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.
2.3.9 Non-Verbal Predication<br />
Non-verbal predicates in Old Omagua are difficult to analyze because they are not uniform in<br />
their structure. Our discussion here targets the most commonly attested patterns and those that<br />
have correlates in the modern language. We attribute discrepancies between types <strong>of</strong> non-verbal<br />
predicates in the texts to author error, as there are parallel examples between the two catechism<br />
texts that differ so minimally that we are unable to analyze both as possible non-verbal predicate<br />
structures.<br />
When the argument and the predicate <strong>of</strong> a non-verbal clause are both referential NPs, the<br />
argument precedes the predicate, as it frequently does in modern Omagua as well, as in (2.81).<br />
(2.81) Dios papa, Dios ta1Ra, Dios espíritu santo.<br />
Dios papa Dios ta1Ra Dios espíritu santo<br />
God father God son.male.ego God Holy Spirit<br />
close: ‘God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit.’<br />
(example (5.9a))<br />
This ordering is also attested when the argument is a free pronoun, as in (2.82), 101 although in<br />
modern Omagua the opposite ordering, namely predicate followed by argument, is more frequent<br />
when the argument is a free pronoun. 102 Note that additional material may intervene between the<br />
argument and predicate.<br />
(2.82) muRatina aisetui Dios aisetui awa weRanu, yeneyaRa yeneyumunyepetataRa.<br />
muRa =tina aise -tui Dios aise -tui awa weRanu yene= yaRa yene=<br />
3sg.ms =cert true -? God true -? man coord 1pl.incl= lord 1pl.incl=<br />
yumunuyepeta<br />
redeem<br />
-taRa<br />
-act.nomz<br />
‘He is the true God and a true man, as well as our redeemer.’<br />
(example (6.15b))<br />
Interestingly, interrogative versions <strong>of</strong> non-verbal clauses occasionally show what appears to be a<br />
resumptive pronoun that is coreferential with the nominal predicate in question, as in (2.83), taken<br />
from the Catechism Fragment, cf., muRa 3sg.ms. 103 Specifically, we assume this sentence to be the<br />
interrogative counterpart to a predicational copula clause (Higgins 1973; Mikkelsen 2005), in which<br />
‘Dios’ is the argument. This pattern is unexpected, since resumption is not a phenomenon found<br />
elsewhere, at least in modern Omagua.<br />
101 See also (6.31b).<br />
102 This is the main source <strong>of</strong> frequent VS P ordering as well, as mentioned above. This VS P order, where V is a<br />
non-verbal predicate and S P is a free pronoun, namely Ranu 3pl.ms, is attested once in the texts, as in (2.1), where<br />
the bracketed constituent is the predicate.<br />
(2.1) [Dios yaw1k1maipuRakana] puRai Ranu.<br />
Dios yaw1k1 =mai =puRa =kana puRai Ranu<br />
God make =inact.nomz =nom.pst =pl.ms merely 3pl.ms<br />
‘They are merely God’s creations.’<br />
(example (5.6b))<br />
103 However, see (5.9a) for an example <strong>of</strong> an interrogative that does not exhibit this pattern.<br />
52