2.3 Overview of relevant syntax
2.3.5 Raising of case and agreement
2.3.5.1 Introduction
Chintang has numerous constructions where an argument of a subordinate verb leaves morpholog- ical traces in the matrix. Such traces can be found both in case and in agreement, and I will refer to both as raising here instead of using different terms such as raising and long distance agreement. Constructions with morphological raising play an important role for the present study because they change or narrow down the possibilities of marking S/A detransitivisation. It should also be noted that most of these constructions are by no means marginal or exotic but highly frequent.
Raising occurs in constructions with two non-finite forms. One is the infinitive -ma, which is used with about 15 light verbs expressing a wide range of functions such as ability (e.g. hid- ‘be able to’), necessity (e.g. kond- ‘must’) or phase semantics (e.g. puŋs- ‘start to’). e other form is the foregrounding converb -saŋa, which is used together with 7 regular verbs that have a special metaphorical meaning in this construction in order to express temporal-aspectual meanings (e.g. yuŋ- ‘be there’ : -saŋa yuŋ- ‘stay doing’). Both constructions exhibit a high degree of integration in the sense of Raible (1992), that is, their properties place them relatively far away from two juxtaposed independent clauses.
In infinitival subclauses, it is oen difficult to determine for these constructions whether an NP belongs to only one predicate or both and by which predicate it is assigned a role. Consider the two examples below. Both are possible with or without the infinitive, and in both the meaning of the two variants is rather similar. e meaning of hid- without INF is ‘be able to handle, cope with, finish’, with an INF it is ‘be able to, finish doing’. e meaning of mund- without INF is ‘forget’, with an INF it is ‘forget to’:
(30) Marci chilli (ca-ma) eat-INF hid-u-ku-ŋ-nɨŋ. be.able-3[s]O-IND.NPST-1sA-NEG
‘I can’t (eat) chilli.’ (field notes 2010)
(31) Hana
2s jaileyaŋalways yumsalt (ti-ma)put.in-INFa-mund-and-o-ko!2[s]A-forget-COMPL1-3[s]O-IND.NPST
‘You always forget (to add) salt!’ (elicitation RBK 2010) In (31) it is not quite clear whether yum ‘salt’ is the P of mund- ‘forget’, the T of tis- ‘put in’, or both. Its case does not tell us because mund- has P-NOM and tis- T-NOM. Agreement is on mund- only, but that is not very telling either because INF cannot carry any agreement affixes except -ce [3nsO]. Similarly, hana [2s] is assigned the same role by both verbs and also functions in that role. e same holds for (30). We will take the simple stance here that in cases such as (31) and (30) the frames of the two participating verbs are superimposed so that yum is both P and T and hana is both monotransitive and ditransitive A.
Not all complement verbs behave this way. For instance, lapt- ‘be about to’ can only be used with infinitives and thus does neither have an independent frame nor a standard role set. In such cases we will assume that all arguments belong to the embedded predicate and are assigned their roles only by it. Where it is necessary to distinguish this mechanism from frame superimposition we will speak of true raising (because it is only in this case that one can say that an argument is morphosyntactically part of the matrix claus in spite of its semantic affiliation). Mostly, however, such a distinction need not be made because the formal result is the same in both cases.
e whole problem is much less pronounced with constructions involving -saŋa because all possible matrix verbs acquire a special, abstract meaning in these constructions that makes it clear that they do not have arguments or assign roles any longer. Compare, for instance:
(32) a. Ba-ce
PROX-nsaŋwhatu-numd-a-ŋs-e3[p]S-do-PST-PRF-IND.PSTmo-ba?DEM.DOWN-LOC1
b. Weiʔ
rain ta-saŋacome-CVB.FGRnumd-a-ŋs-edo-PST-PRF-IND.PST[.3sS]acikali.these.days
‘It’s kept raining over the last days.’ (CLC:RM JK talk01.189) 2.3.5.2 Constructions with transitive embedded frame
For the study of S/A detransitivisation, the constructions which are of the greatest interest are those which involve transitive embedded frames. ere are three options in this case. e default is to raise the complete transitive frame so that the complex sentence as a whole acquires transitive characteristics: A is marked by ERG and there is A+O-AGR. AGR is realised on both predicates with a couple of restrictions: the non-finite embedded forms are only compatible with a few agreement affixes (see section 2.2.3 above) and these are always optional, and intransitive matrix predicates (only found in the -saŋa constructions, e.g. yuŋ- ‘be there’) can only have S-AGR. In the case of frame superimposition, the matrix predicate always assigns the same case and agreement to A and links the same NOM-marked referent to O-AGR as the embedded predicate, so the two frames can never clash.
Below are some examples. (33) and (34) show -ma [INF] with and without frame superimposi- tion, respectively. (35) show -saŋa [CVB.FGR] with and without agreement on the -saŋa form. (33) U-ko-no-ko-ce
3[p]S-roam-IND.NPST=NMLZ1-ns
sa-ŋa
who-ERGhɨŋ-mafeed-INFhid-u-ku-cebe.able-3O-IND.NPST-[3sA.]3nsOnaŋ?but ‘But who can feed the ones wandering around?’ (CLC:RM JK talk01.073) (34) Maʔmi-ce-ŋa
person-ns-ERG
theʔnuwa saliva
thuk-ma
spit.at-INFna-lapt-i-ŋs-i-hẽ.3>2-be.about.to-2pP-PRF-2pP-IND.PST
‘People are about to spit (saliva) at you.’ (CLC:CLLDCh3R08S01.1021) (35) Cha-ce-ŋa
child-ns-ERGbadhe=tamuch=FOCu-ni-saŋa3nsA-know-CVB.FGRu-thapt-o-ŋs-e.3[p]A-bring.across-3[s]O-PRF-IND.PST
‘e children have come to know a lot.’ (CLC:chintang now.738) (36) Ba-khi=ta
PROX-MOD=FOCi-bhog-a2sPOR-sacrificial.meat-NTVZca-saŋaeat-CVB.FGR a-kha-o=kha.
2[s]A-take.away-[SUBJ.]3[s]O=NMLZ2
‘You will eat your sacrificial meat like this from now on.’ (CLC:CLLDCh1R05S05.0719) e second and third option for dealing with transitive embedded frames are linked so that one verb can only allow both or none. ey only occur with infinitival subclauses. e relevant matrix predicates can have 3sS-AGR (which can be interpreted as indexing the infinitive itsel) or raise embedded O-AGR to S-AGR. e pair of examples in (37) shows both options for kond- ‘must, be necessary’:
(37) a. U-lapthaŋ-ce=yaŋ
3sPOR-wing-ns=ADDmiʔ˜mi=khasmall˜INTENS=NMLZ2
khok-ma-ce
chop-INF-3nsOkon-noʔ.be.necessary-IND.NPST[.3sS] ‘Its wings also must be cut into tiny pieces.’ (CLC:muncurup numma.29) b. Yo DEM.ACROSS a-nne-ce 1sPOR-elder.sister-ns tiyar-a ready-NTVZ u-lis-eʔ, 3[p]S-become-IND.PST pi-ma-ce give-INF-3nsO u-kon-noʔ. 3[p]S-be.necessary-IND.NPST
‘ose girls are ready, they should be given (rice).’ (CLC:CLLDCh2R10S01.359) Note that with these options, the A of the embedded predicate is marked by ERG independently of AGR: (38) Jamma-ŋa all-ERG akka 1s cop-ma look.at-INF kon-no/
be.necessary-IND.NPST[.3sS]koı̃-ya-ʔã.be.necessary-1sS-IND.NPST
2.3. OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT SYNTAX 2.3.5.3 Constructions with intransitive embedded frame and transitive matrix
Another area of interest are constructions that involve a transitive matrix but no raising. Since transitive embedded frames are always raised or suppressed, such constructions are only found with intransitive embedded frames. ere they form a subset of all available complex frames:
• {A-ERG P-[V.NONF] V-a(A).o(V.NONF)} • {A-ERG/NOM P-[V.NONF] V-a(A).o(V.NONF)} • {A-NOM P-[V.NONF] V-s(A)}
• {S-NOM S-[V.NONF] V-s(V.NONF)} • {S-NOM [V.NONF] V-s(S)}
Note that when the embedded predicate is intransitive and the matrix is transitive, role clashes become possible. is is different from the constructions with transitive embedded predicates dis- cussed above, where even the roles of superimposed arguments were always very similar (e.g. monotransitive and ditransitiive A, monotransitive P and direct object ditransitive T). With these constructions, one predicate may assign S and the other A.
is conflict was resolved for the list above as follows. When the matrix predicate is transitive, the argument in question is assumed to be A of the matrix predicate and the non-finite form itself is P. INF can only P become in this group of constructions and not in the raising paern for embedded transitive frames that we saw above because there the embedded P is more clearly referential and has more proto-patient properties than INF. When the matrix predicate is intransitive or does not assign any roles, the argument in question is assumed to be the S of the embedded predicate.
e constructions that are of interest to us are those with a bivalent matrix – that is, construc- tions which have an A and a P in their valency, regardless of their case marking and indexing. Below is one example for each of these. Most examples had to be elicited in order to illustrate the fully expanded frame in a single sentence.
{A-ERG P-[V.NONF] V-a(A).o(V.NONF)} (39) Ep-ma
stand.up-INFkond-o-kowant-3[s]O-IND.NPST[.3sA]niASSba-sa-ŋa.PROX-OBL-ERG
‘is one wants to stand up.’ (CLC:CLLDCh4R02S01.0413)
{A-ERG/NOM P-[V.NONF] V-a(A).o(V.NONF)} (40) a. Ba*(-sa-ŋa)
PROX-OBL-ERGchepmu-maurinate-INF nad-o-ŋs-e,refuse-3[s]O-PRF-IND.PST[.3sA] hi-nɨk-nɨŋ
be.well-IND.NPST-NEG[.3sS]hola.maybe ‘He refuses to pee, maybe he’s ill.’ b. Philim(*-ŋa)
film-ERG thaiʔ-maappear-INFnad-o-s-e.refuse-3[s]O-PRF-IND.PST[.3sA]
‘e movie just doesn’t want to appear.’ (elicitation SAR 2011) {A-NOM P-[V.NONF] V-s(A)}
(41) Pecce
Pecceleʔleonlylɨk-mago.up-INFhi-no.be.able-IND.NPST[.3sS]
‘Only Pecce can go up.’ (CLC:CLLDCh3R06S05.720)
e choice of frame is conditioned by several factors. e most important factor is the matrix predicate, since many verbs allow only a single frame once the embedded clause and its valency are given. For instance, kond- in the sense ‘want, try’ as in (39) and hid- ‘be able’ in (41) both are only grammatical with the complex frames they exemplify. e ERG/NOM alternation in the complex frame represented by nad- in (40) is to a great part determined by volitionality: volitional A as in (40a) must be marked by ERG, non-volitional A as in (40b) by NOM. However, there are
intransitive transitive meaning with -saŋa khat- ‘go’ kha- ‘take’ ‘start doing, do from now on’ thap- ‘come across’ thapt- ‘bring across’ ‘have been doing, come to do’ yuŋ- ‘be there’ yuŋs- ‘put’ ‘stay doing, keep doing’
Table 2.6: Etymologically related matrix verbs with -saŋa [CVB.FGR]
other factors at work here that are not well understood as yet. e two verbs whose behaviour is so far least understood are let- ‘stop, abandon’ and la- ‘stop, have had enough o’. Volitionality probably also plays a role for these, but it can by far not explain all of their uses.
2.3.5.4 Transitivity marked by verb stems
ere are a couple of constructions involving -saŋa [CVB.FGR] where intransitive and transitive embedded frames are linked in a special way. As shown in Table 2.6, the morphological transitivity of the embedded frame determines the lexical transitivity of the matrix verb. In all cases where an intransitive and a transitive matrix verb are available the two are etymologically related.
In these constructions, an intransitive embedded verb is used with the intransitive matrix vari- ant and a transitive embedded variant with the transitive one. For instance:
(42) a. Ani=lo
1pi=SURPnaŋbut ba-iPROX-LOC2
pop-saŋa
degenerate-CVB.FGRpop-saŋadegenerate-CVB.FGRkhad-i-kigo-1p[i]S-IND.NPST naŋ.
but
‘But we just waste away more and more here.’ (CLC:INT MXR.0903) b. Akka
1s khem-saŋalisten-CVB.FGRkha-u-ŋ-kh-a-ŋ-netake-3[s]O-1sA-CON-3[s]O-1sA-[SUBJ.NPST.]OPTi-katha.2sPOR-story ‘I will try to listen to your story from now on.’ (CLC:kazi trip talk.115) Note, though, that the association between the transitivity of the embedded frame and the matrix verb is not perfect. Although it is true that the intransitive matrix verbs only occur with intransitive embedded frames and that transitive embedded frames are only compatible with the transitive matrix verbs, transitive matrix verbs can (if rarely) also be used with embedded intransitive frames, as in (43):
(43) Ani
1pi toŋ-saŋa=taget.together-CVB.FGR=FOCkha-u-m,take-3[s]O-[SUBJ.NPST.]1[pi]Apa-saŋa=tagrow-CVB.FGR kha-u-m.
take-3[s]O-[SUBJ.NPST.]1[pi]A
‘Let’s keep working together and growing.’ (CLC:Student life.060) From the available examples it looks as if this use was once more triggered by volitionality, but this cannot be said with certainty yet.