Minhast Morphosyntax
Overview
The Noun Phrase
Min Constructions
The ligature min is a particle or clitic that denotes a close relationship between two noun phrases. The ligature has several functions:
1.To bind a numeral, quantifier, or qualifier to the modified NP, e.g. šānī min hutep "two seagulls",baddux min ayyek "some cattle", āda=m min redad "Which man?"
2.To create gentilic noun phrases, e.g. karum Canadanast=im rakne "Nine Canadian tourists"
3.To form possessive NPs redad min sespirmaħt "The man's hand"
4.To bind true adjectives, e.g. wakuk min hattewak "A gold ring"
5.To form appositions, e.g. yakalmay min uzak "Member states"
The Minhast ligature has been compared most often to the ligatures found in the Philippine languages, e.g. Tagalog -ng/na, Ilocano nga/a), although other ligatures are found cross-linguistically with functions corresponding to that of the Minhast ligature, e.g. Persian -e/-ye (known more commonly as the ezafe), and the Chumashan ligature hi-.
Existentials
Quantifiers and Interrogatives
Quantifiers and Interrogatives are the second group of adjectives in Minhast. Additionally, they can stand on their own as independant nouns in their own right. They convey the sense of "some","each", "all" etc. Like numbers, these adjectives form syntactically bound constructs and thus require the ligature min, using the same syntax as that used for both numeric and possessive phrases. In addition, when used as independant nouns, quantifiers exhibit Ergative-Absolutive inflection, whereas is defective and receives Absolutive and Oblique inflections only. The Distributive form of the verb is used to indicate the distributive nature of an action or state across patients of the VP.
Deictics
Possession
To express possessive phrases, Minhast uses the ligature particle -min- to link heads with their dependant arguments in structures represented in the following diagram:
[possessor] - min - [possessum]
The ligature -min- is used to bind the posessor with the possessum, e.g. ipnines-min-itar "sword" + [ligature] + "edge" i.e. "(the) sword's edge". Note that number, let alone other syntactic characteristics (e.g. gender, animacy, etc) cannot be discerned for either the head or dependant nouns. Although the gender and animacy of the head and dependant nouns are unmarked, these attributes are nevertheless known as they are inherent, albeit memorized lexical characteristics. The same cannot be said for number, which is not a fixed attribute in nouns. The default number of both head and dependant noun in this type of possessive construct is singular, but by no means is this absolute, and sometimes a plural translation of one or both nouns in the possessive phrase must be used, as is illustrated in the phrase, Birīħ-min-Hūr, "The Lions' Mountain", not "The Lion's Mountain". The correct, former reading is known only through historical and literary context.
Because of the potential for ambiguity in this type of possessive construction, an alternate structure predominates, which employs portmenteau pronominal affixes similar in form to the verbal pronominal affixes to bind to the posessum, as illustrated by the following formula:
[possessor] - min - [possessum + ergative portmenteau pronominal affix] = t(e)
This construction arose during the latter part of the Classical Minhast period and continues to Modern Standard Minhast, so today constructions like tazer-min-erak.massešt, (literally "a/the bird - its feathers") predominate. The portmenteau pronoun, -sess-, simultaneously refers to the possessor head noun tazer "bird", marking it as singular and animate, and marks the dependant noun erak as plural and inanimate. Any case clitics used to specify the word's grammatical role are appended at the end of the NP, e.g. tazer-min-erak.masseš=te=kī "on the bird's feathers".
As an interesting side note, the final =t(e) is actually the =de ergative marker. Through the centuries, it became generalized to =t.
The portmenteau affixes are also used in expressing direct pronominal possession, e.g. iššū-tirek=t "my head", or ezab-len=t "his sister". Case clitics are attached after the portmenteau affixes.
Possession may additionally be marked for distributed ownership, in which case the verbal Distributive affix -tar- is added to the NP, e.g. "kamaktarsussišt" *kamak-tar-sussiš=te "their swords, one sword per person", versus shared ownership, where the verbal Reciprocal affix -sart- is added, e.g. "balassartitirkakte" *balam-sart-tirkak-te "our [inclusive] land (that you, I, and others share).
In cases where a possessum occurs among two 3rd person NPs with the same gender, number, and animacy, the reflexive affix -šar- can be used to disambiguate which NP is the possessor. Hence, the sentence "Xaniš and Yuttam dropped their pencils. Xaniš reached down and retrieve his own pencil" would be rendered as "Xaniš sut Yuttam irriyetaran rassibaru. Xaniš irriyet-šar-tirenn=aran", as opposed to "Xaniš irriyet-0-tirenn=aran" would imply that Xaniš reached for Yuttam's pencil.
As expected, possessive NPs can mark tense and aspect, e.g. "kassartisussiššasattapte" *kar-sart-sussiš-asatt-ab-te "the car which they will be owning together".
In the case of nouns derived from nominalized VPs, the situation becomes even more complex. In particular, nominalized transitive verbs, which are able to encode agent-patient relationships, can secondarily express possessive relationships. An example would be astekkenareft, literally "they that begat me", a formal term for "my father". Here, the portmenteau affix -ekkek- denoting the ergative 3rd person common plural and the absolutive 1st person singular, paraphrases the possessive relationship using verbal syntax to describe agent-patient relations.
The Verb Phrase
Characteristics
The polysynthetic character of Minhast verbs allows expressing a sentence in a single word, in contrast to non-poolysynthetic languages which usually require more than one word. Thus, the word tašnišpipsaryentinasummatittaharu translated into English means "You did not even get them to reconsider the evidence" (from >>ta-šn-šp-b-sar-yenti-nasum-mat-tittah-ar-u --> NEGATIVE-CONATIVE-CAUS-RESUMPTIVE-look.at-yet-matter-INST.APPL-3S.INANIM.PT+2S.AGNT-PAST-TRANS)
Nevertheless, Minhast does make extensive use of nominalizations and sequential clauses. Correference of core arguments within embedded clauses (nominalizations), or across clausal boundaries (chaining), requires that the Absolutive NP be the same for both clauses. This type of correfererence indicates that Minhast's ergativity is not merely morphological, but that it is ergative at the syntactic level as well. Minhast therefore demonstrates that it utilizes an S/O pivot: NP's must receive Absolutive marking in the embedded or chained clauses to indicate correferrence.
Most ergative languages that utilize S/O pivots may also use S/A pivots for other clausal structures.
Avoidance of Ditranstivity
Wa Structures
The ligature wa-, like the ligature min, establishes a dependancy between phrases. Unlike min, wa- is used to link an NP or other adjunct to a VP. It is also used to create certain idiomatic phrases, and performs other functions, such as:
1.To create topic-comment sentences
2.To create adverbs
3.To bind existential particles (e.g. matti "there is/are" and hambin "there is no/none") to their arguments
4.To bind evidential and modal particles to the clauses they modify
5.To indicate a topic switch in discourse
6.To decrease the valence of a clause
7.To form simulative/equalis phrases and clauses
8.To bind a complement clause to the main clause when the Absolutive argument of the main clause is coreferrent with the complement clause and the main clause is gramatically transitive (i.e. the main clause contains an Ergative argument).
Antipassivation
Antipassivation is a valency-decreasing process whereby the absolutive argument of a transitive verb is demoted to oblique status or is deleted from the clause, thereby demoting in turn the ergative argument to absolutive status. Antipassivation is used for discourse purposes, with the following functions:
1.To delete the Object when it is unknown or not topic-worthy
2.To mark an Object as indefinite by demoting it to Oblique status, usually the Dative case.
3.To mark the Subject as indefinite by demoting it to Absolutive status
4.To create a semantic pivot in clause combining operations.
Antipassivation is accomplished by transforming the Transitive verb into an Intransitive verb (by replacing the Transitive -u Role suffix with the -an Role suffix and replacing the Erg.-Abs. portmenteau pronominal affixes with the Abs. pronominal affixes). The clictic =de is removed from the Agent NP. The Patient may either be deleted, or the Dative affix -aran or Instrumental affix -pār is added to the demoted Patient if retained.
Applicative Formation
Like antipassivation, applicative formation is an operation that alters the argument structure of clause. Applicative formation allows the promotion of an oblique argument to Absolutive status. Therefore, unlike antipassivation, applicative formation is used in clausal operations to maintain or increase transitivity. Applicative formation, by creating a derived Patient argument from an oblique NP, also is a focus-changing device. Consider the following example:
Hatuxte nessiria sanumpar isangarumā, sanum sekaran eyimtatu. "The oracle lights the pyre with a burning branch, then draws (in the air) an arc with the branch."
Here, the branch (sanum) is introduced in the first clause as an instrumental NP. The speaker wishes to retain the branch as topic-worthy since it is relevant to the rest of the narrative, so the sanum is promoted to Absolutive status by inserting the instrumental applicative affix -mat- into the verb eyimtu. Thus, the branch becomes the focal point of the narrative, promoted to a derived Absolutive argument, and assuming a role in subsequent S/O pivot operations.
The S/O Syntactic Pivot
Clause combining operations in all languages inevitably deal with a situation where there are two core NPs in one clause, one of which is coreferrent with an NP of following clause. In languages with verbal pronominal affixes referencing the core NPs, the correfferrent NP is often not explicitly mentioned in the succeeding clause(s). As long as the gender, number, animacy, and case of the implicit correferrent NP is different from that of the other core NP, the identity of the correferrent NP is clear. However, in situations where two core third person NPs share number, gender, and animacy, the identity of the correferrent NP may be ambiguous when it is not explicitly mentioned. The following English sentence illustrates an example of a two-clause sentence structure, containing two core NPs that share gender and number: "Iradem struck Isnar, and (he) left."
Did Iradem leave after he hit Isnar, or did Isnar leave after being hit by Iradem? Languages have developed different strategies to disambiguate the correferrent NP, such as switch-referencing, obviation, or other morphosyntactic strategies to deal with sentences like the above example. For Minhast, the sentence above contains no ambiguity because the language handles correference by using an S/O pivot: if a core argument is correferrent with that of a preceding clause, the correferent NPs of both clauses must agree in case, and this requires the coreferrent NPs to be in the Absolutive case, as in the following example:
The first clause is transitive, taking two core arguments, Iradem in the Ergative case, and Isnar in the Absolutive case. The second clause is intransitive and is gapped: there is no overt mention of either Iradem or Isnar from the previous clause. Nevertheless, there is no ambiguity as to which person ran off - it could only be Isnar. The verb nuħtaharan is an intransitive verb, as indicated by the intransitive marker -an, and its pronominal affix is the null-marked third person masculine singular person. Thus, nuħtaharan can take only one core argument, the Absolutive. Isnar is in the Absolutive case in the first clause, and is the gapped argument of the second clause.
In combinations where all the verbs are semantically transitive and Agent and Patient interchange their case frames, valency operations occur: a verb may be antipassivized to demote an Ergative NP to the Absolutive case if it is the gapped argument of the following clause. The original Absolutive NP may then either be demoted to the dative or instrumental case, or omitted altogether, as in the sample sentence:
This sentence starts with the two core arguments explicitly mentioned in the first clause (Iradem[Erg] and Isnar[Abs]). The second and final clauses are gapped, none of the core arguments are explicitly mentioned after the first clause. All verbs are notionally transitive but the second verb (usapār-an-pi=mā) is grammatically intransitive as indicated by its intransitive marker -an (plus the Antipassive marker "-pi-"), whereas the first and final verbs are marked as expected with the transitive marker -u. The affixes -an-pi-, when appearing on a notionally transitive verb, indicate the verb has been antipassivized to change the argument structure of the sentence by demoting Ergative NPs to the Absolutive case. Only Absolutive NPs can be gapped.
The intransitive usapārampimā can take only one argument, the Absolutive. Isnar is the Absolutive argument in the first clause, and so must be the gapped argument in the second clause, even though Isnar's role is now that of Agent, not Patient. Isnar is also the gapped Absolutive argument in the final clause. Isnar is the Absolutive argument of all three clauses, whether explicit or implicit, and is therefore coreferrent with all three clauses. If a speaker wanted to mention explicitly mention the Patient in the second clause, the Patient would have to be marked as an Oblique argument, using the dative postposition =aran, as in:
Languages which use an Absolutive argument to coreferrence linked clauses are said to employ an S/O pivot. Morphologically ergative languages that coordinate clauses with S/O pivots therefore demonstrate ergativity at a syntactic level. Minhast is such a language, ergative at the syntactic level as well as at the morphological level.
Clause Types and Structure
Simple
Basic syntax is XSOV.
Compound
Relative
Complement
Subordinate Clauses
Temporal
Concurrent
Causative and Resultative
Purposive
Limitive
Conditional
Alternative
(See Dixon). These clauses do not exist in Minhast. Instead, resultative and conditional clauses replace Dixon's "Alternative-Rejection" and "Alternative-Suggestive".
1) Rather than saying "I stayed home instead of visiting my friend Tahme", one can instead say "I did not visit my friend Tahme, but I stayed home ( + Resultative "-duur", i.e. "as the end result")
2) Rather than saying "Unless he goes to the hospital, he will die", in Minhast one says "He will die if he does not go" or "If he does not go, he will die"
Limitive
Verb Serialisation
Verb serialization is a process where the verb of the matrix clause is linked by the clause linkage operator -mā to its dependent clause. Serialized verbs cross-reference core arguments with S/O pivots and typically agree in tense and person. The -mā connective need not convey a temporal meaning, unless context and pragmatics indicate a temporal meaning.
Adverbial
Minhast has a wide array of conveying adverbial expressions. In addition to having a closed set of adverbial particles, the verb contains in slot #5 (the verb stem) a sub-slot for verb-like affixes, some of which convey an adverbial meaning. Verb serialization is another way of conveying adverbial meaning, and is employed as a way of focusing on the manner in which an event or state occurs.
As an example, the verb paskan (to perform a forceful action) may be linked as a subordinate clause with -mā to render the meaning "to do something hard", as in the expression Yakaran Joe ušnarampimā paskaran, literally "Joe hit me and it was hard", or altenatively Yakaran Joe paskarammā ušnarampi, i.e. "Joe did it hard and he hit me".
This method of conveying adverbial expressions may be selected when one of the core arguments, the Absolutive, has been focused as a topic by S/O pivot operations within an extended passage.
Comparative and Superlative Structures
Minhast employs verb serialization to express comparative and superlative phrases. For Comparative phrases, the general formula is for the first clause to have the compared item in the Adversarial case accompanied with the Absolutive argument and an adjectival verb, joined to a second clause with the "=mā" clitic; the verb of the second clause has either the verb "annukan" (to hold the greater share, to be bountiful with) or the verb "ispan" (to hold a lesser share, to have a dearth). The structure can be expressed by the following formula:
[NP=ADVERSARIAL + NP(ABS) + VP(ADJECTIVAL)]=mā + ["annuk-an"]
and
[Negator + NP=ADVERSARIAL + NP(ABS) + VP(ADJECTIVAL)]=mā + ["isf-an"]
Examples include: "Iradem=dāš Anyar kurgan=mā annukan" (Lit.: Against Iradem, Anyar is strong and holds the greater share, i.e. "Anyar is stronger than Iradem), and "Hatā' Anyar=dāš Iradem kurgan=mā isfan" (Lit.: Against Anyar, Iradem is not strong, because he holds the lesser portion, i.e. "Iradem isn't as strong as Anyar/Iradem is weaker than Anyar")
Similitude
Verb serialization is also employed to express similarity. The comparee is again the Absolutive argument of the adjectival verb, linked to the clause containing the verb of similitude "kass-" in a "=mā...=dāš" construction. To illustrate, the sentence "Anyar kurgam=mā Iradem=dāš kassan, literally "Anyar is strong, against Iradem being same."
The speaker may also choose to use an adjectival verb affixed with the Associative "-mmak-", as in "Anyar sut Iradem kurgamimmakkman" (>>kurgam-mmak-km-an), literally "Anyar and Iradem are strong in the company of each other".
For sentences involving semantically active verbs (e.g. "Anyar hits as hard as Iradem"), the speaker must use verb serialization, e.g. "Anyar ušnammā kurgammā Iradembāš kassan", literally "Anyar hits, he is strong, against Iradem being the same."
Factitive
Quotative
Different Subject Control Clauses
Back to Minhast
