Semantic and Grammatical Categories of Relative Clause Morphology in the Languages of Nepal

Genetti, Carol

doi:10.1075/sl.16.2.07gen

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Chantyal examples above are not very far from genitives: indeed, it is possible to paraphrase the first with the genitive: (78) t¼yla-ye saka yesterday-GEN ancestor 'yesterday's ancestors' If Lahu ve followed the same line of development as Chantyal -wa, then the nominalization function is the oldest, from which the relative clause function develops, and from which the genitive function develops. DeLancey (1989) Genetti (1992Genetti ( , 1994 has argued against this position. Matisoff has also argued that a construction in Lahu analogous to the main verb use of -wa should be considered a nominalization.…”

Section: §32 Agent Nominalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Versatile Nominalizations

Noonan¹

1997

Essays on Language Function and Language Type

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the years, many linguists 1 working on Tibeto-Burman languages have pointed out the wide range of uses of nominalizations that are encountered in many languages within the family. 2 Besides the 'expected' functions of nominalizations [the reification of events and processes, the expression of clauses as arguments within clauses], nominalizations frequently take on attributive functions [for example, take on the role of relative clauses], serve as the 'equivalent' of finite verbs in main clauses, and take on other functions as well. Such uses of nominalizations are by no means restricted to Tibeto-Burman, however, and a number of scholars have reported similar phenomena in other languages. 3 This paper constitutes a sort of first report of work in progress on the historical development of nominalizations and the related question of the kinds of uses to which they can be put. I'll restrict my comments here to some developments in Tibeto-Burman which, in any case, constitute the most interesting set of examples I have found so far. I will begin the discussion with some data from Chantyal [tsð¼ntjal], a language which displays an unusually broad range of functions for nominalizations [or, if you will, constructions derived historically from them]. I will then discuss some aspects of the history of these constructions, utilizing data from similar constructions in a number of Tibeto-Burman languages of the Nepal Himalayas and environs. I will end with a brief discussion of whether the range of constructions exemplified for Chantyal can constitute a unified grammatical category of any sort.In this paper, I will refer to a form as a nominalization if it includes among its functions the naming of activities or states. This is done, in part, simply to help keep track of forms regardless of where they are along grammaticalization chains, ie regardless of whatever other label we might, in a synchronic grammar, want to assign to the form.§1.0 Chantyal Chantyal is one of the Tamangic languages of the Bodish section of the Bodic branch of

show abstract

Section: §32 Agent Nominalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Versatile Nominalizations

Noonan¹

1997

Essays on Language Function and Language Type

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is illustrated by (8): S and A arguments are possible results of the nominalization, while P arguments are not (see (8c)). Nominalizing morphology that indicates a grammatical relation is common in Kiranti languages, and it is also known, e.g., from Dolakha Newari and from Kham (see Genetti (1992: 409), Ebert 1999a. pek-khuba break-nmlz paip pipe Intended: 'the pipe that was/will be broken by the boy' (*P) Non-canonically marked S and A arguments, e.g., possessive experiencers or locative marked possessors undergoing the nominalization have the same status as standard S and A arguments (i.e., in the ergative or nominative case and being indexed on the verb).…”

Section: Grammatical Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finite nominalizations, or 'stand-alone nominalizations' were first noted by Matisoff (1972) for Lahu (Loloish). Despite the wealth of syntactic studies on nominalization in Tibeto-Burman (see, e.g., Matisoff 1972;Noonan 1997;Noonan & Fanego 2008;DeLancey 1999;Genetti 1992;Doornenbal 2008;Genetti et al 2008;Watters 2008;DeLancey 2011a), the main clause function was said to be poorly understood until recently (Genetti et al 2008: 101). Ebert (1994: 110) mentions nominalized sentences in several Kiranti languages and associates them with lively speech and with focus, as they frequently occur in questions and in negated sentences.…”

Section: Complementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This convergence of functions has been referred to as the 'Standard Sino-Tibetan Nominalization' (sstn) pattern (Bickel 1999c: 271) and has been widely studied (Matisoff 1972;DeLancey 1989a;Genetti 1992;Genetti et al 2008;Saxena 1992;Ebert 1994;DeLancey 1999;Bickel 1999c;Watters 2002;Noonan & Fanego 2008;Doornenbal 2008). DeLancey (2011a) has even proposed nominalization as the major driving force for syntactic change in Tibeto-Burman.…”

Section: Nominalization and Relativizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first set contains the suffixes -pa~-ba~-wa and -ma, of which -pa (and its allomorphs) can be traced back at least to Proto-Bodic; it is found with nominalizing and related functions in Tibetan, Sherpa, Tamangic languages and other Kiranti languages (DeLancey 2002;Genetti 1992). In Yakkha, this set is used solely for lexical nominalizations, with -pa and its allomorphs for generic and male reference, while -ma is generally reserved for female reference (related to an old system of gender marking).…”

Section: Lexical Nominalization: -Pa and -Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations