Volume 16 Issue 1 (2018) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.482 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Some Peculiarities
of Comparative Constructions in Nivacle (Mataguayo Family, Paraguayan Chaco) Alain
Fabre (Independent researcher) Nivacle, an under-studied Mataguayo
language from the Gran Chaco, displays a bewildering variety of typological
rarities, for instance in the realms of possession, verbal alignment,
predicative possession and applicatives (Fabre 2004, 2009-2010, 2012, 2015, 2016).
The purpose of this article is to document different types of comparative and
equative constructions, some of which, like one-word “all-in-one” comparatives,
have scarcely been reported before. 1. Introduction Nivacle is one of the four languages belonging to the Mataguayo
family of the South American Gran Chaco region, the other being Wichí (Argentina)/Weenhayek
(Bolivia), Maká (Paraguay), as well as three
varieties of Chorote (Argentina and Paraguay). Nivacle is spoken by some 14,000 people in Paraguay, as
well as by about 400-500 people in Argentina, in the provinces of Formosa and
Salta. I have gathered the data in fieldwork in the central Paraguayan Chaco
during the months of June/July in 2007, 2009 and 2011.[1] From a typological point of view, Nivacle
can be characterized as a radical head-marking language with a fairly high
degree of polysynthesis and agglutination. There are no adpositions
or nominal cases in Nivacle, hence no oblique
phrases. Any locative or instrumental relation is conveyed with an applicative
suffix on the verb. Applicatives can also be used in order to increase valency.
Only temporal NPs can freely appear without being indexed on the verb with an
applicative suffix. Although there is neither tense nor aspect, verbs have two
moods, realis and irrealis. All verb forms are finite. Multiverbal
constructions are widely used in order to convey what is expressed in other
languages by aspectual categories, manner adverbs, as well as some comparative
constructions, which are discussed in this paper. All Nivacle verb forms are
finite and have at least one prefix slot filled by a subject marker (SA,
SP, or A). A basic (non-derived) verb can be intransitive or monotransitive. There are five conjugations. In basic
intransitives, alignment may be accusative (conjugations I, II, and IV or
active (conjugation III) (1-4).[2]
Basic transitives belong to Conjugation V and two
arguments appear in the prefix slot, A and O (P/T/R), and can license an object
NP or pronoun (5a-b).
In (6a-c), both arguments are SAPs, and the
corresponding pronouns are only used if emphasis is needed. Third person
D-pronouns are more frequent, since they are more often used in cases of
ambiguity.[3]
Verbs belonging to other conjugations can be made
transitive only through suffixation of an applicative, which then licenses a new
argument (7, 8). I consider such verbs derived transitives. Basic transitives
exhibit inverse/hierarchical alignment with a lexical split where either P/T
(10, 11) or R (9) is chosen as the argument to compete with A for the single
argument surfacing in the prefix slot.[4]
There is only one exception, where A represents second person and P/T/R first person,
in which case both arguments surface (6c). There is no inverse or direct
marker, and the surfacing argument cannot be analysed as a portmanteau
morpheme.
Suffixal derivation, consisting of person markers and/or applicative suffixes,
allows any verb, even intransitives like (7) and (8), to take additional
arguments. The same strategy applies to monotransitives
like (9), (10) and (11), yielding ditransitive constructions. Note that the
semantic roles of the non-A argument of the basic
transitives -tis and -xut, both
translated as ‘give’, are different: the non-A
argument of -tis
is a recipient, whereas -xut
can only license a T-argument. If there is a need to express the third
argument, an applicative suffix must be used. For -xut, there are two options for
the R, either benefactive (10) or distal (11), which indicates the physical
distance between the agent and the recipient.[5]
With -tis, the T appears as an
instrumental, which is, apart from its main instrumental use, the most frequent
exponent of P/T for derived transitives. There is no adjective category in Nivacle,
and property concepts, as well as quantifiers (including numerals, both natives
and loans from Spanish) are conjugated like verbs (§ 2). The relationship between referentiality and predicativity is very fluid. All NPs must be preceded by a
determiner particle which shows grammatical gender (masculine vs. feminine in
the singular; human vs. non-human in the plural) and visual evidentiality (seen
by speaker at speech time; seen by speaker before speech time; seen by speaker
before speech time but no longer existing; never seen by speaker). In the
absence of a determiner, the noun automatically becomes predicative (12b, 13b).
Conversely, the presence of a determiner before a verbal form suffices to make
it referential (12a, 13a). Both nominalizers and verbalizers exist in Nivacle, but the presence or absence of the determiner
alone is enough to induce a referential or a predicative reading. This shift
from noun to verb and vice versa is very common, even in cases where the
corresponding noun or verb would be readily available to the speaker (13a) (Nivacle does have a pair of nouns for ‘shoes’!).[6]
2. Comparison in Nivacle It is a well-known fact that people all over the world
never tire of comparing phenomena, events, peoples and things. Comparison,
then, is deeply grounded in cognition. Nonetheless, it is very puzzling indeed
that some languages appear to lack any dedicated comparative constructions. In
some of these languages, a speaker may resort to the conjoined comparative
strategy. Stassen (1985: 183-188) provides a pair of examples from Abipon, an extinct language of the Guaykurú
family, formerly spoken in Argentina. Within the Gran Chaco region, the
languages belonging to the Enlhet-Enenlhet family
(a.k.a. Maskoy/ Lengua-Maskoy)
also lack dedicated comparative constructions, albeit the speakers, if really pressed,
can resort to a conjoined comparative strategy (Hannes Kalisch,
p.c.). As will be seen in the next sections, Nivacle has dedicated comparative constructions, two
participants, a comparee and a standard, are compared in terms of some gradable
property, the parameter. Since property concepts are verbs in Nivacle (§ 1), the standard marker is a verbal suffix, and
both comparee and standard can be personal affixes. Comparative constructions
can be mono-clausal or bi-clausal. Nivacle
comparative constructions exhibit the following rarities: (A) In its canonical use, -kʔoja is an associated motion
suffix which indicates the anticipated coming of a non-subject participant (14).
In comparative constructions, -kʔoja functions as a
standard marker of comparison (16) (§§ 3, 4, 6.2, and 6.3)
(B) In its canonical use, -xuɬ is an associated motion
suffix indicating the simultaneous coming into the visual field of a
non-subject participant (17).
In comparison constructions, it is an equative or similative standard marker (19-21). Unlike ‑kʔoja,
the equative/similative -xuɬ is suffixed to a predicatively used
noun which can (21), but need not (19, 20), be followed by a possessed noun
indicating which quality is being compared (§ 5).
(C) Both comparee (COMP) and standard (STD) can be
affixed to the verb, which means that utterances like ‘You are much stronger than
me’ (16) and ‘You are like me’ (19) can be packaged into a single word. “All-in-one”
comparative construction appears to be a typological rarity (§ 3). As far as I
am aware, Baure, an Arawak language from eastern
Bolivia, is the only language where such a constellation has been attested
(Danielsen 2007: 212).[7] (D) An unusually high number of constructions are
available in Nivacle in order to express comparison
of inequality and equality. (E) Quality verbs functions as parameters. The verbs -ɒn (always
combined with the standard marker -ʔe) ‘more’, -aɬẻʃ ‘less’, -ảʃ(eʃ)
‘exceed’and the obligatorily possessed noun -xunaʃ ‘likeness’,
function as degree markers. Nivacle has no adjective category, property concepts (parameters, PAR) are inflected
like verbs (conjugations I, II, & III; marginally, with only one verb, IV).
It must be noted, however, that within these conjugations, only a subclass of
the verbs (the ones in the left column of Table 1) can be used in a
mono-clausal comparative construction (‘I am taller/more clever/stronger than
you’ vs. ‘I speak/cook/shout more than you’). If the speaker wants to use a
verb from the right columns in a comparative construction, this has to be
bi-clausal (compatible at least with Type 3a).
Table 1. Examples of verbs from conjugations I, II and
III. There are two main standard markers (STD.M.THAN), -kˀoja
in comparative and -xuɬ in equative constructions. It is
remarkable that both are isomorphic with associated motions suffixes,
and attach to the verb (parameter). The fact that two associated motion
suffixes are recruited as markers of the standard of comparison appears to be
cross-linguistically unique. In a few constructions, two locative applicative
suffixes may be used as standard markers instead of -kˀoja: -ˀe ‘proximal’ (§ 6.1) and -ˀapẻ ‘on /above [surface]’ (§ 6.4),
both of which attach to the main verb. As an associated motion suffix, -kˀoja (anticipated ventive) marks a non-subject participant expected to be
coming, but not in sight at the event time. -xuɬ (simultaneous
ventive) also represents a non-subject participant which
is seen coming by the speaker. Apart from serving as standard markers, the
associated motion suffixes have various other uses.[8] In all comparative constructions, COMP is obligatorily
marked as a personal prefix on PAR. Additionally, the corresponding NP (or
pronoun) can optionally appear. Depending on the construction type, the STD can
be a personal suffix on PAR, or an NP (or pronoun). PAR can be a canonical verb
or a predicative noun, in which case the prefix will be possessive. In what follows, closely related constructions share the same digit but are distinguished
from each other by a lower case letter (Type 1a, 1b,
etc.). 3. -kˀoja in
mono-clausal comparative constructions Note how (22) matches the morphology of the
comparative construction in (23).
Table 2. Structure matching between examples (22) and
(23).
There are two types of mono-clausal comparative
constructions. The simplest consists of one verb alone (“all-in-one”), where
both comparee and standard are affixes on the parameter, the comparee being a
subject prefix, and the standard a SAP suffix (Types 1a and 2a). Although it is
theoretically possible to add two NPs or pronouns coindexed with the comparee and standard affixes, speakers hardly ever resort
to this option. In case the standard refers to a third person participant, the
second type is used, where the parameter verb is followed by an NP or D-pronoun
which represents the standard (Type 1b and 2b). Here too, the comparee may, but
need not, appear as an additional NP.
The verb -ảʃ (or its variant
-ảʃ-e-ʃ) ‘exceed’ can be used as a degree
marker when STD is a D-PRON as in (26).[9] As
no parameter is mentioned, this results in a generic construction, where the
exact property intended to be compared must be recoverable from the context (Types
2a and 2b). Type 2a is, like Type 1a, an “all-in-one” construction, while Type
2b is much like 1b, were it not for the fact that -ảʃ is used in place of a parameter verb. Note that in Type 2b, only
the standard marker -kˀoja
can license the D-pronoun representing the STD (*j-ảʃ-ʔa
is ungrammatical for *’S/he is better than me’).
4. -kˀoja in
bi-clausal comparative constructions The suffix -kˀoja
is also widely used in bi-clausal comparative constructions. There does not
seem to be any explanation for the existence of variation between mono-clausal
and bi-clausal types. Both appear to be equally available in any context.
Neither pragmatic factors nor the inherent lexical meaning seem
to make any difference. An anonymous reviewer suggested that the TAM value carried
by the main verb might be relevant. But as Nivacle
lacks both tense and aspect, this would leave only the realis and irrealis
moods as potential triggers, which does not seem to be the case. The irrealis
mood in (26) is triggered by the negative prefix. The standard marker -kˀoja can
indifferently attach to the main (Types 3a-b) or subordinate (Types 3c-d) verb.
My Nivacle consultants considered both constructions
to be exactly equivalent. In some cases, the second clause is introduced by the realis
subordinator ti.
Interestingly, ti
is often employed as a mere dummy linker, even where there is no real
subordination. In these constructions, both verbs must share the same subject
(S/A). If the standard is a suffix, it must immediately be followed by -kˀoja. If there
is no personal suffix before -kˀoja, the default reading will be third person (28, 29). The
first verb of this construction is -ảʃ-e-ʃ. Note that the
suffix (third person + instrumental) is obligatory in this case, although I am
unable to assess for what reason. There are four variants of this construction.
In Types 3a and 3b, -kˀoja
attaches to the first verb, in Types 3c and 3d, to the second. The first verb
of Type 3a is morphologically indistinguishable from the mono-clausal one of
Type 2a: both comparee and standard appear as affixes
on the same verb. However, there is a significant functional difference,
insofar as the verb in Type 2a functions as a parameter, whereas in Type 3a, it
is the subordinated verb which functions as the parameter.
5. Equative
degree: -xuɬ
in mono-clausal constructions Unlike mono-clausal constructions with -kʔoja,
where the parameter represents a property concept verb, -xuɬ is suffixed to a
predicatively employed possessive noun or to a nominalized verb, and the
comparee marker is a possessive prefix. Despite its ambiguity out of context,
the most frequent predicative noun used with the standard marker -xuɬ is -xunaʃ ‘the like
of it; how it is’ (Type 4a, ex. 32 and 33; Type 4b, ex. 34a). This noun may be
analysed as a kind of equative degree marker which introduces a dummy parameter,
whose exact interpretation is to be taken from the context (‘be in some sense
like + STD’).[10]
The fact that -xunaʃ
is a noun can be of some help in trying to analyse this construction (lit. “your
likeness equals mine”).
In case the standard refers to a third person, an NP appears instead of
the suffix (Type 4b, ex. 34a). Few other nouns can be used like -xunaʃ (Type 5, ex. 35 and 36). It
might be tempting to analyse all types with -xuɬ, with the exception of Type
7, as similatives rather than equative constructions,
were it not for the striking structural similarities (Haspelmath
& Buchholz 1998) between the constructions with -xuɬ and the comparative constructions with -kʔoja.
There is no clear-cut morphosyntactic distinction in Nivacle
between equatives (including what Haspelmath &
Buchholz [1998] label as generic equatives) and similatives.
Sometimes, an applicative suffix may help to distinguish between them, but this
needs to be evaluated case by case. In (34b), for instance, the function of the
applicative -ʧʔe
is to mark a longish referent (here the walls being built), and the
construction might qualify as an equative, like (35) and (36), unlike the
relative vagueness of (32) and (33), which are highly dependent on the context.
Example (34a) looks more like a similative, but this is probably due to the
effect of the clash between properties shared between human and non-human
referents. If we compare (34a) with (34b), and replace ji-xunaʃ-xuɬ ‘I
am like it’ by ɬ-xunaʃ-ʧʔe-vat-xuɬ ‘they
have the same size’ (lit. “their respective size”) and ‘a dog’ by ‘all its
corners’, the scales may easily slide in favour of an equative reading since
corners share common properties that can more naturally be compared than those
pertaining to animals and humans.
Compare with:
When -xunaʃ is referential, i.e. when it is being used as a
(non-predicative) noun preceded by a determiner, the construction is made up of
three parts: (1) the parameter verb, whose prefix represents the comparee, (2)
the NP representing the DG (D + ł-xunaʃ), and (3) the NP representing the standard (37
& 38). Note that this construction lacks a standard marker. This is
probably due to the anaphoric/cataphoric feature of the determinant. I have not
be able to find any example of this type which would
include the standard marker -xuɬ. Moreover, Type
6, albeit strikingly overrepresented in biblical texts, appears to be
practically non-existent outside elicited contexts and translated texts. It may
paraphrased as ‘Comparee has quality Q – [and in this respect] same as comparee
is the standard’.
Note that -xunaʃ is also compatible with the comparative standard
marker -kˀoja
(Type 7, ex. 39). The first two words belong to the same VP, in which case ‘be.different’ (the only verb attested in this construction)
would be equivalent to a negative operator like in Type 4a (33) above.[11]
The VP is followed by a third person D-pronoun. Rather than the literal “be.different his/her/its/their-likeness”, I would consider
-vena ɬ-xunaʃ
as a whole ‘be unlike’ (just like ni-ɬ-xunaʃ-a-xuɬ
[NEG-3POS-likeness-IRR], which means ‘It is not like it’).[12] In
some sense, Type 7 is reminiscent of Types 4a and 4b, were it not for the
choice of the standard marker. In this construction, -xunaʃ always appear with a third
person possessive prefix. In other contexts, any personal possessive prefix is
possible.
6. Further
comparative types 6.1. Type 8: -ɒn-ˀe ‘be ahead of’ +
locative applicative proximate In this construction, the parameter verb, which bears
the usual comparee prefix, comes first. There is no overt subordinator before
the degree marker, which consists of another verb, -ɒn ‘be ahead
of’, obligatorily followed by the locative applicative proximate -ˀe, which I consider here as a standard marker since it
licenses the NP, in the same way as the applicative -ʔapẻ does in Type 10, and -kʔoja or -xuɬ elsewhere.
6.2. Type 9
Here, the construction centers
around the word aɬẻʃ
‘is unlike’. I prefer to consider this word as a (defective) verb rather than a
canonical particle, for two reasons. First, as a rule, particles cannot govern other
words in Nivacle, and the omission of a particle has
no consequence on grammaticality (although a certain shade of meaning may
disappear in the process). Second, although there is only one form available, the
presence of the third person instrumental applicative -e-ʃ suggests a verbal origin. In any case, aɬẻʃ is a highly atypical word. The
presence of an obligatory third person instrumental applicative (default
instrumental in contradistinction with any person + instrumental) is often
idiosyncratic. As can be seen in (41), the function of aɬẻʃ is to assign
to the COMP immediately at its left the opposite value of the information
stated in the subordinated clause, which is otherwise identical to (31) above. Example
(41) could thus be paraphrased as it is
untrue that you are stronger than me. The second clause is headed by the
irrealis subordinator, which triggers the irrealis mood on the prefixed
subject.
6.3. Type 10: Comparison
with the negative verb ni-iˀ-a ‘not.be’ This construction consists of two clauses, the first
of which is always the third person of the verb ‘be’ in its negative form: ni-iʔ-a.
This is followed by the irrealis subordinator ka and a Type-1a construction with the subordinated parameter verb
in irrealis mood. In all other contexts, the verb iˀ means ‘to be located’ and is obligatorily followed by a locative applicative.
6.4. Type 11: Mono-clausal
construction with locative applicative Finally, there is a reasonably frequent mono-clausal
construction where the verb -a̓ʃ functions as the degree marker, like in Type 2b, but with
the comparee as subject and the locative applicative -ˀapẻ ‘on/above’ as the standard
marker instead of -kʔoja
(43, 44). Interestingly, in one of its non-canonical (locative) uses, -ˀapẻ functions as
an intensive marker.
7. Concluding
remarks In comparative and equative constructions, Nivacle makes use of both mono-clausal and bi-clausal
structures. In terms of frequency of use, when both comparee and standard are
speech act participant affixes (COMP is always present as a prefix), the
mono-clausal construction is preferred although the bi-clausal option is
possible, too. When either COMP or STD is a SAP, both options are equally possible.
In contrast, whenever COMP and STD are both third person, a bi-clausal
construction is preferred. Comparison of positive inequality is the most common
in my database as well as in native published texts, followed by the equality construction.
The boundary between equality and similative constructions is not always
clear-cut. The negative inequality constructions (Types 9 and 10) are the least
preferred. The higher frequency of positive inequality constructions clearly
correlates with the number of different types available (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 7
for the mono-clausal types, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 8 and 10 for the bi-clausal). There are two different constructions for negative
inequality, both bi-clausal (types 9 and 10), as well as four equality constructions,
all mono-clausal (types 4a, 4b, 5, and 6). In terms of the frequency of use, eight constructions
are very often used: 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 3c, for positive inequality,
as well as 4a, for equality. Less often, but still reasonably documented, are
types 3d (positive inequality) and 4b, 5, and 6 (equality), followed by types 7
and 8 (positive inequality), and 9 (negative inequality). References Danielsen, Swintha 2007. Baure. An Arawak language of Bolivia.
Indigenous Languages of Latin America (ILLA) 6. Leiden: CNWS Publications. Dixon, R.M.W. 2008. Comparative constructions. A
cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 32/4. 787-817. Fabre, Alain 2004. Morfosintaxis
de los clasificadores posesivos en las lenguas del Gran Chaco (Argentina,
Bolivia y Paraguay). UniverSOS. Revista de Lenguas Indígenas y
Universos Culturales 4.67-85. ______ 2009-2010. El sufijo -sh del nivacle (familia mataco-mataguayo) como instrumental, incremento de valencia y subordinador. Les Langues du
Chaco. Amerindia 33/34, ed. by Lucía Golluscio and Alejandra
Vidal, 43-72. ______ 2012. Interacción entre alineamiento inverso (jerárquico) y
orientación verbal hacia P/T or R en los verbos
transitivos del nivacle (Chaco paraguayo). LIAMES. Línguas
Indígenas Americanas 12. 87-101.
______ 2015. Predicative possession in Nivacle. LIAMES. Línguas Indígenas Americanas
15/2.313-337 ______ 2016. Gramática de la lengua nivacle (familia mataguayo, Chaco
paraguayo). LINCOM Studies in Native
American Linguistics 78. Munich: Lincom. Haspelmath, Martin with Oda Buchholz 1998. Equative and similative
constructions in the languages of Europe. Adverbial
constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. by J. van der Auwera, 277-334. Berlin: de Gruyter. Seelwische,
José 1990. Diccionario Nivacle.
Nivacle-castellano – castellano-nivacle. Mariscal Estigarribia, Chaco/
Asunción: CEADUC.
Stassen, Leon 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [1] I
am grateful to Yvonne Treis and an anonymous reviewer for their detailed and
insightful comments, which contributed substantially to the final version of
this paper. I am fully responsible for any remaining shortcomings. [2] A = Agent, ABOVE = Applicative ‘above’, ANT.VENT =
Anticipated ventive; BEN = Benefactive, CAUS = Causative, COL = Collective,
COMP = Comparee, CON = Conative, CONT = Container, D = Determiner, DEM = Demonstrative,
DG = Degree marker, DIST = Distal, D-PRON = Determinant (3rd person)
Pronoun, F = Feminine, INC = Inclusive, IND = Indefinite, INH = Inherent
Quality, INST = Instrumental, INT = Intensive, IRR = Irrealis, M = Masculine,
NEG = Negative, NMLZ = Nominalizer, P = Patient, PAR = Parameter, PL = Plural,
PL.IND = Indefinite plural, POS = Possessive, PRON = Personal Pronoun, PROX =
Proximal, REC = Reciprocal, REF= Reflexive, RL = Realis, S = Subject, SAP =
Speech Act Participant, STD = Standard, STD.M = Standard Marker, SUB = Subordinator, T = Theme, R =
Recipient, VENT = Ventive [3] D-pronouns
(D-PRON) differ from (canonical) personal pronouns (PRON) in two respects.
First, D-pronouns are available only for the third person. Second, and more
importantly, D-pronouns are derived from determiner particles, which indicate
gender and visual evidentiality (see second paragraph after (11). For this
reason, they are very useful for keeping track of participants. [4]
For the sake of clarity of exposition, the ousted argument has been retained
(within parenthesis) in the glosses. For more details on alignment types in
Nivacle, see Fabre (2012) and (2016). [5] The
Nivacle distal does not only mark geographical distance to or from a reference
point (its canonical use). It is also used in describing physical,
short-distance displacement of an object handed over to somebody, or for
groping for something felt to be close in the dark, or invisible at the bottom
of bag. [6]
In Nivacle, the locative-applicative -ʧɁe
~ -kʔe must be used
whenever an event takes place along or within a well-defined trajectory.
Movement is not necessary. Walking on a road, scratching one’s arm or having a
sore finger triggers the presence of -ʧɁe
~ -kʔe on the verb. This
suffix has a few important metaphorical extensions. It can refer back to an
event in the past, e.g. ‘think’ + -ʧɁe
~ -kʔe must be translated
by ‘remember’ (think about something gone). Because Nivacle is a tenseless
language, {I think + -ʧɁe
~ -kʔe} cannot
automatically be translated as ‘I thought/remembered’, but rather, depending on
the context, as ‘I thought/I think/I will think about a former event X’. The
suffix -ʧɁe ~ -kʔe is also an associated
motion suffix, which indicates movement away of a non-subject entity from the
deictic centre: {I see + -ʧɁe
~ -kʔe} ‘I see X going
away’. [7] The
cited example is: ro=iro-še-ko-wo=ni
(3SGm=surpass-vert.size-ABS-COP=1SG) ‘He is taller
than me’. The author notes that “The absolute suffix -ko ‘ABS’ follows the incorporated root -š(i)e ‘vertical size’, as it is an instance of Ground
incorporation […]. It is theoretically possible that other bound roots are also
incorporated into the verb -erok-
‘surpass’, but unfortunately no other examples could be elicited” (Danielsen
2007: 212). [8] Nivacle has a third associated motion suffix,
-ʧɁe ~ -kɁe ‘itive’
(seen going away), but it is not used in comparative constructions. For further
details on the associated motion suffixes in Nivacle, see § 5.4 in Fabre
(2016). [9] The
instrumental is often used to license NPs or pronominal objects as well as
subordinate clauses. The instrumental has two allomorphs -ʃ and -x, which are
usually preceded by a person marker (-ji
1, -ʔa 2, -e 3, ‑xỏ 1INCL). For more details on the uses of the instrumental suffix,
see Fabre (2009-2010). Occasionally, like in Type 2b, the third person marker
appears as a default, frozen form with the instrumental. Concerning the
Exceed-comparative, Stassen (1985: 42) states: “Its main characteristic is that
the standard NP is invariably constructed as the direct object of a special
transitive verb, the meaning of which can be glossed as ‘to exceed’ or ‘to
surpass’.” Now, neither -a̓ʃ, nor its variant -a̓ʃ-e-ʃ (-a̓ʃ + 3 + INST) is a transitive verb in Nivacle since
neither can be followed by an NP. In fact, the main use of -a̓ʃ(-e-ʃ),
when -kˀoja is not involved in the
construction, corresponds to a manner adverb. Where other languages use manner
adverbs, Nivacle regularly uses a multiverbal (if not canonically serial)
construction consisting of a (manner) verb followed by the subordinative
particle ti and the main verb (lit. “he-is-slow
that he walks”). With -a̓ʃ(-e-ʃ), the resulting meaning is ‘very;
much; a lot’. Dixon’s Type B (2008:797-798) is a serial verb
construction (“without any overt marker of coordination, subordination or other
syntactic linkage”) where PAR (the major member of the construction) is an
adjective or an intransitive verb, and the “Index” (here DG) a comparison verb
(the minor member) meaning ‘exceed’, ‘surpass’, ‘pass’ or ‘defeat’. In Dixon’s
typology, two other types (C and D) also involve the same comparison verb, but
these are directly followed by a noun representing PAR. [10]
Another way to put it would be to say that the DG-marker is fused with a
generic parameter meaning ‘likeness’. [11]
According to Seelwische’s dictionary (1990), -vena (1st conjugation) ‘be different’ can be used in all
persons. Unfortunately, the author provides no example. All the examples I know
are third person. -a is a frozen
suffix (in its canonical use, it is a locative applicative ‘punctual’, but it
can also be used to licence an object) since there is a synonym (4th conjugation)
-ven-e-ʃ, where -a has been replaced by -e-ʃ (3rd person default + instrumental), as well
as a derived verb -ven-chat
(causative) ‘separate, distinguish’. [12] In
other contexts, the verb -vena is
often used in traditional tales with the meaning of transforming oneself into
something else, or appearing under a different form. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||