I wrote a bit about the odd causative construction in Copala Triqui in this post. To recap, the normal syntax is
[VSO] cause SUBJ.
In the examples cited there, the aspect of the verb 'make' ('yaj) seems to match the aspect of the verb in the complement. The following example -- if I am interpreting it correctly, seems to show a failure of aspect-matching:
One slight uncertainty -- this text comes from Hollenbach's (1977) version of these texts, published in Tlalocan. The orthography uses a macron over the vowel to represent low register tone, rather than a line under the vowel. So the original form of the word that I've retranscribed as cacaa̱ was written cacaā.
In the usual form of the practical orthography for Triqui tone, cacaa̱ represents only cacaa³¹, while
cacaa is either cacaa³ or cacaa³². So as the text is written, it would normally correspond to c-acaa³¹. However, the word for 'burn' in Triqui is acaa³² (practical orthography acaa) and its potential is c-acaa² (c-aca̱a̱).
I'm tentatively guessing that this represents an earlier version of the practical orthography where perhaps both 31 and 32 tones were written vv̱…
If my interpretation is correct, then the two instances of the verb 'burn' are completive, while 'will make' qui'ya̱j is potential.
Update 11/23/2012
Barbara Hollenbach has kindly clarified for me by email the way the older practical orthography for tone worked. I've tried to summarize my understanding in this post. That means that my analysis in the earlier post is incorrect in identifying the instances of the verb <cacaā> as cacaa³². Instead, it is an older way of writing c-acaa², which is the potential aspect form of 'burn'. Thus the aspect of make (potential)' does match the aspect of the potential, and I don't have a counterexample to the tentative generalization that the two always match. (A counterexample might still be found, but this doesn't turn out to be a valid counterexample.)
The new analysis of this passage is shown below:
[VSO] cause SUBJ.
In the examples cited there, the aspect of the verb 'make' ('yaj) seems to match the aspect of the verb in the complement. The following example -- if I am interpreting it correctly, seems to show a failure of aspect-matching:
One slight uncertainty -- this text comes from Hollenbach's (1977) version of these texts, published in Tlalocan. The orthography uses a macron over the vowel to represent low register tone, rather than a line under the vowel. So the original form of the word that I've retranscribed as cacaa̱ was written cacaā.
In the usual form of the practical orthography for Triqui tone, cacaa̱ represents only cacaa³¹, while
cacaa is either cacaa³ or cacaa³². So as the text is written, it would normally correspond to c-acaa³¹. However, the word for 'burn' in Triqui is acaa³² (practical orthography acaa) and its potential is c-acaa² (c-aca̱a̱).
I'm tentatively guessing that this represents an earlier version of the practical orthography where perhaps both 31 and 32 tones were written vv̱…
If my interpretation is correct, then the two instances of the verb 'burn' are completive, while 'will make' qui'ya̱j is potential.
Update 11/23/2012
Barbara Hollenbach has kindly clarified for me by email the way the older practical orthography for tone worked. I've tried to summarize my understanding in this post. That means that my analysis in the earlier post is incorrect in identifying the instances of the verb <cacaā> as cacaa³². Instead, it is an older way of writing c-acaa², which is the potential aspect form of 'burn'. Thus the aspect of make (potential)' does match the aspect of the potential, and I don't have a counterexample to the tentative generalization that the two always match. (A counterexample might still be found, but this doesn't turn out to be a valid counterexample.)
The new analysis of this passage is shown below:
1 comment:
Update on this --
Barbara Hollenbach has clarified for me that in the earlier version of the practical tone orthography that shows up in these texts, the idea was to mark any low register tone with a macron over the last vowel.
See a new post for more details.
Post a Comment