draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

(4.4) a. Tanu eocmai neyume icume tanu supe
b. tanu eocmai neyume icume tanusupe
c. tanueumai neyume ikume tanusupe. 135
tanu= eu =mai ne= yume ikume tanu= =supe
1pl.excl.ms= eat =inact.nomz 2sg= give today 1pl.excl.ms= =goal
close: ‘You give us our food today.’
target: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’
(4.5) a. Tenepatatanu tanu eraecmamaicana maeramania tanu tenepeta tanu sahuayaracana
b. tenepata tanu tanueraecmamaicana maeramania tanu tenepeta tanusahuayaracana
c. tenepeta tanu tanueRas1mamaikana 136 maiRamania tanu tenepeta tanusawayaRakana
tenepeta tanu tanu= eRa -s1ma =mai =kana
forgive 138 1pl.excl.ms 1pl.excl.ms= good -core.neg =inact.nomz =pl.ms
maiRamania
exactly(.as)
tanu
1pl.excl.ms
tenepeta
forgive
tanu=
1pl.excl.ms=
sawayaRa 137
enemy
=kana
=pl.ms
close: ‘Forgive us our evils as we forgive our enemies.’
target: ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’
(4.6) a. Ename neischari tanu ucucui maca eraecmamai
b. ename neischari tanu ucucuimaca eraecmamai
c. ename neiSaRi tanu ukukuimaka eRas1mamai.
the only attestation of such a construction in these texts, and this construction is not attested in modern Omagua.
134 No reflex of putaRi is attested in modern Omagua, nor is a cognate attested in modern Kokama-Kokamilla (Espinosa
Pérez 1989; Vallejos Yopán 2010c). Cognates are widely attested in other Tupí-Guaraní languages, however, and
Mello (2000:190) reconstructs the Proto-Tupí-Guaraní verb **potaR ‘want’. Our gloss here reflects this etymology,
as well as the standard phrasing of the Lord’s Prayer (i.e., ‘thy will be done’). Note that this forms bears no
nominalizing morphology, which would be expected if putari were a verb, leading us to suspect that its appearance
here is the result of a calque.
135 This sentence exhibits two irregular correspondence between Old and modern Omagua: e:i (yume ‘give’ & supe
goal); and i:I (ikume ‘today’ (modern Omagua IkumI)). Proto-Omagua-Kokama exhibited *e and *i; *e generally
raised to I in Omagua, while generally remaining e in Kokama-Kokamilla (see O’Hagan and Wauters (2012)). The
e:i correspondence appears in only a small number of forms, and only word-initially or word-finally. However, the
vowels in the Old Omagua forms in question are what we would expect, given the corresponding reconstructed
Proto-Tupí-Guaraní forms: **mePeN (Mello 2000:179) & **tsupé (Jensen 1998:514), which makes these attested
forms essential for reconstructing the correct vowel for Proto-Omagua-Kokama (e.g., *yume ‘give’).
The i:I correspondenceis only attested in this single form, and we currently know of no cognates in other Tupí-
Guaraní languages that would clarify the Proto-Omagua-Kokama form. It should be noted that modern Kokama-
Kokamilla exhibits the cognate ikume, suggesting that Proto-Omagua-Kokama form was *ikume, and that the
modern Omagua exhibits an irregular lowering process for this particular form.
136 Modern Omagua exhibits no ditransitive constructions whatsoever; recipient arguments require postpositions to
license them. We hypothesize that the appearance of tenepeta ‘forgive’ with two arguments, neither of which is
licensed by a postposition, to be the results of a calque of the Spanish construction Perdónanos nuestros pecados
or the German construction Vergib uns unsere Schuld ‘Forgive us our sins’, depending on the native language of
the author of the Omagua Lord’s Prayer.
137 Old Omagua The form sawayaRa ‘enemy’ is unattested in modern Omagua, but is cognate to Tupinambá oBajaR
‘enemy, brother-in-law (male ego)’ (Lemos Barbosa 1951:114).
138 The form tenepeta is not attested in modern Omagua, nor have we been able to locate cognates in other Tupí-
Guaraní languages. However, it occurs in contexts in which it must clearly mean ‘forgive’, and we gloss it as such
throughout the rest of this work.
65