Semantics of Directional Verb Morphology in Gwama

Nilo-Saharan issues and perspectives, 2018

This paper describes a unique system of directional morphology in Ethiopian Komo, an endangered language of the Koman subfamily. Based on original data, this paper examines how this system of obligatory verbal morphology, which codes the direction of translational kinetic motion on verbs of motion and subsequently the location of participants in non- motion events, is synchronically grammaticalizing beyond spatial deixis into a temporal/ aspectual domain and even further in other cases, into hearer-based pragmatics. The directional system in Komo is unusual in two respects. First, every finite verb must occur with one of three directional morphemes (/-i, -ʊ́ , -úk/) in paradigmatic opposition. Second, these suffixes, which occur immediately on the verb stem, are the only means available to convey temporal or aspectual meanings immediately in the verb.

2015

Studies in Language, 2020

Komo (Koman) of Ethiopia has an obligatory paradigm of deictic directional (DD) verb morphology that, among its functions, indicates direction of motion relative to a deictic reference point, associated motion and grammatical aspect when collocated with verb roots of different semantic classes. The semantic components of a motion event underlie the Komo DD system and the grammatical aspect of a predicate can be directly mapped to the bounded/unbounded path profile. The Associated Motion function contains a bounded path which entails arrival at or departure from a reference point and, as a result, imparts aspectual telicity to the predicate. The Direction function by contrast, contains an unbounded path that expresses motion towards a reference point and does not impart aspectual telicity. Further, some morphemes express exchoativity, or the ‘exiting’ of a state, a rare if unattested grammatical category.

Journal of Language Contact, 2011

Lingua, 2004

2004

There is a verb tense referring to present and future time which is used only in main clauses and another tense which is used in subordinate clauses. ..... The most striking variety of this independent-subordinate difference consists of a short subordinate form to which some kind of suffix is added to make the independent form." Ferguson (in Bender et al., 1976), 73-4 "A very important isogloss that reflects an innovation in the TSE [Transversal South Ethiopic] group is Main Verb marking. Cushitic languages make a very definite distinction between main indicative imperfect forms and subordinate ones. This distinction, as a morphological category, was borrowed by SE [South Ethiopic] from Cushitic, but each branch developed its own means to realize it." Hetzron (1972), 37 1 Introductory Remarks As the two statements quoted above indicate, it has long been recognised that most South Ethiopic and many Cushitic languages make a formal distinction between indicative, i.e. non-modal, verb forms that are used in main clause position and those that typically appear in subordinate clauses. The two statements both take South Ethiopic (hereafter SE) and Lowland East Cushitic (hereafter LEC) as their initial point of reference in so far as this formal distinction is observed in these language groups typically in the tense variously called present-future, imperfect, or non-past only. Furthermore, although neither statement makes the point, for the most part the distinction in SE is confined to the affirmative. Even then, the situation is not as simple as this. Both statements are necessarily generalisations, and there is, for instance, considerable variation between the various SE languages, as I shall presently show. What, however, really interests me here concerns the "Cushitic" element of the statements, and the comparison between Ethiopian Semitic (hereafter ES) and Cushitic in terms of this areal feature. Ferguson, unlike Hetzron, does not mention Cushitic as such, but the inclusion of Cushitic is of course implicit as his statement is number 15 of the grammatical isoglosses which identify his proposed Ethiopian Language Area. Indeed, most (and maybe all) Cushitic languages do show some formal difference between main and subordinate verb forms. However, the structural nature of the difference is, for instance, in LEC of quite a different nature from what Ferguson goes on to describe as "the most striking" variety: the extension of a shorter form with subordinate function to make the main verb form, which is in effect what happens in SE. So, in many LEC languages the form called the "subjunctive" or "dependent", which has contrastive vocalisation (typically in-o or-u, versus indicative paste and nonpast-a), is used in non-past adnominal and adverbial subordinate position. I am not going to discuss this kind of subordinate formation here. The type of formal contrast between main and subordinate verbs that I am concerned with here follows the second part of Ferguson's statement, where the main verb form appears to be an extension of the subordinate form, created by means of some kind of suffixed element. This suffix may be of various types, as we shall see. Also, the "base" to which these suffixes are added, i.e. the subordinate form, is demonstrably the older primary form, which comparative and, where available, historical evidence or inference indicate was originally used in main verb position, too. Similar, but not identical processes of creating new main verb forms can thus be observed in several languages of the region. Another consideration that will be addressed in this paper is Hetzron's comment that SE languages borrowed the morphological category of formally differentiated main verb forms from Cushitic. It is often said that modern ES languages have developed over a specifically Agaw substratum, and indeed the two language families have a number of morphological structural and syntactic features in common. It is certainly wrong, however, to see simplisticly a one-way process of influence, for instance to see Agaw as the source of archetypally non-Semitic structures and patterns in ES. For one thing, it is certain that the Agaw languages have been variously subject to the influence of the dominant ES languages (Amharic in most instances, and Tigrinya and Tigre in the case of Bilin) with which they are in close contact. This is most apparent in the area of lexical borrowing, of course, but I suspect that there are also morphological patterns as well. For example, the compound main verb tense in Kemant comprising the "short" converb

Studies in African Linguistics

This paper examines the syntactic and semantic expression of basic directional motion and its manner counterparts across the four language phyla of Africa. We sample languages from each phylum, concentrating on basic, non-deictic, directional motion and its counterpart in which motion, direction, and manner of motion occur simultaneously. Two primary findings emerge. Across Africa, basic directional motion tends to be verb-framed with respect to direction; it conflates the semantic components Motion+Direction in verbs equivalent to 'enter, circle, traverse'. Manner of motion, while maintaining this lexicalization pattern, syntactically registers a Motion+Direction verb and its linear order relative to a Manner verb through either of two primary strategies. Manner precedes Motion+ Direction when the two verbs are conveyed through serial verb sequences, verb compounding, or verb coordination. Manner follows Motion+Direction when the former is specified as a deranked verbal for...

Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere vol. 71, pp. 9-31, 2004