on the “atypical” imperative conjugation in manda (bantu n.11)...on the “atypical”...

ON THE “ATYPICAL” IMPERATIVE CONJUGATION IN MANDA (BANTU N.11)

RASMUS BERNANDER PHD STUDENT IN AFRICAN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES, UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG / GÖTEBORGS UNIVERSITET BOX 200, 405 30 GÖTEBORG (GOTHENBURG) PHONE: +46-(0)31-7864477 EMAIL: [email protected]

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES

1

mailto:[email protected]

Introduction - Manda

• Small and poorly documented language (cf. Maho & Sands 2003:178)

• ~ 30 000 speakers

• At the north-eastern shores of Lake Nyasa (or lake Malawi) in Southern Tanzania


2

…Introduction - Manda • Coded as N.11 in N.10 group

(Guthrie 1948, 1967-71, Maho 2009)

• Together with e.g. (Tanzanian) Ngoni and Matengo

• Messy genealogy: Manda originally Southern Highland (~G.60) (Nurse 1982, 1988, 1999)???


3

Introduction - the Imperative in Manda

• Odd-looking! (1) pʊmʊIíláyi! pʊmʊIɪl-áyi rest-DIR ‘rest!’ (2) hɪ́nu lɪ́ndáyi! hɪnu lɪnd-ayi! now wait-DIR ‘now, wait!’ (3) kungísáyi nyényénye! kung-is-ayi nyényénye fasten-caus-DIR IDPH ‘fasten it tightly!’

• The aim of this talk: -To account for this atypical feature found in Manda -To reconstruct the diachronic functional and formal pathway of change leading up to this synchronic state

4


Imperatives and other directives

• Mauri & Sansò (2011; see also Auwera et al 2003, 2005): Imperative = sub-category of (positive) directives (in the imperative-hortative paradigm)

• Directives = express the wish of the speaker about an event to hold true, conveyed as an appeal to the addressee(s) to make it true (expecting an immediate realization) > Imperative = directive with the second person (addressee(s)) as the sole performer

• “go to bed!” vs. (co-hortative) ‘let’s go to bed’


5

Canonical Bantu directives

• The “morphologically specialized” Imperative conjugation (Devos & Van Olmen 2013, Devos f.c.)

• Extremely common cross-Bantu: 97% (Nurse 2007) • Even reconstructed for Proto-Bantu by Meeussen (1962 [2014]) • Reduced formally/morphologically

(cf. Aikhenvald 2010:89 “segmental idiosyncracy”) (4) *B-a [+ polar tones]

• Imperative stand in some complementary distribution with the Subjunctive conjugation: (5) *SM[H]-B-é

• also reconstructed by Meeussen, also super-common cross-Bantu


6

Division of labor Imperative vs Subjunctive

• TYPICALLY: • Subjunctive:

i. used for expressing directives towards other persons than 2nd pers (sg/pl) = (6b) ii. Used as a milder, more polite, face-saving directive (Nurse 2008:28, Devos f.c.), “weaker manipulation” (Ngonyani 2013) = (6c)

• Example from Swahili (G.42) (6a) kimbi-a run-FV run b) tu-kimbi-e SM1pl-run-SBJ ‘let’s run’ c) u-kimbi-e SM2sg-run-SBJ ‘(please), run’

7


But this is not the case in Manda! • Manda lacks a (direct) reflex of the Imperative • Instead a conjugation with a suffix -ayi (7) tyesemúláyi! tyesemʊl-ayi sneeze-DIR ‘sneeze!’ (8) vɪ́káyi ntyímbu ápa, niwúyúli vɪk-ayi mu-tyimbu apa ni-wuyul-i put-DIR NCP3.calabash PROX.DEM16 SM1SG-clean-SBJ ‘put the calabash here, so I can clean (it)’


8

The directive conjugation (SM)-B-ayi in Manda

• All kind of directives are expressed (by most speakers) in this way in Manda

• but with a SM

(9) ting’kómila’ ngéne ʊyʊ ti-mu-kom-ɪl-ayi mu-gene ʊyʊ SM1PL-OM3SG-beat.to.death.APPL-DIR NCP1-guestPROX.DEM1 ‘let us kill (him) that guest!’

• Note!: the Subjunctive reflex in (8) and the formal pecularities


9

Hypothesis

• The -ayi suffix < “imperfective” morpheme *-ag- • At a certain point in time: became conventionalized and an

obligatory part of imperative (and other directive) expressions in Manda

• Go through the facts suggestive of such a scenario:

i. Functional indications ii. Formal indications • But first: The background of *-ag-


10

Etymology of morpheme *-ag- • Reconstructed for Proto-Bantu *-ag- (~ *-a(n)g-)

• Syntagmatic characterization: occurs in a “pre-final” position in the verbal morphotaxis (10)*SM-B-ag-FV (Meeussen 1967; Nurse 2008:31, 40)

• Suggests (SM)-B-ayi in Manda < º(SM)-B-ag-FV

• Originates from a “repetitive” derivational extension (Schadeberg 2003) but typically refers to a “range of imperfective aspectual meanings” (Nurse & Philippson 2006:190)


11

*-ag- in directives

• Common cross-Bantu pattern: *-ag- co-occur with the Imperative (or the Subjunctive) and modifies directive expressions

• Typical pragmatic overtones: “heightened sense of urgency” (Rose et al 2002:40, 41), “intensity”, “exclamatory suffix” (Miehe 1989:30), “reinforcer” (Meinhof 1906 [1948:101], Sebasoni 1967)

(11) vuχ-ag-a go-IPFV-IMP ‘Go, then!’ (Sangu (G.61); Meinhof 1948:101; see also Devos & Van Olmen 2013:12) • In accord with cross-linguistic tendencies (Mauri & Sansò 2011; Aikhenvald

2010:104) • Mauri and Sansó (2011): The motivation to involve imperfective markers in

commands is to create overtones of urgency and imminence Event marked as ongoing ⊃ expectation of an imminent actualization


12

*-ag- in directives

• Imperfective markers reanalyzed and conventionalized as new, dedicated directives cross-linguistically (Mauri & Sansó 2011)

• Along a recurrent pattern: emphatic markers tend to get diluted

• Also in Bantu: (Rare) cases where a directive with an *-ag- reflex functions as the dedicated Imperative

(12) kel-áká ‘do!’ (Lokele (C.55) Meeuseen 1962 [2014:30-31]; Devos f.c.)


13

Functional reconstruction

• Diachronic pathway of change in three stages: Stage I: : The Original (morphologically specialized) Imperative only (and the Subjunctive) Stage II: *-ag- is incorporated in the Original Imperative to reinforce the expression => Complementary distribution with the Original Imperative Stage III: The specialized (more emphatic) reading of the conjugation with *-ag- bleaches (neutralizes) =>the conjugation with a reflex of *-ag- becomes the regular directive marker => the original Imperative disappears


14

Functional reconstruction Indications from internal (variating) Manda data i. Retentions of the original “morphologically specialized” Imperative in archaisms (stage I~II) Ex.: a) The collocation lól-a Bámbu “behold the Lord” -without a subject marker, final vowel -a - **lólá’ (~lóláyi) i.e. ≠ truncated, different tone pattern b). (Traditional) children’s game vɪ́lɪ́ng-a, kwát-a ‘turn & seize’ -**vɪlíngá’, i.e. ≠ truncated -different tone pattern -no raising of the second vowel


15

Functional reconstruction Indications from internal (variating) Manda data ii. Synchronic variation which suggest a less neutral usage of -ayi (stage II) Limited group of speakers [+old +coastal variety]: Both (SM)-B-ayi and the Subjunctive SM-B-i as directives > persistence in meaning with -ayi: i. more expressive ii. iterative~continuative reading with a verb like ‘kiss’ (13) u-ni-núm-áyi SM2SG-OM1SG-kiss-DIR ‘kiss me (over and over~for a long time)’ (14) u-ni-núm-i SM2SG-OM1SG-kiss-SBJ ‘give me a kiss’


16

Functional reconstruction Comparative indications


17

Language Code Original

Imp. Meaning of Imperative + *-ag- Source

IPFV Emph. Other Neutral

Nyakusa M.31 yes yes yes yes no Nurse (1979), Persohn (2016:212ff)

Kisi G.67 yes no yes (?) yes no Gray (f.c.:116), Ngonyani (2011:131)

Ngoni N.12 yes no yes no no Ebner (1939:27); Moser (1983:108); Ngonyani (2003:63)

Pangwa G.64 yes no yes no no Stirnimann (1983:116-118)

Matengo N.13 yes (?) no yes yes no Kayuni (pers. comm.), Yoneda (2000, 2016:429)

Mpoto N.14 no no no no yes (?) Makwaya (p.c), Botne (p.c)

Manda N.11 no no no no yes -

• Comparative data corroborate the suggested direction of development (Stage I-II-III)

• Implicational hierarchy

Formal reconstruction Internal indications i. there is a formally identical morpheme used with an imperfective meaning in Manda

(15) tayogíláyi mumáchi ti-a-yog-ɪl-ayi mu-ma-chi SM1pl-PST2-bathe-APPL-PST.IPFV LOC18-NCP6-water ‘we used to bathe in the water’ ii. /g/ often weakened in inter-vowel contexts in Manda: e.g vagéni ~vayéni ‘guests’, maghéya ~mayéya ‘lies’ etc


18

Formal reconstruction Comparative indications • Suggests a contiguous velar weakening


19

Language Code Directives with *-ag-

Reflex of */ag/

Source

Pangwa G.64 SM-B-ake /ak/ Stirnimann (1983:116-118) Nyakusa M.31 B-aga,

SM-B-ege /ag/ Nurse (1979),

Persohn (2016:212, 214) Kisi G.67 B-agha,

SM-B-aghe ~SM-B-aye

/agh/ Gray (f.c.:116; Ngonyani 2011:106, 130)

Ngoni N.12 (SM)-B-age ~(SM)-B-aye ~(SM)-B-ayi

/ag~ay/ Ebner (1939:27), Moser (1983:108), Ngonyani (2003:63)

Matengo N.13 (SM)-B-aje /aj/ Kayuni (p.c.), Yoneda (2016:429), Zimmer (n.d.12)

Mpoto N.14 (SM)-B-ayi /ay/ Makwaya (p. c.), Botne (p. c.)

Formal reconstruction the question of the final vowel • The /i/ of -ayi i in Manda:

from Imperative (default) -a or the Subjunctive -e??? • Still a bit unclear… Both actually possible • Most likely it stems from the forming of a Subjunctive-Imperative

hybrid (Devos & Van Olmen 2013:17-18) • the Imperative-Subjunctive formal division conflate

as the Subjunctive gets increasingly Imperative-like formally • e.g. with SM omission as in Ndamba • ly-e!

ly-SBJ ‘eat!’ (Ndamba G.52; Edelsten & Lijongwa 2010:86)


20

Summary & Conlusions

• The “atypical” Imperative conjugation perhaps not so atypical after all! • Originates from a specialization of the original Imperative with the addition of a

pre-final morpheme *-ag- • This specialization became semantically neutralized and phonetically opaque • Based on the formal and functional indicia found both language-internally and -

externally this pathway of change could be reconstructed • The seemingly atypical Manda data more easily interpretable once the

synchronic state is seen in the light of historical processes • Internal reconstruction and the comparative approach constitute useful

methodological tools for a deeper understanding of the synchronic status of the form and functional range of a TAM category in a previously understudied language.

• The non-existence of an expected grammatical form~conjugation can also be interesting and deserves an explanation!


21

MUSÉNGWÍLI! AHSANTE! THANKS!

TACK!

22


RASMUS BERNANDER PhD student in African languages

Department of Languages and Literatures, University of Gothenburg / Göteborgs universitet

Email: [email protected]

on the “atypical” imperative conjugation in manda (bantu n.11)...on the “atypical”...

Documents