draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

ename 139 ne= iSaRi tanu 140 ukukui =maka 141 eRa -s1ma
proh 2sg= abandon 1pl.excl.ms fall.from.height =neg.purp good -core.neg
=mai
=inact.nomz
close: ‘Don’t abandon [us] lest we fall [into] 142 evil.’
target: ‘Lead us not into temptation.’
(4.7) a. Ayaisimarae sui nimunuy epetatanu
b. ayaisi maraesui nimunuyepeta tanu
c. ayaise 143 maRaisui 144 neyumunuyepeta tanu
ayaise maRai =sui ne= yumunuyepeta 145 tanu
wicked 146 thing =abl 2sg= save
1pl.excl.ms
close: ‘You save us from the wicked thing.’
target: ‘Deliver us from evil.’
139 The modern Omagua prohibitive is inami, and the form given throughout these texts, namely ename, represents
an irregular correspondence between Old and modern Omagua e:i (see footnote 135).
140 In this sentence, either iSaRi ‘abandon’ is missing an object or ukukui ‘fall from height’ is missing a subject, although
it is unclear from the context which is the case.
141 See also §2.3.7.1.2.
142 Note that this sentence lacks a postposition to license eRas1ma as an oblique argument to ukukui ‘fall from height’.
143 Although this form is written in the original orthography with a final , we change it to e here for two reasons:
first, in the full catechism, it appears with a final (e.g., see (6.21a)); and second, we would expect the Old
Omagua form to end in e, based on the synchronic form aisI (see vowel correspondences described in footnote 135).
144 The representation of Old Omagua maRai in the ecclesiastical texts varies between and . We
represent it phonemically as /maRai/ (namely with the diphthong /ai/ and not /ae/) because of its modern Omagua
reflex maRai and its Kokama-Kokamilla cognate maRi. The final vowel in the latter form is the result of widespread
monophthongization (O’Hagan and Wauters 2012), and suggests that the second vowel of the Proto-Omagua-
Kokama diphthong was *i. Interestingly, the orthographic representations of this form (and forms derived from it)
are in complementary distribution across the texts here: appears in the Lord’s Prayer and full catechism
to the exclusion of ; and appears in the catechism fragment and in the passages from Uriarte’s
diaries, to the exclusion of .
145 See footnote 193.
146 Except for this instance, we translate Old Omagua ayaise as ‘wicked’ in both close and target translation lines,
which is in line with the meaning of its modern Omagua reflex aisI (see footnote 143). With the exception of its
appearance here, in these texts it modifies nouns denoting persons, particularly in order to convey the idea of ‘bad
Christians’ (as opposed to ‘good Christians’). We take the extension of ‘wicked’ to ‘evil’ to be a result of Jesuit
authors’ searching for an antonym to eRa ‘good’ (see §9.3.3), which does not exist in Omagua (at least in modern
Omagua). Why eRas1mamai ‘evil’ is not employed here is unclear, since elsewhere it used to translate ‘evil’ into
Old Omagua(e.g., see (6.12b)).
66