A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

types of conjuncts being utilized: PLAIN CONJUNCTS and CHANGED CONJUNCTS. The
difference between these two types of conjuncts is the use of initial change, an ablaut
process which changes, mutates, replaces, or alters the initial vowel of a conjunct verb
(see Bloomfield 1958:23, Nichols 1980:146-148, Mithun 1999:41). By definition, plain
conjuncts do not exhibit initial change, while changed conjuncts do (hence their names as
changed conjuncts). Changed conjuncts have specific functions within sentence
grammars: 1) showing completive aspect, and 2) functioning as nominalized verbs, or
participles (Fairbanks 2008, forthcoming, see also Nichols 1980:200). The occurrences
of changed conjuncts in the above story, however, are not serving these functions.
Rather, their occurrence appear (at least on the surface) to be triggered by the mere
presence of the relative root izhi. Recall that izhi (and other relative preverbal elements)
has a peculiar syntax, in that, it may cause (or appear to cause) its containing verbs to
undergo initial change, while verbs within the same syntactical environment without izhi
do not. 66 Therefore, the occurrences of the changed conjuncts within the example above
are easily explained away, since the relative preverb izhi appears to trigger the presence
of changed conjuncts (see also Valentine 2001:963, 969 for Odaawaa in regards to
relative roots within mii-clauses). In other words, but for the appearance of the relative
preverb izhi, these verbs would appear as plain conjuncts. This can be shown from an
excerpt of another story. When izhi appears within the verbal complex, initial change
occurs on the verbal complex (or on izhi itself if no other element precedes it), but verbs
66
To say that a plain conjunct verb undergoes initial change assumes that speakers start with a plain
conjunct in their heads and then apply a rule of initial change to form (or derive) changed conjuncts. The
label initial change, a common term in Algonquian linguistics to refer to ablaut forms, also appears to
imply a derivational process. It is unclear, however, whether speakers are actually deriving anything.
Speaking about the distribution of plain and changed conjuncts in this way, however, is only a matter of
convenience, as it is sometimes helpful to talk about changed forms as being derived from unchanged
forms.
218