Inclusive in Archi

Michael Daniel

Moscow State University

International Morphology Meeting XIII

Workshop on linguistic change and variation

in the languages of the Caucasus

Vienna, Feb 5 to 6, 2008

Inclusives in Nakh-Daghestanian

yesKhinalugnoLezgic

“southern”

yesLezgic “northern”

noLakyesDargwanoTsezicyesAndicyesAvaryesNakh[inclusive]

[branch]

Examples from languages

ArchiKhinalug

DargwaAgulAndiAvarChechen

[language]

nent’unenkin, kirjin, širnuš:a nis:a Xinčiniʟi(l)iš:i(l)niʟ(e)niž(e)vajtxo[inclusive

][‘we’

(excl)]

Preliminaries about Archi:

-(m)maši

-(m)maš-(m)mak-(m)mahumloc

-L’aši-L’aš-L’ak-L’sub

-raši-raš-rakcont

-t:iši-t:iš-t:ik-t(:i)sup

-qIaši-qIaš-qIak-qIinter

-aši-aš-ak-ain

allellat(ess)

*Terminative -kəna is never used in the corpus of about 2,000 sentences.

*Translative is used on nouns only three times.

Preliminaries about Archi:

Ø- -t (-t’u)4 NPLØ- -t (-t’u)b- -b3

d- -r2 (fem) HPLb- -bw- -w1 (masc)

PlSg

‘we’ (both), ‘you.pl’

Paradigmatics of ‘we’:

la-CASE-CL.P2la-CASEperiph and loc

la-CLwe.P1-CASE-CL.P2

CLwe-olo-CASE-CL.P2

la-CLwe.P1-CASECLwe-olo-CASE

humloc

la-CL.P1-CL.P2CL-olo-CL.P2la-CL.P1CL-ologen

CL-el-CL.P1-CL.P2CL-el-CL.P1CL-eldat

nen-CL.P1-CL.P2nen-CL.P1perspl

nennom/erg

incl reflexcl reflinclexcl

Paradigmatics of ‘we’:NOM=ERG and DAT:

Inclusive is derived by adding P1 (inclusive and ‘we’ (exclusive) reflexives are

identical)

PERIPHERAL case and SPATIALS:

Inclusive = Inclusive reflexive = ‘we’ (exclusive) reflexive

(derived by adding P2)

GEN and HUMLOC: Inclusive uses oblique

(peripheral and locative) stem (instead of genitive stem) + P1

On the inclusivizers:

emphatic negation

identificational (‘the same’)“switch reference”

reflexive (with ‘we’ in obliques)

reflexive (with logophors)

with some lexical quantifiers (‘entirely’, ‘every’, ‘how much’)

with numerals in NUM N constructions

P2 -ij<w>u, -ij<r>u, -ij<b>u, -ij<t’>u

P1 -(a)wu, -(a)ru, -(a)bu, (a)t’u

The origins

Transparent morphology

Not like any other inlusive in the rest of Nakh-

Daghestanian

Innovation?

Recent?

Origins of the category

Archi people: Consider themselves to be Avars Politically are considered Avars by the

authorities Learn Avar as their mothertongue at school Most adults are fluent in Avar

Avar has inclusives (niʟ(e) ‘incl’ vs. niž(e) ‘we’ (excl))Might have been functional borrowing!(?)

Origins of the category

On the other hand, latest sociolinguistic research argues for relatively recent intensification of Archi-Avar contacts (after the 20-ies - 30-ies). Before that, Archis were much more under Lak influence (politically part of the Lak Kazikumuk ‘khanstvo’, older people bilingual in Lak more than Avar…) And Lak has no inclusive!

By the time of Mikhailov’s and Kibrik group’s research (late 60-s), inclusive seems to be a well-formed category consistently used in the texts.

Laks and Avars

Babu, ~1925 – Lak “from the air” > literary Avar ( at school) > Russian

Saidpati, ~1916 – Lak “from the air” > literary Avar ( at school) > Russian (her father new Lak and Avar from the air, but her grand father only knew Lak)

Пасихат, 1946 - Ваши деды-бабки знали аварский язык? - Знали, я не знаю, как они знали, но знали. Лакский больше знали, конечно. Редкие-редкие знали аварский язык. Но знали тоже плохо, конечно. Моей маме ровесницы все знали (по-аварски). Потому что школа была тогда. В школу ходили они. - А вот до них? – Нет, до них больше лакский знали.

Pasihat, 1946 – Did you grand fathers and grand mothers know Lak? – They did, I don’t know how well, but they did. They knew Lak better, of course. Few, really few knew Avar. But they did not know it well, of course. Women born around the same time as my mother was, all knew Avar. Because there was school teaching. They went to school. – And what about before their time? – No, before their time people used to know Lak more…

Dobrushina 2006 on the ethnic psychological correlations and dynamics of Archi multilingualism

Early sources…

The are three relatively early sources on Archi:

Uslar’s letter to Schiffner (1894) – not checked

Erckert Die Sprachen des Kaukasischen Sinne (betweem Uslar and Dirr) – does not help.

Dirr’s Archi Language (1908)

Checking sources: Dirr

She said, bring a couple of men to help us.

She said, bring some of them to help us (Dirr)

say.PF-EVID1-do(IMP)bring+<3>do-INFhelp1-we.DAT-1.P1twoone

boli – w-a»χir+abaskumakw-el-awu

qI’wе-wu

os

boli – wa»xirabasqumaqwelawuqwewuos

Nothing is said about Archi having inclusive categorybut, fortunately, note on page 29:“welawu, delaru, belabu, elt’u are sometimes used instead of wel, del, bel, el, but I can not comment on the difference between them. Cf.:

We got a military treasury.

Нам казна досталась.

‹3›stay.PF1-we.DAT-1.P1

twoone

e‹b›χ!udāz+χazinab-el-abu

ebxudazxazinabelabu

Checking sources: Dirr

(Mice gathered and talked between them, sating: Our chief mouse’s force was in that money. Now there is no money anymore.) For this reason he (the ex-chief mouse) will not be able to be a boss for us.

<1>become.PF-POT.NEG-NEG

head(NOM)-and

1-we.dat-1.P1this-OBL-SUP-EL

e<w>t:-a:-t’uoInt-uw-el-awuja-m-mi-t:i-š

ewt:a:t’uontuwelawujammit:iš

4.be?(NOM)similar-ATR-4asthis-4(NOM)

we.OBL-4.P1

(GEN,INCL)

i?ɬ:wanna-t:u-t

baranja-tla-t’u

ikokɬwannat:utbaranjatlat’u

(After seeing a magic dish in a poor man’s house, the king told his vezier:) We have a dish that looks like that one.

Contact hypothesis dismissed?

Dirr writes that Archi have widespread knowledge of both Lak and Avar. Erckert suggests strong Avar influence; Dirr even calls Archi a mixed language.

Functional borrowing from Avar excluded?

Summary of the discussion

Archi has an innovative inclusive structurally unparallelled in any other Nakh-Daghestanian language

The inclusive seems to be a recent development and might be a functional borrowing from Avar

Some research suggest, however, that massive Archi-Avar bilingualism exists after the 20-ies only

Inclusive is documented in Dirr’s texts from the turn of the century

Dirr and Erckert think they observe strong Archi-Avar bilingualism and traces of Avar influence already at that time.

The result is that we are still where we were at the beginning…