Definiteness in Diraytata

Transcription

1 In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, ed. by Svein Ege, Harald Aspen, Birhanu Teferra and Shiferaw Bekele, Trondheim 2009 Definiteness in Diraytata Wondwosen Tesfaye 1 In Diraytata definiteness closely interacts with case and number. The type of definite marker attached to a given noun is determined by whether a noun in question has a nominative case or an absolutive case, and also in accordance with whether the noun is singular or plural. The definite markers attached to singular nouns are: -in(ett) and -se(t) while the definite markers that are attached to plural nouns are: -an and -anet. I. Introduction Diraytata is a language spoken by the people who call themselves Dirasha. The Dirashas inhabit Dirashe Special District within the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The basic word order of the language is SOV. Subject NPs are morphologically casemarked (except that, when the subject NPs are- focalized, they occur in their absolutive case form), whereas direct object NPs are not morphologically case-marked. The verb shows agreement with subject NPs only. II. Definiteness In Diraytata nouns are marked as definite by means of a definitive suffix. There is no indefinite marker as such. In some cases the numeral šokku one (M) for masculine and šokka one (F) for feminine nouns may be used. Such forms generate the meaning of a certain thing or entity of a certain thing or entity. 1) a. hellemmat šokk-a a certain ewe ewe one-f b. taltet šokk-a a certain she-goat she-goat one-f c. laaha šokk-u a certain ram ram one-m d. orkeet šokk-u a certain he-goat he-goat one-m The numeral forms šokka and šokku are generally used in a discourse to introduce a certain thing or entity. However, there is no indefinite marker as such which is equivalent to the English indefinite article. The citation form of a noun is taken as an indefinite form. 1 Ethiopian Languages Research Centre (ELRC), Addis Ababa University, wond102@yahoo.com 1427

2 Wondwosen Tesfaye In Diraytata, definiteness closely interacts with case and number. That is to say, the type of definite marker that is attached to a given noun is determined by whether the noun in question is in the nominative case or absolutive case, and also whether it is singular or plural. Case in Diraytata is inextricably bound up with the focus system and, therefore, inexplicable without prior exposure to the focus system. Thus, as a prerequisite to our discussion on the interaction of case and definiteness, it seems appropriate to give some background information about the focalization system working in the language. Regarding the constituents that are focalized, three constituent phrases need to be identified: subject noun phrase, verb and constituents such as complements or adpositional phrases of adverbial functions. It is the form of the verb that indicates which of the above constituents is focalized in a clause. A perfective verb appears in three forms (adopting Hayward s 1980:276 classifications) which are referred to as full, reduced and neutral forms. To be more concrete the perfective forms of the verb uk- drink are as given in (2). (2) Full form Reduced form Neutral form Gloss heŋuki ŋuki uk I drank. he ukiti ukiti uk You (SG) drank. he uki uki uk He drank. he ukiti ukiti uk She drank. heŋukini ŋukini uk We drank. he ukiteni ukiteni uk You (PL) drank. he ukeni ukeni uk They drank. The differences between the neutral and reduced paradigms lie in the fact that the former can take no inflectional affixes while the latter can take the inflectional affixes for person and aspect markers. The full paradigm takes the focus, person and aspect markers. In other words, when the full paradigm is compared to the reduced paradigm, it has the focus marker in addition to the person and aspect markers. The following basic questions arise from this state of affairs: 1.What is the reason behind the existence of these three sets of perfective paradigms? 2.How do we determine the use of one or another of these forms? The main reason for the existence of the three sets of paradigms in Diraytata can be accounted for in terms of the presence of focus. In Diraytata since focus is obligatory in a clause. The language uses morphological means to express focalization (cf. Hayward, 1980,1981). However, this is not unique to Diraytata, since in many Cushitic languages focalization is expressed morphologically (cf. Oomen, 1978 for Rendille, and Sim, 1977 for Konso). Coming to the second question, it is focalization that determines the use of one or another form of the predicates in (2) above. The selection of the full form 2 indicates that it is the predicate (or verb) which is focalized. Such forms are used as a reply to polar interrogative (yes or no) questions. Consider the following examples. 2 This form is indeterminate in the sense that it can also be used as a reply to such questions as what happened. In this case no particular constituent but the entire sentence is focused, as the sentence contains all new information. 1428

3 Definiteness in Diraytata (3) a. Question- he- - uki-t-emmo? FOC 2 drink 2 Q Did you DRINK? Answer heyye he ŋ uk i yes FOC 1 drink PRF Yes, I DRANK. By the same token, the reduced form is used when a constituent other than subject noun phrase and verb is focalized. These constituents could be objects or various adpositional phrases of adverbial functions. This is illustrated in (4). (4) a. Question- maana - uki-te? what 2-drink-2 WHAT did you dirnk? Answer - aanna ŋ-uk-i milk 1-drink-PRF (I) drank MILK. b. Question- awwam - uki-te? when 2-drink-2 WHEN did you drink? Answer- hal ŋ-uk-i yesterday 1-drink-PRF (I) drank YESTERDAY. In (4a), the object NP, aanna milk is focalized whereas in (4b) the noun hal yesterday, which has a temporal adverbial function, is focalized. Finally, the neutral form is used when the subject noun phrase is focused as illustrated in (5). (5) Question- ayno uk? who drink.prf WHO drank Answer- an uk I.ABS drink.prf I drank. As can be observed from (6a,b), when the full and/or the reduced predicate forms are used it is either the verb or the complement phrase which is focalized. In such cases the subject NP always occurs in the nominative case. In a similar way when the neutral form is used, as in (6c) below, the subject NP is focalized, and in such cases the subject NP occurs in the absolutive case. 1429

4 Wondwosen Tesfaye (6) a. kussiyy-at he- an-i Kussiy-NOM FOC-go-PRF Kussiyy WENT b. kussiyy-at hal an-i Kussiyy-NOM yesterday go-prf Kussiyy went YESTERDAY c. kussiyy an Kussiyy.ABS go.prf KUSSIYY went The examples in (6) clearly show the interaction between focus and case. That is, the subject NP is in the nominative case when it is not focused and in the absolutive case when it is focused. With this background information about the interaction between case and focus we shall now turn our attention to the interaction between case and definiteness. For the sake of convenience, we will start our discussion by considering singular nouns. The definite suffixes that are attached to singular nouns are of two types: -in(ett) and se(t). The former attaches to a noun in the nominative case. Consider the following examples: (7) a. karm-ot-in(ett) he-toy-i lion-nom-def FOC-die-PRF The lion DIED. b. herr-ot-in(ett) nam he-k anin-i dog- NOM -DEF man.abs FOC-bite-PRF The dog BIT a man c. * karm-in(ett) he-toy-i lion.abs-def FOC-die-PRF The Lion died? A close examination of the sentences in (7) reveals that the definite suffix morpheme in(ett) goes with a nominative case and it occurs following the case marker. It is, however, not possible to attach the definite suffix in(ett) to a noun in the absolutive case. This can be seen from the ill-formedness of example (7c). In (7c) the subject NP, karma is in the absolutive case and the definite marker in(ett) is attached to it. Such definite markers cannot be attached to an absolutive case; that is why the sentence is illformed. The other singular definite suffix se(t) occurs with nouns in the absolutive case. This is shown in example (8). (8) a. karma-se(t) toy lion.abs-def die.prf THE LION died b. herra-se(t) nam-se k anin 1430

5 Definiteness in Diraytata dog.abs-def man.abs-def bite.prf THE DOG bit the man From (8), we can see that the definitive suffix se(t) is sensitive to the absolutive case form and it occurs with a noun in the absolutive case only. The absolutive case is not morphologically marked in Diraytata and hence it is identical to the citation form. Before we proceed to the next point, it is worth pointing out the distribution of the affix se(t). If two definite absolutive nouns occur in a sentence or a clause, one of them should be marked with set and the other with se. But, it is not possible to mark both of them with set. My informants are reluctant to accept such structures. The possible combinations are given in (9a,b) and the impossible one in (9c). (9) a. herra-set nam-se k anin dog.abs-def man-def bite.prf THE DOG bit the man. b. herra-se nam-set k anin dog.abs-def man.abs-def bite.prf THE DOG bit the man. c. * herra-set nam-set k anin dog.abs-def man.abs-def bite.prf Regarding, the singular definitive forms, Hayward (1980) identifies the forms set (or -sét) and se (or -sé) as definitive marks attached to nouns with absolutive case forms. According to him, the former forms occur with a noun without a modifier and the latter with a noun with a modifier. However, according to my data, there are only two forms, namely, -set and -se as shown above. And these forms occur regardless of whether the noun has a modifier or not. For example, one can say: appa-se ɗɗer toy or appa-set iɗɗer toy, both of them mean THE TALL MAN died Coming to the plural definite forms, there are two definite markers that can be attached to plural nouns. These definite affixes are an and anet. Their distribution is dependent on the focus structure, that is to say, whether the subject or object or various adpositional phrases of adverbial functions are focalized. The former form -an is used with plural nouns when none of the above mentioned phrases are focalized. The following are examples: (10) a. karm-aɗ-an fart-aɗ-an he- ikay-en-i lion-pl-def horse-pl-def FOC-kill-PL-PRF The lions KILLED the horses b. * karm-aɗ-an fart-aɗ-an ikay-en-i lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill-pl-def c. * karm-aɗ-an fart-aɗ-an ikay lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill.prf In the above examples, (10a) is well-formed and (10b,c) are ill-formed. This is because in (10a) it is the verb which is focalized. This can be inferred from the form of the predicate because it appears in the full form implying that it is the verb which is focalized, and such NPs take the definite affix an without the sentences being 1431

6 Wondwosen Tesfaye ungrammatical. Whereas in (10b) the predicate is in the reduced form, which means that it is the object noun phrase which is focalized, and by the same token in (10c) the predicate is in the neutral form showing that the subject noun phrase is focalized. As indicated above, focalized noun phrases cannot take the plural definite marker an that is why (10b, c) are ill-formed. From this we can generalize, following Hayward (1980), that when the definite suffix an is used, it is the verb which is focalized, though the nominative case marker is missing from the structure. The latter form anet is attached to a subject or other phrases when they are focalized. This can be demonstrated by the following examples. (11) a. karm-aɗ-an fart- aɗ-anet ikay-en-i lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill-pl-prf² The lions killed THE HORSES. b. karm- aɗ-anet fart- aɗ-an ikay lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill.prf THE LIONS killed the horses. c. * karm-aɗ-an fart- aɗ-an ikay-en-i lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill-3pl-prf² d. * karm-aɗ-an fart- aɗa-an ikay lion-pl-def horse-pl-def kill.prf In the above examples, (11a,b) are well-formed and (11c,d) are ill-formed. The reason is that in (11a), for example, it is the object noun phrase which is focalized, and this can be inferred from the form of the verb (i.e. the verb is in the reduced form). Such a noun phrase requires the definite suffix -anet but not -an, which is why the example in (11c) is ill-formed. If we compare example (11a) with (11c) we realize that the two sentences are identical except that they differ in the definite markers attached to the object noun phrases the former has -anet and the latter has -an. And the ungrammaticality of (11c) can be accounted for in terms of the presence of the definite form an. This is because as we have said above, such an affix cannot be attached to a focalized object noun phrase without the structure being ill-formed. By the same token, if we look at example (11b) we can see that in such structure it is the subject noun phrase which is focalized. This can also be inferred from the form of the verb (i.e. the verb is in the neutral form). Focalized plural subject noun phrases require a definite affix -anet but not -an. That is why the example with -anet in (11b) is well-formed and that with -an in (11d) is ill-formed. However, there are few exceptions to the above generalization. In some cases it is possible to have focalized subject noun phrase with the definite suffix an rather than - anet. This happens when the subject noun phrase occurs with modifiers (modifiers in Diraytata usually follow the head noun they modify). This is shown in the following examples. 1432

7 Definiteness in Diraytata (12) a. herr- aɗ-an lakki toy dog-pl-def two die.prf THE TWO DOGS died. b. herr-aɗ-an ikkakkaan toy dog-pl-def big-pl die.prf THE BIG DOGS died. In (12) lakki two and ikkakkaan big-pl are modifiers. They modify the head noun herraɗan the dogs. When a focalized subject noun phrase occurs along with modifiers, as shown in (12), it takes the plural definite affix an but not anet. The definite suffixes in Diraytata can be summarized in the Table below. SUBJECT OBJECT NUMBER +FOC -FOC +FOC -FOC SG -se(t) -in(ett) -se(t) -se(t) PL -anet -an -anet -an Conclusion From what we have said so far on defintiness in Diraytata, we can conclude the following. There are two types of definite markers, namely, singular and plural. The singular definite markers are in(ett) and set, and the plural definite markers are an and anet. The singular definite markers are sensitive to case and focus system. That is to say, if we take the definite marker in(ett) for example, this definite marker attaches to a singular noun in the nominative case only, and in such cases the non-subject constituent is focalized. The definite marker set attaches to singular nouns in the absolutive case when the subject NP is focalized. On the other hand, the plural definite markers an and anet attach to plural nouns. In Diraytata plural nouns are not case assigned. Hence the definite markers an and anet are not sensitive to case, while they are sensitive to focus structure. The definite marker an attaches to a plural noun when the predicate is focalized whereas the definite marker anet attaches to a plural noun when either the subject or the complement is focalized. This can be summarized as follows: Case Definite markers Focus Sg. Nom in(ett) Full form of a predicate Num. Pl. Abs set an Reduced form of a predicate anet Neutral form of a predicate 1433

8 Wondwosen Tesfaye References Hayward, D Some observations on Dirayatata (Gidole) Pronouns. In Gideon Goldenberg (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Tel-Aviv. Hayward, D Nominal Suffixes in Dirayatata (Gidole).In Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London, Vol. XLIV, Part 1. Oomen, A Focus in the Rendille Clause. Studies in African Linguistics. IX, 1, Sim, R A Linguistic Sketch: Phonology and Morphology of the Word in Konso. M.A. thesis in Linguistics. University of Nairobi. 1434