langacker, 1977, the syntax of postpositions in uto-azztecan

8/13/2019 Langacker, 1977, The Syntax of Postpositions in Uto-Azztecan

1/17

The Syntax of Postpositions in Uto-Aztecan

Ronald W. Langacker

International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 43, No. 1. (Jan., 1977), pp. 11-26.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071%28197701%2943%3A1%3C11%3ATSOPIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

International Journal of American Linguisticsis currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgWed Aug 15 11:20:45 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071%28197701%2943%3A1%3C11%3ATSOPIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Uhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7071%28197701%2943%3A1%3C11%3ATSOPIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U


2/17

TH E SYNTAX O F POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO-AZTECAN1

0 Introduction class rather tha n w ith the form and meaning1 Basic syntactic patterns of individual members of the class. As will2. Absolutive a nd accusative suffixes become apparent, an appreciation of the3 Survey of languages and subfamilies syntax of postpositions in its broad outlines4. Conclusion will greatly facilitate their reconstruction,5. References cited since the form of postpositions, in Uto-Aztecan at least, has been influenced in

0 The reconstruction of postpositional various ways by the syntactic constructionsexpressions in Uto-Aztecan involves two in which they occur.distinct but interrelated endeavors: recon- I will largely confine my attention tostructing the postpositions themselves, and fifteen of the better-known Uto-Aztecandetermining the syntactic constructions in languages. These are listed in table 1,which these elements functioned in the together with their abbreviations and a

TABLE 1Mono (M )Shoshoni (SH)Southern Paiute (SP)Tubatulabal (TU)Hopi (H) Numi;errano (SR)Cahuilla (CA)C U P ~ ~ Oc u ) ] cupan Takic Uto-AztecanLuiseno (L)Tarahumara (TA)Yaqui (Y) Taracahitic

Aztec (A)

protolanguag e and during its evolution. My sketch of their genetic relationships. (Mo reconcern here will be with the second of inclusive subgroupings a re prob able b utthese endeavors; that is, I will be con- have not been convincingly demonstrated.)cerned with the syntax of postpositions as a Brief reference is also made to No rthernThis article stems from research supported Paiute (NP) and T e~ e c an OTo).

by a National Endowment for the HumanitiesSenior Fellowship (1973-74). I would like to 1 Perhaps the most common pattern inthank Wick R. Miller and others for their helpful t ~ is for postposition be ~ ~ - a ~ to ~comments. attached directly to a pronominal base of[ I JAL vol. 43, no. I January 1977 pp 11-26]1977 by The Univers ity of Chicago. ~ i l Some kind; this pattern must certainly beights reserved.11


3/17

L

12 INTERNATIONAL JOURN AL OF AMERICAN L INGUISTICS VOL. 43reconstructedfortheprotolanguage.Repre-sentativeexamplesaregivenin(1).(1)M ni-paal

by me(M-L-G-2 12)'SH nihi-petutoward us L EXCL(SH-D-PM S-80)SP ni-gwaon me(SP-S-G-22 1)H ?i-mito you(H-W-L-2 1)SR n ih-pa?on me(SR-H-C-28)CA heme-niwwith them(CA-B-IN)CU ?a-yikto you(CUP-J-SC-94)Eaamo-gayfrom us(L-H-1-94)P iii-wuito me(P-SS-D-131)Y ?emo-makwith you PL(Y-J-1-34)CR ta-hamwanwith us(CR-P-G-58)

HUwa-caataamong them(HU-G-S-43)A no-naaw akwith nze(A-B-N A)I willnotbeconcernedwiththeformofthispronominal base except to observe tha t

E x am p le s t ak e n f r o m o t he r w o rk s w ill b eidentified by code . See 5, where full references(andtheircodes)aregiven.

there is good evidence for reconstructingtwo a lte rnative p ronouns for t he third-personsingular,namely,"?a-and*pi-.Itisnotunlikelytha t* ?a- designatednon hum anor inanimate enti ties and *pi- human or animate entities, but this requires furtherinvestigation. The examplesin (2) shouldmakeitquiteevidentthatthetwocoexistedinProto-Uto-Aztecan.As we will see,thedistribution of *?a- and *pi- with post- positionscanbeshownthroughinternalandexternal reconstruction to have been still widerin thefamilythan (2)indicates.(2) M ?a-lmahaon himlby means of it(M-L-G-214)SP ?a- tu lkwa under it(SP-S-G-219)H ?a-11a

by it(H-W-L-9)SR pi-mia?with her(SR-H-G-54)CApe-gain him (pe- *pi-)(CA-H-BSK- 13)C U pa-Eiwith it (pa- *pi-)(CU-HN-M-140)L po-ykto him (po- *pi-)(L-H-1-95)Y ?ae-tfor him(Y-J-1-22)

HU hee-pa-natoward him (hee- *pi-)(HU-G-S-43)A seco nd syn tactic p atte rn involvessuffixinga postposition directlyto a noun,asillustratedin(3).(3) M poilpoi-holtu with Poipoi(M-L-G-226)


4/17

13O.1 POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO-AZTECANSH paa-ma

with the water(SH-M-NN-9)SP kani-"tulkWaunder th e house(SP-S-G-2 18)T U hanii-bacuu-n (house-from-his)

away from his house(TU-V-G-153)H kii-veat the house(H-W-L-24)SR puu-htqbelow the eye(SR-H-D-23)

CA pa-tja?in the water(CA-B-IN)

C U tama-qain the soil(CUP-J-SC-23)L huu-talwith an arrow(L-H-1-89)wijina-kajwith a rope(P-L-FN)TA gari-Eiin the touse(TA-B-G- 19)Y Euh-makewith the dog(Y-J-I- 14)C R mw aka-ta-n (hand-in-his)in his hand(CR-P-G-26)H U yiiwi-pain the dark(HU-G-HTI-225)A ?a-panon the water(A-DA-FC 10-94)

There is a strong tendency for this pattern tobe used only with nonhuman or inanimatenouns, as these examples indicate. Further-more, it is commonplace fo r the attachme nt

of a postposition to trigger the loss of anabsolutive suffix that would otherwise ap-pear on the noun. Representative exam-ples are given in (4).(4) H kii-hi housekii-ve at the house(H-W-L-24)L huu-la arrowhuu-tal with an arrow(L-H-1-89)A ?a-A water?a-pan on th e water(A-D A-F C 10-1 94)Both tendencies-the tendency for absolu-tive suffixes to dr op when postpositions areattached and the tendency for this patternto be restricted to nonhuman nouns-should probably be reconstructed forProto-Uto-Aztecan, at least as tendenciesand probably as general rules.With human or animate nouns, thepostposition is normally attached, not to thenoun itself, but to a pronominal copy ofthat noun. The noun thus occurs in itsabsolutive form, and the pronoun-post-position combination constitutes a separateword. Nonhuman or inanimate nounssometimes participate in this patte rn as well,as do independent pronouns and demon-stratives. This third syntactic pattern mustdefinitely be reconstructed for the proto-language, but because of various changesaffecting the daughter languages, relativelyfew of the Uto-Aztecan languages retain theoriginal pattern in unmodified form. (5)contains some examples from Aztec and theCup an languages.(5) CA qawi-S pe-ta(rock-ABSt-on) on a rock(CA-F-MV-27)C U na-t pa-kwaani(chief-ABS im-for) for the chief(CU-HN-M-139)L hunwu-t po-yk(bear-ABSt-to) to the bear(L-H-1-95)


5/17

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICSTABLE 2

Simple Pronou n Construction: *PRO N-PSimple Noun Construction: *N-PPronoun-Copy Construction: *N-ABS PR ON -PInverted Pronoun-Copy Construction: *PRO N-P N-ABSDiscontinuous Pronoun-Copy Construction: *PRO N-P N-ABSThird-Person Singular Pronoun Bases: pi-, *'a-

A ?in ?a-X ?i-itik(ARTwater-AB S t-in) into the water(A-DA-FC 10-1 70)will call this constru ction the prono un-copy constru ction. The remainder of thisarticle will be concerned with furtherelaboration of the pronoun-copy construc-tion, further justification for its proto-language status, discussion of its historicaldevelopment, and the consequences of thisconstruction and its evolution for the recon -struction of Uto-Aztecan postpositions.Two syntactic variants of the pronoun-copy construction should be mentioned here.Both are widespread in the family and shouldprobably be reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan, but in this case, the evidencecurrently available renders the reconstruc-tion somewhat tentative. One variantinvolves inversion of the two words in thepostpositional phrase, so that the pronouncopy plus postposition precedes the fullyspecified nominal object of the po stposition;an Aztec exam ple is given in (6).(6) A ?i -k a te-X(it-with rock-ABS)with a rock

(A-M-A-77)The second variant involves discontinuitybetween the two w ords of the postpositionalexpression, with or without inversion, butmore commonly with. (7) provides anexample of a discontinuous inverted pro-noun-copy postpositional expression inAztec.(7) A % wan WkiE Xaka-h ya ?in masewal-li(him-with all man-ABS o ART vassal-ABS)

Every man went with (his) vassal.(A-G-L- 145)As a first approximation, then, we mayreconstruct for the protolanguage thepatterns and elements listed in table 22 To go beyond this first approxim ation,and to motivate further the existence of thepronoun-copy construction in the proto-language, we must consider the matter ofabsolutive suffixes in more detail, as well asthe matter of accusative suffixes. Thefollowing claims concerning absolutive andaccusative suffixes must be left largelyunsupported here, since adequate presenta-

tion of the evidence would require a lengthypaper in its own right. However, have littledoub t tha t these claims are correct, a t leastin their broad outlines.On first examination, the most basic formof the absolutive suffix in Uto-Aztecanappears to reconstruct as *-ta; in (4) forinstance, the Luiseno absolutive -la and theAztec -A, which has the longer variant -Xi,both go back to p roto *-ta as shown in (8),by processes tha t a re fairly well understood.(8) L -la *-taA -X(i) *-Xa *-taThere is reason to believe, however, that*-ta was actually bimorphemic, consistingof the absolutive s u f i *-t(i) followed by theaccusative suffix *-a (see UA-W-OA).Notice, for example, that this analysis isretained in Tubatulabal, as shown in (9).(9) T U hanii-1(house-ABS) ouse(TU-V-G- 145)


6/17

15O. 1 POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO-AZTECANhanii-1-a(house-ABS-~cc)ouse ACC(TU-V-G-1 45)Moreove r, * -t or its reflex, without a , is com-monly an absolutive suffix in the daughte rs,and *-a, without t, is commonly an accu-sative suffix. There is also evidence forreconstructing the suffix *-yi, which h asassumed accusative function in variousnorthern Uto-Aztecan languages and isreflected phonetically as -yi, -yi, -y, or -i.would equate this with the third-personsingular possesso r suffix *-yi reconstructible

fo r Proto-Pimic, and would suggest tha tthe possessor function was the original dnein U to-Aztecan. The sequence *-y(i)-a is themost likely source for the Huichol third-person singular suffix -ya, as shown in (10).(10) *-y(i)-a his-ACC> H U -ya hisThe suggested reconstruction of theabsolutive and accusative elements is sum-marized in (1 1).(11) *-t(i) ABS*-a ACC*-yi POSSR*-t(i)-a ABS-ACC"-y(i)-a POSSR-ACCThis system has been modified extensivelyin the various daughters. Besides purelyphonological changes, there have beennumerous reanalyses and syntactic modi-fications. The sequence *-t(i)-a has becomea mo nom orphemic absolutive suffix in somelanguages; the sequence *-y(i)-a has becom ea simple possessor in Huichol but wasreanalyzed as a simple accusative suffix inSouthern Nu mic ; *-yi itself has become anaccusative suffix in northern Uto-Aztecan;and so on. It is not o ur concern here to tracethese developments in any detail, but ratherto refine our conception of the pronoun-copy construction on the basis of theproposed reconstruction.Specifically, what I have designatedsimply as an absolutive suffix in table 2should more properly be reconstructed as

the sequence absolutive plus accusative, asshown in (12). With thi s revision in mind, letus now survey the various Uto-Aztecan lan-guages under consideration to furthersubstantiate our reconstruction of thepronoun-copy construction for the proto-language.(12) Pronoun-Copy Construction (revised)*N-ABS-ACCRON-P-t(i)-a3 The Cupan languages directly reflectthe pronoun-copy construction, as shown in

(5), but things are somewhat less straight-forward than they might appear. First, theaccusative s u f i *-a has disappeared inthese languages, being replaced by the newaccusative form *-yi or its descendant,normally -i. The sequence *-t-a is howeverattested in Luiseno, where it has beenreanalyzed as a simple absolutive, reflectedin the variant forms -ta, -la, and -?a, whichcoexist with the absolutives -t, -1, and -3 allfrom *-t. Because of the loss of *-a, theCupan pronoun-copy construction involvessimply the absolutive suffix, as in table 2,rather than the absolutive-accusative suffixsequence reconstructed in (12). However,Cahuilla possibly attests to the originalaccusative marking in the pronoun-copyconstruction, since the new accusativesuffix -i or -y is normally used in this con-struction for nouns which regularly takethis suffix. Examples are given in (13).(13) CA Simple: pe?i-y pe-ta qal

(him-ACC im-on lie)It's lying on him.(CA-H-BSK- 14)Inverted pi-yik iiiei-lY-i(her-to woman-ABS-A CC)to the woman(CA-H-BSK-37)Discontinuous: pe-ta? q al pepe?l-i(it-on lie paper-ACC )It 's lying on the paper .(CA-H-BSK-2 1)


7/17

16 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL.43The same construction is at least sporadicallyattested in C upeno , as in (14), and has beenreported for Serrano (SR-C-PC).(14) C U pa-ya pa-yik(his-mother her-to) to his mother(CU-HN-M-139)supul-i na-t-i pa-yik(other-ACCC ~ ~ ~ ~ - A B S - A C Cim-to)

to the other ch ief(CU-HN-M-135)The Cahuilla-Cupeno subfamily providesmore interesting confirmation of the pro-noun-copy construction. Recall that in thesimple noun construction, the absolutivesuffix of the n oun drops when a postpositionis attached, as shown in (4). This is generallytrue in Cahuilla and Cupeno, but in eachlanguage there is a restricted class of excep-tions. Consider the two C ahuilla expressionsin (15).(15) CA pa-ga?(water-in) in the water(CA-B-IN)nea-t-pa?(basket-ABS-in)in the basket(CA-B-IN)The absolutive s u f i drops in the firstexample with -ga?, but not in the secondone with -pa?. will claim that the reason forthis discrepancy is that the first examplederives historically from the simple nounconstru ction, while the second derives fromthe pronoun-copy construction. Cahuillascholars generally agree that the postposition-pa? derives by contraction from the

pronoun-postposition sequence pe-ga? in itwhich is still retained as a variant (C UP-J-SC-25; CA-H-BSK-43). Once this con-traction occurs in the pronoun-copy con-struction, the contracted element -pa?,reanalyzed a s a postposition, is cliticized tothe preceding noun, since postpositionsgenerally cannot stand alone in the Uto-Aztecan languages. Unlike the primitivesuffixation of postpositions, this recentcliticization or suffixation does not trigger

loss of the absolutive. This development issketched in (16).(16) *nea-t pe-ga? *nea -t pa ? nea-t-pa?> >

N-ABS PRON P N-ABS P N-ABS-PIn Cupeno, Hill and Nolasquez (CU-HN-M-139) report a handful of nouns whichhave an irregular form when a postpositionis suffixed. These forms are such that theycan be analyzed as containing a nondeletedabsolutive, as in the Cahuilla exam ples justdiscussed. Consider (17), for instance.(17) C U kawi-t?-?awon the rock(CU-H-G-172)The no un r oot in (17) is kawi rock and Jawis a postposition meaning inlonlat. wouldsuggest that Jaw derives from the pronoun-postposition sequence *?a-w or *?a-wi,which has been reanalyzed as a unitarypostposition, much like -pa? in Cahuilla.think an excellent case for this etymologycan be m ade; related forms are sketched in

(18). (17), like (15), therefore derives byreanalysis of the pronoun-copy construction.(18) C U Jaw inlonlat *?a-w(i) (it-P)CU -naw with *na-w(i) *na-w(i)(RCPR-P)CA -new with *na-w(i) *na-w(i)(RCPR-P)CA -niw with *ni-wi *na-wi*na-wi (RCPR-P)NP -no0 withland *na-w(i) (RCPR -P)H Jaw to it *?a-w(i) (it-P)Y -w(i) inlatlto (P)A -wik towardlagainst *-wi-ko or*-wi-ka (P -P)From these Cahuilla-Cupeno examples,we learn two important things about post-positions in Uto-Aztecan. First, evenrelatively simple postpositions may behistorically complex; in particular, they mayincorporate what w as previously a pronom-inal object of some kind. Thus Cahuilla-pa? incorporates the third-person singular


8/17

NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 17p ronoun pe-, which re flects p roto *pi-,while CupenoJ aw incorporatesthe third-person singularp ronoun *pa-,also recon-s tructed for the proto language. Second,because of th is reana lysis (or for o ther reasons),thetwowordsofthepronoun-copyconstruction may coalesce into a single complex word o r a t least a tightly kni twordlikesequence.LetusturnnowtoClassicalNahuatl.Asshown in(5)-(7), Aztec directlyreflectsthepronoun-copy construction in i ts simple,inverted, and d iscon tinuous forms . The onlymodificationisthatthesequence*-t-awasreanalyzedasasimpleabsolutivesuffix,eventuallyreflectedas*-h(i),aspartofthegeneral loss of accusativeinflectionin thelanguage.However,the coalescencejust noted forCahuil la-Cupeno calls our a ttention to a specialformofthesimplenounconstructionin Aztec. F o r certain postpositions, aspecialconnective-ti is inserted when thepostposition isattached directlyto a noun,asshownin(19).(19)AEimal-ti-ka(shield-CONN-with)with a shield(A-G-L-90)The insertion isobligatorywithsomepost-pos itions and apparen tly opt iona l with o thers. S ince the th ird -person singu la rpostposition base in Aztec is ?i-, thederivationin(20)suggestsitselfastheoriginof this connective. I should note that thereduction of ta ?i to t i is phonologicallyquite regu lar. Notice fu rth er th at th iscoalescencemustprecedethesoundchange*ta hadiachronically.(20) "Eimal-ta?i-ka 'Eimal-t-i-ka

N-ABS PRON P N-ABS-PRON-PEimal-ti-ka

N CONN P

I willhavelittletosayabouttheNumic

languages,exceptthatinalltheselanguageswe find a construction,illustrated in (21),thatcan reasonably be saidtoderivefromthatin(12);themaindiscrepancybetween(12) and the d augh te r p atte rn s can bea ttributed t o the loss in Numic of th eabsolutivesuffix*-t(whichwasreplacedbyaseriesofnominalizings u f i e s ) . (21) M nopi-lna?a-lqwena?a(house-ACCt-farfrom)ar from thehouse(M-L-G-210)SP?a-tulkwakani-a(it-underhouse-ACC)nder the house

(SP-S-G-2 19)SHkahni-a-nma-pinankwa(house-ACC-GENt-behind) behindthe house(NUM-M-PC)SHi-kulpatinaahunu-kulpanulki(it-insidedowncanyon-insideran)

He ran down inside the canyon(NUM-M-PC)Wick R.Millerhas suggested,quiteplaus-ibly, that the Mono accusative suffix -naderives by reanalysis from the accusative*-a s u f i a tta ched t o nasa lizing stems.Southern Paiute attests to inversionin thepronoun-copy construction. Shoshoni at-teststobothinversionanddiscontinuityinaspecialconstructioninvolvingduplicationofthepostposition, which occurso nboth thenounanditspronouncopy.InTubatulabal,wedonotfindapronoun-copyconstructionperse.Initssteadwefindaconstructioninvolvinganobjectnominaland a p reposition o r postpo sition con -stituting an independentword, as in (22).(22)T U Siigawiyam-i7aamaayu(Koso-ACCwith) with the Koso

Indians(TU-V-G- 150)7akagiip7oxolaa-1-a(acrosscanyon-ABS-ACC)cross thecanyon(TU-V-G- 1 50)


9/17

8 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL O AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL.43Voegelin cites five of these pre- or post-positions, which I list in (23).(23) T U Paamaayu with

(TU-V-G- 150)?aka+ip cross(TU-V-G-150)naawidam between(TU-V-G-176)wahkiik tow rd(TU-V-G- 176)waci?aSby me ns of(TU-V-WD-227)These elements are obviously complex, atleast diachronically. I wou ld like to suggestthat they all result historically from re-analysis of an earlier pronoun-postpositionsequence, as shown in (24).(24) ?aam aayu *?a-maayu (it-P)?aka?iip *?a -ka gip (it-P)naawidam *na-widam (RCPR-P)wahkiik *wa-(h)kiik (them-P)wa ci?al *wa-ci?aS them-P)Several aspects of this analysis may benoted. First, it accounts for the fact that allof these postpositions s tart with ? a, na, o rwa, all of which can be reconstructed aspostpositional object pronouns in Proto-Uto-Aztecan. *? a- has already been dealtwith. *na- clearly reconstructs as a recipro-cal prono un; further examples are given in(18), but I will not try t o justify this recon-struction here in detail (see UA-GPI).*wa- is likely as the third-person plural post-positional object on the basis of thisTubatulabal evidence and the use of wa- inthis way in Cora and Huichol, illustrated in(25)-(25) CR wa-hapwaon them(CR-P-G-26)H U wa-caata mong them(HU-G-S43)Second, this analysis entails the priorexistence in Tubatulabal of the pronoun-copy construction, in both its simple andinverted forms. With ?a- segmented as apronoun, the two examples in (22) are seen

to represent the simple and inverted pro-noun-copy constructions respectively. Third ,this analysis implies th at we m ust disregardthe first syllable of these postpositions w henwe undertake to reconstruct postpositionsfor the protolanguage, since the firstsyllable derives by incorporation of apronoun, as seen previously for CahuillaandCupeno. In this instance, the remainder isstill no doubt historically complex, but byabstrac ting the first syllable we have take n anecessary first step in isolating the smallerunits that can profitably be compared.In H opi, proto *-t-a was reanalyzed as a naccusative suffix. Therefore, we mightexpect the pronoun-copy construction tomark the object nominal with accusativeinflection rather than with the absolutiveper se, and this is indeed the case. Someexamples are given in (26).(26) H ni-y ?e-qam(I-ACCPRON-for)or me(H-F-GPA-5)kii-ki-hi-t ?a-q( ~ ~ ~ - h o u s e - ~ ~ s - ~ c ct thet-at)

houses(H-W-TD-17 1)naa-y ?a-mim(father-ACChim-with) with his ownf ther(H-W-L-45)The Serrano situation is initially some-what confusing. The pronoun-copy con-struction may appear without any specialmarking on the object noun, as in the first

example of (27). However, it may alsoappear with one of four suffixes, -t, -E -n, or-ki, sometimes erroneously referred to asgenitive suffixes (for lack of anythingappropriate to call them); these are illus-trated in the remaining exam ples of (27).(27) SR pi-iiaa pi-yika?(their-kinsman him-to) to theirkinsm n(SR-H-C-28)wahi?-t pi-yika?


10/17


11/17

20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. 43normally possessed. There is a possessedsuffix -gi in Tepecano that may be cognate.The suffix -n, will claim, is related to agenitive or possessor suffix in Shoshoni andTubatulabal having this shape, though thehistorical picture is somewhat unclear. InShoshoni, the genitive -n follows theaccusative suffix (and may be m anifested asprenasalization of the following consonantrather than as a separate segment). InTubatulabal, all of the variants of thegenitive suffix end in a nasa l, and in addi tion ,the suffix -n is used as a third-person sin-gular possessor suffix that cooccurs withthe genitive. Exam ples are given in (32).(32) SH kulcun-a-n kahni(CO W-ACC -GENouse) the cow s

house(SH-D-PMS-I 03)T U hanii-n taatwa-I-a?ag(house-his man-ABS-GE N)he man shouse(TU-V-G-13 8)The three variants of the genitive suffix in

Tubatulabal may all incorporate an orig-inal accusative s u f i , as Shoshoni suggests;this analysis is sketched in (33).(33) T U -in- G E N *-i-n- (ACC-GEN)-ig GEN *-i-n (ACC -GEN)-a?ag GEN *-a-n (ACC-GEN )We come next to P apago. An occasionalinstance of the pronoun-copy constructionmay be foun d in Pap ago, a s in (34), but thisconstruction is not common.(34) P gook-pa ha-Wida(two-place them-in) in two places(P-L-FN)Papago does, however, provide two otherkinds of evidence for reconstructing thepronoun-copy construction for the proto-language. First, certain postpositions inducea connective -t or E when they attach to anoun; this is illustrated in (35).(35) P haiwan-t-7amjid(cow-CONN-from)rom the C O M J(P-CH-SR-I 84)

kolai-&?id(corral-CONN-in)n the corral(P-L-FN)Papago does not have absolutive suffixes,but it seems evident that these connectivesare rem nants of the ab solutive *-t, protectedfrom total effacement by the incorporationof an originally independent postposition.Second, Papago has a series of postpositionsthat may stan d alone as independent word s;a number of these begin with the syllablewi, which is the Papago reflex of proto *pi.This is especially suspicious in view of thefact that the third-person singular post-position base in Papago is zero. Considerthe examples in (36).(36) P hi-wim(me-with) with me(P-M-LPA-3 7Eioj )o g ?aali ?ab wiim him(man AUX ART boy there with go)The man is coming with the boy.(P-L-FN)Eioj 20 ?a b wiim him g 'aali

(man AUX there with go ART boy)The man is coming with the boy.(P-L-FN)The first example shows that wim as a unitconstitutes a postposition; synchronically,we cannot segment this form i nto wi plus m.The second two examples may be taken asillustrating the pronoun-copy constructionwhere the pronoun copy is zero, as itregularly is for the third-person singular; wehave discontinuity in both examples andinversion in the last. suggest that the pro-noun copy is zero simply because it has beenreanalyzed as par t of the postposition, tha tis, the wii of wiim derives historically fromthe pronoun *pi-. A similar analysis is pro-posed for the other postpositions listed in(37).(37) wiim with wi-m *pi-m (him-P)wiinadk with wii-nadk *pi-nayk(him-P)wZo under wi-Eo *pi-tu (him-P)


12/17

NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO-AZTECANwiihijid for wii-hijid *pi-hiyil(him-P)wiigaj behind wii-gaj *pi-way

(him-P)By now it should be apparent that theexistence of postpositions w hich stand aloneas independent words in a Uto-Aztecanlanguage very likely points to an earlierhistorical stage in which these free-standingpostpositions consisted of a pronoun baseand a postposition attached to it. When wefind this construction in Tarahumara,therefore, we can ta ke it as possible evidencefor the pronoun-copy construction, eventhough the Tarahumara independent post-positions have no frequently recurringinitial syllable that can be segmented as apronoun remnant. The examples in (38)might even be taken as evidence for inver-sion in this construction.(38) TA kuSi gite(stick with) with a stick(TA-B-G- 18)paca gari(inside house) inside the house(TA-T-TED-47)This analysis is somewhat speculative interms of Tarahumara alone, but when weturn to Yaqui, it is strongly corroborated.As in Papago, both bound and free post-positions provide evidence for an earlierpronoun-copy construction. The Proto-Uto-Aztecan a bsolutive-accusative sequence* -t-awas reanalyzed in Yaqui as an accusativesuffix. With certain bound postpositions, this

suffix sometimes surfaces (optionally) as aconnective, as illustrated in (39).(39) Y 'emo-makwith you P(Y-J-1-34)wiko'i-makwith the bow(Y-J-1-34)Euh-makewith the dog(Y-J-I- 14

Euu?u-ta-makwith the dog(Y-J-1-28)?usi-makwith the child(Y-L-TG-18 1)?usi-ta-makwith the child(Y-L-S-24)This suggests incorporation of the post-position from an original pronoun-copyconstruction, probably triggered by loss ofthe reflex of proto *pi-, which has beenreplaced by ?a- . Th e fact that the connective-ta is normally used only with animatenouns then follows from the fact that thereconstructed pronoun-copy constructionwas largely restricted to animate nouns.Postpositional expressions without -ta thuscontinue the simple noun construction,while those with -ta continue the pro nou n-copy con struction, as shown in (40).

To see how the p rono un *pi- was lost, weneed only glance at the independent post-positions. Most of these begin with thesyllable be-, which is the expected Yaquireflex of proto *pi. Thus we may assume areanalysis directly analogous to that positedfor Papago; it is outlined in (41).(41) beEibo for be-Eibo *pi-Eipo(him-P)benukut until be-nukut *pi-nukut(him-P)betana fromlby be-tana *pi-tana(his-side?betuku under be-tuku *pi-tuku(him-P)bewit in front of be-wi-t *pi-wi-t(him-P-P)biEa toward *be-Ea *pi-Ea (him -P)beppa above be-pa pi-pa (him-P)benasya like be-nasya *pi-nasya(him-P)


13/17

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. 43Theseindependentpostpositionsoftentaketheaccusativesuffix-taontheaccompany-ing noun. The expressions in (42) thusconstitute a direct reflex of the pronoun-copyconstruction asreconstructed in(12).(42)Y 7im 7usi-mbeEibo(mych ild-PLfor ),for m y children(Y-L-TG-35)tomi-tabeEibo

for money(Y-L-TG-39)sawa-tabetukunder a tree(Y-L-TG-180)The final subfamilyto be considered isCorachol.As (43)indicates,there is directevidenceofthe pronoun-copy constructioninbothlanguages;basedonlimiteddata,itappears that this construction is regularlyinverted in Cor a bu t is uninverted inHuichol.(43) CR wa-hapwa?u-huci-mwa(them-on their-younger brother-PL)on their younger brothers(CR-P-G-26)HU?iikituupiiri-ciiziwaa-ki(these policeman-PL them-with)

by m eans of these policemen(HU-G-S-43)The third-person singular postpositionalbaseinCoraisru-,aninnovativeform.Theexpected Cora reflex of proto *pi-is he-,whichdoesnotoccur.However,anumberof postpositionsin Cor abegininhe-(orinha-whenthechangefromhe-toha-canbeattributed to harmonization with the fol-lowingvowel),anditisreasonableinviewoftheprecedingdiscussiontosegmentthishe- a s an orig ina l pronominal element.This analysis, sketched in (44), providesfurther, though indirect, evidence for thepronoun-copyconstructioninCo rachol.(44) -hece inlonlfor -he-ce *-he-cie*pi-cii(him-P)-hete under -he-te *-he-tia

"pi-tua(him-P)

-hemi vt,ith/about -he-mi :'pi-mi(him-P)-hamwanwithland "-he-man *pi-man(him-p)-hapwa onlabove *-he-pa *pi-pa(him-P)Morespecifically,wemaypositthedevelop-ment given in (45), a development whichattests to the prior existence of the non-invertedpronoun-copyconstruction inpre-Cora.

(45) *N he-x N hex N-hex> >

PRON P P P

With the segmen ta tion of these post-positions in Cora we have only begun toexplore the marvels of postpositional ex-pressions in Corachol. Let me conduct abrieftour of thesemarvelsandthentry toexplain their origin.In Cora, we findtwoseriesofpre-orpostpositionsthatareverysimilarinfo rm ;generally,thepostpositionsareboundforms,whiletheprepositionsarefree forms that are identical to the post-positionsexceptfortheadditionofafinal-n.Twosuchpairsareillustratedin(46).(46) CR haitiri-hapwa

above the clouds(CR-MM-CE-XV)hapwanW a n a k a (onART-earth)n the earth(CR-P-N E-2tete-heceon a rock(CR-P-G-71)hecenru-muve(in his-feather) by means of their

feathershafts(CR-P-G-74)pu-rihecenwatarasairu-Eanaka(he-nowingootherhis-world)Now he goes to his other world.(CR-P-NE- I )Incidentally,thefinalexamplein(46)showsthat discontinuity is possiblewiththe pre-


14/17

23O. 1 POSTPOSITIONS I N UTO-AZTECANpositional forms. Cor a also has a t least theremnant of a postposition -na, which maybe glossedplace of and occurs at least as onemember of complex postpositional forms,as in (47).(47) CR 3-hatea-na-hece(ART-river-place f-in) in the river(CR-P-G- 14)Huichol also has a postposition -na,glossed inlat, but it behaves in a verypeculiar manner. First, when it alone isattached to a noun, the third-personsingular possessor suffix, normally -ya,surfaces as zer o; however, a transition vowelappears, usually e, as shown in (48).(48) HU k' -e-na(house-V-at) a t his house(HU-G-S-19)Second, -na appea rs as the second memberof complex postpositions the first membersof which derive historically from nouns; atransition vowel also appears in this con-struction, and moreover, the postpositionhas no overt object. Examples are given in(49).(49) H U hizi-e-na(in front of -v -at) in front of him(hizi eye)(HU-G-S-43)wari-e-na(behind-V-a t) behind him(wari back)(HU-G-S-43)Finally, -na consistently cooccurs with thethird-person singular pronoun hee- (whichderives from proto *pi-) when this is usedwith postpositions not recently derivedfrom nouns, a s illustrated in (50):(50) H U hee-cie-naon hinz(HU-G-S-43)hee-tia-naunder it(HU-G-S-43)One suspects that something is going onhere. Somehow all these pieces should fit

together. Clearly we can reconstruct forProto-C orach ol a postposition * -na meaningroughly at , bu t the real task is to determinewhat syntactic constructions are involvedand how they developed historically toprodu ce the somewhat confusing synchronicpicture.We can begin with the fairly obvioushypothesis that the transition vowel in (48)and (49) is the remains of the missingthird-person singular possessor suffix. Al-though this suffix is now -ya in Huichol,originally it was *-yi, as shown in (10)above, and the expected reflex of *-yi is -ye.Thu s we may posit (51) for the dev elopmentof expressions like (48).(51) *ki-yi-na (house-his-at) > *ki-(y)e-na

> ki-e-na a t his houseThis transition vowel is now evidentlyphonologically determined; hence by re-analysis, the possessor suffix has been lostand is zero synchronically in this construc-tion.Suppose now that we apply the steps in(51) to a noun susceptible to being re-interpreted as a postposition, a noun suchas hizi eye or wari back. The situation issuch that -na can easily be reinterpreted asthe missing third-person singular pronoun;hence we may posit (52) as the origin ofexpressions like (49).

*wari-yi-na *wari-e-naback-his-at > back-v-at >N POSSR P N-V-P

wari-e -na behind himbehind-v-himP-V-PRON

Subsequent developments differ some-what for the two languages. In Huichol,competition between the old third-personprono un base hee- and the new one -na wasresolved by compromise: the two are usedtogether, as (50) illustrates. It is significantthat the construction in (50) is used withold, established postpositions, while that in


15/17

24 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. 43(49)and(52)isusedwithpostpositionsthatappear to be derived fairly recently fromnouns. In Cora, the innovative pronounbase ru-eventuallywon out forthe third-person s ingu la r, through developmen ts beyondthe scopeof this article. However,the independent prepositions ending in -nprovidegoodevidencethat-naatonetimefunctionedas a third-person singularpost-positionalobjectpronouninCora,andwehaveseenthathe-canalsobereconstructedin thisrole.To account for these preposi-tions,illustra tedin(46),weneedonlyequ atethe final -n with -naand recall that Coradisplays the inverted pronoun-copy con-s truction . We therefore have d iachronic derivationslike(53);I willnotspeculateonthe synchronicderivation ofthisconstruc-tion. The shared portions of this develop-ment are natural ly s trong evidence that CoraandHuicholconstituteasubfamilyofUto-Aztecan,aclaimthatisnotcontrover-sial.(53) *he-pa-na M a n a k a it-on-it e r th

PRON-P-PRON N'%apwa-n(a) %-Canaka hapwanon-it e rth onP-PRON N PM a n a k a on the earthART-earth

N4. Since the points I wish to establish

have been coveredextensivelyin the bodyofthisarticle,I willtouchonthemonlyverybrieflybywayofconclusion.I think havedemonstratedbeyondreasonabledoubttheexistenceofthepronoun-copyconstructionof(12)inProto-Uto-Aztecan,andnumerousothermorphologicalelementsandsyntacticpatterns have been supported as well. Inreconstructingindividualpostpositionsandtheir meanings,we musttakethe syntaxof

postpositional expressions and their dia-chronicevolutionintoaccount.Somepost-posit ions derive from nouns , o thers are compounded from smaller postpositions, some incorporate pronominal elements atthebeginningortheend,andsome,themostimportantonescomparatively,derivefromsimplepostpositions inthe protolanguage.We must untangle these myriad develop-m ents before we can determ ine w hatportions of what postpositions can validlybecomparedforpurposesofreconstruction.Most broadly, this articleconstitutes anexerciseinsyntacticcomparisonandrecon-structioninanon-Indo-Europeanlanguagefamily.Ihopetohaveshownthatsuchworkis both possible and fruitful; indeed, theproblemsthatarisearenotunmanageable,but rather are quite commensurate withthose encountered in phono logical and lexicalreconstruction.Notonlyissyntacticreconstructionpossible,givenadequatedata,butitisalsonecessaryifwehopetounder-stand fullythe evolution ofm orphologicalelements.

5 The followingreferencesarecitedinthisarticle:B ra mb ila , D a vi d, S . J . Gramdtica Raramuri.Mexico Ci ty : Edi torial Buena Prensa, 1953. (TA-B-G)Br ight , Wi ll iam . " Notes on Aztec." In fo rmal notes, 1966.(A-B-NA) Inform al notes on Cahuilla, n.d.(CA-B-IN)C as ag ra nd e, J os ep h B., a nd K en ne th H ale .

"S em an tic R ela tio ns hip s i n P ap ag o F ol k-Definitions." In Studies in Southwestern Ethno-linguistics, editedby DeliHymes. TheHague:Mouton,1967.(P-CH-SR)Crook, Donald. Personal communication.(SR-c-PC)Daley , Jon P . "Shoshone Phonology and Mor- phological Sketch." M.A. thesis, Idaho StateUniversity, 1970.(SH-D-PMS)Dibble, CharlesE., and ArthurJ. Anderson.Florentine Codex. Book 10, The People.Translat ion of Fray Bernardino de SahagLin,


16/17

25O POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO AZTECANGeneral History of the Things of New Spain.Monographs of the School of AmericanResearch and the Museum of New Mexico,no. 14, pt. 11. Santa Fe, N.M .: School ofAmerican Research and University of Utah,1961. (A-DA-FC10)Freeze, Ray . Hopi Genitive and PossessiveAffixation. Man uscript, 1974. (H-F-GPA)Fuchs, Anna. Morphologie des Verbs im C ahuilla.Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, no. 87.The H ague: Mo uton , 1970. (CA-F-MV)Garibay K., Angel Maria. Llaoe del Ndhuatl.Mexico City : Editorial Po rrh a, 1961. (A-G-L)Grimes, Joseph E. Huichol Syntax. Ja nuaLinguarum, Series Practica, no. 11. TheHag ue: M outo n, 1964. (HU-G-S)

Huichol Tone and Intonation. IJAL25 (1959): 221-32. (HU -G-H TI)Hill , Jane H. A Gram mar of the Cupef ioLanguage. Ph .D. dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, 1966. (CU-H-G)Hill, Jane H., and Rosinda Nolasquez, eds.Mulu wetam: The First People (CupeAo Ora lHistory and Language). Banning, Calif. Malk iMuseum Press, 1973. (CU-HN-M)Hil l , Kenneth C. A Gram mar of the SerranoLanguage. Ph .D. dissertation, University ofCalifo rnia, Los Angeles, 1967. (SR-H-G)Serrano Clitics. University of MichiganPhonetics Laboratory Notes 4 (1969): 27-30.(SR-H-C)A Serrano Dictionary. Computer print-out, 1972. (SR-H-D)Hiok i, Kojir o. Zur B eschreibung des Systemsder Klitika im Cahuilla (Uto-Aztekisch,Sud-Kalifornien). Man uscript, 1971. (CA-H-BSK)Hyde, Villiana. An Introduction to the LuiseiioLanguage. Edited by Ronald W. Langackeret al. Banning, Calif.: Malki Museum Press,1971. (L-H-I)Jacobs, Rod erick A. Syntactic Cha nge: ACup an (Uto-Aztecan) Case Study. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, SanDiego, 1972. (CUP-J-SC)John son, Jean B. El Zdioma Yaqui. Departmentode Investigaciones An tropolo gicas, Publica-ciones no. 10. Mexico C ity: Institu to Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia, 1962. (Y-J-I)Lamb, Sydney M. Mon o Grammar. Ph.D .dissertatio n, University of California, Berkeley,1958. (M-L-G)Langacker, Ronald W. Papago field notes,1965. (P-L-FN)

Passive, Impersonal, Reflexive, andUnspecified Argument Constructions in Uto-Aztecan. Man uscript, 1974. (UA-L-PI)Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. A Transform ationalGr am ma r of Yaqui. Ph.D . dissertation,University of California, Los Angeles, 1969.(Y-L-TG)

Yaqui Syntax. UCPL, no. 76. Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1973. (Y-L-S)Mason, J . Alden. The Language of the Papago o fArizona. University of Pennsylvania MuseumMonographs. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Museum, 1950. (P-M-LPA)Tepecano: A Piman Language ofWestern Mexico. Annals of the New Yor kAcademy of Science 25 (1916): 309-416.(TO-M-PL)McMahon, Ambros io, and Maria Aiton deMc Ma hon . Cor a y EspaAol. Serie de Vocabu-larios Indigenas, no. 2. Mexico City: InstitutoLinguistic0 de Verano, 1959. (CR-MM-CE)Miller, Wick Newe Natekwinappeh: ShoshoniStories and Dictionary. University of UtahAnthropological Papers, no. 94. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press, 1972. (SH-M-NN)Personal communication. (NUM-M-PC)Molina, Fray Alonso de. Arte de la LenguaMexicana y Castellana. Coleccion de Incun-ables Americanos, Siglo 16, vol. 6 (1571).Facsimile ed. Madrid: Ediciones CulturaHispanics 1945. (A-M-A)Preuss, Konrad-Theodor. Die Nayarit-Expedi-tion, T ext-Aufnahm en und Beobachtungen unterMexikanischen-Zndianern.Vol. 1. Leipzig, 1912.(CR-P-NE)Gramm atik der Cora-Sprache. IJAL 7(1932): 1-84. (CR-P-G)Sapir, Edward. Southern Paiute: A ShoshoneanLanguage. A A A S P 65 (1930):l-296. (SP-S-G)Saxton, Dean, and Lucille Saxton. Dictionary:Papag o Pim a to English, English to PapagoPim a . Tucson: University of Arizona Press,1969 . (P-SS-D)Thord-Gray, I. Tarahumara-English, English-Tarahumara Dictionary. Coral Gables, Fla. :University of Miami Press, 1955. (TA-T-T E D )Voegelin, C . F. Tubatulabal Grammar.U C P A A E 34 (1935 ): 55-189. (TU-V-G)

. Working Dictionary of Tiibatulabal.ZJAL 24 (1958): 221-28. (TU -V-WD )Whorf, B. L. The Ho pi Language. University


17/17

26 INTERNATIONAL JOURNA L OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS VOL. 4of Chicago Librar y Microfilm Collection of In Linguistic Structures of Native AmericaManu scripts on M iddle American Cultural edited by Harry Hoijer et al. VFPA , no. 6 .Anthropolog y, no. 48. Manu script, 1935. New Yo rk: Viking Fun d, 1946. (H-W-TD)(H-W-L) The Origin of Aztec TL. AmericanThe Hopi Language, Toreva Dialect. Anthropologist 39 (1937):265-74. (UA-W-OA)

langacker, 1977, the syntax of postpositions in uto-azztecan

Documents