Based<br />
on modern Omagua, we expect muRa to be necessary here for the sentence to be grammatical (see<br />
§2.3.9). Note that in the second sentence <strong>of</strong> the response, however, also a non-verbal clause, the Full<br />
Catechism exhibits muRa in the expected position, just as in the Catechism Fragment, suggesting<br />
that its absence in the first sentence <strong>of</strong> the Full Catechism response may reflect a simple oversight,<br />
rather than a lack <strong>of</strong> mastery <strong>of</strong> the grammar <strong>of</strong> non-verbal clauses.<br />
The responses also differ in how the notion <strong>of</strong> God being a single god (despite being a trinity)<br />
is expressed in the second sentence, with the collocation uyepe titi ‘one alone’ appearing in the Full<br />
Catechism (and attested in modern Omagua), while the Catechism fragment employs the veridical:<br />
uyepe=semai ‘truly one’. We believe both <strong>of</strong> these constructions were grammatical. Finally, the third<br />
sentence <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the responses exhibit the use <strong>of</strong> =nani as a contrastive focus marker on trinidad<br />
(also a strategy attested synchronically (see §2.3.8.2)), but the presence <strong>of</strong> the nominalizer =mai<br />
following the contrastive focus marker in the Full Catechism is inexplicable, and was presumably<br />
ungrammatical.<br />
11th Question-Response Pair The questions in this pair differ in two ways. We see that the<br />
interrogative word maniamai ‘which’ in Catechism Fragment, 381 in (9.36), bears the interrogative<br />
381 In modern Omagua, makatimai ‘which’.<br />
150