draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

(2.83) maRaitipa Dios muRa?
maRai
what
=tipa Dios muRa
=interr God 3sg.ms
‘What is God?’
(example (5.2a))
A similar pattern appears in the response to this question, as in (2.84). However, we propose
that these two examples differ slightly in that the bracketed material (the nominal predicate) is
extraclausal, unlike the interrogative word maRai ‘what’ in (2.83), and is coreferential with the
sentence-final muRa 3sg.ms.
(2.84) [1watimai Ritama, aikiaRa tuyuka Ritama, upakatu maRainkanamukui, yaw1k1taRa, wakutataRa,
yeneyaRasemai weRanu,] muRiai Dios muRa.
1wati =mai Ritama aikiaRa tuyuka Ritama upa =katu maRain
be.high.up =inact.nomz village dem.prox.ms land village all =intsf thing
=kana =mukui yaw1k1 -taRa wakuta -taRa yene= yaRa =semai
=pl.ms =com make -act.nomz carry.in.arm -act.nomz 1pl.incl= master =verid
weRanu muRia -i Dios muRa
coord thus -? God 3sg.ms
‘The Creator of Heaven, Earth and all things, the protector, and our true Lord as well, thus
is God.’
(example (5.2b))
As above, this sentence is a predicational copula clause, wherein the nominal predicate has been
left-dislocated and its erstwhile position is filled by a free pronoun, similar to the resumptive strategy
in (2.83). 104 In modern Omagua, left-dislocation of this type is associated with a contrastive topic
construction, although we do not claim the bracketed constituent in (2.84) to be a contrastive topic.
Note, however, that in the Full Catechism counterpart to (2.83), muRa 3sg.ms is absent, although
the structure of the two responses is identical.
Specificational copula clauses appear to be achieved via a construction very similar to that in
(2.84), but which lacks the final muRa 3sg.ms, as shown in (2.85). In these cases, we claim that the
bracketed constituent is intraclausal and is the argument of the copula clause.
(2.85) [aikiaRa musap1R1ka personakana] uyepe titi Dios.
aikiaRa musap1R1ka persona =kana uyepe titi Dios
dem.prox.ms three person =pl.ms one be.alone God
‘These three persons are one God alone.’
(example (5.9a))
However, the parallel sentence from the Full Catechism in (6.9b) exhibits a final muRa, thus
confusing the generalization between predicational and specificational copula clauses laid out above
(also see footnote 104). These facts lead us not to place much analytical weight on the preceding
discussion, but leave it as a series of descriptive generalizations of the patterning of Old Omagua
non-verbal predicates. 105
104 Confusingly, this same construction may also yield a specificational clause interpretation, as in (5.10b).
105 See §9.4 for a step-by-step comparison of the two catechism texts that includes a discussion of the differential
treatment of parallel non-verbal clauses.
53