Pronominal arguments in the Tlingit verb

Pronominal arguments in the Tlingit verb
James A. Crippen
May
. I
Tlingit (Eng. /ˈklɪŋ.kɪt/, Tl. Lingít /ɬɪn.kɪ́t/) is a member of the Na-Dené family of
languages, and is distantly related to the Athabaskan family. As with the Athabaskan
languages, the morphology of the Tlingit verb is extremely complex and
in many respects poorly understood. One of the problems in analysis whi arises
from this complexity is determining the status of the pronominal prefixes in the
verb and their subsequent interaction with the rest of morphology and syntax.
Mithun () describes a claim that “pronominal affixes are functionally closer
to the redundant subject agreement markers of English and German than to independent
pronouns”. She points out that the functionality of pronominal affixes in
languages like Yupʼik (Eskimo-Aleut) and Navajo (Athabaskan) is mu closer to independent
pronouns than to agreement affixes as found in European languages. To
elucidate this distinction we can compare independent pronouns and agreement
suffixes in Russian to independent pronouns and pronominal prefixes in Tlingit.
Consider the sentence “I see you” in Russian.
()
a. я
я
вижу
вид-у
. see-..
“I see you (sg.)”
b. вижу
вид-у
тебя
тебя
.
see-..
“I see you (sg.)”
тебя
тебя
.
In Russian the agreement suffix redundantly indicates the number and person
of the subject, as well as temporal information. Both the independent pronoun and

the agreement suffix occur in (a) above. Example (b) shows how the pronoun can
be dropped unambiguously. In contrast, unlike the Russian agreement suffixes, the
Tlingit pronominal prefixes cannot cooccur with coindexed independent pronouns,
as shown by the Tlingit examples in () below.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O” ¹
a. ix̱siteen
i-0-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
“I see you”
b. * x̱át ix̱siteen
x̱át i-0-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
c. * ee
ee
ix̱siteen
i-0-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
e la of a pronoun in the Russian example (b) is aributed to a null pronominal
element pro. is is partly justified because structurally something is expected
to fill the place of the missing pronoun in the sentence. But the Tlingit situation in
() is the reverse: there seems to be nothing whatsoever in the argument position
of (a) since adding a pronoun is ungrammatical as in (b). is raises the question
of whether the position of the pronoun in the Tlingit sentence is actually an argument
position at all. In this article I will argue that the independent NPs in Tlingit
sentences are not arguments, but instead that the argument positions are indeed
within the morphophonological verb.
. A
Tlingit verb themes can be divided into seven categories depending on the presence
or absence of the subject and object pronominals and incorporated nouns.² Table
shows the gamut of possibilities. e simplest category is the [−S,
−O, +I] laing both subject and object; its sole argument is an incorporated noun.
Impersonals are extremely rare, with the two major exemplars being xee-[−, 0]-
ʔaat “be dusk” and ḵee-[−, 0]-ʔaa “be dawn”, as shown in example () below.
. is is a verb theme, the lexical entry composed of a verb root, classifier, pronominal slots, and
other lexically specified morphemes. See section for a summary of verb morphology.
. It is crucial to note that the categories used here are not those used by either Leer () or by
Naish & Story ().

Type S O I
transitive+ + + +
transitive− + + −
unergative+ + − +
unergative− + − −
unaccusative+ − + +
unaccusative− − + −
impersonal − − +
— − − −
Table : Argument typology of Tlingit verbs. S = subject, O = object, I = incorporated
noun.
()
a. [−S, −O, +I]: xee-[−, 0]-ʔaat “be dusk”
yándei yaa xeena.át
yán-déi=yaa=xee-na-0-ʔát
-=along=dusk--[−, 0, −]-go.
“it’s geing dusk”, “daylight is fading”
b. [−S, −O, +I]: ḵee-[−, 0]-ʔaa “be dawn”
ḵeewa.aa
ḵee-0-ÿa-ʔaa
dawn--[−, 0, +]-grow
“it’s dawn”, “it’s daylight”
(Naish & Story :)
(Naish & Story :)
In contrast to the impersonal verb themes, there do not appear to be any verbs
laing all of the subject, object, and incorporated noun. No descriptions of Tlingit
include any examples of su forms, and no researer has ever identified them as a
possible category. Furthermore I have been unable to elicit any, and thus I conclude
that though morphologically possible, they are semantically impossible.
Tlingit has a split between intransitive types whi is termed “fixed-S” by Dixon
(:) “active/agentive” by Mithun (), and “active” by O’Grady (), with
a fixed division between [+S, −O] and [−S, +O] verbs.
ese two categories of verb themes can be subdivided between those including
incorporated nouns and those laing incorporated nouns. Example () gives verbs
of all four types.

()
a. [+S, −O, −I]: S-[−, 0]-goot “S (sg.) go”
x̱waagoot
ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-goot
-.-[−, 0, +]-go.
“I went”
b. [+S, −O, +I]: x̱ʼa-S-[+, 0]-taan “S speak”
x̱ʼax̱wditaan
x̱ʼa-ÿu-x̱a-di-taan
mouth--.-[+, 0, +]-carry
“I spoke”
c. [−S, +O, −I]: O-[+, 0]-gaaxʼ “O be tired by noise”
x̱at wudigáxʼ
x̱at-ÿu-di-gáxʼ
.--[+, 0, +]-tire.noise
“I’m tired by continual noise”
d. [−S, +O, +I]: O-x̱ʼa-[+, 0]-gaaxʼ “O be tired by talking”
x̱at x̱ʼawdigáxʼ
x̱at-x̱ʼa-ÿu-di-gáxʼ
.-mouth--[+, 0, +]-tire.noise
“I’m tired by continual talking”
Finally there are [+S, +O] verbs with both subject and object. Transitives
can also be divided into those including incorporated nouns and those without,
as can be seen in the following pair of sentences.
() a. [+S, +O, −I]: O-S-[−, 0]-tee “S imitate O”
ix̱waatí
i-ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-tí
.--.-[−, 0, +]-be
“I imitated you”
b. [+S, +O, +I]: O-x̱ʼa-S-[−, 0]-tee “S imitate spee of O”
ix̱ʼax̱waatí
i-x̱ʼa-ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-tí
.-mouth--.-[−, 0, +]-be
“I imitated your spee”
It should be noted that there are quite a few verb themes whi include what are
termed . In Tlingit the following pronominal prefixes can

e thematic: third person object a-~0- (), indefinite human object ḵu- (.),
indefinite nonhuman object at- (.), reflexive object sh- (.), and indefinite
human subject du- (.). Whether thematic pronominals can have argument
status is unclear, however it is clear that the presence of thematic pronominals
precludes the existence of coreferential NPs in a sentence. Section . covers these
in more detail.
. L NP
Tlingit speakers very frequently uer sentences whi are composed entirely of a
phonological verb word. e following sentences in () are simple uerances that
could be spoken without any special discursive context, i.e. they could be said with
no introductory talk necessary.
()
a. xee-[−, 0]-ʔaat “be dusk”
yándei yaa xeena.át
yán-déi=yaa=xee-na-0-ʔát
-=along=dusk--[−, 0, −]-go.
“it’s geing dusk”, “daylight is fading”
b. ji-S-[−, l]-tsaaḵ “S extend hand”
kei jilatsáaḵ
kei=ji-0-0-la-tsáaḵ
up=hand--.-[−, l, −]-extend
“raise your hand”
(Naish & Story :)
(Naish :)
Either of the sentences in () could be fully understood without any particular
dependency on prior discourse. In addition, both sentences have incorporated
nouns, showing that incorporation is not necessarily a discourse feature. We cannot
then assume that NP dropping is due to discursive effects. Furthermore, it would
be difficult to justify the existence of pro in the examples above, especially since no
independent NP could appear.
. F
Of course Tlingit speakers do not always speak in verb-only sentences. At some
point nouns must occur, and indeed NPs in PPs are quite frequent. In fact, the
majority of nouns are found in PPs, but bare NPs are quie rare. ey most oen
occur in focused phrases, thus outside the argument positions, however bare NPs
can occur when unfocused, as can be seen below.
()
O-[+, 0]-teew “O read”

a. wé
wé
yadákʼw
yád-kʼw
. ild-
“the ild is reading”
b. wé
wé
datéew
0-da-téew
-[−, 0, +]-read
yadákʼw áwé
yád-kʼw á-wé
. ild-
“the ild (focused) is reading”
datéew
0-da-téew
-[−, 0, +]-read
(Leer :)
Independent pronouns also occur outside of the verb. Again, these are usually
in PPs or in focused phrases and thus are not arguments. Unlike bare NPs however,
independent pronouns cannot occur other than focused or with postpositions.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”
a. ix̱wsiteen
i-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
“I saw you”
b. * x̱át ix̱wsiteen
x̱át i-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
c. x̱át áwé
x̱át á-wé
ix̱wsiteen
i-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
“I saw you”, “that was me, I saw you”
e fact that pronominal NPs cannot occur near the verb is strong evidence that
the pronominal elements in the verb are functioning as the arguments, and that independent
pronouns cannot serve this purpose. is raises the question of whether
the nonpronominal NPs are in an argument position. Exactly how this could be
answered is unclear. For the rest of this article, I will assume that nonpronominal
NPs are not in A-positions.
. R
Evans () argued that pronominal elements found in the verb of polysynthetic
languages la a number of pronoun features su as referentiality and definiteness.
Mithun () argued extensively against this, using examples from Central Alaska

Yupʼik and Navajo to show that in these languages the pronominal affixes are just
as referential and definite as the independent pronouns in European languages.
In general the Tlingit pronominal affixes are unarguably definite, except for the
three whi encode indefiniteness: indefinite human object ḵu-, indefinite nonhuman
object at-, and indefinite human subject du-. Logically the existence of indefinite
pronominal affixes should imply that the others are definite pronominals. is
can be clearly seen in the following examples.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”
a. ḵux̱wsiteen
ḵu-ka-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
“I saw somebody”
b. * Dzéiwsh ḵux̱wsiteen
Dzéiwsh ḵu-ka-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
James i . i --.-[−, s, +]-see
“James I saw somebody”
c. * Dzéiwsh
Dzéiwsh
James i
áwé
á-wé
-
“that was James, I saw somebody”
d. x̱at wudusiteen
x̱at-ÿu-du-si-teen
.--.-[−, s, +]-see
“somebody saw me”
ḵux̱wsiteen
ḵu-ka-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
. i --.-[−, s, +]-see
e. * Dzéiwsh x̱at wudusiteen
Dzéiwsh x̱at-ÿu-du-si-teen
James i .--. i -[−, s, +]-see
“James, somebody saw me”
f. * Dzéiwsh
Dzéiwsh
James i
áwé
á-wé
-
x̱at wudusiteen
x̱at-ÿu-du-si-teen
.--. i -[−, s, −]-see
“that was James, somebody saw me”
g. x̱wasiteen
0-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
--.-[−, s, +]-see
“I saw him”

h. Dzéiwsh x̱wasiteen
Dzéiwsh 0-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
James --.-[−, s, +]-see
“James I saw him”
i. Dzéiwsh áwé
Dzéiwsh áwé
James
-
“that was James, I saw him”
x̱wasiteen
0-ÿu-x̱a-si-teen
--.-[−, s, +]-see
e sentence in examples (b) and (c) are ungrammatical because the NPs
are definite by virtue of being a name, but neither can be coreferential with the
indefinite human object pronominal. e same is true for (b) and (c) where the
indefinite human subject pronominal cannot be coreferential with the definite NP.
In contrast, all three of (g) (h), and (i) are grammatical because coreferentiality
is possible between the definite pronominal and the NP.
. F
Along with the frequent la of NP arguments, in mu of the literature on the
argument status of pronominal affixes another feature whi has been claimed as
support is relatively free phrase order,³ usually under the terms “nonconfigurationality”
or “scrambling”. Many Athabaskan languages are known for their frequent
use of verb-only sentences, but free phrase order is not common in that family.
Specifically, ompson () says that Hupa and Koyukon have somewhat
free phrase order, but most languages in the family have fixed SOV order outside
of dislocation, focus, or subject-object inversion.⁴
Going further afield, Miael Krauss (p.c.) says that Eyak is clearly SOV except
for dislocation – aracterized by “comma” effects – and focus phenomena. Gary
Holton (p.c.) confirms this, claiming Eyak is beer described as V-final because “it
is rare to have more than one direct argument expressed as a full NP or independent
pronoun” – just as with Tlingit – and that other arrangements are used “for
particular effect”. We can conclude that non-SOV phrase order in Eyak is marked
and hence it las free phrase order like most of the Athabaskan languages.
In contrast with the Athabaskan languages and Eyak, free phrase order in Tlingit
is possible in a variety of sentences, although it is oen difficult to make out
. Not “word order” whi is a misleading term. Säufele () provides an excellent argument
against “free word order” and its ilk.
. Also known as “inverse voice” (O’Grady ).

due to the la of words other than the verb. In his analysis of A-scrambling, Cable
() offered a paradigm of sentences with all possible phrase orders. In () the
SOV form is fully glossed, and then in () I repeat Cable’s exhaustive variations.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”
wé shaawát xóots
wé shaawát- xóots
. woman-
“the woman saw the bear”
brown.bear
awsiteen
a-ÿu-0-si-teen
---[−, s, +]-see
(Cable :)
()
a. SOV: wé shaawát xóots awsiteen
b. OSV: xóots wé shaawát wusiteen
c. SVO: wé shaawát wusiteen xóots
d. OVS: xóots awsiteen wé shaawát
e. VSO: awsiteen wé shaawát xóots
f. VOS: awsiteen xóots wé shaawát
e SOV and SVO orders are unsurprisingly the most common in Tlingit. Nevertheless,
all of the above examples are identical in meaning, although as Cable
notes, “there are of course discourse-pragmatic effects associated with particular
orders”. e astute reader might notice that examples (b) and (c) have a slightly
different form of the verb. is is due to a morphophonological alternation between
a- and 0- that occurs when the NP marked with agentive - directly precedes
the verb.⁵ Native speakers insist this has no effect on the meaning of the sentence,
and I will ignore it in this paper.
. T
Cable () describes the suffix - as ergative, in keeping with the analysis by Leer
(). If this is an ergative suffix then presumably the noun it marks would be an
argument. However, if we take the pronominal prefixes to be the arguments, then
the ergative suffix is marking nonarguments, a situation whi is highly suspicious.
I offer some preliminary evidence that - is not actually a marker of grammatical
case; instead it is a marker of what has been called “semantic case” whi is a
surface realization of thematic roles. In particular, - marks NPs as agents, and
hence I refer to it as the suffix. It can be used in any place where an
. Syncope reduces perfective ÿu- to w- aer another vowel, but when is 0- the vowel in ÿu- is
retained. See Cable for more details.

ergative suffix might be expected, but it is optional where agency is inherent from
the semantics of the actors.
e following two examples la - on the agents where they would be required
for an ergative-absolutive analysis. Both feature agents whi are unambiguously
animate and patients whi are unambiguously inanimate.
() a. O-S-[−, 0]-shaat “S cat O”
ldakát ax̱
ldakát ax̱
ḵaa
ḵáa
yátxʼi
yát-xʼ-ÿí
déix̱ x̱áat has aawashaat
déix̱ x̱áat has-a-ÿu-0-ÿa-shaat
all . man ild-- two fish ----[−, 0, +]-cat
“All my sons caught two fish”
(Cable :)
b. O-S-[−, 0]-ʔoo “S buy O”
ldakát ax̱
ldakát ax̱
ḵaa
ḵáa
yátxʼi
yát-xʼ-ÿí
all . man ild--
déix̱
déix̱
two
“All my sons bought two books”
xʼúxʼ s aawa.óo
xʼúxʼ s-a-ÿu-0-ÿa-ʔóo
book
----[−, 0, +]-cat
(Cable :)
A sentence in one of the more common phrase orders (SOV, SVO) doesn’t require
- even when both NPs are animate, as in (a). In contrast, - does appear
when there is ambiguity as in (b).
() O-S-[−, s]-x̱aan “S love O”
a. Bill du tláa asix̱án
Bill du tláa a-0-si-x̱án
Bill i i mother --[−, s, +]-love
“Bill loves his mother”
b. du tláa six̱án
Bill
du tláa- 0-0-si-x̱án Bill
i mother- --[−, s, +]-love Bill i
“Bill’s mother loves him”
(Cable :)
(Cable :)
e use of - in examples () and () on page is because there is ambiguity
between the animate xoots “brown bear” and animate shaawát “woman”. Both are
possible agents, so one is explicitly marked.
e agentive suffix is also used as an instrumental, in whi case it does not necessarily
agree with the pronominal, as in (a) below. is is not uncommon for
ergative-absolutive languages, but Tlingit already has an instrumental-comitative
so it is still unclear why the agentive should be used. Finally, the agentive is sometimes
used for things whi are difficult to conceive of as either agents, comitatives,

or instruments. A startling example is (b), where the function of the agentive is
obscure.
() a. O-S-[−, s]-ḵei “S pay O”
keijín dáanaa
keijín dáanaa-
five dollar-
awsiḵéi
a-ÿu-0-si-ḵéi
---[−, s, +]-pay
tláa
tláa-
mother-
“my mother paid her friend five dollars”
b. O-S-[−, s]-woo “S send O”
dleey awsiwóo
dleey- a-ÿu-0-si-wóo
meat- ---[−, s, +]-send
“he sent meat”
. GB
du
du
x̱ooní
x̱oon-ÿí
ax̱
ax̱
friend- .
(Naish :)
(Story :)
Given that the pronominal prefixes in the Tlingit verb are arguments, a pressing
question is how argument structure could be handled in syntax is section
presents an aempt to model the Tlingit verb as a full sentence in the government
and binding (GB) framework.
..
U
e most salient problem in considering the verb morphology as syntactic structure
is that it is essentially OSV order whi poses some not insignificant problems for
a GB analysis. To tale this we will first examine unergative intransitive verbs,
then later we will look at transitive and unaccusative intransitive verbs.
()
S-[−, 0]-goot “S go”
neildei x̱waagoot
neil-déi=ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-goot
home-=-.-[−, 0, +]-go.
“I went toward home”
In example () the verb contains three prefixes, whi leward from the root
are the classifier, the subject, and the perfective inner aspect. An initial analysis is
offered below.

()
neildei x̱waagoot
neil-déi= [ IP ÿu- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ ÿa-goot]]]
home-= [ IP - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, +]-go.]]]
e clitic neildei= is a preverb, a class of proclitics that function as adverbs
whi may or may not be lexically specified. ey can be considered as an AdvP
adjoined to the IP, and we will ignore them throughout this article. Note that we
are assuming no subject movement to [Spec, IP]. is analysis seems to work well
enough for the simple perfective, but it has some problems with other aspects su
as the future in the following example.
()
neildei kḵwagóot
neil-déi=ga-u-ḡa-x̱a-0-góot
home-=---.-[−, 0, −]-go.
“I will go toward home”
e ga-aspect and ḡa-aspect prefixes have distinct aspectual and conjugational
functions, but in combination with the irrealis u- they form the future aspect. is
no longer fits neatly into a single IP, so we can instead adopt a split- approa.
()
… kḵwagoot
[ AspP ga-
[ AspP -
[ MoodP u-
[ MoodP -
[ AspP ḡa- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ 0-goot]]]]]
[ AspP - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, −]-go.]]]]]
e negative perfective form has both the irrealis and the perfective, whi fit
well into our split- structure.
()
a. tléil neildei oox̱goot
tléil neil-déi=u-ÿu-x̱a-0-goot
home-=--.-[−, 0, −]-go.
“I didn’t go home”
b. … neildei oox̱goot
neil-déi=
home-=
[ MoodP u-
[ MoodP -
[ AspP ÿu- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ 0-goot]]]]
[ AspP - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, −]-go.]]]]
e order of the TMA prefixes does not ange, so henceforth I will treat them
as a unitary head of IP. us the future example would appear like that in example
() below. I do this to simplify examination of other issues, and do not mean to
imply that the TMA prefixes actually form a unitary head.

()
kḵwagóot
[ IP ga-u-ḡa- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ 0-goot]]]
[ IP --- [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, −]-go.]]]
Moving to more structurally complicated unergative intransitives, we will look
at the verb theme yoo=x̱’a-S-[−, l]-ʔaat-k “S to converse”.
()
yoo=x̱ʼa-S-[−, l]-ʔaat-k “S converse”
yoo x̱ʼatuli.átk
yoo=x̱ʼa-0-tu-li-ʔát-k
=mouth--.-[−, l, +]-carry.-
“we are conversing”
Here we have a mu more complex form whi requires extension to handle
the new parts of the verb. In this example yoo= is the alternative preverb meaning
“ba and forth; to and fro”. e repetitive suffix -k agrees with the alternative
preverb in this form, and is lexically specified so it can be considered part of the
root. Together with the incorporated inalienable noun x̱’a- “mouth” and the stem
[−, l]-ʔaat “carry (plural)” these all form the verb theme meaning “to converse”,
notionally “to carry words”. We can place yoo= into an AdvP outside of the IP, but
the incorporated x̱’a- gives us some problems.
()
yoo x̱ʼatuli.átk
yoo= [ ? x̱ʼa-] [ IP 0- [ VP tu- [ V ′ li-ʔát-k]]]
= [ ? mouth-] [ IP - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, +]-carry.-]]]
e prefix x̱ʼa- is derived from the inalienable noun (a) x̱ʼé “(its) mouth”. If we
say that this constitutes an NP then there are a few serious implications. e NP
might be an object, consistent with the usual idea of incorporates functioning as
syntactic objects of verbs. If this is the case then the object has a structurally higher
position than the subject. To get to this location we must posit movement from a
position where in D-structure the NP would receive the appropriate θ-role, namely
[Comp, VP].
()
yoo x̱ʼatuli.átk
yoo= [ IP x̱ʼa i - 0- [ VP tu- [ V ′ li-ʔát-k
t i ]]]
= [ IP mouth i - - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, +]-carry.- t i ]]]
A different issue arises with the qualifier prefixes ka- and ya-, whi originally
derive from the relational nouns (a) ká “(its) horizontal surface” and (a) yá “(its)

vertical surface, (its) face”. Although these are structurally similar to incorporated
nouns, their lexical contribution is mu less apparent and oen they appear to have
no other function besides differentiating themes or serving as nominal classifiers.
e example below with the theme ka-S-[−, l, −]-taats “pi berries by shaking
from bushes”.
()
ka-S-[−, l]-taats “S shake berries from bush”
kax̱wlitátskw
ka-ÿu-x̱a-li-táts-kw
kadádzaa
kadádzaa
yíkt
yík-t
kaadéi
ká-déi
--.-[−, l, +]-berry.shake- berry.basket inside- -
“I shook berries into a berry basket”⁶ (Naish & Story :)
Given that incorporated nouns are objects, and thus base-generated in the [Comp,
VP] position, we can propose that they move to [Spec, IP] position to receive Case.
is position is available since subjects haven’t moved.
()
kax̱wlitátskw
[ IP ka i - ÿu- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ li-táts-kw
t i ]]]
[ IP i - - [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, l, +]-berry.shake- t i ]]]
e areal prefix ḵu- is an oddity specific to the Na-Dené family. It refers to
“weather, rivers, mountains, houses, holes, cities, and other locations in space and
time” (Rice ). Like the incorporates, we can treat it like an object as well.
()
..
yaa=ḵu-S-[−, l]-ḡaat “S wander in a daze”
a. yaa yaa ḵunx̱alḡát
yaa=yaa=ḵu-na-x̱a-l-ḡát
mental=along=--.-[−, l, −]-wander
“I am wandering along lost, in a daze” (Leer :)
b. yaa=yaa=
mental=along=
I
[ IP ḵu i -
[ IP i -
na-
-
[ VP x̱a-
[ VP .-
[ V ′
[ V ′
l-ḡát
[−, l, −]-wander
t i ]]]
t i ]]]
Treating incorporates as objects is strongly supported by their behavior in impersonal
verb themes. In these, the sole argument of the verb seems to be the incorporate.
. In the original given by Naish & Story the word I have as yíkt is given as yeit. I presume this is
a typo or mistake in transcription, since yei “thus” is an adverb whi does not take oblique case
suffixes. e relational noun yík “inside of a relatively shallow concave object or area” would
make sense in the construction (a) yík-t ká-déi meaning “toward the inside on the horizontal
surface of a container”.

()
ḵee-[−, 0]-ʔaa “be dawn”
a. ḵeewa.aa
ḵee-0-ÿa-ʔaa
dawn--[−, 0, +]-grow
“it’s dawn”, “it’s daylight”
b. [ IP
[ IP
ḵee i -
dawn i -
0-
-
[ VP
[ VP
ÿa-ʔaa
[−, 0, +]-grow
t i ]]
t i ]]
(Naish & Story :)
Impersonals are thus unaccusative intransitives, although this can be semantically
somewhat obscure as in the following example.
()
..
P-t yaan-[−, 0]-haa “P be hungry”
a. ax̱
ax̱
eet
ee-t
yaan uwahaa
yaan-ÿu-ÿa-haa
. - hunger--[−, 0, −]-fit
“I’m hungry”
b. …
…
[ IP yaan i -
[ IP hunger i -
ÿu- [ VP ÿa-haa t i ]]
- [ VP [−, 0, −]-fit t i ]]
U
(Naish & Story :)
Given the behavior of incorporates in the unergative intransitives and the impersonals,
we can generalize the base generated [Comp, VP] object position to the
object prefixes of unaccusative intransitives as well.
()
a. O-[−, l]-teesh “O be lonely”
x̱at wuliteesh
x̱at-ÿu-li-teesh
.--[−, l, +]-lonely
“I’m lonely”
b. [ IP
[ IP
x̱at i -
. i -
ÿu-
-
[ VP li-teesh t i ]]
[ VP [−, l, +]-lonely t i ]]
(Naish & Story :)
In example () we have both an object and several incorporates. is can be
handled by considering the incorporates as a compound N and the object as the
possessor, thus giving a structure like [ NP object [ N ′ incorporate]].
()
a. yan x̱at keeyshakawdligásʼ
yan=x̱at-keey-sha-ka-ÿu-dli-gásʼ
=.-knee-head---[+, l, +]-move.laterally
“I skidded along on my knees” (Naish & Story :)

t i ]]]
t i ]]]
b. [ IP
[ IP
[ NP
[ NP
x̱at-
.keey-sha-ka-]
i ÿu-
[ VP dli-gásʼ
knee-head--] i ÿu- [ VP [+, l, +]-move.laterally
Given this structure, we might consider a more literal translation like “the horizontal
surface of the head of my knees moved laterally”.
..
T
Transitives simply follow from the two types of intransitives.
() yéi=O-S-[−, s]-nei “S carry assorted pl. O”
a. du
du
jishagóonxʼi
jishagóon-xʼ-ÿí
tool--
“she’s going along carrying her tools”
yaa yéi anasneen
yaa=yéi=a-na-0-s-neen
along=thus=---[−, s, −]-carry..
b. … [ IP a i - na- [ VP 0- [ V ′ s-neen
t i ]]]
… [ IP i - - [ VP - [ V ′ [−, s, −]-carry.. t i ]]]
(Naish & Story :)
Objects coocurring with incorporates are handled as possessor-possessum structures,
just as with the unaccusative intransitives.
() O-daa-ka-S-[−, 0]-yeix̱ “S peel O”
a. kʼúnsʼ daakx̱aayéix̱
kʼúnsʼ 0-daa-ka-0-x̱a-ÿa-yéix̱
potato -outside---.-[−, 0, +]-peel
“I’m peeling potatoes”
(Naish & Story :)
b. … [ IP [ NP 0- daa-ka-] i 0- [ VP x̱a- [ V ′ ÿa-yeix̱ t i ]]]
… [ IP [ NP -
outside--] i [ VP .- [ V ′ [−, 0, +]-peel t i ]]]
. P
Aside from problems inherent in the GB analysis, the Tlingit data also present a
number of problematic forms that do not fit neatly into the paradigm.
..
C
e classifier sometimes functions as a causative morpheme, with a ange in the
S component cooccuring with a ange in valency.

() a. O-S-[−, 0]-x̱aa “S eat O”
ax̱waax̱áa
a-ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-x̱áa
--.-[−, 0, +]-eat
“I ate it”
b. P O-S-[−, s]-x̱aa “S make O eat P”
wéi át ax̱wsix̱áa
wéi át a-ÿu-x̱a-si-x̱áa
. it --.-[−, s, +]-eat
“I made him eat it”
()
..
A way of handling this might be to treat the classifier as a causative vP head.
a. wéi
wéi
át
át
. it
“I made him eat it”
ax̱wsix̱áa
a-ÿu-x̱a-si-x̱áa
--.-[−, s, +]-eat
b. [ IP a i - ÿu- [ vP x̱a- [ v ′ si- [ VP t i x̱áa]]]]
[ IP i - - [ vP .- [ v ′ [−, s, +]- [ VP t i eat]]]]
T
As noted in section , there are a number of verb themes including thematic (lexically
specified) pronominals. e pronominals that can be thematic are third person
object a-~0- (), indefinite human object ḵu- (.), indefinite nonhuman
object at- (.), reflexive object sh- (.), and indefinite human subject du-
(.). e Tlingit verb dictionary (Naish & Story ) lists over different
themes whi include these pronominals, however it does not distinguish between
the areal and the indefinite human object. is is significant since the indefinite
human object indicates a real verb argument, whereas the areal may be more lexical
in a manner similar to the incorporated nouns. us the actual of number of
themes may be somewhat less, but there are still probably over one hundred.
e most frequent thematic pronominal is a-, the third person object. is
appears alone in themes like a-[+, 0]-gaan “sun shine”.
()
a-[+, 0]-gaan “sun shine”
awdigaan
a-ÿu-di-gaan
--[+, 0, +]-burn
“the sun is shining”
(Naish & Story :)

Example () is particularly interesting because semantically it is impersonal
with no distinct subject or object, but syntactically it is an unaccusative intransitive
with an object pronominal. e object pronominal cannot be coreferenced with an
NP, as in the example below.
()
* ḡagáan awdigaan
ḡagáan a-ÿu-di-gaan
sun --[+, 0, +]-burn
Since the object pronominal is thematic, previous analyses have treated this
and others like it as an impersonal, with semantics as the distinguishing criterion.
It seems to be akin to the English weather-it, so theoretically we might say that it
is an expletive pronominal, filling the object position in S-structure because there
is no object pronominal or incorporate in D-structure to move into this position.
(Recall that there are no themes laing both subject and object whi also la an
incorporate.)
e following two sentences illustrate uses of a- in themes whi have a free
subject pronominal slot.
()
a. a-ya-S-[+, 0]-goot “S turn ba”
yaa ayanax̱dagút
yaa=a-ya-na-x̱a-da-gút
along=---.-[+, 0, −]-go.
“I am turning ba” (Leer :)
b. P-x̱ a-ka-S-[−, 0]-keits “S be apprehensive about P”
tlákw
tlákw
du
du
éex̱
ée-x̱
akx̱waakéts
a-ka-ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-kéts-
always - ---.-[−, 0, +]-alert-
“I’m always apprehensive about him” (Naish & Story :)
A creative reading could suppose an object in (a), where the thematic pronominal
might refer to a place or the like, but supposing a real object in (b) is problematic
given that an oblique is present.
e indefinite human subject pronominal du- is particularly interesting because
it is the only thematic pronominal in subject position. is appears not only alone
in a few themes, but also in two themes with the areal and incorporated horizontal
surface ka-.
()
a. ḵu-ka-du-[−, 0]-ḡeet “rain in squalls, rain heavily intermiently”

..
ḵukawduwaḡít
ḵu-ka-ÿu-du-ÿa-ḡít
---.-[−, 0, +]-dark&stormy
“it rained hard and cleared and rained again” (Naish & Story :)
b. ḵu-ka-du-[−, 0]-yeilʼ “be calm weather”
ḵukawduwayéilʼ
ḵu-ka-ÿu-du-ÿa-yéilʼ
---.-[−, 0, +]-calm
“it is calm weather”
(Naish & Story :)
N
Some verbs have incorporates whi are not clearly referential. ey are not possessed
by the object, nor do they seem to have any sort of role.
()
a. ashawliʼúḵ
a-sha-ÿu-0-li-ʼúḵ
-head---[−, l, +]-halibut.hook
“he let down halibut hooks”
(Story :)
e noun classification system is a major area where nonreferential incorporates
appear. Here they indicate the class of a noun, and are not referential themselves.
() a. O-ka-S-[−, 0]-tee “S carry solid round O”
kooʼéitʼaa yaa akanatéen
kooʼéitʼaa yaa=a-ka-na-0-0-téen
ball along=----[−, 0, −]-carry₁
“he’s carrying a ball”
b. O-ka-S-[−, 0]-tee “S carry round framelike O”
kées yaa akanastéen
kées yaa=a-ka-na-0-s-téen
bracelet along=----[−, s, −]-carry₁
“he’s carrying a bracelet”
c. O-ji-ka-S-[−, s]-tee “S carry uncoiled flexible O”
tíxʼ yaa jikanastéen
tíxʼ yaa=0-ji-ka-na-0-s-téen
rope along=-hand----[−, s, −]-carry₁
“he’s carrying a rope”

..
d. O-ji-ka-S-[−, 0]-tee “S carry coiled flexible O”
tíxʼ yaa jikanatéen
tíxʼ yaa=0-ji-ka-na-0-0-téen
rope along=-hand----[−, 0, −]-carry₁
“he’s carrying a coil of rope”
e. O-ka-[−, s]-taan “S carry small slender stiff O”
kooxídaa yaa akanastán
kooxídaa yaa=a-ka-na-0-s-tán
pencil along=----[−, s, −]-carry₂
“he’s carrying a pencil”
P, ,
e plural, reciprocal, and distributive prefixes occur leward of the object. ey
may reference the object, but may also reference the subject. Exactly where these
prefixes fit in the phrase structure is an unsolved problem.
()
..
kei=a-ya-S-[+, 0]-ʔaat “S (pl.) escape”
kei s ayawdi.át
kei=s-a-ya-ÿu-0-di-ʔát
up=----[+, 0, +]-go.
“they escaped”
S
(Naish & Story :)
e self-benefactive is a rare prefix whi indicates the performance of an action
for one’s own benefit. It requires middle voice so it is not solely a prefix, but instead
forms an inflectional string ga-[+]- with a positive D component in the classifier.
I have only found it in one theme, mentioned by Story (:–). Story says
that although it is rare, “as far as is known, there is no restriction on the inflected
forms in whi the prefix may occur”.
() O-S-[−, s]-ʔee “S cook O”
a. ax̱wsi.ée
a-ÿu-x̱a-si-ʔée
--.-[−, s, +]-cook
“I cooked it”
b. at gux̱sa.ée
at-ga-u-ḡa-0-sa-ʔée
.-----[−, s, −]-cook
“he’ll cook something”

()
O-ga-S-[+, s]-ʔee “S cook for self”
a. gax̱wdzi.ée
0-ga-ÿu-x̱a-dzi-ʔée
---.-[+, s, +]-cook
“I cooked it for myself” (Story :)
b. at gagwḡas.ée
at-ga-ga-u-ḡa-0-s-ʔée
.------[+, s, −]-cook
“he’ll cook something for himself”
(Story :)
Note that there is no surface object argument in (a) and hence it could be argued
that the self-benefactive ga- is in fact a pronominal with a reflexive meaning,
this cannot be the case. Example (b) has a phonologically realized indefinite nonhuman
object at-, pointing towards ga- not being a pronominal. Nevertheless, the
reflexive object sh- does very rarely cooccur with other object arguments, meaning
that there is a remote possibility that ga- is in fact a pronominal. e paucity of
verbs with self-benefactive ga- makes it difficult to clarify this issue.
..
D
Dissimulatives, derived themes meaning “to pretend to do X”, are formed by combining
a verb theme with the derivational string sh-ḵʼa-[+, l], where sh- is the
reflexive object, ḵʼa- is the inalienable incorporated noun “mouth”, middle voice +
and series l in the classifier.
()
a. haat=sh-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-goot “S pretend to walk hither”
< haat=S-[−, 0]-goot “S come hither”
b. haat=sh-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-xeex “S pretend to run hither”
< haat=S-[+, sh]-xeex “S run hither”
c. sh-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-neekw “S pretend to be si”
< O-[−, 0]-neekw “O be si”
d. sh-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-naa “S pretend to be dead”
< O-[−, 0]-naa “O die”
e. sh-a-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-x̱aa “S pretend to eat st.”
< O-S-[−, 0]-x̱aa “S eat O”
f. sh-a-ḵʼa-S-[+, l]-toow “S pretend to read st.”
< O-S-[−, 0]-toow “S read O”
ese raise a number of unanswered questions for this analysis.

.
R
B, F. . Grammatical notes on the language of the Tlingit indians. (University
Museum Anthropological Publications .). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.
C, S. . Syncope in the verbal prefixes of Tlingit: Meter and surface
phonotactics. (L Studies in Native American Lingusitics ). Berlin: L
Europa. ---.
— . “Covert A-scrambling in Tlingit”. In Papers for the rd international conference
on Salish and neighboring languages. (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics).
Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
D, R M. W. . Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics ). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ---.
E, N. . “Why argument affixes in polysynthetic languages are not
pronouns: Evidence from Bininj Gun-Wok”. Spratypologie und Universalienforsung
: –.
F, T B. & P, P R. (eds.). . e Athabaskan languages:
Perspectives on a Native American language family. (Oxford Studies
in Anthropological Linguistics ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. --
-.
K, J. . “e independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization”.
Language (): –.
K, M E. . “On the classification in the Athapascan, Eyak, and the
Tlingit verb”. International Journal of American Linguistics (): –. Memoir
, published as a supplement to vol. no. .
L, J. . e setic categories of the Tlingit verb. Chicago: University of
Chicago PhD dissertation.
MD, J. . “On a bipartite model of the Athabaskan verb”. In Fernald,
eodore B. & Platero, Paul R. (eds.), e Athabaskan languages: Perspectives
on a Native American language family. (Oxford Studies in Anthropological
Linguistics ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ---.
M, M. . “Active/agentive case marking and its motivations”.
Language (): –.
— . “Pronouns and agreement: e information status of pronominal affixes”.
Transactions of the Philological Society (): –.
N, C M. . A syntactic study of Tlingit. London: Sool of Oriental
& African Languages, University of London master’s thesis.

N, C M. & S, G L. . Tlingit verb dictionary. Fairbanks,
AK: Alaska Native Language Center. ---.
O’G, W. . e syntax files: An introductory survey of basic syntactic
concepts and phenomena. Manuscript, version .
R, K D. . Morpheme order and semantic scope. (Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics). Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. ---.
S, S. . “A note on the term ‘scrambling’”. Natural Language &
Linguistic eory (): –.
S, G L. . A morphological study of Tlingit. London: Sool of Oriental
& African Languages, University of London master’s thesis.
S, J R. . “Tlingit”. In Boas, Franz (ed.), Handbook of American
Indian languages, –. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
T, C. . “Iconicity and word order in Koyukon Athabaskan”. In
Fernald, eodore B. & Platero, Paul R. (eds.), e Athabaskan languages: Perspectives
on a Native American language family, . , pp. –. (Oxford
Studies in Anthropological Linguistics ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
---.
.
A: B T
Because Tlingit is not well known and has a byzantine system of verb morphology,
readers unfamiliar with Na-Dené languages may appreciate some descriptive foundations.
ere is no published reference grammar of Tlingit, so I am unable to refer
readers to a reliable, atheoretical source. ere are a few sket grammars of varying
quality (Swanton ; Boas ; Story ; Naish ) as well as a theoretical
analysis of the tense-mood-aspect (“setic”) system of the verb by Leer (), but
none are easily accessible nor comprehensive.
As a cousin of the Athabaskan languages, Tlingit is traditionally described using
a slot-and-filler template for the verb. I follow this tradition here although the
template should not be taken as theoretically justified.⁷ e most recent published
description of the verb template is from Cable (). e template used here is
extended from his description, and is given in table on page .
e template does not differentiate between affixes and clitics, although there is
some evidence of distinction between them. In particular, the + preverbs are all
clitics, as are the − postverbal auxiliaries. e + preverbs have somewhat variable
order, and occasionally occur with small PPs between them and the rest of the
. For more on the template morphology controversy in Athabaskan languages, see McDonough
and Rice , among others.

verb although this is quite rare. In addition, some preverbs have independent tone
whereas the verb generally has tone only in the root. e − postverbal auxiliaries
were formed from an independent verb whi has been semantically bleaed and
now serves as a host to various modal and derivational suffixes. ese postverbal
auxiliaries are bound, but since they have indepdendent morphophonology they
cannot be considered suffixes, hence they are treated as enclitics.
Plurality is paradigmatically distinguished for first and second person but not
third. Instead, third person has paradigmatic obviation distinctions with proximate,
neutral, and obviate forms. In this article I have avoided using examples with obviation
because the phenomenon is discursive and tangential to this investigation.
Plural for third person is optionally marked with the + has- prefix, however this
can be ambiguous whether it applies to the subject, object, or even the event. Another
person distinction is between indefinite human and indefinite nonhuman,
although the laer does not occur in subject (+) position in the verb. Additional
object (+) prefixes include the partitive and reflexive, the laer of whi may
be thematic (i.e. lexically specified, see below), as well as the + reciprocal and
distributive.
Aspect is marked with prefixes that also serve as conjugational markers, as well
as with certain suffixes and with length and tone apophony in most verb roots. Aspects
are oen polymorphemic, for example the future is constructed from the gaand
ḡa- conjugational/aspectual prefixes together with the irrealis u- and − in the
classifier (whi see below). Nevertheless, the most common aspects are monomorphemic.
e aspect here called “present” is actually the la of an aspect prefix. Leer
() treated this as a zero-marked aspect he called “telic”, although it could also
be considered to be a form with no aspectual prefixes, and hence unmarked for
time. I explicitly indicate it with 0- for congruency with the other aspects, and use
the term “present” as a convenient though somewhat misleading label.
e is a portmanteau morpheme [±, , ±] composed of three functional
elements, the D component, the S component, and the I component. e
various forms of the classifier are given in table on page . Phonologically the D
component represents the presence or absence of the consonant d, the S (“series”)
component represents one of the consonants s, sh, l, or the la of a consonant as
0, and the I component represents the vowel i if positive or a if negative. Morphologically
the D component represents middle voice,⁸ the S component represents
. e D component is + in reflexives, reciprocals, self-benefactives, revertive motion with ḵux̱=,
locomotives (“move while doing”), dissimulatives, lusives (“play at doing”), and thematically.
See Naish (:), Krauss (:), and Leer (:ff).

−D +D
S↓ −I +I −I +I
0 0- ÿa- da- dil
la- li- l- dlis
sa- si- s- dzish
sha- shi- sh- ji-
Table : e Tlingit classifier (+).
Cable & Crippen Leer (1991)
+ preverbs + proclitic adjunct phrases
+ reciprocal & distributive + b number prefixes
+ plural number a ”
+ object
+ b incorporated obj. pronominals
+ areal — – —
+ alienable incorporated nouns a incorporated alienable nouns
+ inalienable incorporated nouns + c incorporated inalienable nouns
+ vertical ÿa- b ”
+ horizontal ka- a ”
+ self-benefactive + e setic prefixes
+ outer aspect/conjugation d ”
+ irrealis c ”
+ inner aspect/conjugation b ”
+ perfective a ”
+ inner distributive + distributive prefix
+ subject + subject pronominals
+ classifier + classifier
root
− derivation − derivational suffixes
− duration
− a inner durative suffixes
” b outer durative suffixes
− stem variation − inner mode suffixes
− modes − outer mode suffixes
− modes − epimode & clause type suffixes
− postverbal auxiliaries — – —
Table : Tlingit verb template. Prefixes are positive, suffixes are negative. Suffix
classifications for the Cable & Crippen column are tentative.

Position
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Affixes
() yaa, yoo
() yaa
() yéi~yeʻT
() kei, yei, yeeḵ~yeiḵ~iʻḵ T , daaḵ, daak
() yan*, neil*, haa*, yóo*, ḵux̱*, kux*
() ḵut, yux̱, yaax̱, héenx̱, ux̱, ḵwáaḵx̱, yedx̱, ÿaanax̱~ÿaʻnax̱T
() ḡunayéi~ḡunéi, áa, shóo, héeni, gági, éeḡi, daaḡi
dax̱-, wooshhas-~sx̱at-~ax̱-,
haa-, i-, yee-, ash-, a-~0-, ḵu-~ḵaa-, at-, aa-, sh-~0-
ḵuyaan-,
shakux-, yata-, x̱ʼasakw-, ḡax̱-, xee-~xei-, ḵee-~ḵei-, yee-~yei-,
kanik-, yaḵa-, saa-, aan-, naa-, sha.ax̱w-, yakw-, hinji-,
x̱ʼa-~ḵʼa-, tu-, sha-, shu-, lu-, se-~sa-, x̱a-, gu-, ta-, daa-, x̱oo-, x̱an-,
x̱ʼaa-, tʼéi-, t’aa-, yik-, yee-, ḵi-, gin-, x̱i-, sʼaan-, lidíx̱ʼ-, waḵ-, sʼaḵ-, x̱ʼus-,
sʼee-, duk-, laka-, tlʼaḵ-, keey-, tóoxʼ-, x̱ʼatu-, tuḵx̱ʼe-~tuḵʼe-, daa.it-, tax̱ʼ-
+ ÿa-
+ ka-
+ ga-
+ ga-, ḡa-
+ u-
+ 0-, na-, ḡa-
+ ÿu-
+ daḡa-~dax̱-
+ x̱a-, tu-, ee-, yi-, 0-, du-, du-
+ [d, s, i ]: d ∈ {+, −}; s ∈ {0, s, l, sh}; i ∈ {+, −}
−
root
-án, -shán, -, -áḵw, -aa, -x̱aa, -ÿí, -ee, -k, -álʼ~-ʼálʼ, -ḵ,
-nas, -násʼ, -kátʼ
− () -ʻ, -k, -x̱, -
() -t, -xʼ, -tʼ, -sʼ, -lʼ
− -ː, -ʻ, -ʼ, -ÿ, -n
− -, -nee~-ee, -ín~-ún
− -ee, -een, -eeḵ~-ḵ, -ÿi
− noo~nee I ~nuk Y , noojeen~ ? neejeen S , nóok(w)~néekw S ,
núgwni~nígwni S , ḡanúgun~ḡanígún I ~ḡaníkw S
Table : Tlingit verb affixes. E preverbs can take certain locative suffixes. Subscripts
mark dialect-specific forms (T: Tongass, S: Southern, I: Interior, Y: Yakutat).

valency and/or noun class,⁹ and the I component disagrees with the irrealis. e
S component is lexically specified in the majority of verb themes although there is
some regular alternation. For example sh generally represents unpleasant or deprecatory
forms of 0 or s themes, and pairs of 0 statives and s causatives are common.
e D component appears as + in nearly all semantically middle voice verbs even
if this is not otherwise indicated with pronominals; it is also lexically specified in
a few themes, e.g. O-S-[+, 0]-naa “S drink O”.
e is a traditional descriptive unit in Athabaskan linguistics whi
is comprised of a verb root and classifier – together forming the stem – along with
various lexically specified bound morphemes. e lexically specified or
morphemes usually consist of preverbs, the areal, noun classification prefixes, and
incorporated nouns, but may also include more typically inflectional elements su
as aspectual prefixes and subject and object pronominals. e verb theme apparently
forms a lexical entry, although the exact structure of this in the lexicon is
still debated and may differ between languages in the family. Tlingit verb themes
are given as a morpheme string in italics, with the classifier components inside of
braets indicating their portmanteau composition.
() +14
O-
+11 +10
ji-
ka-
object- hand- horiz.surface-
“S coil thin flexible O”
+3 +1 0
S- [−, l]- x̱eil
subject- classifier- root
An example theme is given sematically in () above. It has free object O and
subject S pronominals, the incorporated noun jín “hand” whi is reduced to ji-,
the incorporated noun ká “horizontal surface” reduced to ka- whi together with
ji- functions as a noun class specifier, the classifier with − and the l consonant,
and the verb root x̱eil meaning “coil”. Because the verb theme specifies mu of
the semantic basis of verbs, the verb root oen has a very vague meaning; thus
verb root glosses must be understood as mnemonic approximations rather than
true translations.
. is noun classification function is the source of the term “classifier”, but the function is largely
absent within the Athabaskan family. is has led Athabaskanists to deride the term, however
it is still appropriate for Tlingit.

. A: G
, , person
adverbial
agentive
allative, “to, toward”
alternative, “ba and forth”
areal, “space, location, environment, weather”
aspect (unspecified)
meaningless base for pronominal aament
classifier: voice, valency, realis, noun class
+ middle voice or thematic
{0, s, l, sh}: valency, noun class, or thematic
+ realis
conjugation marker (unspecified)
decessive
demonstrative
diminuitive
distal, far from speaker and listener
distributive
focus
habitual
horizontal surface, “top, flat, surface”
indefinite human, “somebody”
indefinite nonhuman, “something”
irrealis
mesiodistal, nearer to listener
mode/mood (unspecified)
mesioproximal, nearer to speaker
negative
object
perfective
perlative case, “through, along, across”
pertingent case, “at, in contact with, form of, member of”
plural
punctual case, “at/to a point”
present
progressive
proximal, closest to speaker
possessive pronoun or possessum suffix

eciprocal
repetitive
reversive, “ba, bawards”
reflexive
subject
self-benefactive
singular
terminative, “cease, end, coming to a point”
vertical surface, “side, face, flat”