The Munda Verb: Typological Perspectives 9783110924251, 9783110189650

Citation preview

The Munda Verb

W DE G

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 174

Editors

Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock (main editor for this volume)

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Munda Verb Typological Perspectives

by

Gregory D.S. Anderson

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anderson, Gregory D. S. The Munda verb : typological perspectives / by Gregory D. S. Anderson, p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 174) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-018965-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Munda languages - Verb. 2. Munda languages — Morphology. I. Title. PL4502.A63 2007 495.9'5-dc22 2006103185

ISBN 978-3-11-018965-0 ISSN 1861-4302 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

For Graham and Jon

Foreword

The present volume offers to the interested reader a collection of seven studies of various typological features of the Munda languages, particularly with regard to the characteristics of Munda verb morphology. It brings together an array of data from across the entire spectrum of the Munda language family, from the Kherwarian languages (e.g., Santali, Mundari, Ho, etc.) and Korku, and data from various South Munda languages spread out across modern-day Orissa (e.g., Sora, Gorum, Kharia, Juang, Gutob, Remo, and Gta?), offering parallels to other languages where relevant. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction and overview of the Munda language family, including brief discussions of the phonological and syntactic typology of the individual languages and as a whole, and how they fit typologically within both their broader genetic contexts (i.e. within the large Austroasiatic phylum) and areal contexts (i.e. how they differ from or are similar to other languages of South Asia). Chapter 2 presents a description of Munda voice and version marking within the various synchronic verb systems and offers preliminary historical reconstructions and comments on developments, where possible or relevant. This includes a discussion of such categories as causative, reciprocal, passive, middle, and the poorly investigated category of 'subject version' - a discourse-based notion of primary affectedness or orientation (Anderson and Gurevich, in press). Chapter 3 moves on to a presentation of referent indexing in the Munda verb, including discussions of the subject-verb concord and the different subsystems thereof attested across the various Munda languages, the varied systems of object encoding in the verbal word in both South and North Munda languages, the characteristic feature of possessor raising or encoding of external possessors in the verb form in Gorum, and of the highly marked four-way formal contrast of referents in Santali and Mundari, among other topics. As in Chapter 2, historical developments and in rare instances, preliminary reconstructions for intermediate and distant protolanguages for individual features are also offered in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses the varied and complex systems of Munda tense-aspect-mood and transitivity marking. These are among the most interesting and complex grammatical subsystems attested in the languages from a comparative perspective. Chapter 5 turns to a discussion of the at times complex and unusual systems of verbal negation exhibited among the various individual

viii

The Munda language family

Munda languages, including the curious use of tense-aspect markers in the negative in the South Munda language Gutob. Chapter 6 constitutes a discussion of noun incorporation phenomena across the Munda language family, and how these contribute to current theoretical and typological discussions in this field. Chapter 7 looks at the systems of switch reference in the modem Munda languages and again how these are similar to or differ from some known examples offered in the relevant theoretical literature. Finally, Chapter 8 situates the varied systems of auxiliary verbs and other complex predicate formations within their broader typological contexts. This includes both a discussion of the range of verbs that have been grammaticalized in various auxiliary functions, and the paths of semantic development associated therewith, as well as offering a typology of the inflectional morphosyntax associated with auxiliary structures across the Munda languages. It also looks at complex verb words that have arisen from the historical fusing of former auxiliary structures in various modern Munda languages. Lastly, it offers a brief discussion of serial verb constructions attested in these fascinating and still insufficiently investigated languages of South Asia. The volume concludes with an extensive bibliography and subject and language index. The author would like to thank various people who contributed in one way or another to the present volume. This includes members of the Munda Verb seminar, Chicago (2001), audiences at the AOS meeting in 1999, the ICHL meeting in Copenhagen in 2003, the S ALA meeting in Austin in 2003, the South Asian Prehistory Roundtable at Harvard in 2004, the Munda Meeting in Leipzig in 2004 and an invited talk at the University of Leipzig in 2006. Special thanks go to John Peterson, Arlo Griffiths, Arun Ghosh, Felix Rau, David Stampe, Toshiki Osada, Michael Cysouw, Batlthasar Bickel, Manideepa Patnaik, John Boyle, Mark Eglinton, and K. David Harrison, and to Don Reneau without whose help and support this volume literally would not have seen the light of day. I am also particularly indebted to Professor Norman Zide who introduced me to the world of Munda linguistics. Without his breadth of knowledge that he is always willing to share with me, this volume would be a much lesser and less informed piece of work. I must also mention here in thanks the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages that allowed my field trip to Orissa in 2005 to become a reality. I would also like to thank my Ho, Remo, Bhumij, Mundari, and Santali-speaking consultants and friends in Orissa for their bemused patience as I struggled to butcher their language and sharing with me their insights into the workings of their at times dizzy-

Foreword

ix

ingly complex verbal structures and fascinating and wonderfully intricate and expressive languages. Lastly, let me thank my wife Mary and sons Sam and Oliver for putting up with me during the often difficult process and associated labor pains of birthing this volume.

Contents

Foreword

vii

List of abbreviations

xiv

Chapter 1: The Munda language family 1. Overview 1.1 Classification of the Munda language family 1.2 Sociolinguistic data 1.3 A brief history of the study of the Munda language 1.4 Overview of the phonology, nominal morphology, and syntax of Munda

10

Chapter 2: Voice and version in the Munda verb 2. Introduction 2.1 Causative 2.2 Reciprocal 2.3 Reflexive and passive 2.4 Benefactive/applicative 2.5 Version 2.6 Summary

29 29 29 37 40 48 55 62

Chapter 3: Referent indexing in the Munda verb 3. Introduction 3.1 Subject marking in Munda 3.2 Object marking in the Munda verb 3.3 Possessor raising 3.4 Multiple referent marking in Munda 3.5 Summary

64 64 64 83 92 97 99

Chapter 4: Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity 4. Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity 4.1 Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda languages 4.2 Tense/aspect/mood marking in North Munda languages 4.3 Mood 4.4 On non-finite formations in Munda 4.5 Summary

1 1 1 4 8

101 101 101 112 135 141 143

xii The M undo verb

ChapterS: Negation 5. Overview 5.1 The category negative [NEC] in South Munda 5.2 Negative in North Munda 5.3 Summary

145 145 145 161 163

Chapter 6: Noun incorporation 6. Introduction 6.1 On the theoretical background of noun incorporation 6.2 Munda noun incorporation 6.3 Noun incorporation in other South Munda languages 6.4 North Munda 6.5 Munda, Khasi, and Nicobarese: parallels in noun incorporation 6.6 Summary

165 165 167 174 196 201

Chapter 7: Switch reference 7. Introduction 7.1 Switch reference in Gutob, Remo, and Gta? 7.2 Switch reference in other Munda languages 7.3 Summary

213 213 214 221 226

Chapter 8: Auxiliary verb constructions and other complex predicate types 8. Introduction 8.1 Functional types of auxiliary verb constructions 8.2 Univerbation or fused AVCs in Munda 8.3 Inflectional types in auxiliary verb constructions 8.4 Serial verb formations and ECHO forms in Munda languages 8.5 Summary

204 210

228 228 229 239 250 264 268

References

269

Index

290

Tables 1. Estimated number of speakers of select modern Munda languages

5

Contents xiii

2. South Munda subject markers 3. South Munda object markers 4. North Munda referent indexing enclitics 5. South Munda tense/aspect markers 6. Series-Α in Kherwarian Munda 7. Series-B (aorist, perfect, past) in North Munda Figures 1. Map of the Munda languages 2. Map of the Munda languages of Orissa

76 85 86 102 114 120

7 28

List of abbreviations

1 2 3 4

> 1>3 A ABL ABS ACC ACT ÄFF ACT ALL ANIM ANT AOR APPL ASP ÄUG AUGM AUX BEN B BND CAP CAUS CEL CLOC CMPL CNCTV COLL COM COMPL COND CONJ

1st Person 2nd person 3rd Person 4th person Affix boundary Clitic Boundary Acting on 1st acting on 3rd person Class-A/Active class Ablative Absolutive Accusative Active Affect-ive/-ed Agentive Allative Animate Anterior Aorist Applicative Aspect(ual) Augmented Augment Auxiliary Benefactive Class-B Bounded Capabilitive Causative Celerative Cislocative Completive Connective Collective Comitative Completive Conditional Conjunctive

CONT COP CUST CV DAT DECL DEF DEP DER DESID DET DETR DIR DIST DL DO D.O. DRCT DS DT DUR EGRESS EM B EMPH EPN EX FEM FIN FOC FREQ PUT FV GEN GER HAB HORT I II

Continuative Copula Customary Converb Dative Declarative Definite Dependent Derivational Desiderative Determiner Detransitive Directional Distant Dual Direct Object Desia Oriya Direct Different Subject Ditransitive Durative Egressive Embedded Emphatic Epenthetic Exclusive Feminine Finitizer Focus Frequentative Future Final Vowel Genitive Gerund Habitual Hortative Class-I Class-II

List of abbreviations xv I.I. IMP INAN INCH IN INCMPL INDEF IND DMDIR INDRCTV INESS DMF INS INTNSF EMTNSV INV IPF IPFV IRR ISM Marker ITR rv DC LOG MASC MAN MDL ΜΠΜ MOD NARR NEC NF NOM NMLZR NPST OBJ OBLQ OBV OPT PAA PASS PERMISS

Independent Indicative Imperative Inanimate Inchoative Inclusive Incompletive Indefinite Indicative Indirect Indirective Inessive Infinitive Instrumental Intensifier Intensive Inverse Imperfect Imperfective Irrealis Class-I Subject Intransitive Class-IV Class-IX Locative Masculine Manner Middle Minimal Modal Narrative Negative Non-Finite/Non-Final Nominative Nominalizer Non-Past Object Oblique Obviative Optative Proto-Austroasiatic Passive Permissive

PRF P/F PFV PFX PGR PHB PL PLUPERF PM PNM PORT POSS PRES PRET PROB PROG PROL PRON PROX PRTCPL PSJG Gorum PSM PST PUNC PURP pv Q QUOT REC.PST RECIP R[E]DPL REL REM REPET RFLXV RLS SBEN SBJNCT so SM SS STAT

Perfect Present/Future Perfective Prefix Proto-Gutob-Remo Prohibitive Plural Pluperfect Proto-Munda Proto-North Munda Portative PossessiveAor Present Preterite Probabilitive Progressive Prolative Pronominal Proximate Participle Proto-Sora-JurayProto-South Munda Past Punctual Purposive Preverb Interrogative Quotative Recent Past Reciprocal Reduplication Relative Remote Repetitive Reflexive Realis Self-Benefactive Subjunctive Singular South Munda Same Subject Stative

xvi

The Munda verb

SUBJ SUBORD SUPERESS T/A

TEMP TERM TLOC

Subject Subordinate Superessive Tense/ Aspect Temporal Terminati ve Translocative

TNS

TR UNACCOMPL VERS VI

voc VOLIT

Tense Transitive Unaccomplished Version Class-VI Vocative Volitional

Note.—2-/3-letter codes attached to author's field notes represent language consultants.

Chapter 1 The Munda language family

1. Overview The Munda languages are a group of Austroasiatic languages spoken in central and eastern India by several million people. The Munda peoples are generally believed to represent the so-called "tribal" autochthons of their current areas of inhabitation. Originally, Munda-speaking peoples probably extended over a somewhat larger area before being marginalized into the relatively remote hill country and forested areas in the states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and isolated pockets in adjacent areas of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra by the encroachment of Indo-Aryan-speakers and, at an earlier period, Dravidianspeakers. The one exception to this is in the newly constituted and nearly tribal-dominant state Jharkhand (capital Ranchi).

1.1. Classification of the Munda language family Classifications of the Munda family suggest that this language group forms a fairly neat, bifurcating Stammbaum, subdivided into a North Munda and South Munda group. South Munda consists of Sora, Gorum, Gta?, Gutob, Remo, Kharia, and Juang, with around half a million total speakers most of whom speak either Sora or Kharia; Remo (a.k.a. Bonda) and Gta? (a.k.a. djcjeji) have only a couple of thousand speakers each and Gorum maybe less than 1000, and all are undergoing rapid linguistic acculturation. The internal cleavages within the South Munda family are great. Proto-South Munda is therefore very old, and closer to the Proto-Munda structure than North Munda languages (Korku and such Kherwarian languages as Santali, Mundari, and Ho), which show far less internal diversification than the South Munda languages. The traditional family tree of Munda (following Zide and Stampe 1964, cf. also Bhattacharya 1975 for a different view) is shown in (1):

2 The Munda language family (1)

Proto-Munda

North Munda Kherwarian

Korku

Santali Mundari etc.

South Munda Kharia-Juang

Koraput Munda

Kharia Juang Gutob-Remo-Gta?

Sora-Gorum

Gutob-Remo Proto-Gta? Sora Gorum Gulob Renk» Plains Gta?l?Tri Gta?

The traditional classifications of the South Munda languages, e. g., Zide & Stampe (1964), assume that there was a split of the Proto-South Munda into two daughter languages, Proto-Kharia-Juang (KJ) and Proto-Koraput Munda (KM), the latter language at some later point splitting into two daughter languages Proto-Sora-Gorum and Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gta?; see (1). As a clearer picture of Proto-South Munda verb morphology has begun to emerge (see for example Zide and Anderson 1999, 200la; Anderson and Zide 2001, Anderson 2004a), it has become apparent that the traditional classification of South Munda cannot be maintained (Anderson 200la). Specifically, during the course of their development from the Proto-South Munda ancestor language, there are no morphological (or even phonological) innovations (or retentions of archaisms) specific to Gutob-Remo-Gta? and Sora-Gorum alone to the exclusion of Kharia-Juang, as would be expected given the ostensible existence of Koraput Munda, despite the presence of many morphological categories in Proto-South Munda. Thus, it seems clear that Koraput Munda never existed as a real language used by a real speech community at any point in history. Rather, it represents a later areal grouping of these Munda languages, characterized by the presence of certain more recent phonological and lexical commonalities perhaps dif-

1.1. Classification of the Munda language family

3

fused from one language into another, or possibly from a third, presently unknown group. As is well known, phonological and lexical features are easily transferred from one speech community to another even with relatively casual levels of contact between the groups (or at least without universal bilingualism), while (apparent) shared innovations in verb morphology are far less likely to be diffused and require long-term intimate contact between different ethnolinguistic groups (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988). A first attempt to incorporate the findings of comparative verb morphology and reclassify the South Munda languages can be shown in the revised traditional classification in (2) (Anderson 1999a), in which South Munda splits directly into its three daughter groups Proto-Kharia-Juang, Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gta?, and Proto-Sora-Gorum: (2) Revised traditional classification of Munda (Anderson 1999a) Proto-Munda

North Munda

Korku

/\

Kherwarian

South Munda

^-^T^

Kharia-Juang

Gutob-Remo-Gta?

.

Sora-Gorum

Gutob-Remo Proto-Gta? Santkli

Mundari, etc.

Juäng

Kharia

/ \

/ \.

Sora Gorum

Gutob Remo Plains Gta? Hill Gta?

South Munda is now thought of as having emerged in the following way (Anderson 2001a): Proto-Munda speakers split into two groups at a fairly early stage, North Munda and South Munda. North Munda went through a long period of relatively minimal diversification until splitting into the well-established Korku and Kherwarian subgroups. Proto-Sora-Gorum split very early from the remaining Proto-South Munda groups, and left behind a continuum consisting of Proto-Juang, Proto-Kharia, Proto-Gutob-Remo and Proto-Gta?. Juang and Gta?, two peripheral languages which were differentiated from core (late) Proto-South Munda, share certain parallel archaisms, e.g., preservation of subject prefixes and the *&-initial allo-

4 The Munda language family

morph of the present (also seen in North Munda Santali). Each aforementioned proto-language group shared significant structural innovations with the one to the right (in (3)), hence the traditional subgroups given in (1) and (2) above. For example, Kharia and Juang share the transitive/intransitive future forms in *-e and *-na. Proto-Gutob-Remo and Gta? share the switch reference opposition of *-tfif?J same subject, *-na different subject, and negative past patterns. Gutob-Remo and Gta? share with Kharia both the innovation of the completive aspecUAktionsart marker as a tense marker, later specialized in Proto-Gutob-Remo and Proto-Kharia as an intransitive past marker, and the loss of object marking in the verb. Gutob-Remo and Kharia share, in addition to this specialization of *-ki as an intransitive past marker in opposition to transitive past in *-xo?, loss of the subject prefixes and their replacement by a set of enclitic pronouns. (3)

Proto-South Munda

Proto-Sora-Gorum Proto- Juang Proto-Gta? Proto-Kharia Proto-Gutob-Remo Sora-Juray Gorum

Juang

Kharia

Gutob

Remo Plains Gta? Hill Gta?

= shares certain innovative isoglosses (structural, lexical)

Comparative phonological/lexical evidence is not necessarily against this more structure-oriented interpretation of South Munda linguistic history; for example, a Proto-South-Munda-like inventory of vowels is necessary for all putative intermediate proto-language stages (e.g., Proto-KhariaJuang or Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gta?). In other words, nearly all pair-wise comparisons of South Munda languages belonging to these putative subgroups yield the Proto-South Munda vowel inventory.

1.2. Sociolinguistic data Reliable sociolinguistic and census data are for the most part lacking, so only rough estimates at total numbers of speakers of Munda languages can

1.2. Sociolinguistic data

5

be made. According to Parkin (1991: 13-33, utilizing census data from 1961, 1971, and various other sources), the demographics of the Mundaspeaking peoples are as follows: The largest Munda language by far is Santali with ca. 6 million speakers predominantly in Chotanagpur and Mayurbhanj, (including the outcast Mahali and Karmali groups); the Santals are one of the largest tribal groups in India and the third largest Austroasiatic group, after Vietnamese and Khmer. The "tea-plantation diaspora" following the Second Santal Rebellion in 1855-56 brought Santals (and also certain Mundari and Kharia groups [Gordon 2005]) to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, SE Nepal, NW Bangladesh, S Bhutan and even the Nicobar and Andaman Islands. The next largest are the other major Kherwarian groups: Mundari with perhaps as many as 1.5 million speakers throughout Jharkhand, and northem Orissa, followed by Ho with roughly 1 million speakers in Jharkhand and Orissa. The next largest Munda language is Korku spoken by over 400,000 people in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and then Sora (the largest South Munda group) with perhaps 250,000-300,000 speakers in Orissa and northern Andhra Pradesh. Kharia is the only other Munda group with more than 60,000 speakers of which around 200,000 are found in Chotagnapur, Mayurbhanj, Durg, etc. Table 1. Estimated number of speakers of selected modern Munda languages Santali ca. 6,000,000 Mundari ca. 1,000,000-1,500,000 Ho ca. 1,000,000 Korku ca. 400,000-450,000 Sora ca. 300,000 Kharia ca. 200,000-300,000 Gutob < 10,000 Juang INS 'with a knife'

Santali presents an interesting picture with regards to case constructions. Generally speaking, the case inventory of Santali is relatively small from a Eurasian SOV language perspective, though several postpositional elements seem to be moving into becoming new case forms. The cases of Santali include the locative in -re and the allative in -te, both used only with inanimate nouns, and the ablative -k'On (Southern Santa\i)/-k''otf' (Northern Santali) which occurs with both animates and inanimates. (37) i. Santali bir-re forest-LOC 'in the forest' (Ghosh 1994: 39)

ii. Santali bir-ίε forest-ALL 'to the forest' (Ghosh 1994: 39)

24 The Munda language family

iii. Santali gidrd-k'On hatao=me child-ABLtake.lTR=2 'take it from the child' (Ghosh 1994: 42) (cf. Northern Santali gidra-k'Otf) Homophonous with the allative, but to be treated separately (synchronically at least), is the instrumental in -te: (38) Santali (%αη-ίε tijok'=me stick-INS pull.down.lTR=2 'pull it down with a stick' (Ghosh 1994: 42) Perhaps the most complicated aspect of Santali nominal inflectional morphology is the wide range of suffixes functioning as genitive case markers. In Southern Santali, they have the following distribution: -iff is used with animate singular nouns, -ren with animate plural nouns, and -ak' ~ -ay with inanimate nouns (Ghosh 1994: 40). Northern Santali shows only -ren for animates, whether singular or plural, and -ak' for inanimates. (39) i. Santali Birsd-ren hopon Birsa-GEN(PL) son(s) 'B'sson(s)' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

ii. Santali i -itf'(i -ren) gdi I-GEN.ANM cow 'my cow' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

iii. Santali am-itf merom

iv. Santali am-ak' kat''a

you-GEN.ANlM goat

you-GEN.INAN word

your goat' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

'your word' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

v. Santali am-arj ti

vi. Santali Lok'On-ak' ofak'

you-GEN.INAN hand

Lokon-GEN.INAN house

'your hand' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

'L's house'. (Ghosh 1994: 40)

1.4. Phonology, nominal morphology, and syntax 25

The inanimate form in -ak' is the element that appears to be cognate in form if not function with the possessive/genitive constructions mentioned above. Note that the genitive form may also attach to a form already marked in the locative case: (40) i. Santali dare-re-ak' d^o (~ darererjak') tree-LOC-GEN.INAN fruit 'the fruit of the tree' (Ghosh 1994: 40)

ii. Santali bir-re-n-arj dare forest-LOC-AUGM-GEN.INAN tree 'tree of the forest'

Enclitic postpositions are also found in Santali, mainly borrowed; these include -s o 'with' (~ -sao-ts\ -(ϊ)ηεη 'near', and-ldgit' 'for'.

1.4.3. Syntax of Μ undo languages 1.4.3.1. Clausal constituent order All of the modem Munda languages show a fairly rigid Subject-ObjectVerb order (with indirect objects often preceding direct objects). The comparative method thus compels one to reconstruct SOV constituent order for Proto-Munda, Proto-South Munda and Proto-North Munda (and any intermediate proto-language). However, there is internal evidence that suggests alternate orders existed at some point in the history of the Munda languages, for example, evidence from the archaic process of noun incorporation found throughout South Munda discussed in Chapter 6. Broader Austroasiatic comparative evidence suggests that SVO or even VSO may have been the original clausal constituent order in pre-Proto-Munda. (41) i. Korku ι/ίί/3 dukana:-\en saikar I store-ABL sugar S O Ί will bring sugar from the shop' (Nagaraja 1999: 71)

sasa:-ba RDPL.bring-FIN V

26 The Mundo language family

ii. Gorum kapi coffee

e-nirj

tagu-r-iy-aj

OBJ-1

burn-PST-1-CLOC

S Ο 'coffee burnt me' (Aze 1973) iii. Remo a-nirj OBJ-I O,

V

djtftor

a-be?-to-no-ki

milk 02

NEG-give-FUT.II-2-Q V

'will you give me milk or not' (Bhattacharya 1968) While textually speaking, almost all clauses are verb-final, there is some flexibility in the positioning of pre-verbal elements. Thus, under certain conditions of focus, emphasis, etc., alternative orders are permitted, e.g., OSV in Gutob. (42) i. Gutob sobu pai\i all work

niy

c[em-o?=nirj berbe?=nir)

I

do-PST:TR=l RDPL:AUX=1

O S Ί do all the work' (N. Zide 1997) ii. Gutob djom-lai J.-ACC

V

nirj

bu-o?

pi-loy=nirj

I

beat.up-PST:TR

come-FUT:ITR=l

O S V Ί will beat up Jom and come back' (N. Zide 1997)

1.4.3.2. Case marked clausal subordination in Munda languages Complex sentence structure in the Munda languages also presents a typologically fascinating picture. Like many languages of Eurasia, e.g., Burushaski (Anderson 2002) or central Siberian languages (Anderson 2004c,

1.4. Phonology, nominal morphology, and syntax 27

Approximate Distribution of Munda languages of Orissa

Figure 2. Map of the Munda languages of Orissa 2005c), various Munda languages make use of case marked verbs to form a wide range of functional subtypes of subordinate clauses. One frequent subtype is the use of a locative or directional case to form a temporally subordinate clause of the 'when'-type. This is found, for example, in both North Munda Mundari and South Munda Gta?, on opposite ends geographically and typologically in the Munda language family. (43) Mundari Rantfi-te=fl sen-ke-n-re sinema=ji R-OBLQ-1 go-AOR-ITR-LOC cinema-1 'when I went to Ranchi, I saw the cinema' (Osada 1992: 121)

lel-ke-d-a see-AOR-TR-FIN

28 The Munda language family (44) Gta? later, on

nswar-la dry-DS

bura-n^ia? flood-water

RDPL:come-IPF-PRTCPL- DIR/LOC

'later on, when (you) have dried (me) out and the floods come' (Mahapatra & Zide n.d.)

Chapter 2 Voice and version in the Munda verb

2. Introduction Voice categories are an important part of the verbal system in all the Munda languages. The following voice categories can be formally realized in the Munda verbal complex: benefactive, causative, middle, passive, reciprocal, and reflexive, with the various detransitivizing or valence-reducing categories falling together in particular Munda languages or language groups. In the paragraphs below, I examine the voice systems in the Munda languages from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective, moving in the discussion from North Munda to individual South Munda groups. In addition to voice, I also examine the category of 'version' (or affectedness/orientation), a grammaticalized discourse category in the South Munda language Gorum. As discussed in Anderson and Gurevich (forthcoming), version is often [mis]analyzed as (or parasitic to the formal machinery encoding) voice manipulation cross-linguistically (or at least in the set of Eurasian languages discussed therein).

2.1. Causative The category causative is expressed morphologically in North Munda. The pan-Munda causative *db- is preserved vestigially only in certain lexical items as *a-/*a- in Proto-Kherwarian and its daughters:1 (45) Santali 9jiu'give to drink' (Sodding 1929)

1.

αάτ,ο-

'feed' < *

Note that Gutob and certain allomorphs in Kharia and Juang also lack the consonant in their reflex (o-) of the Proto-Munda causative; however, this formation is quite productive in Gutob, unlike North Munda.

30 Voice and version in the Munda verb

Bhumij ad^om'feed' anu?[u] 'give to drink' (Ramaswami 1992: 86) Mundari ad^al'make s.o. lick' akiriy'sell' (Osada 1992: 24; 94) Rather, in most Kherwarian languages various other historically secondary markers of this category are more frequently encountered, e.g. -ootfo, -itß, or -rika. These appear to have arisen from the fusing of original auxiliary (or light or serialized) verb constructions. For more on the history and typology of auxiliary verb constructions and other complex predicate types in the Munda language family, see Chapter 8. (46) i. Mundari sen-itß-tan-a=iy gO-CAUS-T/A: ITR-FIN= 1 make (him) go' (Grierson 1906: 86) ii. Mundari o-m rasika-rika-aka-d-ko-a man-PL=2 rejoice-CAUS-ASP-TR-PL-FIN 'you have made the people rejoice' (Osada 1992: 90) In Santali, several valence-increasing formations are found. Two common ones of these include the causative and permissive. However, rather than finding two separate, independent voice affixes to mark these two different types of valence increasing processes, the two formations are distinguished quasi-inflectionally in the past. Namely, the neutral causative is marked by the valence increase suffix -otfo- followed by the aorist marker in -ke- (see Chapter 4 below), while the permissive, on the other hand, uses the same valence increasing suffix -otfo- but is followed by the so-called benefactive (or applicative) valence increasing-cum-aspectual suffix -a- (see also below).

2.1 Causative 31

(47) i. Santali causative (-otfo-ke-) kiriji=otfo-ke-d-e-a=fl buy-CAUS-ASP-TR-3-FIN=l

Ί made him buy it' (Bodding 1952: 64)

ii. Santali permissive (=otfo-a-) kiriji=otfo-a-d-e-a=ji buy-CAUS-BEN-TR-3-FIN=l

Ί let him buy it' (Bodding 1952: 64)

Korku has a causative marker in -ki which may be cognate with the Asuri -ge causative, both probably also originating from some fused-auxiliary (light/serial) formation. (48) Korku bi 'd-ki 'raise' (N. Zide, field notes)

(49) Asuri du£up-ge:-tan-a:=irj sit-CAUS-PROG-FlN=l Ί cause to sit'

(Grierson 1906: 139) A morphologically distinct permissive formation is attested in Korku as well. Unlike Santali, this is marked by a completely separate and independent suffix from the causative element. It may also represent the fusing of an original nuclear serialized (or 'light verb') construction. (50) Korku sen-da go-PERMISS 'permit to go' (N. Zide, field notes) Note that the categories causative and permissive are relatively infrequently marked morphologically in Korku. The category causative was realized through two allo-morphological processes in South Munda languages. Generally speaking, these are realized by either a prefix or an infix allomorph, respectively involving a (vowel plus) labial obstruent. The prefix allomorph attached to monosyllabic stems, while the infixed allomorph was found with bisyllabic stems. Given this distribution, it is perhaps better to analyze the morphological causative formation in the South Munda languages as a process of prefixation on the rightmost stem syllable, a process that is attested in various Kiranti languages of Nepal as well (B. Bickel, personal communication).

32 Voice and version in the Munda verb

In the South Munda languages Kharia and Juang, the causative appears in several allomorphic variants (51). While the infixed allomorph is triggered by the phonological shape of the stem, the choice of the two causative prefixes, one with and without an accompanying postvocalic labial consonant, is determined morpholexically, and must be part of the lexical entry of a given stem. Said differently, if the stem is polysyllabic, the 'infix' allomorph predictably appears as -b-/-g- (i.e. it is motivated morphotactically), while the shape of the prefix in both Kharia and Juang (that is, ob-/o-/og- in Kharia, ab-/o- in Juang) is only in part predictable by the phonological shape of the stem, and appears to be lexically determined. The prefix og- (and its infixed variant -g-) predictably occurs with stems beginning with a labial, reflecting an active process of dissimilation characteristic of Kharia (e.g. ogbel 'cause to spread' or segbol 'cause to be tasty' [Biligiri 1965a: 43-44]). (51) i. Kharia

ii. Juang

ο 'b-jiog

a 'b-sorj

CAUS-eat 'feed' (Biligiri 1965a: 43)

CAUS-buy 'sell' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 115)

Kharia

o-([am CAUS-arrive 'cause to arrive' (Biligiri 1965a: 44)

CAUS-water 'moisten' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 115)

Kharia

Juang

c[o-b-ko

ko-b-sor

sit-/CAUS/ 'make sit' (Biligiri 1965a: 44)

CAUS-dry 'dry something' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 115) Juang u-pidj CAUS-abandon 'make abandon' (Matson 1964: 26)

2.1 Causative 33

As is evident from the second Juang form above, the causative allomorph may attach to a stem, the primary function of which is nominal, not verbal. This observation brings up to an important point in the analysis of the Munda verbal systems, namely that stems are generally not lexically specified for part of speech (cf. Bhat 1997 or Evans and Osada 2005 for a recent thorough discussion of the issues). Many primarily nominal roots may be found functioning as verbs when used with appropriate verbal inflection. Note in this regard the following Santali forms: (52) i. Santali

ii. Santali

kombro [hor,]

kombro [hop] merom

thief [man] 'thief (Ghosh 1994: 22)

stolen [man] goat 'a stolen goat'

iii. Santali merom=ko kombro-ke-d-e-a goat=3PL steal-ASP-TR-3-FlN 'they stole the goat' (Ghosh 1994: 22)

iv. Santali opak-ke-d-a=e house-ASP-TR-FIN=3 'he made a house'

The stem kombro 'thief may be used attributively as an adjective or participle, or predicatively with an array of verb suffixes to mean 'steal'. A root like o^ak 'house' or even pronominal stems may also function verbally in Santali. The prefix/infix system of marking causative is characteristic of the other South Munda languages as well, e.g. it is found in the more distantly related Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum (53), and thus is probably reconstructable for at least the ancestral Proto-South-Munda language. (53) i. Sora ab-, battoy ( 'kill' 'rise' -> 'raise' (Svantesson 1983: 104) (65) Spoken Mon hum cCaik -> p-hum cfaik 'have a bath' 'bathe' (Bauer 1989 [1986]a: 90)

Kammu tluy -> t-m-luuy hang' -> 'hang (tr)'

Spoken Mon klar) -> 'be numerous'

'increase'

2.2. Reciprocal 37

(66) Old Mon kcot -> foc0t 'die' -> 'kill' (Bauer 1990 [1987-88]: 149)'

(67) Kuv (Katuic; Laos) kdcet -^ kdtncet 'die' -» 'kill' (Bauer 1990 [1987-88]: 149)

Such an unusual distributional phenomenon is highly unlikely to have been indepedently innovated in three or four separate subgroups of the family so the Proto-Mon-Khmer, Proto-South Munda and Proto-Nicobarese systems all appear to be retentions of the ancestral Proto-Austroasiatic constructions. Note that although not obviously cognate at first glance, the p- in 'bathe' and the -9- in increase' (i.e. CdC< *CmC) in spoken Mon are allomorphs, historically speaking. Each represents the regular reflex of the inherited Proto-Austroasiatic causative prefix (and infix), respectively.4

2.2. Reciprocal The Proto-Munda category of reciprocal [RECIP] was realized in two ways, including as an infix *-p- (or *-[labial]-) attested in all North Munda languages, and thus reconstructable to Proto-North-Munda as well. Unlike the causative this appears to be a true infix and only is realized in stem-internal position. (68) i. Mundari d^opom-a—ko eat.RECIP-F!N=PL 'they eat each other' (Osada 1992: 87)

ii. Mundari ne-p-el see.REClP.see 'see e. o.' (Hoffman 1903: 157)

(69) Korku a-p-aray abuse.RECIP.abuse 'quarrel' (lit. 'abuse e. o.') (N. Zide field notes)

4.

Mon-Khmer infixed *-m- < Proto-Austroasiatic *-'b-. As is well known, there is often a correlation between glottalized elements and nasals, so-called 'rhinoglottophilia'.

38 Voice and version in the M undo verb In Kharia and Juang on the other hand reciprocal was marked through the prefix *ko[l]-. (70) i. Kharia kol-gil REClP-beat 'beat each other' 'scold e. o.' (Biligiri 1965a: 46)

ii. Kharia kol-le'dj REClP-scold

(71) i. Juang ko-gata RECIP-talk 'converse' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 115)

ii. Juang ku-led^ RECIP-scold 'scold e. o.'

This may be cognate with the Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum reciprocal marker *al-, suggesting a reconstruction of Proto-South-Munda as *qdl- ~ *qol-, or something similar, as already suggested by Pinnow (1966). (72) i. Sora al· al-ber-te-n-d^i RECIP-talk-NPST-ITR-PL 'they are conversing w/ e.o.' (Ramamurti 1931) ii. Sora ardr-rdbay-la-dji RECIP-meet-PST-PL 'they met (e.o.)' (Starosta 1967) Note that both the reciprocal voice prefix and infix have apparent cognates in other Austroasiatic languages, e.g. Palaung kdr- and Khmer -p-, thus are both likely to have been means of marking reciprocal in Proto-Munda.5

5.

If these were truly both available mechanisms for marking the voice category RECIP in Proto-Munda, one might expect that there was some difference functionally (pragmatically or semantically). What this might have been however is entirely opaque at the current level of understanding.

2.2. Reciprocal 39

That is, both of these affixes most likely need to be reconstructed for both Proto-Munda and Proto-Austroasiatic. How they were functionally differentiated (if in fact they were, see below) remains a subject for future research. (73) Khmer

(74) Palaung kdr-

-p-

(Pinnow 1966)

(Milne 1921)

Reciprocal was also marked morphologically in the Proto-Gutob-Remo and Gta? verbal complexes. In fact, it is possible that the most archaic means of realizing this category is to be found in Gta? where there is an infixed -m- corresponding to North Munda -p- in conjunction with the prefix ho- cognate with the reciprocal found in Kharia, Juang and possibly Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum (i.e. reflecting a Proto-South Munda form). Alternatively, Gta? may have innovated the combination of prefix and infix to encode reciprocal. The infixed -m- is reflected as -n- in a few Remo forms that have reciprocal semantics as well, but these lack the cognate prefix. (75) Gta? ho-...-m~... bi? 'give' > hommi? (76) Remo -n- ( bunu? (Bhattacharya 1968)

'exchange' (3PL:IND

'he gave it to him' 'he gave it to them' (Jerry Sadock, personal communication) iv. Slave (Athabascan) sedeyidi l:told.3 'she told me' (Rice 1989: 1273) v. Tani (Papuan: Adalbert Range Phylum) sa-nak-at na-nak-at 1-give-T/A 2-give-T/A 'he gave me' 'he gave (it to) you' (Z'graggen 1971: 160)

2.4. Benefactive/applicative

53

vi. Tiwi (Australian) yi-min-tati-rrakiray 3PST-l.DO-axe-give 'he gave me an axe' (Lee 1987: 162) vii. Manam (Austronesian) di-ra-ya 3PL-tell.to-lOBJ 'they tell me' (Z'graggen: 1971: 161)

di-ra-ko 3PL-tell.to-2.OBJ 'they tell you'

viii. Urartian* (Hurro-Urartian) aru-me give-1.OBJ 'he gave to me' (Kretschmer 1947: 11) ix. Mursi (Nilo-Saharan) 'aid^aino ka:dyno give:3:l/2.OBJ:T/A l:give:l/2.OBJ:T/A 'the man gives it to me' Ί give it to you' (Turton and Bender 1976: 540-1) x. Kinyarwanda (Bantu) umugabo y-a-haa-ye umugore igitabo man 3-PST-give-ASP woman book 'the man gave a book to the woman' (Kimenyi 1980: 31) Korku also has the category BENEFACTIVE realized as *wa (-ννα-, -να-, -ο-). Thus, this form/function unit may be rather straightforwardly reconstructed to the Proto-North-Munda stage. (120) Korku kul-ven send-BEN:PST:ITR 'sent for the benefit of someone else' (N. Zide, field notes)

54 Voice and version in the Munda verb In Kharia, verbs can be marked with the affix -ka(i)- to indicate an action performed for the benefit for someone else. This category is also found in the Proto-North-Munda verbal system, although (as mentioned above) marked with the affix *-wa[:J-. Given the overall influence of Kherwarian on Kharia this could be a diffusion of a functional opposition into Kharia morphosyntax, using the native morphological apparatus to encode it. (121) i.Kharia ho kopfu konsel Subject affecting

(122)i. Gorum B. gosarj ga?a-ru-ni

B rice eat-PST-PROGfD.O.]!1

vs. ii. Gorum gosay ga?a-ru-ni rice eat-PST:AFF- PROG[D.O.] 'B is eating the rice' '(B) is eating himself the rice' (Aze 1973; cf. A. Zide field notes) iii. Gorum miy ne-ada?-ru ne-k-ru I 1-thirst-PST.AFF 1-AUX-PST:AFF Ί am thirsty'' (Aze 1973: 255) iv. Gorum mir) tarjku ne-momo?-ru I cooked.rice l-RDPL:smell-PST:AFF Ί smelled me the cooked rice' (Aze 1973: 255) -^ Object affecting (123) i. Gorum bo?j amon e-nirj bam-(m)-jrj duk-irj one arrow OBJ-1 hit-(TR)-l.OBJ:AFF AUX-lOBJ.AFF '(an arrow) has hit me' (Aze 1973: 298) ii. Gorum tilej-di ne? zel-om taj-om-t -om dom old.man-FOC it tell-2 AUX-2-NPST-2:AFF MOD 'it's the old man, let him tell you' (Aze 1973: 278)

2.5. Version 57

-> Passive Potential ii. Gorum (124) i. Gorum arji tablel or-lu?m-nu flfz' tablel luim-tu that tablet NEG-swallow- ITR:AFF that tablet swallow-NPSTAFF 'that tablet will/can be swallowed' '...will not/cannot be swallowed' (Aze 1973: 286) -^ Antipassive (125) Gorum no?n turja?-n-u lu?ru he kick-ITR-ACT.INF:AFF 'he is kicking (in general)' (Aze 1973: 284) -> 'reflexive' (126) i. Gorum mirj sii-doj ne-po?-tu Iarm-3 1-stab-NPST Ί will stab his arm' (Aze 1973: 281)

ii. Gorum mir) sinirj ne-po?-tu I arm-1 1-stab-NPST: AFF Ί will stab my arm' (Aze 1973: 281)

The cislocative/speaker-orientation suffix —aj in Gorum, on the other hand, marks, depending on the verb stem involved and the particular discourse context, motion towards the speaker, orientation toward the speaker, and by extension, motion/orientation toward the 'locus of discourse focus'. In some instances, it seems to also have taken on a meaning of a first person singular referent, which the cognate element clearly has done in certain conjugations in Sora; a similar development has apparently occurred in Iwaidjan languages of Northern Australia as well (Nick Evans, personal communication). (127) i. Gorum mirj bairj aisurj ne-gur-r-aj ne-taj-aj ly'all house 1-enter-PST-CLDC 1-AUX:AFF-CLOC Ί deliberately entered your house' (Aze 1973: 279)

58 Voice and version in the Munda verb

ii. Gorum ara-di ligan-t-aj ua-t-aj tree-FOC break NPST-CLOC:AFF AUX:AFF-NPST-CLOC 'the tree will break (towards me)' (Aze 1973: 279) iii. Gorum mir] ne-i-tu

iv. Gorum mir) ui-t-aj

I l-gO-NPST:AFF

I gO-NPST-CLOC:AFF

Ί will go' (Aze 1973: 275)

Ί must go (now)' (Aze 1973: 275)

note: v. Gorum le-i-t-qj lPL-go-NPST-CLOC 'we must go' (Aze 1973: 275, 277) vi. Gorum udubun zalapul ne-J ne-k-ru yesterday Z 1-go.AFF 1-AUX-PST:AFF 'yesterday when I went to Jalaput,

du NF

vii. Gorum naj mad ada?-r-irj-aj what much thirst-PST-1-CLOC I was so thirsty' (Aze 1973: 262) viii. Gorum no?n gi-n-aj lu?r-aj he see-ITR-CLOC:AFF AUX-CLOC 'he (remote) is seeing himself or 'he can be seen (by someone)' (Aze 1973: 289)

2.5. Version 59

Cf. -ai > first person in Sora. (128) i. Sora so:-t-ai hide-NPST-1 Ί shall hide (something)' (Ramamurti 1933: 26)

ii. Sora soi-te-n-ai hide-NPST-ITR/RFXLV-1 Ί shall hide myself

Sometimes, the Orientation' expressed by the affix -aj is somewhat opaque, and the sense is similar to the 'affective' marking performed by the suprasegmental creaky voice feature: (129) i. Gorum guroj do?-r-iy shy feel-PST-1 Ί felt shy' (Aze 1973: 275)

ii. Gorum gurgj do?-r-iq-aj shy-feel-PST-1-CLOC Ί felt shy'

iii. Gorum sajbu-di zel-irj master-FOC tell-1 'the master told me' (Aze 1973: 275)

iv. Gorum sajbu-di zel-iy-aj master-FOC tell-1-CLOC 'the master told me'

This Gorum development appears to be functional shift from a serialized verb formation encoding a deictic orientation/directionality category ('come' > venitive/cislocative) to a category of version or discourse affectedness. A similar grammaticalization path seems to underlie the development of both the frozen, now opaque and lexicalized system of version in Burushaski (Anderson in press, cf. Bashir 1985; Anderson and Gurevich forthcoming) which like Munda appears to reflect a historical serialized formation with 'come', and Siberian Turkic languages (Anderson 2001b; 2004b), which rather show version structures deriving from serialized formations involving the deictic verb 'take'. Note that version and indirect 'experiencer' subject constructions appear to be in complementary distribution in Gorum.

60 Voice and version in the Munda verb

(130)i. Gorum adai-r-irj thirst-PST-1 Ί was thirsty' (Aze 1973: 307) oblique subject ii. Gorum ne-ada?-ru l-thirst-PST:AFF Ί was thirsty' (Aze 1973: 307) direct subject (+AFF) The same roots that take subject marking from the object series of markers (i.e. with Oblique' subject marking) may have optional affective marking as well. They are thus unlike the overt agent passives in Gorum which similarly use Object' suffixes as subject markers, but obligatorily have version marking. (131)i. Gorum bio?gi pajli da-u badu do?-t-iy tomorrow work do-INF reluctant feel-NPST-1 Ί will feel reluctant to work tomorrow' (Aze 1973: 263) ii. Gorum kilnu pajli da-u badu-n-jy lu?-r-iy now work do-INF reluctant-ITR-l.OBJ:AFF AUX-PST-l.OBJ Ί am reluctant to work now' (Aze 1973: 263) Note that apart from obligatory, grammaticalized uses of version marking as on the overt agent passive constructions mentioned above, version marking on a verb is not an indication of the grammatical relations of the verbal actants involved in Gorum, like a voice category, but rather encodes their status in the discourse space.

2.5. Version 61 (132)1 Gorum no?n Bolram-di etur da?m-u ggtuy batur he B-FOC OBLQ cover-ACT cloth with 'he covered Bolram with a cloth' (Aze 1973: 256) ii. Gorum B-di dam-u duku B-FOC cover-ACT:AFF AUX:AFF

'B is covered' (Aze 1973: 256) iii. Gorum ggturj B-di etur dam-u cloth B-FOC cover-ACT:AFF 'the cloth covered B' (Aze 1973: 256) In each of the preceding sentences, there are three 'arguments' implicit in each form, though only the first expresses all overtly. The grammatical relations of the nominals concerned change from active to passive forms, but not the transitivity marking or the focus status. What changes is the affectedness of the patient Bolram from the perspective of discourse salience. In the last two examples, Bolram is marked as affected, though in the second example he is the subject and in the third the patient. Thus afffectedness has nothing to do with grammatical relations or semantic roles. The object-as-subject suffixes may not even be a very old feature in Gorum; possibly they represent a resolution of the areally common 'experiencer' subject constructions. Note that a similar resolution strategy can be found in North Munda (133), marked by alternatively object-marked or 'subject-marked' forms. As in Sora-Gorum, this appears to be a secondary development. (133) i. Mundari suku~le-n-a=ko happy-ANT-ITR-FIN=3PL 'they had been happy ['direct' SUBJ] (Osada 1992: 106)

ii. Mundari suku-le-d-ko-a happy-ANT-TR-PL-FIN 'they had been happy' ['dative' SUBJ]

62 Voice and version in the Munda verb

North Munda languages similarly have a means of marking subject/action oriented vs. object-oriented expressions as well, but within a different formal system: using the intersecting systems of tense/aspect ('mode') marking and (in)transitivity marking - with intransitive or 'subject version' being the unmarked pattern in the present/imperfective (and no object agreement for non-pronominal objects), and transitive/object version (w/ object agreement) being the unmarked form in the past/perfective - i.e. a kind of quasi- split-ergative distribution. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. (134) i. Mundari seta=ji lel-tan-a dog=l look.at-PROG:ITR-FIN Ί am looking at the dog' (Action-focus) (Osada 1992: 99) ii. Mundari seta-ji lel-d^a-?-i-a dog=l look.at-PROG-TR-3-FIN Ί am looking at the dog' (Object-focus) (Osada 1992: 100)

2.6. Summary In this chapter I offered a discussion of the system of voice and version marking in the Munda language family. Among the more salient aspects of the morphological encoding of voice distinctions is the curious allomorphy of the causative prefix which reflects an inheritance of the Proto-Munda and even the Proto-Austroasiatic system. Unexpectedly, the infixed allomorph appears with stems that are longer than a single syllable; in other words, the causative serves as a prefix to the rightmost stem syllable available. With regards to grammatical version, notions of discourse salience, deictic orientation, and 'affectedness' all interact with voice-like notions in the South Munda language Gorum, which seems to reflect both an older formal system realized as a synchronic creaky voice phonation feature and

2.6. Summary 63

a later system derived from a serialized formation (as is found in some other Eurasian languages with formal marking of version).

Chapter 3 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

3. Introduction Among the range of inflectional categories realized within the Munda verbal complex are referent property categories. These include the person/number of the subject, object of various types, and in some languages possessor as well. Section 3.1 addresses the marking of syntactic subject in Munda, while 3.2 deals with object marking phenomena, including indexing of patients as well as recipient, beneficiary, etc (i.e. non-Patients) as morphological object in Munda. This is followed by a brief discussion of indexing possessor in the Munda verbal systems in 3.3. Mukiple referent indexing in Munda is briefly presented in 3.4. Within sections 3.1-3.4 the discussion moves from South Munda groups to North Munda. Throughout all these sections typological parallels (or lack thereof) to Munda agreement phenomena are noted when merited.

3.1. Subject marking in Munda In most Munda languages the person and number of the referent acting as the subject is indexed within the verbal complex. Some Munda languages lack subject marking, for example Korku.1 Subject marking in Munda languages can be found as a prefix in the verb complex, a suffix on the verb, or an enclitic found at the end of the verbal complex or on some word outside the verbal complex. A first or second person subject is indexed through a set of prefixes and infixes in Juang. DL ba(h)a1.

PL V,

Except in a limited number of instances with locational copular expressions.

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 65 (136)i. Juang mi-gito-ke 2-sing-PRES.II 'you sing' (Matson 1964: 28)

ii. Juang n-on-cje lPL-go-PRES.I 'we go'

iii. Juang a-gito-ke 2DL-sing-PRES.II 'you 2 sing' (Matson 1964: 28)

iv. Juang i-gito-ke 2PL-sing-PRES.Il 'y'all sing'

NB: Vj= copy of the initial stem vowel Third person subject marking presents a different picture. The number of a third person subject is encoded by a suffix with the same affixes used to mark the number of nominals in Juang: the plural in —ki has cognates throughout the Munda family, and the dual is clearly secondarily derived from the plural. Note that these suffixes are also used to mark third person dual and plural object as well.

DL

PL

-kia

-ki

In the non-future forms, third singular is not formally encoded; in the future on the other hand, third person (usually singular, sometimes plural) subject is usually marked with an infixed -mV/-, with prefixal and suffixal allomorphs also found with stems of particular phonological shapes. This may be cognate with the free form of the third singular pronoun in the Gutob-Remo languages and Gta?. (138) i. Juang -mi-ß-ym give/3: FUT/-2 'he will give (it to) you' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 110)

ii. Juang ko-mo-y-e-flba know/3: FUT/-FUT. II-1 DL 'he will know us 2' (Matson 1964: 34)

66 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

iii. Juang ke-me-fab-e-ki bite/3: FUT/-FUT. II-PL 'they will bite' (Matson 1964: 34)

iv. Juang ba-ma-r-tfer-om beat/3: FUT/-PRF-2 'he will have beaten you' (Matson 1964: 34)

(139) i. Juang gito-ki-kia sing-PRS.II-DL 'they 2 sing' (Matson 1964: 28)

ii. Juang gito-ki-ki sing-PRS.II-PL 'they sing' (Matson 1964: 28)

iii. Juang uay-a-pa (c[e) bathe-FUT.I-2DL IMP 'bathe you 2!' (Matson 1964: 37)

iv. Juang kuu sab-e-pe (c[e) IMP hold-FUT.II-2PL IMP 'hold on (to it) you all!' (Matson 1964: 37)

In Kharia (140), subject is indexed through a series of enclitic pronominals. In addition, an inclusive/exclusive distinction in first person is found in Kharia that is unattested in Juang (but is found in Kherwarian (North Munda) languages). (140) Kharia SG 1 =li]ji, =[i]y 2 3

=[e]m

DL -nar)(inc) -d^ar (ex) -bar =kijar

PL =niy (inc) =le (ex) =pe -moj (~ =ki)

In the negative and the prohibitive paradigms, person and number agreement is enclitic to the negative/prohibitive particle in Kharia, as in Kherwarian. For example, in second person singular forms, the -em may be optionally attached to the lexical stem instead. (14l)i. Kharia um-iji tfo-na NEG=1 gO-FUT.ITR Ί will not go' (Biligiri 1965a: 96)

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 67

ii. Kharia ag=bar tfo-na

iii. Kharia ag=pejiog-e

PHB=2DL gO-FUT. I

PHB=2PL gO-FUT. 11

'don't go you 2' (Biligiri 1965a: 97)

'don't go y'all' (Biligiri 1965a: 97)

iv. Kharia abu tfo-na

v. Kharia abu tfo-na=m

PHB gO-FUT.I

PHB go- FUT.I=2

'don't go!' (Biligiri 1965a: 97)

'don't go!' (Biligiri 1965a: 97)

vi. Kharia um=em tfo-na

vii. Kharia urn tfo-na=m

NEG=2 go- FUT.I

NEC go- PUT. 1=2

'you will not go' (Biligiri 1965a: 63)

'you will not go' (Biligiri 1965a: 96)

Gta? (142), like Juang, seems to reflect a historical proclitic (> prefix) subject marker (Mahapatra et al. 1989). In Proto-Gutob-Remo subject proclitics were lost, replaced by enclitic pronominals like Kharia. As in Kharia this replacement may have in part been motivated by the existence of enclitic person markers of 2DL and 2PL in the imperative (and prohibitive), as seen in Gta? (143). Also, third person plural is marked suffixally in Gta? though unlike Kharia and Juang closer to the lexical verb stem than the marking of tense/aspect, suggesting a derivational origin (or perhaps even form) of this functionally inflectional element. (142) ISG 2SG iPLin iPLex 2PL 2DL 3SG 3PL

Gta? n-tfoy-ke na-tfoy-ke ni-tfon-ke nce-tfoy-ke (~ ηε-) pa-tfoy-ke pe-tfoy-ke tfoy-ke tfoy-ke ~ tfoy-har-ke

'late' 'you ate' 'we (include, you) ate' 'we (not you) ate' 'y'all ate' 'you 2 ate' 's/he ate' 'they ate'

68 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

Note that m'?- is the first person dual imperative in Gta?. In imperatives, the person marker is suffixed to the verb. (143) i. Gta? pa tfoy-pa you.DL eat-2DL 'eat you 2!' (Mahapatra et al. 1989)

ii. Gta? pe ar-a?tfoy-ge-pe y'all NEG-CAUS:eat-T/A.II-2PL 'don't feed (him) y'all!' (Mahapatra et al. 1989)

In serial verb constructions in Gta?, the referent property marker is usually prefixed to the last members in the series/complex. In asyndetic paratactic complex predicate formations, doubled subject marking is rather found. (144) i. Gta? ncey bagwe?-djog-n-talig-e I CAUS:die-pick.up-l-ECHO-PUT Ί will kill (you) and throw (you) away' (Mahapatra and Zide, n.d.) ii. Gta? aiku^e? n-rfiy-ke CAUS:meet 1-PROG-T/A Ί am causing to meet' = 'fixing you up with a girl' (Mahapatra and Zide, n.d.) iii.Gta? ncey fagc^t e-ko-n-lce?-e I garden go-sit- 1-stay-FUT Ί will go and sit and rest in the garden' (N. Zide 1997: 332) iv. Gta? e-hwe?-ne-ray go-harvest-1 PL-bring 'let us go and cut (the millet) and bring (it) home' (N. Zide 1997: 332) In a few instances, however, there are exceptions to this person-marking pattern, and there are forms with the prefix at the beginning of the verb

3.1. Subject marking in Munda

69

complex in Gta?. These speak to a more phonologically integrated ('nuclear'?) serialized, auxiliary, or 'light' complex verbal predicate. (145) i. Gta? n-wig-mia?-ke l-go[.back]-HAB-/ce.PST Ί habitually went back' (Mahapatra and Zide n.d.)

ii. Gta? n-we?-gag-tfe 1-swing-tie-SS 'after I swung and tied 1

Gutob person marking is enclitic. In some instances, one finds sentences in which some but not all of the members of a complex predicate (serial verb or auxiliary verb construction) appear with person/number markers, that is, with multiple encoding of a single referent. The details of this distribution remain to worked out, but it preliminarily appears that some type of discourse/pragmatic focusing or salience, etc. is involved. (146) i. Gutob simra-gu ήμ-ΐοη—nen enjoy-PST.I AUX-FUT.I=PL 'they will have enjoyed it' (N. Zide 1997:314) ii. Gutob an-o?-su mo?£-gupiy-gi=niy pull.out-PST.Il-SS get.up-PST.I come.back- PST.I=1 Ί will pull it out, get up and come home' (N. Zide 1997: 316) (147) i. Gutob lo£ei-o?=niy be£-o?-su have.sex.w/woman- PST.II=1 AUX-PST.II-SS 'after I had sex with her...' (N. Zide 1997:315) ii. Gutob lo£ei=niy be^-o?-su have.sex.w/woman=l AUX-PST.II-SS 'after I had sex with her...' (N. Zide 1997: 316)

70 Referent Indexing in the Munda verb

iii. Gutob niy nirj-nu onoo?n bef-o?=niy surj-tu II-GEN daughter give-PST.II=l AUX-FUT.II will give my daughter' (N. Zide 1997: 315) (148) i. Gutob mad^-nen rone-bone djey-gu buron-gu=nen a?so-gu=nen 3-PL happy AUX-PST.I live-PST.I=3PL ECHO-PST.I=3PL 'they became happy and lived (on that way)' (N. Zide 1997: 310) ii. Gutob tirgig=nei d^ud^u=nei pi-lorj-kina follow=lPL RDPL:see=lPL come-FUT.I-or.not 'shall we follow along and see, or not?' (N. Zide 1997: 310) Zero-marking of person of the first and second singular subject in Gutob is found in some forms due to various discourse factors relating to [de-]emphasis and focus. (149) i. Gutob irig oiod$ c[u-tu millet RDPL:harvest AUX-FUT.II 'are you harvesting the millet' (N. Zide 1997: 311)

ii. Gutob nom bobri-o? be^-o? you fill/CAUS/-PST.n AUX-PST.Ü 'you filled (it) up' (N. Zide 1997: 314)

In some sentences, one finds encliticization of the person/number markers to the word immediately preceding the verbal complex. A similar phenomenon is found in Kherwarian languages as well; see below. Contra Cysouw (2004-ms), there is no reason to believe that this is an archaic Munda feature, rather than chance correspondences between two entirely different formal systems of marking-one morphophonological in nature (that of Kherwarian) and that of Gutob which rather has a discoursepragmatically motivated system.

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 11

(150)i. Gutob ha, kete lok-nom ai-o? ri-loq, be yes how.many people=2 call-PST.II take-FUT.I VOC 'how many people will you call and take (there)?' (N.Zidel997:311) ii. Gutob nei-nu bag palna-nir) sob-o? ri-lorj we-GEN tiger settlement=l take.hold.of-PST.Il take-FUT.I Ί will take hold of her and take (her) to our tiger settlement' (N.Zide 1997:316) iii. Gutob nirj uc]pd3=niy sorpei-o? be?-tu I when=l hand.over-PST.II AUX-FUT.II 'when do I hand over (the girl)?' (N. Zide 1997: 321) Indeed, in Gutob the placement of the person marking clitics is highly complicated (N. Zide 1997). It can be found at the end of a string of verbs or in the middle of the verbal complex. Note that some affixes and/or verbs seem to favor one configuration while others favor other configurations. For example, Gutob obgir-o?=niy be^-o? [CAUS:learn-PST.II=l AUX-PST.II] is a possible but much less likely variant than obgir-o? be^-o?=nirj [CAUS:learn-PST.ll AUX-PST.II=1] for Ί taught'. (151) i. Gutob niy djom-lai ui-gi bu-o?=niy pi-loy I J-ACC go-PST.l beat.up-PST.n=l come.back-FUT.i Ί will go, beat up Jom and come back' (N.Zide 1997: 316) ii. Gutob d^om-lai niy bu-o? pi-loy=niy J.-ACC I beat.up-PST.il come-FUT.l=l Ί will beat up Jom and come back' (N.Zide 1997: 316)

72 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

iii. Gutob d^om-lai bu-o?=nirj pi-lorj J.-ACC beat.up-PST.II=l come.back-FUT.I Ί will beat up Jom and come back' (N. Zide 1997: 316) iv. Gutob nirj ui-loy d^om-lai bu-o?-su pi-loy=niy I go-FUT.I J.-ACC beat.up-PST.II-SS come-FUT.I=l 'after going, I will beat up Jom and come back' (N. Zide 1997: 316) v. Gutob djom-lai bugbug=niy pi-loy J.-ACC RDPL-beat.up=l come-FUT.l Ί beat up Jom and (then) I will come back' (N. Zide 1997: 318) The placement of the subject-enclitics may appear on a word initial element as well in a pseudo-Wackernagel's distribution, although as discussed above, this is but one of many options. (152) Gutob begi=nom icfa? clem soon=2 millet.gruel make 'you (will) make the millet gruel quickly!' (N. Zide 1997: 321) The following agreement suffixes are found in Remo (153). The allomorph -iy for first person singular is used in the NPST. The -ga allomorph of the third person (originally apparently an emphatic of some sort; cf. similar developments in Bhumij, see Chapter 4) is found in many but not all PST forms (154). (153) Remo SG 1 -[n]iy 2 -no 3 -0, -ga

DL -nay -pa -0, -ga

PL -naj -pe -0, -ga

3.1. Subject marking in Munda

i. Remo d^u-td -narj see-NPST-lDL 'we 2 see' (Fernandez 1983: 25) iii. Remo sap-g9-td -naj come-PST.I-NPST-lPL 'we all have come' (Fernandez 1983: 26)

ii. Remo wi-g-no go-PST.I-2

'you went' (Fernandez 1983: 25) iv. Remo sum-o?-ke-pe eat-PST.II-PRF-2PL 'y'all had eaten' (Fernandez 1983: 22)

come-PRF-2DL 'you 2 had come' (Fernandez 1983: 26)

vi. Remo lajk-t-irj sit-NPST-1 Ί sit' (Fernandez 1983: 25)

vii. Remo d^u-to see-NPST.Il 's/he sees' (Fernandez 1983: 25)

viii. Remo lajk-ta sit-NPST.I 'they sit' (Fernandez 1983: 25)

(154) i. Remo wi-ga go-PST.I:3 'they 2 went' (Fernandez 1983: 25)

ii. Remo sap-gd -ta come-PST.l:3-NPST 's/he has come' (Fernandez 1983: 26)

iii. Remo sum-o?-kd-ga eat-PST.II-PRF-PST.I:3 'they 2 had eaten' (Fernandez 1983: 22)

iv. Remo sap-kd -ga come-PRF-PST:l:3 'they had come' (Fernandez 1983: 26)

v. Remo sap-kd -pa

73

Thus, Proto-Gutob-Remo, like Kharia, probably had enclitic agreement for subject but no agreement for object. The prefixes/proclitics of ProtoSouth Munda were lost by the Proto-Gutob-Remo level and replaced by a

74 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

set of enclitic subject markers (155). As mentioned above a similar phenomenon is found in the history of Kharia referent indexing as well. In both instances, there may be both internal pressure to lose the crosslinguistically and areally marked pattern of prefixal agreement, but external (language contact) factors probably play some role as well. In particular, it has been suggested (Anderson 200la, 2003) that both Proto-GutobRemo and Kharia underwent a period of common development, when they were subject to strong influence from Dravidian languages. (155) Proto-Gutob-Remo SG DL 1 *=niy *=nay 2

*=nom

*=pa

PL *=naj *=pe

Subject is also morphologically encoded in the verb form in Sora, Juray and Gorum. In Gorum (156) the person and number of the subject is marked by a set of prefixes, except in the 3PL forms where a suffix is found. This system is cognate in form and function with the majority of forms in Juang, suggesting that these two languages approach the original Proto-South Munda language state, see below. (156) Gorum SG 1 ne2 mo3

PL lebo-ej/gi

In Sora on the other hand almost all person and number forms of the subject are marked with suffixes, except a non-third plural subject is marked with a circumfix, consisting of a prefix (d-) and a suffix differentiating the iPL from 2PL. Note the inclusive/exclusive distinction found in Sora is lacking in Gorum agreement morphology. Also, numerous conjugations in Sora lack subject marking altogether, except in first singular, where the cislocative element in -aj/-ai has been extended into this function (see also Chapter 2).2 2.

Note that with certain transitive verbs in Sora, there is an inflectional/conjugational differentiation between -aj in 'direct' or 'transitive' forms and -in (i.e. what appears to be an object marker formally in a subject marking function) in 'in-

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 75

(157) Sora 1 2

SG

INCL

EX/PL

-aj -/[am]

-be

9-..-aj d-..-ε

-dy.

3

The person and number categories for a first or second person subject were probably realized prefixally in Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum (158) and preserved as such in Gorum. Third plural was marked suffixally, reflected in both Sora and Gorum. (158)PSJG SG 1 *ne2 *mo3

PL *le*bV*-gi

The correspondences among the South Munda languages suggest that the person/number of the subject was morphologically encoded in the ProtoSouth Munda verbal complex. In non-imperative forms a first or second person subject was indexed by a prefix found immediately preceding the verbal stem. Third plural (and possibly 3DL) was marked suffixally, as was a 2DL or 2PL subject in the imperative. The correspondences among the formal markers used to index these categories suggest a preliminary reconstruction of Proto-South Munda subject agreement morphology (proclitics/prefixes) detailed in Table 2 below. In Proto-South Munda, it seems that there probably was an original marker for 1DL, now lost, or at least not recoverable at the current state of comparative linguistics. However, this does not mean that the category itself was lacking, but rather that forms in the modern languages like Juang ba- are probably secondarily derived from a word meaning 'two' as may be the -jar/djar in the 3DL and iDL in Kharia. Kharia 2DL may have accrued the -r to conform to IDL and 3DL forms which both end in -ar, or might be original. In Sora, the iPLexcl and 2PL (an unexpected pairing) forms seemed to have merged as a-, and a suffixed set of markers came to be used. With one group of verbs object suffixes mark subject in Sora. The similarity between direct' or 'passive' forms: (Biligiri 1965b: 253) gidj-l-aj Ί saw' vs. iji Ί was seen'.

76 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

Table 2. South Munda subject markers

1

Kharia Gutob Remo Juang Gorum Sora Gta?

iDLin iDLex iPLin =Λ'Μ1=nay =d3ar =nirj =niy -(n)iy -narj ba-Vr ne-

-aj

-be

n-

ni-

2

2DL

Kharia Gutob Remo

=[e]m -bar =nom -no -pa

Juang Gorum Sora

mV(1)-

Gta?

na-

ha-

mo* pa-

iPLex

=le —nei

-naj nV(lr

led-..-aj nce/ne-

2PL 3DL 3PL =pe =kijar =ki, =moj =pen =nen --pe

(h)Vr bod-..-ε pe-

-kia

-hi -gi -d5i

-har-

Note.—Kharia 3PL variant in -mo/, Juang 3rd person in PUT is infixed -mV-, Gorum 3PL variant -ej, Remo 3sg. in PST is usually -ga, Gta? 3PL also zero.

Kharia and Remo =narj is striking; as with tense/aspect marking (see chapter 4), these suggest a shared innovation in Proto-Gutob-Remo and ProtoKharia. Most likely is that the original agreement system was lost altogether in these languages, and a new, areal typical system of agreement enclitics was innovated in their stead. Gta? shifted original second singular pre-Gta? *ma= (< PSM *mV=) to na-. The original syllabic nasal for first singular shifted in Juang to a lengthening of the following (stem) vowel [*N-CVC > CV:C]. Also, PSM *e in the 2PL (more likely *a) was realized as length in Juang. The vowel of the 2PL is tentatively restructured based on the 2SG in Gorum. Thus I preliminarily reconstruct the following system of subject markers in Proto-South Munda:

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 77

(159) Proto-South Munda *N= ? *m(V)= *pa= ?

*ni(v)= *n/le= *pe*-ki

The situation in the North Munda languages is slightly different. In Kherwarian languages, as in Proto-South Munda, verbs frequently index both subject and object, while Korku generally shows only object agreement, except in a few restricted instances. However, unlike South Munda languages with bi-personal verbs (subject proclitics/prefixes and object suffixes/enclitics), the subject is not realized by a prefix to the verbal complex, but rather subject markers are found either enclitic to the word immediately preceding the verb (160) or following the fmitizer suffix -a enclitic to the entire verbal complex (161). (160)i. Mundari da^u—m mag-a-ji-ta-n-a tree=2 cut-BEN-1-ASP-ITR-FlN 'you are cutting the tree for me' (Osada 1992: 93) ii. Mundari ιηαηφ seta-ko=ji om-a-d-ko-a fooddog-PL=l give-BEN-TR-PL-FIN Ί gave the food for the dogs' (Osada 1992: 93) (161) i. Santali jiel-pe-a=e see-2PL-FIN=3 Ί will see you' (Macphail 1953: 39) ii.Ho sab-ke-d-kirj-a=le catch.hold.of-ASP-TR-3DL-FIN=lPL 'we seized them 2' (Grierson 1906: 122)

78 Referent Indexing in the Munda verb

In the Kherwarian languages it is not uncommon to find sentences where the word that the subject agreement clitic is realized on is an interrogative or even an overt subject pronoun: (162)Mundari tfana=m djom-ta-n-a what=2 eat-ASP-ITR-FIN 'what are you eating' (Osada 1992: 99) (163) Santali he iji=iji tfalak'-a yes 1=1 go-FIN 'yes I will go' (Bodding 1929: 58) (164) i. Bhumij abu sen-a=bu we go-FIN= 1 PL 'we will go' (Ramaswami 1992)

or

ii. Bhumij abu=bu sen-a we= 1 PL go-FIN 'we will go'

How such a system arose in the Kherwarian languages is a question that lies at the heart of the reconstruction of Proto-Munda. There are essentially three plausible scenarios to capture this phenomenon (Anderson and Zide 2001). In the first scenario, Proto-Munda had subject proclitics, like ProtoSouth Munda, but due to a variety of factors, these were reanalyzed as enclitic markers on the word immediately preceding the verbal complex in Proto-North Munda, preserved in Proto-Kherwarian and such modern languages as Santali and Mundari; this system of marking later spread to be found at the end of the verbal complex itself, not the word immediately preceding the verb, or took this position as it was the only possible host for an enclitic element in clauses consisting of solely a verb form. Under this scenario, Proto-Munda has subject proclitics, preserved as such in ProtoSouth Munda, but due to a boundary reanalysis, these became enclitic markers on the word before the verb in Proto-North Munda. This reanalysis may have been in part motivated by variation in the placement of subject markers at the earliest level. For example, in Kherwarian and Kharia (165), the subject marker is found enclitic to the negative particle that immediately precedes the verbal complex. If such a construction is old in Kharia

3.1. Subject marking in Munda 79

and does not reflect a much later innovation induced by contact with Kherwarian, then such a pattern readily lends itself to a subsequent reanalysis with all subject marking placed on the word immediately preceding the verb. Unfortunately, these developments appear to have been secondary in Proto-Kherwarian, and even later in Kharia, diffused from Kherwarian. Also, as in South Munda, it seems likely that in imperative forms, 2DL and 2PL subjects were marked, by enclitics, following any object suffix where relevant. There is thus internal Munda, North Munda and South Munda impetus to provide structural analogy to feed a change losing the areally-marked ancestral pattern of pre-verbal subject (pro-/en-)clitics to an areally-typical post-verbal subject enclitic structure. (165) i. Kharia

ii. Kharia

um=em tfo-na

urn tfo-na=m

NEG=2 gO-FUT.I

NEC gO-FUT.l=2

'you will not go' (Biligiri 1965a: 63)

'you will not go' (Biligiri 1965a: 96)

(166)i. Gutob ha, kete lok=nom ai-o? ri-lorj, be

yes how.many people=2 call-PST.II take-FUT.l VOC 'how many people will you call and take (there)?' (N.Zidel997:311) ii. Gutob nei-nu bag pa\na=-niY) sob-o? ri-lorj we-GEN tiger settlement^! take.hold.of-PST.ll take-FUT.l Ί will take hold of her and take (her) to our tiger settlement' (N. Zide 1997: 316) These forms differ from the Kherwarian forms in a variety of ways. In Kharia, the pattern is found in a small number of forms only, i.e. it is morphosemantically restricted, suggesting its origin in a possible diffusion or a relatively diachronically shallow analogical restructuring. In Kherwarian languages, the pre-verbal marking system is a pervasive and wide-spread morpho-phonological feature of the verbal structure.3 As mentioned above, 3.

But note that the distribution of subject enclitics in not strictly phonologically determined in all Kherwarian languages in all instances, e.g. Mayurbhanj Ho (Anderson, Osada, and Harrison, forthcoming).

80 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

in Gutob, this pattern is embedded within a broader structure of discourse referent highlighting that only coincidentally overlaps formally at points with the Kharia and Kherwarian formations, which may in fact be related (in a diffusion likely from Kherwarian > Kharia). The second plausible scenario for the development of the Kherwarian subject markers is that Proto-Munda did in fact have prefixes or proclitics for subject, which were preserved in PSM but lost completely in ProtoNorth Munda. Object suffixes (see 3.3 below) are found in both ProtoNorth Munda and Proto-South Munda and thus Proto-Munda as well. The Kherwarian referent indexing markers are identical whether they are subject or object, the function determined by the position the marker occupies in the verbal complex (i.e. after tense/aspect markers but before the fmitizer suffix -a- the marker is an object, following the -a- or enclitic to the immediately pre-verbal word the marker indexes a subject). Given the absolute identity of these markers in Kherwarian, it is possible that subject markers were lost altogether, with the object markers preserved in ProtoNorth Munda and realized as such in Korku, but in Proto-Kherwarian, these spread to the function of subject markers. What caused this reanalysis, and particularly why they ended up as enclitic to the word preceding the verb is unknown. Under this theory, Korku preserves the PNM situation intact, while Proto-Kherwarian spread the old object markers to subject function. The third scenario plays out as follows: Proto-Munda lacked bound subject prefixes or even proclitics, but had bound object suffixes and had a construction with a resumptive subject pronoun found immediately before the verb. During the development of Proto-South Munda, these became bound to the verbal complex, becoming a series of subject prefixes. In Proto-North Munda on the other hand, these became bound not to the following word but to the preceding one. This then was lost in Korku, but preserved in Proto-Kherwarian, where the subject enclitics later spread to their optional position at the end of the verbal complex itself. Thus, these proposals can be represented as in (167)

(167) i. PM Χ α-Υ-β > PSM Χ α-Υ-β PNM X-cc Υ-β ii. PM Χ α-Υ-β > PSM Χ α-Υ-β PNM Χ Υ-β > Korku ΧΥ-β PKher. X- Y- then PKher. X Y- -

3.7. Subject marking in Munda

81

iii. PM Χ α Υ-β > PSM Χ α-Υ-β PNM Χ-α Υ-β >Korku Χ Υ-β PKher. Χ-α Υ-β ~ Χ Υ-β-α

where X is the word preceding the verb, Υ is the verb stem, α is the set of subject markers and β the object markers. All of the hypotheses are plausible and have points in their favor and against them. Scenario (i) is quite straightforward, and suggests simply that Proto-South Munda reflects the situation in Proto-Munda, while ProtoNorth Munda reanalyzed the boundaries, possibly under areal pressure against prefixed referent indexing of this type. Against this hypothesis is that we have no explanation for why such a reanalysis took place (was it some kind of phonological stress shift or what?) and why should an areally and cross-linguistically marked system be preferred to a simply crosslinguistically marked one? In favor of this hypothesis is that the Kherwarian subject clitics do not behave as some kind of Wackemagel secondposition clitic, or as a quasi suffix as in (Proto-)Gutob-Remo, but rather appear on the word immediately preceding the verb, i.e. in a position that could easily reflect a reanalyzed proclitic. Scenario (ii) has in its favor a simple loss of prefixed subject markers, replaced by the only remaining set of referent indexing affixes, the object suffixes, whose function was extended to subject. In line with this hypothesis is the fact these two sets of affixes are formally identical in (Proto-) Kherwarian, and that the markers themselves look like object markers in Proto-South Munda, not the subject markers (at least for ISg where one finds *-iji/y not *n(V)- and 3SG where one finds *-e/-id^ not zero, the others being more or less the same). Against this option is that there is no motivation at all for the enclisis of the subject markers to the word immediately preceding the verb. The third proposal has in its favor a simple path of development for both the ProtoSouth Munda prefixes and the Proto-North Munda disjunctive enclitics, namely an unbound but prosodically weak resumptive pronominal that became bound to a following word in the case of Proto-South Munda or to a preceding word in the case of Proto-North Munda. Similar resumptive pronoun formations are found in Mon-Khmer languages such as Palaung, Pac h [Pak h] and Katu (168), and thus may be an old Austroasiatic feature. Among the phenomena arguing against the resumptive pronoun analysis is the fact that such resumptive pronouns are extremely unlikely to immediately follow an overt subject pronoun, but such an occurrence would have to have been the case given such forms as those found in (163-164)

82 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

above, though of course these most likely are later developments in Kherwarian. Agreement affixes on the other hand are much more likely in this construction, a phenomenon attested in numerous languages, including such Austroasiatic languages as Temiar (169). (168) i. Incipient agreement in Pac h Pacoh αηάιη anhi ac n yai pdc fathers uncles PUT 3PL go 'fathers and uncles will go' (Watson 1966: 93) ii. Pronominal Doubling in Katu Katu do d h do gamak he quickly he become.big 'he quickly became big' (Wallace 1965: 27)

Katu yi 'boor pe jaal yi ch we two three times we return 'we returned 2 or 3 times' (Wallace 1965: 27)

(169) Prefixal SUBJ agreement in Temiar i. Temiar kd?an kd?a-sehluh you.DL-blow.pipe 'you 2 are blow-piping' (Carey 1961; Benjamin 1976)

ii. Temiar ?i-sdluhjiam ?im-rec 1-shoot animal 1-eat Ί shot an animal to eat'

Although there is no overly compelling evidence in favor of any particular scenario of development, it seems likely that the system of subject pro-clitics (or unbound, prosodically weak resumptive pronominal elements) reconstructed for Proto-South Munda was also characteristic of Proto-Munda as well, preserved as such in Proto-South Munda and its daughter languages, modern Juang, Gorum, and Gta?, but reinterpreted as enclitic markers on the word preceding the verb in Proto-North-Munda, a system preserved in Proto-Kherwarian and its modern attested daughter languages, but lost in Korku.

3.2. Object marking in the Munda verb 83 3.2. Object marking in the Munda verb

Morphological encoding of the person/number categories within the ProtoMunda verbal complex was not limited to subject alone; object indexing was also found. While subject was marked by a prefix/proclitic, object indexing was suffixal/enclitic. For example, Juang has a series of suffixes. Object marking was lost in Kharia, Gta? and Proto-Gutob-Remo. (170)Juang 1 2 3

SG

DL

PL

-(nifri"' -(n)(o)m

-jiba -pa (-Ida)

-neniji -pe (-ki)

(171) i. Juang d^o-k-om see-PRS.II-2

ii. Juang tele-o-ji push-PST.H-1

Ί see you' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 114)

'he pushed me' (Matson 1964: 35)

iii. Juang abhod^-e-m hit-FUT.I-2 T11 hit you' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 114)

iv. Juang te-me-le-niji push/3FUT/-l 'he will push me' (Matson 1964: 35)

Note that object arguments are not obligatorily indexed in the Juang verb either. In fact, in perfect forms, object agreement is often lacking.

(172)Juang niji αρε-ίε abhod^-sero I you-OBJ hit-PRF.PST.II Ί had hit you' (Pinnow 1960-ms: 114) Object marking is also suffixal in Sora and Gorum (173-174), suggesting the following tentative reconstruction for Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum (175):

84 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

(173) Sora 1 2 3

(174) Gorum

SG

DL

PL

SG

PL

-i -dm -e

-aj

-Ιεη -ben - fji

-iy -om

-iley -ibey (-gi)

(175)PSJG 1 2 3

SG

PL

*-i /y *-Vm

*-iley *-iben *

Sora verbs are generally mono-personal, i.e. they usually index only one argument. Gorum, on the other hand, has preserved the originally bipersonal structure of the Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum (and Proto-South Munda) verb. In Sora transitive verbs, subject is ranked lower than the object argument in determining the agreement hierarchy. In some instances, however it is possible to index more than a single referent in Sora verbal forms, for example when a first or second PL subject is operating on a first or second singular object, or when a 3rd plural object is used with a first inclusive plural subject; see examples in (176). This is because the elements encoding these categories occupy different morphotactic positions (slots) in the Sora verb template. (176) i. Sora uruy-l-iji take-PST-1 '(you) took me' (Ramamurti 1931: 45)

( 1 77) i. Gorum mo-taj-iy 2-give-l 'you gave me (money)'

ii. Sora an-uruy-l-am NEG-take-PST-2 '(I) didn't take you' (Ramamurti 1931:45)

ii. Gorum ne-aj-t-om l-splash-NPST-2 Ί will splash you'

but iii. Sora d-gidj-t-iji 2PL-see-NPST-l 'you (PL) see me' (Biligiri 1965b: 240)

3.2. Object marking in the Munda verb 85

iv. Sora gid3-iji=ba see-l=2PL:IMP you (pi) see me!' (Biligiri 1965b: 244)

v. Sora d-gid^-le-d^i 2PL-see-PST-PL 'you (pi) saw them' (Biligiri 1965b: 241)

(178)Jurav a' d-namdrerj-irj NEC-leave-1 '(s/he is) not leaving me' (A. Zide 1983) The correspondences between Juang and Proto-Sora-Juray-Gorum suggest that object marking suffixes were part of Proto-South Munda verbal morphology. Table 3. South Munda object markers 2 Juang -(nity -jiba -neniji -(n)(o)m Sora -i -aj -Ιεη/y -dm Gorum -irj -Her) -om 1

IDL

IPL

(179) Proto-South-Munda SG DL 1 *-iN ? 2 *-Dm *-pa 3 *. ?e ?

3 3DL 3PL 2DL 2PL -pa -pe - (-Ida) (-Id) -ben -e -d$i -iberj (-gi)

PL

*-leN *-pe(N)

In Juang a first dual was innovated, consisting of the first singular marker and -ba, the IDL subject marker (and perhaps etymojogically meaning '2'); also, the first plural accruedyz, apparently generalized as a marker of first person, while the second plural lost its final nasal. Sora specialized -aj to mark first dual, while Gorum lost the dual altogether. The third dual may be an innovation in Juang (and Kharia and Remo) and may not go back to Proto-South Munda. Most likely the category existed but the formal marker cannot be restored; see the PNM data below. In North Munda languages, transitive verbs may also be marked for the person and number of an object. For Patient-type objects, i.e. those typi-

86 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

cally marked by accusative case in such Indo-European languages as Russian or Latin, the object marker is found directly following the tenseaspect/transitivity marker and before the fmitizer suffix (Kherwarian -a, Korku -bd). (181) i. Santali jiel-me-a=in see-2-FIN=l will see you' (Bodding 1929)

(180) Korku kqn-kin-ba call-3DL-FIN 'calls them 2' (N. Zide field notes) ii. Mayurbhani Ho tfa-ji em-a-m-tan-a tea=l give-BEN-2-PROG-FIN 'I'm giving you tea' [Field Notes; KCN; 19:05]

Table 4. North Munda referent indexing enclitics

1 Santali Mundari Ho Bhumij Korku

Santali Mundari Ho Bhumij Korku

=(i)n

IDL.IN =lay

2 =m(e) =m(e) -m —m

=lay -larj -larj =lay =lom 2DL =ben =ben —ben =ben

=mi3/SBJNCT 'if we kill her grandchild' (Algonquian; Dahlstrom, p.c.)

fen-it 2-INS

94 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

iii. Amele sigin ebeni na de? huiteia knife hand-1 of from grab-BEN-l-3-REC.PST 'he grabbed the knife from my (hand)' (Roberts 1987: 222) iv. Luyia [Marigoli dialect] ya-gur-ir-a Sally mudoka 3-buy-APPL-FV Sally car 'he buys Sally's car' (Gary 1977: 90) v. Kinyarwanda umugore a-raa-n-som-er-a igitabo woman s/he-PRS-1-read-APPL-FV book 'the woman is reading my book' (Kimenyi 1980: 45) Variation between both patterns (with or without applicative-type marking) can be seen in one and the same language with different possessa, for example in Quileute or Amele. This might be determined by inflectional class (inalienable/alienable) or by some kind of social/discourse hierarchy of particular event/participant combinations (e.g. the difference between the killing of one's pig and eating of one's chicken in Amele). (200) i. Amele 'malefactive' ho quteia pig hit-l-3-REC.PST 'he killed my pig' (Roberts 1987: 222)

ii. Amele malajiteiga chicken eat-APPL-l-3PL-REC.PST 'they ate my chicken'

(201) i. Quileute ceqotci 'iiswo 'Hi pull-APPL.CLASSIFIER-leg-CONNECTIVE.V-2.OBJ-(VOLIT)EVENTUALITlVE-l Ί am going to pull your leg'

(Andrade 1933-8: 258)

3.3. Possessor raising 95

ii. Quileute iastaxopabli break-bow .string-3.OBJ-l Ί broke his bowstring' (Andrade 1933-8: 258) Note that as in Sora, many Possessor Raising constructions are found with verbs exhibiting incorporation of a nominal, frequently a body part. These kinds of incorporative complexes are motivated by the desire to maximize the highly salient, animate possessors in the formal referent-encoding machinery of the verb, which in head-marking languages tends to be the central (and often the only obligatory) part of the clause (see Anderson 1995, 1997). Indexing of the person and number of a possessor in the verbal complex is also attested in North Munda. However, in contrast to the vast majority of the world's languages, where either neutral-object or 'Dative'-type formal indexing is utilized to encode the person/number of the possessor, in Santali (Neukom 2000) and various other Kherwarian languages, a special set of affixes exist for marking the possessor of the logical object or subject (the f-series). This occurs not only in Santali, but also in Santali-esque and Santali-ized Kherwarian varieties (Karmali, Mahali), as well as particular varieties of Ho as well (Burrows 1915 [1980]; Anderson Field Notes). (202) i. Santali gdi=ko idi-ke-d-e-tiji-a cow=3PL take-ASP-TR-3-l:POSS-FIN 'they took my cow' (Bodding 1929: 113) ii. Santali ako-ge=ko idi-ke-t'-ko-tako-a they-EMPH=3PLtake-ASP-TR-3PL-3PL:POSS-FIN 'they took theirs away themselves' (Bodding 1952: 37) iii. Santali hDpon-e dgu-en-tiji-a son=3 bring-ITR:PST- POSS:lSG -FIN 'my son was brought' (MacPhail 1953: 41)

96 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

iv. Santali o^ak' jiel-tiji=me house see-POSS:lSG=2SG 'see my house!' (MacPhail 1953: 41) v. Santali hopon=e idi-ke-d-e-tiji-a son=3 take.away-ASP-TR-3-POSS: 1SG-FIN 'he took away my son' (MacPhail 1953: 41) (203) i. Karmali hojok-tiji-a come- POSS: ISO -FIN 'mine will come' (Grierson 1906: 72)

ii. Karmali ema-ka-tiji—mi give-OPT- POSS:lSG=2 'give (me) mine (please)!' (Grierson 1906: 72)

(204) Mahali alätj-ke-t-täm—e waste-ASP-TR-POSS:2SG -3 'he wasted yours' (Grierson 1906: 78)

(205) Koda tusi\r}-ta:e—pei put.on- POSS:3SG=2PL 'put on his (y'all)!' (Grierson 1906: 110)

(206) i. Ho bo:?=e? herf-ki-^yi-a head=3 pull-ASP-TR-1-FIN 's/he pulled my hair' (Burrows (1915 [1980])

ii. Ho bo:?=e? hec^-ki- c[-t-iji-a head=3 pull-ASP-TR-POSS-1-FlN 's/he pulled my hair'

Thus, in these Kherwarian North Munda languages, there is a five-way formal contrast between the means of marking subjects, direct objects, recipients, beneficiaries and possessors in the verb form—a highly unusual system from a typological view. Also, as the form meaning 'he took away my son' (hopDn=e idi-ke-d-e-tiji-d) demonstrates, a verb may agree with its logical object ('son'), -d-e-, and the possessor of the logical object ('my'), -tip-, as well in Santali—a highly marked feature indeed!

3.4. Multiple referent marking in Munda 97 3.4. Multiple referent marking in Munda Not only may single instantiations of encoding a referent be found in the Munda languages, but forms that have more than one formal marker indexing a single referent are also attested. Double (or multiple) marking of the person of subject may be encountered in Gutob, in discourse of a highly emphatic type. (207) i. Gutob a?-pen mono?=pen pi-loy. φβ? c[ie? (\iito now=2PL where=2PL come-FUT.I QUOT QUOT QUOT 'where will you go now?' (N. Zide 1997: 320) ii. Gutob niy mi ? mayhem mospur-bo?=niy c[u-loy=niy I more why earth-LOC=l be-FUT.l=l 'why will I go on living on this earth' (N. Zide 1997: 320) iii. Gutob nom dapre—nom mo?^-gu=nom piy-gi=nom you afterwards-2 get.up-PST.I-2 come-PST.1-2 'then you got up and came back' (N. Zide 1997: 323) iv. Gutob sobu pai\i niy (fem-o?=niy be^be?=niy all work I do-PST.ll=l RDPL:AUX=1 Ί do all the work' (N. Zide 1997: 323) v. Gutob ia, be; nom mayhem mio?=nom eke=nom pi-hy=nom go-lMP VOC you why again=2 here=2 come-FUT.l=2 'go away! Why do you come back here again?' (N. Zide 1997: 324)

98 Referent indexing in the Munda verb

Multiple indexing of a single referent has been grammaticalized in Gorum auxiliary verb constructions. As examples in (208) below show, this multiple referent indexing occurs regardless of whether the person is filling the subject function or object function of the Gorum verb. (208) i. Gorum e-nirj bam-(m)-Jy duk-jy (1 arrow) OBJ-1 hit-lOBJ:AFF AUX-lOBJ:AFF 'an arrow has hit me' (Aze 1973: 298) ii. Gorum mir) ne-ada?-ru ne-k-ru I l-thirSt-PST:AFF 1-AUX-PST:AFF

am thirsty' (Aze 1973: 296) Rarely, one finds multiple marking of subject in Kherwarian Munda languages as well, through a combination in one clause of the two main patterns for realizing subject agreement. Such is the case in the following Koc|a form. (209) i. Koda ka:=m ä:m-ta;-t-iß-a:=m

ii. Koda ka:=ji ta:^aim-pa:^a:m-ta:-t=iji

NEG=2 give-ASP-TR-l-FIN=2

NEG=1 sin-ECHO-ASP-TR=l

'you didn't give me (it)' (Grierson 1906: 112)

didn't sin' (Grierson 1906: 112)

In discourse of a highly emphatic nature, double subject (or even object) marking may be found in Ho. These belong to an expressive register of the language. (210) i. Mayurbhani Ho tfa=ji em-a-ji-me tea=l give-BEN-1-2 'give me tea' (Field Notes; [KCN] 18:40)

3.4. Multiple referent marking in Munda 99

ii. Bhubaneswar Ho abu hotel-te=bu seno?-tan-a=bu we hotel-ABL=lPL gO-PROG-FIN=lPL 'we are going to/from the hotel' (Field Notes; [CMH]) Similar multiple indexing of a single referent is found in various unrelated languages from around the world, for example the Yeniseic languages Ket and Yugh (Anderson 1993, 1996) (211) as well as the Siouan language Crow (Graczyk 1991) (212), where, unlike Munda, the multiple indexing is realized within a single phonological word synchronically; however, a Munda-like system undoubtedly underlies these historically: (211) i. Yugh d-bo-k-ki-xos 1-1-2-2-lead Ί lead you' (Werner 1997b: 181)

ii. Ket di-r'ay-dyqf-y] 1-lPL-fly-PL 'we fly' (Werner 1997a: 188)

(212) i. Crow ii. Crow da-saax-daa-hku-i-k b-eelax-b-isshi-k 2-snore-2-AUX-HAB-DECL 1 -urinate- 1-MOD-DECL 'you always snore' Ί need to urinate' (R. Graczyk, personal communication) iii. Crow bii-al-ax-da-lee-wia-laa-? 1 B-2A-with-2A-AUX-MOD-2A-Q 'do you want to go with me?' iv. Crow dia-waa-itchi-waa-wa-la-k-ak do-1 A-gOOd-1 A-1A-2B-BEN-SS

'I've done well for you' (R. Graczyk, personal communication)

100 Referent indexing in the Munda verb 3.5. Summary

In this chapter, I offered an analysis of the diverse systems of referent indexing in the Munda verb. There is considerable variation in the types of categories realized in the various Munda languages, ranging from simple subject marking in such South Munda languages as Gta? or Gutob, to the complex and highly elaborated system of referent indexing in Santali, which formally differentiates subject, direct object, indirect object, beneficiary, and even possessor of a logical argument. While many languages around the world show subject and object possessor raising (a.k.a. possessor ascension, external possession), replacing in the referent indexing system the logical argument, Santali and a small number of other Kherwarian languages stand out for having a special series of markers for the possessors, while also allowing a verb to index both a logical argument and a possessor of that argument.

Chapter 4 Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity

4. Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity The tense-aspect systems of the attested modern Munda languages present a historically complicated picture. As is the case with many languages from across the globe, the categories of tense and aspect are often intimately connected in the Munda languages; frequently elements are grammaticalized first in a particular aspectual meaning and then shift to more generalized tense functions. Therefore, these verbal categories are treated here under a single heading. Modal categories likewise cluster formally in a rather straightforward way with these and are similarly addressed in the sections below. Further, in the vast majority of the Munda languages, there is some formal contrast between transitive and intransitive (or active/middle) tense/aspect markers. This may be achieved through either separate transitive and intransitive series of markers, as in the majority of South Munda languages, or through a single tense/aspect marker augmented by a (consistent) marker of (in)transitivity in the North Munda languages. Each of these systems is briefly presented in turn. To be sure, the history of tense/aspect markers is one of the most vexing and complex outstanding problems in the diachrony of the verbal systems of the Munda language family and many of the details remain to be worked out. It is hoped that this brief discussion helps to shed some light on to the nature of these issues.

4.1. Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda languages A table of the tense/aspect markers in the modern South Munda languages is offered in Table 5 (on p. 102). In early Proto-South Munda - which in effect with respect to the system of tense/aspect marking appears to be just a variant of late Proto-Munda there was an apparent original split into Sora-Gorum, and a continuum consisting of Juang-Kharia-Gutob-Remo-Gta?, with a somewhat later split of Juang from the continuum (and a little later after that, of Gta?). The

102 Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity original Proto-Munda tense/aspect system became eroded and new contrasts arose. In Juang, the transitive PST was preserved, as well as the original Table 5. South Munda tense/aspect markers Kharia

Juang

Remo

Gutob

PST.ITR PST.TR

-fa

-an

-gu, -gi

-gi. -go.

-Og/?

-D

-o?

-D?

NPST.ITR

-ία -te -na -e

-c[e -ke -na -e

-to [CUST]

-te ~ -ta

-to [CUST]

-to

NPST.TR FUT.ITR FUT.TR PST.ITR PST.TR NPST.ITR NPST.TR

FUT

Gta? -ge/-ke -ge/-ke

(-ke) (-ke) +e

Sora

-le -le -te (~ -te) ~te (~ -ίε)

-lorj -tu Gorum

-rV -rV -tV -tV

original Proto-Munda tense/aspect system became eroded and new contrasts arose. In Juang, the transitive PST was preserved, as well as the older intransitive PST (the suffix -an, with parallels in North Munda as well - the intransitive past of Proto-Kherwarian (and various modern Kherwarian languages, see below).1 Specifically, a new past suffix came to be used, the

1.

It is therefore possible, then, that the Juang form is actually an old form retained in this generally highly archaic language. Note that the PST.II of ProtoSM *- d? appears to correspond to the Proto-North Munda [NM] transitive past marker in *-*dd. It is therefore possible that this may be the oldest ProtoMunda system, reflected in Proto-NM and Juang, and thus perhaps the earliest form of Proto-SM as well (if that latter group truly ever existed per se). The later PST.I of Proto-SM was innovated in a core group that included pre-Kharia dialects and Proto-Gutob-Remo (and possibly Proto-Gta?), but only in the former two specifically with intransitives. The Gta? tense/aspect system shows only distantly relatable traces to either Kharia or Gutob-Remo in this regard, being unsurprisingly closer to the latter two, as they are spoken in adjacent regions to Gta?.

4.1. Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda 103

intransitive PST in *-ki and the transitive PST in *-o? in the remaining South-Munda continuum consisting of Proto-Kharia and Proto-GutobRemo, which seem to have undergone a period of common development, despite their current geographic disparity.2 Gta? either then split from the continuum, lost the transitive PST altogether, and generalized the later Proto-South Munda intransitive PST in *-ki to all past contexts, or it reflects an independent specialization of two tense/aspect markers already present in Proto-Munda (along with a third, innovated one specific to Gta?, see below), with parallels in North Munda, and with a number of idiosyncratic developments (N. Zide 1999) and may have then split off from the Gutob-Remo side of the proto-continuum at any point. The Gta? non-past in -he ultimately lost its specific temporal association, historically a result of the collapse in Plains Gta? of the NPST in *-tV and the ancestor of the Remo -ki perfect(ive). In Hill Gta?, the collapse involved the *t- initial allomorph of the original non-past (i.e. —ft'). Unfortunately, the paucity of Hill Gta? data leaves us with a situation that is far from sufficient for a more complete analysis of the Proto-Gta? tense-aspect system. In ProtoSora-Gorum, both affixes were lost, replaced by a single affix in *-le, of aspectual origin, with parallels in North Munda - the *-le Anterior suffix of Proto-North Munda and Proto-Kherwarian, see also below. (213) i. Juang tele- 3 -ß push-PST.II-1 'he pushed me' (Matson 1964: 35)

ii. Juang c[aki-an call-PST.I 'he called'

(214) i. Kharia ii. Kharia ob-gotf'-o? gitag-ki=moj CAUS-died-PST.II sleep-PST.I=3PL 'she killed' 'they slept' (Malhotra 1982: 175, Biligiri 1965a: 73)

2.

In addition to preserving the late Proto-South Munda constrast of PST.I and PST.H, they innovated a series of enclitic subject markers, having lost the original subject proclitics and object suffixes, as discussed in Chapter 3.

104 Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity

iii. Kharia kui-ki fmd-PST.I 'was found' (Malhotra 1982: 175, Biligiri 1965a: 73) (215) i. Gutob ser-gu sing-PST.I 's/he sang' (N. Zide, field notes)

i. Gutob som-o? eat-PST.II 's/he ate'

(216) i. Remo gaj-g-nirj enter-PST.I-1 Ί entered' (Fernandez 1968: 52; 1983: 35)

ii. Remo bac[-o?-nir] slap-PST.II-1 Ί slapped'

(217) i. Gta? n-tfoy-ge 1-eat-ge.PST Ί ate' (K. Mahapatra et al. 1989)

ii. Gta? n-tfoy-ke 1-eat-fe.PST Ί ate'

(218) Sora

(219)Gorum kapi e-niy tagu-r-iy-aj coffee OBJ-1 burn-PST-1-CLOC 'coffee burnt me' (Aze 1973)

see-PST-1 Ί was seen' (Biligiri 1965b: 233)

In contrast to the past system of late Proto-South Munda, where two markers - differentiated for transitivity - are probably reconstructable, the non-past [NPST] system does not permit such a sound reconstruction. However, all South Munda languages show some reflex of the Proto-SM NPST in *-tV, with parallels in North Munda, suggesting a retention of a ProtoMunda suffix. Remo, Kharia, and possibly Sora as well suggest that two *f- initial affixes - with differing vocalism - may have been present at the PSM level, although this remains to be demonstrated. In Juang and Plains Gta?, a *fc-initial allomorph was found, as mentioned above with respect to

4.1. Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda 105

Gta?.3 This *r—*&- correspondence in intransitive/present markers has parallels in (Proto-)North Munda as well (e.g. the Mundari-Santali ta-n : ka-n correspondence, see below). Examples of NPST marking in South Munda languages include (220) i. Remo bop-t-Ίτ) head-NPST.II-1 Ί shall make him head (of a village)' (Fernandez 1983: 35)

ii. Remo goj-ta die-NPST.I 's/he will die' (Fernandez 1983: 16)

(221) i. Gutob ser-lorf sing-FUT 'will sing' (N. Zide, field notes)

ii. Gutob ser-to sing-CUST 'sings' (N. Zide, field notes)

ii. Kharia (222) i. Kharia gitag-ta-ji gitag-ta=ji sleep-PRS.I-1 sleep-PRS.I=l Ί sleep' 'she will sleep' (Biligiri 1965a: 57, 62; Malhotra 1982: 175) iii. Kharia um-jo?-ta neg-see-PRS.I 'are not seen' (Biligiri 1965a: 57, 62; Malhotra 1982: 175) 3.

It is also possible that the Juang system is again the archaic system, with -$e the NPST.I (although this does not appear to be cognate with Kharia -to. and and Remo -te/-ta), suggesting PSM *-ta/e. Under this scenario, Proto-South Munda -*t/ke would then be the NPST.H in -ke in Juang, the NPST.II -te in Kharia and the Plains Gta? -ke NPST (or anti-ge [Zide 1999]). The NPST.II received *-o- vocalism in Proto-Gutob-Remo, on analogy with the PST.II in *dl. This was later specialized in a customary/habitual meaning in Gutob, where only the reduplicated present remained — the latter to be sure an old feature with parallels in other Austroasiatic languages. Proto-Gta? would then have lost the NPST.I and the intransitive/transitive distinction altogether (cf. the PST above), except in the selection of progressive auxiliaries.

106 Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity

ii. Sora kuy-bdb-te-n shave-head-NPST-lTR '(you) shave (your) head'

(223) i. Sora kuy-bdb-te shave-head-NPST.ll 'you shave (s.o.'s) head' (Biligiri 1965b: 240) iii. Sora 2PL-see-NPST-l 'you (PL) will see me' (Biligiri 1965b: 240) (224) i. Gorum miy ne-i-tu I l-go-NPST:AFF

Til go' (Aze 1973) (225) i. Juang ms-d^o-ke 2-see-PRS.n 'you see' (Matson 1964: 28)

ii. Gorum mo-taj-t-iy 2sUBJ-give-NPST-lOBJ 'you will give (it) to me'

iii. Gorum ne-la?-tu l-hit-NPST:AFF Til hit (myself)'

ii. Juang mi-gito-ke 2-SING-PRS.II 'you sing'

iii. Juang a-gito-ke 2DL-SING-PRS.il 'you 2 sing'

(226) Gta? a?ku£e? n-c[iy-ke

CAUSrmeet 1-PROG-T/A Ί am causing to meet' = 'fixing you up with a girl' (Mahapatra and Zide n.d.) In Kharia, for a certain class of verbs, the use of Series-I (intransitive/detransitive/middle) tense/aspect markers conveys a variety of detransitive notions, including 'middle' and 'passive', depending on the particular semantics of the verb stem involved: (227) i. Kharia kui-ki fmd-PST.I 'was found' (Malhotra 1982: 175)

ii. Kharia um-jo?-ta NEG-see-PRS.H 'are not seen'

4.1. Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda 107 In other instances, a passive marker is required to get the proper reading: (228) i. Kharia ob-jio?-c[om-ta

ii. Kharia gil-djym-ta-d^nirj

C AUS -eat-P ASS-PRS. I

beat-PASS-PRS. I-PROG= 1 PL

'is being fed' (Malhotra 1982: 175)

'we are being beaten' (Malhotra 1982: 189)

Sora and Gorum, and differently Gta?, are clearly divergent from the remaining South Munda languages, having neutralized, for example, the transitive/intransitive inflectional contrast altogether. While based on South Munda evidence alone, one might logically conclude that GutobRemo and Kharia preserved the archaic South Munda transitive/intransitive contrast in the past, and Juang innovated an intransitive past marker, when one considers the North Munda data as well (see below), it is clear that Juang is actually the most archaic system, preserving the original ProtoMunda transitive/intransitive past markers (Anderson 200la). Proto-Sora-Gorum split off at a very early time, preserving the subject proclitics, object suffixes, and the *-tV non-past. Also, PSG lost the (transitive) past in *-o? and preserved the older Proto-Munda tense/aspect marker in *-le, which became generalized as the unmarked past. Subsequently, the subject proclitics were mostly lost in Sora. Juang split off from PSM early enough to preserve the old (intransitive) past in *-an/*-en (seen also in Proto-North Munda and preserved in certain Proto-Sora-Gorum [originally intransitive] conjugations). Juang is quite archaic in numerous respects morphologically, preserving the subject proclitics and object suffixes, as well as the original opposition of past tense markers. Kharia on the other hand lost both the subject proclitics and the object suffixes, innovating in their place a series of enclitic subject pronominals and an intransitive past in *-£/', probably from earlier *-ki. In Proto-Gutob-Remo [GR] and Proto-Gta?, the PSM object suffixes were lost. Proto-Gutob-Remo, exactly and curiously like Kharia, lost the subject proclitics and innovated in their place a set of enclitic subject pronominals and an intransitive past tense in *-gi. In Proto-Gta?, as in PSG, the past in *-o? was lost as was the whole SM transitive and intransitive inflectional dichotomy. Only the later SM 'intransitive' past was preserved as the past in *-ki (cf. pre-Kharia (*)-ki and

108 Tense, aspect, mood and transitivity

PGR *-gi). The subject proclitics were preserved in Proto-Gta?, however (and modern Gta? as well). The whole set of innovated structural correspondences between PGR and Kharia are indeed striking, and suggest that these two groups must have undergone a period of common development within some kind of later South-Munda continuum. In fact, Proto-Gutob-Remo has more in common with Kharia than with Gta? with regard to the treatment of the referent indexing and tense-aspect system. How can this be explained in the face of obvious shared morphological and phonological innovations between Kharia and Juang on the one hand and Gutob-Remo and Gta? on the other, and the seemingly sound nature of these two subgroups within the South Munda branch of the Munda language family? A rigid adherence to the Stammbaum model of language relationships will necessarily fail in light of this evidence. Kharia appears simultaneously to belong with Juang and Gutob-Remo in a special subgroup, while Gta? suggests close relation with only Gutob-Remo (and at an earlier period, possibly with Juang as well) but not Kharia. The Gutob-Remo and Gta? correspondences, the Gta?-Juang correspondences and the Gutob-Remo-Kharia correspondences can be accounted for by a proto-language dialect continuum that allowed for shared structural innovations between adjacent languages. Thus we find i) the innovation of the future forms (these possibly archaic in form if not function) and the perfect marker in Kharia and Juang, ii) formation of the prohibitive and some other negative conjugations and the opposition of *-na different subject in contrast with the older same subject marker in *-tfi(?) in GutobRemo and Gta? (Anderson and Boyle 2002), iii) the preservation of subject proclitics and the ^-initial allomorph of the NON-PST in Juang and Gta?, iv) the loss of object suffixes and the innovation of subject suffixes/enclitics and the innovation or specialization of *ki as an intransitive past marker in Kharia and Gutob-Remo. There are therefore three models for explaining the phenomena discussed above. Scenario 1: The Ancient Continuum scenario: Proto-South Munda split into Proto-Sora-Gorum and Proto-Juang-Kharia-Gutob-Remo-Gta?. ProtoSora-Gorum among other features innovated the anterior aspect marker in *-le as the unmarked past. Sora and Gorum subsequently split into two distinct languages in a fairly straightforward manner, Gorum preserving the original PSM subject proclitics, pre-Sora later splitting into Sora proper and Juray. Juang split off from the Proto-South Munda continuum rela-

4.1. Tense/aspect/mood marking in South Munda 109

tively early and moved away from the later PSM or Kharia-Gutob-Remo[Gta?] continuum. Juang preserved both the object suffixes and subject proclitics, as well as the original intransitive past, having already innovated4 (with Kharia) the future-I and future-II markers and the perfect aspect marker. Gta?, on the other end of the continuum, split off from ProtoGutob-Remo (and by extension Proto-Kharia as well) at a mid-level Protoperiod, although later than the splitting of Juang. Gta? preserves the subject proclitics, but like Kharia and Gutob-Remo, lost object marking and innovated the past in *-ki, grammaticalizing into tense functions an older aspectual marker cognate with the Proto-North Munda aorist coming from an earlier 'completive'. Gta? lost the whole transitive/intransitive inflectional dichotomy and, in particular, the old transitive past in *-