Marked verbal number

Marked verbal number relates to the semantics of the verb. It is a derivational category signalled by means of stem alternations. In order to understand the marked verbal number category we need to take into account the lexical specification of the base. The base can specify that the action denoted by the verb is performed a single time or a number of times. Marked verbal number signals the opposite of what is encoded in the meaning of the base. This section addresses this issue in detail.

Nuer follows a rather typical Nilo-Saharan pattern where verb morphology can signal that the action described by the verb is performed multiple times (iteratively), over a period of time, by several agents simultaneously, on a number of objects, and various

96

combinations thereof (Eulenberg (1971:73) cited in Corbett 2000:245). I will refer to this derivational category as multiplicative (MUL). The multiplicative is a derivationally marked category. The multiplicative in (15) is derived from the basic transitive ‘fold’, which describes a single action of folding. The derivation is expressed by means of change of vowel grade from 1 to 2 and by vowel lengthening from short length to overlong length.

15. Basic transitive Marked verbal number transitive

bān-ʌ ̤́  ba ̄a a n-ʌ ̤́

fold(TR)-1SG fold(TR).MUL-1SG

The output of the verbal number derivation, however, is not always a multiplicative. Instead, it depends on the inherent semantics of the lexeme. A verb with inherent singular semantics, as in (15), has a verbal number derivation that signals plurality. A verb with an inherent plural semantics, by contrast, has a derived verbal number category that signals singularity. I term the latter punctual (PUN). The evidence that the inherent semantics of the lexeme determine the number of the marked verbal number category comes from the example in (16). The base has the inherent semantics of plural action. We can translate it as ‘fold many times’ (cf. ‘fold’ (15)). The derived verbal

number category in (16) signals singular action – the opposite of the inherent semantics of the lexeme. What is more, the exponents of the derivation of punctual marked verbal number in (16) are the same as those used in the derivation of multiplicative marked verbal number in (15). Both involve a change in vowel grade from grade 1 to grade 2, and vowel lengthening from short to overlong.

16. Basic transitive Marked verbal number transitive

māt-ʌ ̤́  ma ̄a a t-ʌ ̤́

fold.many.times(TR)-1SG fold.many.times(TR).PUN-1SG

I claim that the principle at work in the verbal domain is similar to what we find in the language’s nominal number. In many Nilotic languages (including Nuer), the unmarked category can be either the singular or the plural: when the singular is unmarked, the plural is marked and when the plural is unmarked, the singular is marked (Gilley 1992, Storch 2005).21

97

What is more, the behaviour where the same exponents are used to signal different number marking has been attested in nouns. Corbett (2000), with reference to this phenomenon in noun morphology, calls this an inverse marker. A case of specific interest is that of an East Nilotic language Maa (Corbett 2000:162, based on p.c. with Bernd Heine). In Maa, a suffix -î can be described as a marker of unexpected number. It is used to mark the opposite of whatever is the expected. An example at hand is that of ‘fish’. The speakers of the Maasai dialect of Maa do not eat fish and there is no need to individuate single fish for the Maasai, thus the plural is the more expected number for fish. This is evident from the fact that the form bearing the unexpected number suffix is the singular (17). The speakers of the Camus dialect of Maa, by contrast, eat fish and for them single fish can be considered the expected number. Thus, for the Camus the unexpected number marker occurs with the plural form (18). The suffix -î is used in both cases to mark the less expected number, be that singular or plural.

17. Maasai

o-sínkirr-î ɪ-sínkɪr

GN-fish-SG GN-fish

‘a fish’ ‘fish’ (plural) (Corbett 2000:162)

18. Camus

sínkir sínkir-î

fish fish-PL

‘a fish’ ‘fish’ (plural) (Corbett 2000:162) A system where either singular or plural can be morphologically unmarked and a system where the same markers are used for the derived singular and the derived plural, have both been attested in the Nilotic languages. As such, it is not entirely

surprising to encounter this behaviour in Nuer. What is surprising is that this behaviour is found in verbs. Marked verbal number derivation of this kind does not seem to be attested in the literature on verbal number (Matthew Baerman, p.c.).

The verbal number contrast can occur in combination with any verb derivation –

transitive, antipassive, applicative, applicative antipassive and associated motion. Here I assume that verbal number adds a layer of morphological complexity. Interestingly, with the associated motion derivation there is an extra contrast in verbal number. There, in addition to the contrast between punctual and multiplicative action/events, a

98

third distinction is found which I shall refer to as neutral. The term is used to describe the situation where the verbal number marking does not provide any information about the number of the event/action. Noteworthy is the distribution of the three categories. For a given lexical item the associated motion derivation can maximally have a two-way verbal number contrast: punctual and multiplicative (19a), punctual and neutral (19b) or multiplicative and neutral (19c). I conclude that there is a conditioned distribution of verbal number derivations whereby any combination is attested but the combination must be maximally binary.

19. a. lɛ̤̀ap lè̤eep open(TR).PUN.AM.NF open(TR).MUL.AM.NF b. lʊ̤̀ɔɰ lu ̤̀ɔ ɔ ɔ ɰ rinse.mouth(TR).PUN.AM.NF rinse.mouth(TR).NEU.AM.NF c. t̪jè̤ e p t̪jɛ̤́ap touch(TR).MUL.AM.NF touch(TR).NEU.AM.NF

In this thesis I only consider marked verbal number for some of the derivational categories in detail. The reason I am not providing an exhaustive account is because I discovered this category relatively late during my fieldtrip in Kenya. Elicitation of marked verbal number is not very easy, primarily because a contrast between a given category and its marked verbal number counterpart is usually minimal, and it is often hard to tell which form the speaker is giving. Moreover, there are often several ways to form marked verbal number. Eliciting a single coherent paradigm thus requires great attention on the part of the researcher and the speaker, something that can be done face to face and certainly not over the internet – the medium I used for the purpose of data collection upon my return from Kenya. I therefore leave this issue to be dealt with in greater detail in further research. Here I provide the definition and the description of this category along with a descriptive account of the key derivational categories – marked verbal number transitive and marked verbal number associated motion (see chapter 8) – and I give a brief description of the marked verbal number antipassive in section 4.4.4.5.

99