The Folk Biology of the Tobelo People - Smithsonian Institution ...
The Folk Biology of the Tobelo People - Smithsonian Institution ...
The Folk Biology of the Tobelo People - Smithsonian Institution ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
NUMBER 34 25<br />
its inflectional class; thus <strong>the</strong> entry for <strong>the</strong> verb "find" must<br />
include a statement that it is a (transitive) verb. <strong>The</strong>re is also a<br />
noun "find" ('a tiling which has been found'), but unless aU<br />
verbs <strong>of</strong> die same class as "find" form nouns in a simtiar way,<br />
tiiis noun must have a separate entry along with information<br />
about its own inflectional class. Thus unless <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong><br />
one inflectional class are predictable from tiiose <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
(e.g., verbs and participials in English), <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>se are best<br />
considered separate lexemes.<br />
Each item occurring in <strong>the</strong> domain <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tobelo</strong> BIOTIC<br />
FORMS is a noun; but we may illustrate a practical problem<br />
with determining whetiier sets <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong> one inflectional<br />
class (in this case, a set <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tobelo</strong> verbs) are predictable from<br />
members <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r (<strong>Tobelo</strong> nouns in <strong>the</strong> FLORAL FORM<br />
domain). <strong>Tobelo</strong> nouns and verbs can easdy be distinguished<br />
tiiroughout <strong>the</strong> language (see 3.2.1 below). Yet <strong>Tobelo</strong><br />
informants do vary as to whetiier <strong>the</strong>y consider it acceptable to<br />
form verbs from some nouns for FLORAL FORMS. <strong>The</strong><br />
details <strong>of</strong> tiiis case iUustrate one method <strong>of</strong> interpreting<br />
informant "variability" or apparent "disagreement." <strong>The</strong> question<br />
in this example is: Can aU nouns for (i.e., names <strong>of</strong>)<br />
FLORAL FORMS become verbs having <strong>the</strong> meaning 'to tiirow<br />
(that FLORAL FORM, or a part <strong>of</strong> that FLORAL FORM)'?<br />
Some informants maintain that it is possible to form from<br />
almost any plant name 'X' a verb meaning 'to throw X (or a<br />
part <strong>of</strong> X) at someone,' on <strong>the</strong> model <strong>of</strong> o guawe 'mango'<br />
to-ni-guawe (T + 'you' + 'mango') 'I throw mangoes at you';<br />
o lukama 'lansat fruit (or tree)' mo-hi-lukama ('she'+ *me'+<br />
'lansat fruit') 'she throws lansat fruits at me,' etc. This<br />
construction is normaUy used only for cultivated fruits, yet<br />
names for vines, smaU herbs, trees, aroid plants, etc., were also<br />
accepted as possible verb roots by one informant at Loleba<br />
village, though he realized tiiey were rarely thrown, and in<br />
some cases virtually impossible to tiirow. "If we happen to<br />
reach <strong>the</strong> point where we tiirow <strong>the</strong>m," he said, "we could say<br />
it tiiat way." Otiier informants disagreed, tiiough <strong>the</strong> boundary<br />
between what definitely could and could not be dirown was not<br />
clear.<br />
In fact, though, no informant could accept <strong>the</strong> construction as<br />
meaning 'to throw X at someone' for some plant terms which,<br />
used as transitive verb roots, have o<strong>the</strong>r specific meanings,<br />
such as tiba (noun) 'Schizostachyum lima (Blanco) Merr.' (a<br />
bamboo); -tiba (verb) 'to cook inside tiba bamboo'; biawa<br />
(noun) 'Donax sp.,' -biawa (verb) 'to spear (sometiiing) with<br />
die sharpened stem <strong>of</strong> a biawa plant' etc. For this reason, it<br />
seems impossible to treat <strong>the</strong> transformation <strong>of</strong> plant names<br />
into roots <strong>of</strong> verbs meaning 'to throw (that plant)' as a general<br />
rule throughout <strong>the</strong> full range <strong>of</strong> plant terms, especially since<br />
die construction's use for cultivated fruits seems so central to<br />
its meaning, and since die transformation does not occur for<br />
most nouns o<strong>the</strong>r tiian plant names. More likely, we may<br />
consider <strong>the</strong> terms for 'banana,' 'mango,' 'citrus fruit' etc., to<br />
have <strong>the</strong> same forms as <strong>the</strong> roots <strong>of</strong> verbs (which are different<br />
lexemes) meaning 'to throw (<strong>the</strong> fruits <strong>of</strong> those plants).' For<br />
some <strong>Tobelo</strong> speakers <strong>the</strong>se may be <strong>the</strong> only nouns that form<br />
verbs in this way. Some <strong>Tobelo</strong>, though, are simply more<br />
wtiling than otiiers to accept use <strong>of</strong> this transformation to<br />
spontaneously coin new lexemes having o<strong>the</strong>r plant-names as<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir roots. In <strong>the</strong> same way, some speakers <strong>of</strong> English may find<br />
it more acceptable tiian o<strong>the</strong>rs to form verbs from "container"<br />
nouns like "tube" or "jar" on <strong>the</strong> analogy <strong>of</strong> verbs like "(to)<br />
can," "(to) bag" or "(to) bottle."<br />
<strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r ways in which noun lexemes in <strong>the</strong> domain <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Tobelo</strong> FLORAL FORMS may have <strong>the</strong> same form as verbs<br />
(<strong>the</strong> only o<strong>the</strong>r inflectional class which nouns might become)<br />
are clearly very specific to particular plants or smaU sets <strong>of</strong><br />
plants, and clearly best handled as separate lexemes. An<br />
example already mentioned (2.2) would be die reduplication <strong>of</strong><br />
some animal and plant names to form die root <strong>of</strong> die passive<br />
verb meaning 'to have die disease with die characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />
(that animal or plant).'<br />
3.1.2 <strong>The</strong> Lexemic Status <strong>of</strong> Homonymous and Polysemous<br />
Terms<br />
Any particular form (even one that is monomorphemic) may<br />
also be <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a different lexeme (e.g., "bank <strong>of</strong> a river"<br />
and "die bank on Main Street"). It is essential to separate out<br />
die different homonymous or polysemous "meanings," which<br />
me forms in a semantic domain may have, tiiough examples<br />
below wdl Ulustrate that (fortunately!) it is usually not<br />
necessary to decide how many lexemes can be labeled by a<br />
particular form occurring in a domain to adequately describe<br />
that domain.<br />
Two lexemes may be said to be homonymous if aU <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
forms are <strong>the</strong> same, but <strong>the</strong>y have unrelated meanings. Hunn<br />
(1977:36), in describing Tzeltal folk zoology, instead considers<br />
different etymologies to be die determining factor. But die<br />
etymology <strong>of</strong> words has little to do witii whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y<br />
should be considered homonyms in a structural description <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> language as it is currendy spoken. In some cases (e.g., die<br />
two senses <strong>of</strong> "found" in die example above) homonymy is<br />
historically a result <strong>of</strong> different etymologies, but in otiier cases<br />
(e.g., a part in a play vs. <strong>the</strong> part in one's hair; tack, 'insert a<br />
smaU nati into, and tack, 'sad in a zig-zag fashion') die two<br />
words derived historicaUy from die same root must neverdieless<br />
be treated as different lexemes in a description <strong>of</strong> modern<br />
English. In any case, in languages such as <strong>Tobelo</strong> (or Tzeltal)<br />
without a long written historical tradition or extensive<br />
comparative data, it is at present difficult to recognize or prove<br />
etymological relationships.<br />
Polysemy, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, refers to related meanings <strong>of</strong><br />
die same lexeme, as in die example <strong>of</strong> container words "glass,"<br />
"bowl," etc., which also mean 'glassful (<strong>of</strong> some substance),'<br />
'bowlful,' etc. (as in <strong>the</strong> sentence "I already drank tiiree<br />
glasses").<br />
<strong>The</strong>re wiU clearly be some variation among those who<br />
describe a language (in this case, dictionary writers) about