A comparison of morphosyntactic features between Marquesan ...

A comparison of morphosyntactic features
between Marquesan, Hawaiian, and Tahitian
James A. Crippen
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa – jcrippen@gmail.com
December 13, 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
Current theories of Proto–Eastern Polynesian (PEP) relationships call for a three
way division between Rapanui, Marquesic, and Tahitic families, with Hawaiian
(HAW) and Marquesan (MQA) grouped together with Mangarevan into the Marquesic
family, and Tahitian (TAH) together with Māori, Rarotongan, and others
in the Tahitic family. Evidence for these relationships has been gathered almost
entirely from phonological correspondences and reconstruction through the comparative
method. Extensive comparative work on morphosyntax is lacking. is
paper describes selected morphosyntactic constructions in MQA, HAW, and TAH,
hoping to show that morphosyntactic comparison can provide an additional source
of useful evidence for historical linguistics in the Polynesian family.
roughout this paper a unified transcription is used for all three languages
under discussion. In this system the grapheme 〈‘〉 denotes the glottal stop, IPA
[ʔ]. Vowel length, IPA [ː], is denoted by a macron diacritic over the vowel, thus
〈ā〉 for IPA [aː]. e voiced alveolar flap [ɾ] of Marquesan and Tahitian is given
as 〈r〉, and the variable [l]~[ɾ] of Hawaiian is given as 〈l〉. e variable [k]~[t] of
Hawaiian is written as 〈k〉 regardless of the original transcription. All other vowels
and consonants retain their customary meanings.
2. ARTICLES
All three languages share a clearly related definite singular article which descends
from Proto–Central Eastern Polynesian (PCE) *te. Both TAH and MQA have te
(Lazard & Peltzer 2000; Mutu & Teìkitutoua 2002; Lynch 2002), whereas HAW has
ka with ke before initial k, e, a, o and lexically for some words with initial ‘ or p
(Elbert & Pukui 1979:154).
1

2.1. DEFINITE NA
No. HAW MQA TAH DEF SPEC
SG ke~ka te te ± ±
DL — na nā +
PC — na nā +
PL nā na — +
Table 1: Basic “definite” articles in HAW, MQA, and TAH.
HAW nā is the definite plural article corresponding to the definite singular ka~ke
(Elbert & Pukui 1979).
According to Mutu & Teìkitutoua (2002:75), MQA na 1 is a “definite, specific,
and paucal [article] indicating either two or a small number”, and corresponds to
the definite singular te. Cablitz (2006:140) says it “expresses that a noun phrase
refers to definite plural entities”, but that the entities are usually limited to two
which is shown by other indicators in context. She also notes that na is only used
by older speakers. In glosses, Cablitz gives na as “ART.dl/pl”, indicating that it
functions as either a dual or a plural. Cablitz is elsewhere fairly scrupulous about
the distinction between specific and non-specific articles, but here she does not
mention whether na has a particular focus on one or the other. In a later comment
on this she states that na is considered by her to be specific (Cablitz, p.c.).
TAH nā (given as na by some) is a dual article according to Vernier & Drollet
(1968), although they also claim it can express a “limited plural reduced to several
units”, what is probably a paucal. Indeed, Lazard & Peltzer (2000:207) describe TAH
nā as “article paucal” giving a translation as “les (deux, quelques)” (tr. “the (two,
some)”) which indicates that it may function as either a dual or a paucal. Again,
TAH nā corresponds to the definite singular article te. Tryon (1970:11) describes
this article as both a dual and as a paucal “used with numbers up to ten, with reference
to persons, if the actual number is specified”. No source describes TAH nā
as a definite article, but the glosses and translations in each suggest that this is the
case. e question remains whether TAH nā is a specific article.
Functional comparison of these articles shows that MQA and TAH preserve essentially
the same definite specific dual/paucal article descended from PCE *na(a),
however HAW nā has changed it into a definite plural article. Note that the number
of MQA na is intermediate between TAH and HAW. is could indicate that MQA
1. Perhaps MQA may also be nā Mutu & Teìkitutoua denote vowel length and give na, but Cablitz
does not give vowel length. ere may be no distinction.
2

No. HAW MQA TAH DEF SPEC
SG kekahi titahi te tahi − +
PC kekahi te tahi − +
PL tahipito te tahi mau − +
SG he he~‘e ‘e − −
Table 2: Indefinite articles in HAW, MQA, and TAH.
is more conservative than HAW, having expanded the number of na from the situation
in TAH, but not having lost the dual/paucal sense which is not preserved in
HAW. However, number seems to be rather flexible in all of these languages so no
solid conclusions can be reliably drawn from these data.
2.2. INDEFINITE HE~‘E
Mutu & Teìkitutoua (2002:76) describe the MQA indefinite articles ‘e and he. e
two are equivalent in nominal predicates where they both indicate the same indefiniteness
and non-specificity, however only he is allowed aer prepositions and only
‘e is allowed before numbers. In the latter case ‘e loses its notion of indefiniteness.
(1) a. he potu tenā
IND cat MDIST
“that is a cat” (Zewen 1987:21)
MQA
b. he tekao tēnei no Ikitepanoa
IND talk this POSS Ikitepanoa
“this is a story about Ikitepanoa” (Mutu & Teìkitutoua 2002:77) MQA
ese are closely related to the two HAW forms he and ‘e- (Elbert & Pukui
1979:156ff). He functions as an indefinite marker in nominal predicates. Unlike
MQA he, however, HAW he cannot appear in prepositional phrases except aer me
“with”. ere is also no free variation between he and ‘e- in nominal predicates.
Instead, ‘e- is restricted to functioning as a general classifier before numbers less
than ten. It has a rare variant ‘a-, which particularly appears in names for days of
the week: Pō‘akahi “Monday” (lit. pō-‘a-kahi night-NUM-one), Pō‘alua “Tuesday”,
Pō‘akolu “Wednesday”, etc.
(2) a. ‘ua pao ‘e to‘u pō
PERF complete NUM three night
“three days passed” (Mutu & Teìkitutoua 2002:77)
MQA
3

. ‘ua pau ‘e-kolu pō
PERF complete NUM-three night
“three days passed”
HAW
Because HAW uses monolexical numbers for the decades below one hundred
(e.g. kanalima “fiy”), and because these forms do not take the numeral classifier
‘e-, the following comparison uses ‘elima haneli “five hundred” in the HAW sentence
instead.
(3) a. ‘e ‘ima onohu‘u ‘enana i he‘e
NUM five ten person PAST go
“fiy men went” (Mutu & Teìkitutoua 2002:77)
b. ‘e-lima haneli kanaka i hele
NUM-five hundred person PAST go
“five hundred men went”
MQA
HAW
Lazard & Peltzer (2000:162) do not list any indefinites in their description of
TAH articles. However, e is given as a cognate of HAW he (p. 36ff). eir examples
only give it in initial position, and not in as an article.
(4) a. e manu terā
IND bird MDIST
“that is a bird” (Lazard & Peltzer 2000:36)
b. e fa‘ehau terā ta‘ata
IND soldier MDIST person
“that man is a soldier” (id.)
TAH
TAH
Tryon (1970:10) describes TAH ‘e as an article which has the same “demonstrative
force” as ‘o, which in turn is “a kind of demonstrative article, meaning ‘it is’ ”.
His glosses seem to indicate that it functions as an indefinite because he contrasts it
with definite forms glossed for ‘o. As with Lazard & Peltzer (2000), it only appears
in initial position in a manner similar to ‘o.
(5) a. ‘e ta‘ata
IND person
“it is a person” (Tryon 1970:10)
b. ‘o te ta‘ata
EQN DEF person
“it is the man” (id.)
TAH
TAH
4

SG DEF SPEC Init. Med.
HAW he + − − + +
HAW ‘e- − + − + +
MQA he + − − + −
MQA ‘e ± + − + +
TAH ‘e + − − + −
Table 3: Feature comparison of he and ‘e in HAW, MQA, and TAH.
3. NUMBER AND NOUN CLASSIFIERS
Noun classifiers are extensive in many western (i.e. non-Eastern) Polynesian languages,
however they are much more restricted in Eastern Polynesian languages. In
TAH, MQA, and HAW, noun classifiers serve to mark collectives of various classes of
objects, some overlapping with the plural system. Certain classifiers seem to have
a more restricted meaning indicating only various forms of plurality and having no
classificatory meaning, and thus these might be better called “plural classifiers” or
simply “plural markers”.
3.1. MARQUESAN
According to Lynch (2002:870), MQA commonly indicates plurality with a noun
classifier. He gives the following classifiers: tau “group of people, animals, or
things”, hatu “group smaller than tau”, po‘i “people”, hua‘a “members of a family”,
pāpā “high class people”, naho “group of animates”, puke “collection of animates or
inanimates”, ma‘a “clumps or groves of trees or plants”, and mou “paucal”.
Mutu & Teìkitutoua (2002:81) give a rather different description of three complementarily
distributed number markers mou “dual”, mau “paucal”, and tau “plural”.
ese are incompatible with the definite paucal article na 2 and hence must be
used with the definite singular te.
(6) a. ‘ua he‘e te mou vehine
PERF go DEF DL woman
“the two women went” (Mutu & Teìkitutoua 2002:80)
MQA
2. Mutu & Teìkitutoua here say “plural definite article na” which contradicts their earlier description
“definite, specific, and paucal” (p. 75) . I presume this is a mistake and continue treating
MQA na as a paucal.
5

. ‘ua he‘e te mau vehine
PERF go DEF PC woman
“the (small) group of women went” (id.)
c. ‘ua he‘e te tau vehine
PERF go DEF PL woman
“the group of women went” (id.)
MQA
MQA
Notably, Mutu & Teìkitutoua describe mou has having a specific dual number,
but mau and tau lack specific number. Consequently, they cannot be used with
postnominal numbers, thus *‘ua he‘e te mau vehine tokoto‘u (tokoto‘u = “three”).
3.2. HAWAIIAN
Elbert & Pukui (1979:162) describe a few “special plurals” for HAW: mau, po‘e, kau,
wahi, nāhi, and ona. Mau is certainly the most common, and functions as the plural
marker in possessive phrases where determiners (ka~ke and nā) are disallowed as
in example 7.
(7) (*nā) ka‘u mau puke
(DET.PL) my PL book
“my books” (Elbert & Pukui 1986:241)
HAW
HAW kau is also apparently cognate with MQA tau, and serves as a plural particle,
e.g. example 8. It is very rare and found mostly in the compounds kauhale
“group of houses comprising a home”, kaukolu “group of three”, kauwahi “some, a
little”. e meaning of each of these compounds is somewhat paucal, since kauhale
indicates a limited number of buildings which comprise the traditional Hawaiian
home, kaukolu is naturally limted to three, and kauwahi includes the more common
paucal wahi (see below).
(8) a. lawea mai i kau pā ipu a kākou
bring.IMP hither DO PL dish gourd POSS 1INC.PL
“bring our dishes here” (Elbert & Pukui 1986:303, pā ipu)
b. ua ‘ike anei ‘oe i kau pua‘a a mākou
PERF see YN 2SG.S DO PL pig POSS 1EXC.PL
“have you seen our pigs” (id.:134, kau, sense 9)
HAW
HAW
6

Po‘e appears to be cognate with MQA po‘i and has a similar function as a collective
plural marker for “group of people”, as in example 9. It is however occasionally
used as an indiscriminate plural, e.g. po‘e hale “houses” (id., sense 2).
(9) ‘e-walu ka po‘e kaua
NUM-eight DEF group warrior
“eight groups of warriors” (Elbert & Pukui 1986:334, po‘e)
HAW
HAW wahi is the typical paucal article, meaning “some, a little, a bit of ” (Elbert
& Pukui 1986:376). Nāhi is a rare contraction of nā “plural article” and wahi “paucal
article”, and it functions as a paucal as well. e last paucal is ona which precedes
the last of two or more things in a list and usually precedes mau.
(10) lawe mai i puke, i pepa, a me ona mau peni
bring hither DO book DO paper and PC PL pencil
“bring books, paper, and (some) pencils” (Elbert & Pukui 1979:163) HAW
3.3. TAHITIAN
Lazard & Peltzer (2000) give several “prédéterminants” in TAH which align with
those found in MQA and HAW: mau, tau, nau, ma‘a, hui, nana, pu‘e, feiā, hō‘ē, tahi,
vetahi, reira, and a few combinations. According to them mau is an unlimited
plural, equivalent to HAW mau.
(11) a. ‘ua rave au i te mau puta
PERF bring 1SG.S DO DET PL book
“I brought the books” (Lazard & Peltzer 2000:166) TAH
b. ‘ua lawe au i kau mau puke
PERF bring 1SG.S DO your PL book
“I brought your books” HAW
ey claim that tau and nau are equivalent, and represent “un nombre restreint,
‘quelques, un certain nombre de’ ” (tr. “a restricted number, ‘some, a certain number
of ’ ”). Furthermore, these cannot be used with the definite article te or possessives,
but are compatible with demonstratives. It would seem then from this description
that tau and nau are both paucals.
7

(12) a. ‘ua fārerei au i teie nau poti‘i i Farani
PERF meet 1SG.S DO these PC girl LOC France
“I met these (few) girls in France” (Lazard & Peltzer 2000:167) TAH
b. ‘ua hālawai au i kēia wahi pōki‘i i Palani
PERF meet 1SG.S DO these PC younger.cousin LOC France
“I met these (few) younger cousins in France” HAW
In comparison, Tryon (1970:11) describes nau as an article that indicates proximal
plurality, similar to English “these”. He contrasts this with tau na which he
says indicates distal plurality, similar to English “those”. As both are categorized
with na
(13) a. a hi‘o na ‘i tēra nau tia‘a
IMP look hither DO those PL.PROX shoe
“look at these shoes” (Tryon 1970:11)
b. tau na tumu ‘anani
PL.DIST tree orange
“the orange trees” (id.)
TAH
TAH
e use of tēra is confusing in example 13a because it is the distal demonstrative
indicating distance from both speaker and listener. is contrasts with the stated
meaning of nau which is supposed to be a proximal article. Probably tēra is a typo
for tēia which is the proximal demonstrative.
Tryon (1970:12) gives a “series of words indicating a group” in TAH: hui “group
of esteemed people”, mā “family group”, nana “flock or herd”, taura “race or breed”,
ruru “tied bundle”, ‘amui “tied bundle of identical goods”, ‘atā = ruru, pe‘etā “bunch
attached to a branch”, atari “bunch picked from a tree”, pupā “bunch of small fruits”,
pu‘e “collection of men, animals, or food”, feiā “group of people engaged in activity”,
and ma‘a “small quantity of food or drink”.
4. CONCLUSION
Several tentative conclusions are available from the data presented here. One is that
the categories of “definite” versus “indefinite” are rather indistinct in all of these
languages, as seen in table 1, and should be carefully revisited with new elicitation
8

from native speakers, a task which is unfortunately difficult to do in Hawaiian. e
idea of “definite” is probably a holdover from researchers influenced by grammatical
descriptions of Indo-European languages, and only Cablitz is careful about the
distinction between definiteness and specificity in her description of MQA.
Other interesting features are apparent from the positional distribution and
meaning of he~‘e in the three languages, as outlined in table 3. HAW has clearly
separated the two morphemes, restricting ‘e- as a numerical prefix and he as an article.
In contrast, MQA is still somewhat flexible in treating ‘e as both a numeric
marker and an indefinite article, whereas he is only available as an article. TAH has
essentially lost the he form, or at least it occurs so rarely that no records have been
made of it yet. e positional distribution of he and ‘e is curious as well, since in
MQA he is only sentence initial, and ‘e can be either initial or medial if used as a
numeral marker, however in contrast both HAW he and ‘e- can be either initial or
medial.
Finally, although morphosyntactic data are typically considered unreliable in
historical comparative analysis, this research points towards the possibility of using
morphosyntactic comparison as an adjunct to historical comparative study.
It is unlikely that morphosyntactic comparison could be useful between languages
which are separated by great time depths, however in this case where the languages
in question are only separated by a millennium or two, the possibility of using morphosyntactic
comparison as an adjunct method is tantalizing. Certainly such comparison
will never supplant phonetic analyses, however the review of morphosyntactic
differences between closely related languages may give additional weight to
existing comparisons, and may lead towards the discovery of comparative similarities
or differences which are otherwise overlooked.
REFERENCES
Cablitz, Gabriele H. 2006. Marquesan: A grammar of space, vol. 169 of Trends in linguistics:
Studies and monographs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-1101-8949-0.
Elbert, Samuel H. & Mary Kawena Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University
of Hawai‘i Press. ISBN 0-824-82489-X.
Elbert, Samuel H. & Mary Kawena Pukui. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary: Hawaiian-English,
English-Hawaiian. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. ISBN 0-8248-0703-0.
Lazard, Gilbert & Louise Peltzer. 2000. Structure de la langue tahitienne. No. 15 in Langues
et cultures du Pacifique. Paris: Éditions Peeters. ISBN 2-87723-538-6.
Lynch, John. 2002. “Marquesan”. In Lynch et al. (2002), pp. 865–876.
9

Lynch, John, Malcom Ross, & Terry Crowley, eds. 2002. e Oceanic languages. Richmond,
Surrey, UK: Curzon. ISBN 0-7007-1128-7.
Mutu, Margaret & Ben Teìkitutoua. 2002. Ùa Pou: Aspects of a Marquesan dialect, vol. 533
of Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ISBN 0-858-83526-6.
Tryon, Darrell T. 1970. Conversational Tahitian. Canberra: Australian National University
Press.
Vernier, Charles & Alexandre Tahea Drollet. 1968. Grammar of the Tahitian language. San
Diego: E. Creutz. Translated from the French (1934) by E. Creutz.
Zewen, François. 1987. Introduction à la langue des îles Marquises: Le parler de Nukuhiva.
Pape‘ete, Tahiti: Éditions Haere Po no Tahiti. ISBN 2-904-171-15-0.
APPENDIX: ABBREVIATIONS
DEF definite article: HAW ka~ke & nā, MQA te & na, TAH te & nā
DEM demonstrative
DIST distal demonstrative: HAW kēlā, TAH tēra
DO direct object marker: HAW i, MQA (‘)i, TAH (‘)i
DL dual number
EQN equational: HAW ‘o, MQA (‘)o, TAH ‘o
EXC exclusive person
IMP imperative mood
INC inclusive person
IND indefinite article: HAW he, MQA he~‘e, TAH he~‘e
MDIST mesiodistal demonstrative: HAW kēnā, MQA tenā, TAH tēna
NUM numeral classifier: HAW ‘e-~‘a-, MQA ‘e
PC paucal number
PERF perfective aspect: HAW ‘ua, MQA ‘ua~‘u, TAH ‘ua
POSS possessive
PROX proximal demonstrative: HAW kēia, MQA teie, TAH teie
SG singular number
S subject
YN yes/no question: HAW anei < PCP a(a)nei (Elbert & Pukui 1986:25)
10