20.07.2013 Views

The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac

The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac

The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 6.9 Valence-changing subzone<br />

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3<br />

Reciprocal<br />

Round-trip/Pass-by<br />

Instrumentals<br />

Comitative<br />

Associative<br />

Causatives<br />

Locatives<br />

Body Parts<br />

Middle Voice/Inceptive<br />

6.5.2.2 Morphological blocking subzone. <strong>The</strong> next subzone within Zone 2 is characterized by<br />

the long-distance co-occurrence restriction between the prefix 2/1 laa- in position 11 <strong>and</strong> all 2nd<br />

person subject marking across the verb, as detailed in §6.3. Since 2/1 laa- blocks all 2 nd person<br />

subject <strong>morphology</strong> from the root out to suffix position 14 (see example 38), a model in which<br />

2/1 laa- is affixed before the suppleting suffixes or person agreement markers in positions 4, 6,<br />

13 <strong>and</strong> 14 is reasonable. 8 This evidence thus picks out almost the same subzone as that <strong>of</strong> the<br />

valence-changing affixes.<br />

38) s%kinqas$pátpaapi%<br />

/s"-kin-qas!pat-paa-pi&/<br />

PAST-1OBJ-hear2-PROG2-DEICTIC2<br />

‘you were listening to me over there’<br />

s%kilaaqas%matmaac$a’áw<br />

/s"-kin-laa-qas!mat-maa-c!a’a-wa&<br />

PAST-1OBJ-2/1-hear-PROG-DEICTIC-1pl<br />

‘you were listening to us over there’<br />

<strong>The</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> variable but non-scopal affix ordering is difficult in any currently available<br />

framework, but it seems likely that the affixes that engage in free ordering may attach to the verb<br />

8 Since four roots in FM <strong>Totonac</strong> have 2 nd person subject suppletive forms which are blocked<br />

when 2/1 laa- is present, the <strong>morphology</strong> must have an ability to ‘see’ the subject/object<br />

specifications before the root form is chosen. This may be conceptualized as having access to a<br />

morphosyntactic target that guides the construction <strong>of</strong> the verb. If this is the case, it might be<br />

argued that the affixation <strong>of</strong> 2/1 laa- need not precede that <strong>of</strong> the suppleting suffixes, since the<br />

grammar would be able to view the target at any point in the construction.<br />

! ##,!<br />

Distributive<br />

ROOT<br />

Transitivizer<br />

Habitualizer/Indef.Object<br />

Dative

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!