# Verb-initial grammars: A multilingual/parallel perspective # ESRC Project RES-000-23-0505 # Oxford University # Charles Randriamasimanana # Malagasy syntax/semantics: # Malagasy Prepositions - ESRC-OX-05-CR207. # Malagasy Prepositions.testfile. # My main purpose here is to outline in Part 1 the distinction between a PP-argument and a PP-adjunct # and to show how the process of incorporation may bridge the gap between those two extremes, # keeping in mind that a tense-marker on a PP in Malagasy is an absolute barrier to incorporation. # This will lead to a critical review of relevant contemporary literature in Part 2; this will be # followed in Part 3 by a summary of relevant findings regarding verb subtypes in Section 1 # and in Section 2 by consideration of more recent data. Finally in Part 4, collocations of PPs # with Motion verbs will be presented. # Part 1: Simple & complex prepositions. # In Malagasy there exist two types of preposition: (A) a simple, general preposition like (t)amin(a), # that can appear on its own either constituent-selected by an ordinary predicate or as an adjunct # and (B) complex lexical prepositions whose heads will be part of a collocation with a Motion verb; # such a lexical collocation will in turn assign the invariant Oblique-case amin(a) to the relevant NP: # In other words, the alternation null/t- is now solely encoded on the lexical preposition, the head of # the complex structure whereas the accompanying Oblique-case amin(a) will now remain invariant. # The existence of the two forms (t)amin(a) as a simple preposition with a tense/aspect morpheme t- and # the invariant Oblique case-marker amin(a) suggests that there is in this language an incorporation # process whereby (i) an adjunct can become an argument and (ii) the latter once incorporated can # be re-interpreted as an Oblique case-marker. # In addition, note that when an Oblique-PP-Argument is promoted to subject and fronted in a sequence, # the verb must be in the passive 2 form with circumfixes such as 'an...an(a) or 'i...an(a) # surrounding the root of the verb when durative aspect is concerned; otherwise when the relevant # verbal aspect is non-durative, the a-passive form is used. Obviously when an Oblique-PP-Adjunct # is fronted there is no need whatsoever for passive. # Last but not least, note that if a tense-marker intervenes between the prefix ank or a higher verb # and the LOCATION or lexical preposition in a complex PP collocation, i.e. for example in a sequence # analysed as ank + tense + prep, such a sequence is irretrievably ungrammatical as there is # absolutely no exception to this rule. In other words, in this environment tense is an absolute # barrier to incorporation. # A simple/general preposition like (t)amin(a) accompanying a verb: # Three different possibilities may arise: (i) the verb constituent-selects the preposition, # in which case, we have an argument-PP; (ii) the verb does NOT constituent-select the # preposition, in which case we have an adjunct and (iii) an initial adjunct may get # incorporated into the VP headed by V; this is the process of incorporation. # A simple, general preposition can take two main forms for Oblique: amin(a) and tamin(a). amin(a) tamin(a) # Case A: # null-amin(a) 'nonperfective.aspect-amin(a)''INSTRUMENT-Oblique with'; # this configuration implies that this PP is an argument of the verb # and that it is constituent-selected by the accompanying verb. # Note that the general preposition 'amin(a)' encodes an Oblique. # Case B: # null-amin(a) 'nonpast.tense-amin(a)''TIME-Oblique on (+ date)'; # this configuration implies that this PP is an adjunct to the verb # and that it is not constituent-selected by the accompanying verb. # Note that the general preposition 'tamin(a)' encodes an Oblique. # Case C: # t-amin(a) 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)''INSTRUMENT-Oblique with'; # this configuration implies that this PP is an argument of the verb # and that it is constituent-selected by the accompanying verb. # Case D: # t-amin(a) 'past.tense-amin(a)''TIME-Oblique on (+ date)'; # this configuration implies that this PP is an adjunct to the verb # and that it is not constituent-selected by the accompanying verb. # Case E: # t-amin(a) 'past.tense-amin(a) > 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)''TIME-Oblique on (+ date)'; # this configuration implies that initially this PP used to be an adjunct, but that # due to feature switch, the adjunct has now been incorporated into the VP and has # subsequently become an argument of the verb. # Case A: Mandidy mofo amin'ny antsy i Jeanne. # M-an-didy mofo null-amin' ny antsy i Jeanne. # pres-pref.an-didy bread nonperf-with Det knife D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne cuts bread with the knife.' # The preposition amin(a) is located to the left of the subject 'i Jeanne'. # This position suggests that this PP can potentially be an argument of the verb. # Note that the PP 'amin'ny antsy' is glossed as 'nonperfective.aspect-with- # the-knife'; as such it is an argument of the verb 'mandidy', which contains # the feature [ + CONTROL ] as the predicate describes a DELIBERATE kind of # ACTIVITY. The evidence to show that this PP is indeed an argument of the verb # and not just an adjunct is provided immediately below in the following pair # of sequences. # Note that PP null-amin(a) 'nonperfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case A: # Ungrammatical: Amin'ny antsy no mandidy mofo i Jeanne. (0! 0 0 0) # null-amin(a) ny antsy no m-an-didy mofo i Jeanne. # nonperf-amin(a) Det knife focus pres-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne # 'It is with the knife that Jeanne cuts bread.' # This sequence is irretrievably ungrammatical: The argument-PP 'amin'ny antsy' # has been fronted and yet such a movement has not been encoded on the verb via # passive voice morphology; indeed the verb 'mandidy' remains in the active # voice. We know that the PP 'amin'ny antsy' is an argument of the verb 'mandidy' # because this verb contains the feature [ + CONTROL ] as it describes a # DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY: A PP governed by a [ + CONTROL ] V is more than # likely to be an argument of the V. # Note that PP null-amin(a) 'nonperfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case A: Amin'ny antsy no andidian'i Jeanne mofo. # null-amin' ny antsy no null- an- didi-an' i Jeanne mofo. # nonperf-amin(a) Det knife focus passive.pres-pref.an-didi-suf.an(a).by D.sg Jeanne bread # 'It is with the knife that Jeanne is cutting bread.' # The PP 'amin'ny antsy' is an argument of the verb and when it is fronted, this is # encoded morphologically on the verb by the passive 2 circumfix an...an(a) surrounding # the root didi. # Note that the morpheme 'null' on amin(a) is glossed NOT as tense, but as a nonperfective # aspect-marker. This is in conformity with general clausal architecture of Malagasy # sentences: The higher predicate 'mandidy''pres-cut' has a tense-marker, but the # embedded and lower non-verbal predicate 'amin(a) can only have an aspect-marker on it. # Note that PP null-amin(a) 'nonperfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case B: Handidy mofo i Jeanne amin'ny Alakamisy. # H-an-didy mofo i Jeanne null-amin(a) ny Alakamisy. # fut-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne nonpast.tense-on Det Thursday # 'Jeanne will cut bread on Thursday.' # The preposition amin(a) is located to the right of the subject 'i Jeanne'. # This position suggests that this PP is more likely to be an adjunct to the verb. # Note that the PP 'amin'ny Alakamisy' is glossed as 'nonpast.tense-on-Thursday'; # The evidence to show that in this sequence the PP 'amin'ny Alakamisy' is an adjunct # comes from the fact that fronting it does not require passive voice morphology on # the accompanying active voice verb 'handidy, as shown immediately below. # Note that the PP null-amin(a) 'nonpast.tense-amin(a)' is a 'TIME-Oblique'. # Case B: Amin'ny Alakamisy no handidy mofo i Jeanne. # null-amin(a) ny Alakamisy no h-an-didy mofo i Jeanne . # nonpast.tense-on Det Thursday focus fut-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne # 'It is on Thursday Jeanne will cut bread.' # The postsubject PP 'amin'ny Alakamisy' is an adjunct, therefore it can be fronted # and the verb 'handidy' does not have to be in the passive voice. # Note that the PP null-amin(a) 'nonpast.tense-amin(a)' is a 'TIME-Oblique'. # Case C: Nandidy mofo tamin'ny antsy i Jeanne. # N-an-didy mofo t-amin' ny antsy i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-didy bread perf-with Det knife D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne was cutting bread with the knife.' # The preposition tamin(a) is located to the left of the subject 'i Jeanne'. # This position suggests that this PP can potentially be an argument of the verb. # Note that the PP 'tamin'ny antsy' is glossed as 'perfective.aspect-with- # the-knife'; as such it is an argument of the verb 'mandidy', which contains # the feature [ + CONTROL ] as the predicate describes a DELIBERATE kind of # ACTIVITY. The evidence to show that this PP is indeed an argument of the verb # and not just an adjunct is provided immediately below in the following pair # of sequences. # Note that PP t-amin(a) 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case C: # Ungrammatical: Tamin'ny antsy no nandidy mofo i Jeanne.(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a) ny antsy no n-an-didy mofo i Jeanne. # perf-amin(a) Det knife focus past-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne # 'It is with the knife that Jeanne cut bread.' # This sequence is irretrievably ungrammatical: The argument-PP 'tamin'ny antsy' # has been fronted and yet such a movement has not been encoded on the verb via # passive voice morphology; indeed the verb 'nandidy' remains in the active # voice. We know that the PP 'tamin'ny antsy' is an argument of the verb 'nandidy' # because this verb contains the feature [ + CONTROL ] as it describes a # DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY: A PP governed by a [ + CONTROL ] V is more than # likely to be an argument of the V. # Note that PP t-amin(a) 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case C: Tamin'ny antsy no nandidian'i Jeanne mofo. # T-amin' ny antsy no n- an- didi-an' i Jeanne mofo. # nonperf-amin(a) Det knife focus past-pref.an-didi-suf.an(a).by D.sg Jeanne bread # 'It was with the knife that Jeanne was cutting bread.' # The PP 'tamin'ny antsy' is an argument of the verb and when it is fronted, this is # encoded morphologically on the verb by the passive 2 circumfix an...an(a) surrounding # the root didi. # Note that the morpheme t on amin(a) is glossed NOT as tense, but as a perfective # aspect-marker. This is in conformity with general clausal architecture of Malagasy # sentences: The higher predicate 'nandidy''past-cut' has a tense-marker, but the # embedded and lower non-verbal predicate 'tamin(a) can only have an aspect-marker on it. # Note that PP t-amin(a) 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)' is an'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'. # Case D: Nandidy mofo i Jeanne tamin'ny Alakamisy. # N-an-didy mofo i Jeanne t-amin(a) ny Alakamisy. # past-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne past.tense-on Det Thursday # 'Jeanne cut bread on Thursday.' # The preposition tamin(a) is located to the right of the subject 'i Jeanne'. # This position suggests that this PP is more likely to be an adjunct to the verb. # Note that the PP 'tamin'ny Alakamisy' is glossed as 'past.tense-on-Thursday'; # The evidence to show that in this sequence the PP 'tamin'ny Alakamisy' is an adjunct # comes from the fact that fronting it does not require passive voice morphology on # the accompanying active voice verb 'nandidy, as shown immediately below. # Note that the PP t-amin(a) 'past.tense-amin(a)' is a 'TIME-Oblique'. # Case D: Tamin'ny Alakamisy no nandidy mofo i Jeanne . # T-amin(a) ny Alakamisy no n-an-didy mofo i Jeanne . # past.tense-on Det Thursday focus past-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne # 'It was on Thursday Jeanne cut bread.' # The postsubject PP 'tamin'ny Alakamisy' is an adjunct, therefore it can be fronted # and the active voice verb 'nandidy' does not have to be in the passive voice. # Note that the PP t-amin(a) 'past.tense-amin(a)' is a 'TIME-Oblique'. # Case E: Tamin'ny Alakamisy no nandidian' i Jeanne mofo . # T-amin(a) ny Alakamisy no n-an-didi-an(a) i Jeanne mofo. # perf-on Det Thursday focus past-pref.an-didi-suf.ana D.sg Jeanne bread # 'It was on Thursday that Jeanne was cutting bread.' # The postsubject PP 'tamin'ny Alakamisy' was initially an adjunct (see above); # however, it has subsequently been incorporated into the clause containing 'nandidy'; # this is accompanied by a shift of the PP from after the subject to before the subject. # Note that the PP t-amin(a), which was glossed 'past.tense-amin(a)' is now glossed # 'perfective.aspect-on'. # Case E: Nandidy mofo tamin'ny Alakamisy i Jeanne . # N-an-didy mofo t-amin(a) ny Alakamisy i Jeanne . # past-pref.an-didy bread perf.tense-on Det Thursday D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne cut bread on Thursday.' # The PP 'tamin(a)' is now located to the left of the subject 'i Jeanne'. # This marked position suggests that this PP can now be incorporated into the VP. # Note that the PP 'tamin'ny Alakamisy' is now glossed as 'perf-on-Thursday'; # Note that the PP t-amin(a) 'perf-amin(a)' is still a 'TIME-Oblique' except that # it has now been incorporated into VP with the shift from 'past.tense' for the # characterisation of morpheme t- on PP to 'perfective.aspect'. # Part 2: Critical review of contemporary literature on issues related to Obliques and # the distinction between Argument & Adjunct. # From Edward L. Keenan, UCLA. Extraction without Movement: is Malagasy a Perfect Language? # The following is example set (22) in the paper and the original sequences are reproduced almost # exactly the way they appear in the manuscript: nanenjika ny jiolahy tamin’ny fiara Rabe # [n+aN+enjika (nanenjika) ny jiolahy t+amin’ ny fiara] Rabe # past+AF+chase the thief past+with’the car Rabe #'Rabe chased the thief by means of the car.' # The first line is an adaptation of the original sentence, which is reproduced as is underneath. # Note that the morpheme t- on the PP 'tamin(a)' is glossed as 'past.tense', which according to the # pattern shown earlier should make this PP an adjunct and not an argument of the verb 'nanenjika'. # In reality, the morpheme t- on the PP 'tamin(a) should be glossed as 'perfective.aspect' and NOT # as 'past.tense' since it is definitely an argument of the verb 'nanenjika': The evidence for this # claim is provided by the grammatical sequence analysed two sentences below. nenjehin-dRabe tamin’ny fiara ny jiolahy # [n+enjika+ina+Rabe (nenjehin-dRabe) t+amin’ ny fiara] ny jiolahy # past+chase+TF+Rabe.gen past+with’the car the thief #'The thief was chased by Rabe by means of the car.' # (Rabe chased the thief by means of the car) note from original text. # The first line is an adaptation of the original sentence, which is reproduced as is underneath. # Note that the morpheme t- on the PP 'tamin(a)' is glossed as 'past.tense', which according to the # pattern shown earlier should make this PP an adjunct and not an argument of the verb 'nanenjika'. # In reality, the morpheme t- on the PP 'tamin(a) should be glossed as 'perfective.aspect' and NOT # as 'past.tense' since once again this PP is an argument of the verb: The evidence for this # claim is provided by the grammatical sequence analysed immediately below. nanenjehan-dRabe ny jiolahy ny fiara # [n+[aN+enjika]+ana+Rabe (nanenjehan-dRabe) ny jiolahy] ny fiara # past+[[AF+chase]+CF]+Rabe.gen the thief the car #'The car was used by Rabe to chase the thief.' # The first line is an adaptation of the original sentence, which is reproduced as is underneath. # The past.tense morpheme t- on the PP has now been absorbed into the morphology of the verb in the form # of the DURATIVE, non-punctual aspect suffix 'an(a)' of passive 2 circumfix 'an...an(a)'. According to # the pattern shown earlier, the configuration 'past...past' (the first on the verb, the second on PP), # we have a PP-adjunct. In fact, the gloss 'past.tense' for the morpheme t- on PP is a misnomer: This # morpheme t- should be analysed as a perfective aspect-marker, as this sequence proves that the PP # 'tamin'ny fiara', which showed up in the first two sequences is indeed an argument of the verb # 'nanenjika''chased' and NOT an adjunct, as claimed through the gloss 'past.tense' for morpheme t- # the preposition. In other words, the grammaticality of this last sequence proves beyond any doubt # that the morpheme t- on the PP 'tamin'ny fiara' should be analysed as 'perfective aspect': As is # apparent from the way incorporation works in Malagasy, a t- past tense-marker morpheme on PP will # automatically block the adjunct 't-amin'ny fiara''past.tense-prep Det car' from ever getting # incorporated into the relevant VP, i.e. would simply make passive totally impossible. # Ungrammatical: Amin'ny antsy no manapaka mofo aho.(0! 0 0 0) # null-amin(a) ny antsy no m-an-(t)apaka mofo aho. # nonperfective-prep Det knife focus pres-pref.an-cut bread I # Intended reading: "it's with the knife that I cut the bread.' # The above sequence is adapted from Lisa Travis (in press). # Note that the Oblique-PP 'null-amin(a) ny antsy' 'nonperfective.amina NP' is an argument of the verb # 'manapaka' since the verb definitely describes a DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY, therefore contains # the feature [ + CONTROL]. When a PP-argument is fronted, the verb must be in the passive voice; # and since this is an Oblique-argument, the verb must have the circumfix 'an...an(a) surrounding # the relevant stem 'tapah(o)'; the verb in this sequence does not have passive 2 voice morphology # and that is precisely why this sentence is irretrievably ungrammatical. # The following relates to Ileana Paul (2000) , PhD dissertation, McGill University. # The original sequence and the glosses are reproduced the way they appear in the dissertation # in so far as possible: # Ungrammaticality due to Instrument-Oblique argument being treated like a mere adjunct to the verb: # Ungrammatical: Tamin'ny antsy no nandidy hena i Bakoly.(0! 0 0 0) # T.amin'ny antsy no nandidy hena i Bakoly. # pst.Pgen.det knife foc pst.AT.cut meat Bakoly # 'It's with a knife that Bakoly cut meat.' # The above sequence is from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 2, page 38, ex.(26)b. # Note that the verb 'nandidy' is in the active voice despite the fact that the PP-argument has been # fronted. The gloss 'past.tense' for the morpheme t- on PP is simply a misnomer: This morpheme # t- should once again be analysed as a perfective aspect-marker since PP here is an argument of the verb. # Furthermore, as shown earlier the verb should be in passive 2 form, i.e. with the circumfix 'an...an(a) # surrounding the root didi; otherwise the sequence is irretrievably ungrammatical. # Ungrammatical: Amin'ny penina no manoratra aho.(0! 0 0 0) # null-amin(a) ny penina no m-an-(s)oratra aho. # nonperf-prep Det pen focus pres-pref.an-soratra I # Intended reading: 'It is with a pen I write.' # The above sequence is adapted from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 3, page 38, ex.(21)c. # The PP 'null-amin'ny penina''nonperfective.aspect-amina the pen' is an argument of the verb 'manoratra' # 'to write'; therefore, when this PP-argument gets fronted, the verb should be in the passive voice; # furthermore, as was the case earlier, since this PP is an Oblique, the passive 2 form with the # circumfix 'an...an(a) should be used surrounding the stem 'sorat(0)' --not the root 'soratra'. # Ungrammaticality due to the misuse of preposition tamin(a). Namatratra ny harona tamin'ny vary i Bakoly.(0! 0 0 0) # N-a(n>m)-(f)atratra ny harona t-amin(a) ny vary i Bakoly. # Past-pref.an-fatratra Det basket perf-prep Det rice D.sg Bakoly # Intended reading:'Bakoly stuffed the basket with rice.' # The above sequence is adapted from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 2, page 28, ex.(14)a. # The appropriate environment for the verb 'mamatratra''to stuff' is the following: # mamatratra DirectObject (ny vary) LOCATION-PP (t/null-ao prep2 NP, i.e. here anaty harona). # This relevant structure is already made explicit for root 'fatratra' in Rabenilaina # (1996: 145, Table 13), where the French translation provided is 'bourrer dans', i.e. # literally 'stuff something into a location'. # Rajemisa (1995:567) illustrates thus the use of the verb 'mamatratra''to stuff': Mamatratra mangahazo ao anaty gony. # M-a(n>m)-(f)atratra mangahazo null-ao anaty gony. # Pres-pref.an-stuff manioc non-perf-there inside bag # 'To stuff manioc into a bag.' # Note the presence of the complex PP-argument 'null-ao anaty gony', i.e. NOT a mere NP. # The lexical preposition 'ao' can also virtually take the t- morpheme, a tense-marker, # in which case we would have an adjunct. Given these two crucial details, it is not # possible at all to have a putative incorporation process to help justify ungrammatical # constructions like the one above from Paul (2000), Chapter 2, page 28, ex.(14)a. # Ungrammaticality due to a redundant use of preposition tamin(a). # Ungrammatical: Nameno ny sinibe tamin'ny rano tamin'ny tavoahangy i Soa.(0! 0 0 0) # N-a(n>m)-(f)eno ny sinibe t-amin(a) ny rano t-amin(a) ny tavoahangy i Soa. # Past-pref.an-full Det pitcher perf-prep Det water perf-prep Det bottle D.sg Soa # Intended reading: Soa filled the pitcher with water with the bottle.' # The above sequence is adapted from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 2, page 28, ex.(15)a. # The first occurrence of PP 'tamin(a) ny rano' is entirely redundant and is not justified; # indeed the root 'feno''full' is used in the following environment as illustrated in Malzac # (1888: 163): Feno vary ny sobiky. # Feno vary ny sobiky. # Full-of rice Det basket # 'The basket is full of rice.' # Note the absence of preposition in front of the NP 'vary''rice.' Nameno vary ny sobiky i Soa. # N-a(n>m)-(f)eno vary ny sobiky i Soa. # Past-pref.an-full rice Det basket D.sg Soa # 'Soa packed rice into the basket.' # The only difference between this last sequence and the earlier one is that the latter now # comprises the additional MANIPULATIVE causative prefix 'an'. # Ungrammatical Anasan-dRakoto amin'ny savony ny lovia.(0! 0 0 0) # null-an-(s)asa-n(a)-d-Rakoto null-amin(a) ny savony ny lovia. # passive.pres-pref.an-sasa-suffix.ana-epenthetic.d-Rakoto nonperf-prep Det soap Det dishes # Intended reading: 'Rakoto washes some of the dishes with the soap.' # The above sequence is from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 3, page 98, ex. (11), repeated on # page 131, ex.(65). This sentence is simply NOT Malagasy and cannot be assigned a meaning at all. # Ungrammaticality due to INSTRUMENT use of LOCATIVE-preposition amin(a). Namafy ny tany tamin'ny voa Rasoa.(0! 0 0 0) # N-a(n>m)-(f)afy ny tany t-amin(a) ny voa Rasoa. # Past-pref.an-fafy Det land perf-prep Det seeds Rasoa # Intended reading: 'Rasoa sowed the land with seeds.' # The above sequence is adapted from Ileana Paul (2000), Chapter 2, page 34, ex.(20)a. # The appropriate environment for the verb 'mamafy''to sow' is the following: # mamafy DO (ny voa) LOCATION-PP (t/null-eo amin(a) NP, i.e. here amin'ny tany). # This relevant structure is already made explicit for root 'fafy' in Rabenilaina # (1996: 145, Table 13), where the French translation provided is 'semer ou repandre sur', # i.e. literally 'sow something onto a location'. # Malzac (1888: 137) has the following illustrative example: Namafy vola tany an-dàlana izy. # N-a(n>m)-(f)afy vola t-any an-dàlana izy. # Past-pref.an-fafy money perf-prep LOC-way s/he # 'S/he sowed money on his/her way.' # This sequence shows the following structure 'mamafy DirectObject (vola) LOCATIVE-Oblique PP # 'tany an-dàlana.' # Illegal promotion of an adjunct as if it was an argument of the verb: # From Ileana Paul (2000:98), adapted examples (14)a. and (14)b.respectively Mitsangana mihinana akoho Rabe. # M-i-tsangana m-i-hinana akoho Rabe. # Pres-pref.i-stand pres-pref.i-eat chicken(s) Rabe # ‘Rabe stands eating chicken.’ # The glosses clearly indicate that we have an adjunction configuration in this case, as # the first verb is in the present tense with m 'present.tense' and as the second verb is # also in the present tense with m 'present.tense': The structure 'mihinana akoho' is an # adjunct to the matrix verb 'mitsangana''to stand'. # Ungrammatical: Mihinana akoho no itsanganan-dRabe. (0! 0 0 0) # M-i-hinana akoho no null-i-tsangan(a)-an(a)-d-Rabe. # Pres-pref.i-eat chickens focus pass.pres-pref.i-stand-suff.ana-ep.d-Rabe # Intended reading: ‘It is while standing that Rabe eats chicken.’ # In fact, this sequence is simply NOT Malagasy at all and cannot be assigned any # meaning whatsoever! # Note the passive 2 form 'i...an(a)' on the verb 'mitsangana''to stand' as the putative # argument-structure 'mihinana akoho' is fronted. The fact that we had the configuration # m ...m or 'present.tense'...'present.tense' in the source sentence above categorically # rules out an argument-status for the VP 'mihinana akoho.' It was and remains an adjunct, # as the morpheme 'm' on the verb 'mitsangana' cannot possibly be re-analysed as an # aspect-marker (in which case, of course, incorporation might be envisaged). In addition, # even the derived sequence shows the hallmark of an adjunction configuration: 'm' is # the active voice present tense-marker, whereas 'null' morpheme on the passive 2 form of # 'mitsangana' could be analysed as a 'passive.voice.present.tense'. This simply # reflects a rather widespread confusion in the published literature on # what counts as an argument and how to identify an adjunct. # From Matthew Pearson, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2001: # Ungrammatical: Nanolotra ny dite tamin'ny vahiny i Ketaka. (0! 0 0 0) # N-an-(t)olotra ny dite t-amin' ny vahiny i Ketaka. # past-pref.an-offer Det tea perf-amin(a) Det guests D.sg Ketaka # Intended reading: 'Ketaka offered the tea to the guests.' # This sequence is adapted from Matthew Pearson (2001:30 ex (25) a.). # Actual reading: 'Ketaka used the guests as recipients to offer the tea' # as analysed in Randriamasimanana (2004: 347), ex. (2)a and replaced with (3)a. # Earlier on we had Case C, which applies exactly to this sequence and its interpretation: # t-amin(a) 'perfective.aspect-amin(a)''INSTRUMENT-Oblique with'; # this configuration implies that this PP is an argument of the verb, # that it is constituent-selected by the accompanying verb and crucially, as expected, # its interpretation is necessarily that of an INSTRUMENT-Oblique. # Ungrammatical: Tamin’ny antsy no namono ny akoho ny mpamboly.(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a)-ny antsy no n-a(n>m)-(v)ono ny akoho ny mpamboly # Perf-with-Det knife Foc Pst-pref.an-kill Det chicken Det farmer # “It’s with the knife that the farmer killed the chicken” # This sequence is adapted from Matthew Pearson (2001:142 ex (138) a.). # The PP 'tamin'ny antsy''perfective.aspect-with-Det' is an argument of the verb 'namono', # which contains the feature [ + CONTROL ] as it definitely describes a DELIBERATE kind of # ACTIVITY; when a PP-argument is fronted, the verb must be in the passive voice and since # we have an Oblique-argument, the passive 2 form 'an...an(a) is expected to surround # the root 'vono''kill'. This is why the above sentence is irretrievably ungrammatical. # Ungrammaticality due to use of 'dia': Tamin’ny antsy dia namonoan'ny mpamboly ny akoho.(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a)-ny antsy dia n-a(n>m)-(v)ono-an(a)- ny mpamboly ny akoho # Perf-with-Det knife Foc Pst-pref.an-kill-suffix.an(a) Det farmer Det chicken # Intended reading: “With the knife, the farmer killed the chickens” # This sequence is adapted from Matthew Pearson (2001:143 ex (140) a.). # The above sequence sounds more like Foreigner Talk or Malagasy Pidgin. # Ungrammatical: Tamin’ny antsy dia namono ny akoho ny mpamboly.(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a)-ny antsy dia n-a(n>m)-(v)ono ny akoho ny mpamboly # Perf-with-Det knife Foc Pst-pref.an-kill Det chicken Det farmer # Intended reading: “With the knife, the farmer killed the chickens” # This sequence is adapted from Matthew Pearson (2001:143 ex (140) b.). # Once again, the above sequence sounds more like Foreigner Talk or Malagasy Pidgin. # Ungrammaticality due to selection of 'dia': Tamin’ny antsy dia novonoin'ny mpamboly ny akoho.(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a)-ny antsy dia no-(v)ono-in(a)- ny mpamboly ny akoho # Perf-with-Det knife Foc passive.pst-kill-suffix.an(a) Det farmer Det chicken # Intended reading: “With the knife, the chickens, the farmer killed (them)” # This sequence is adapted from Matthew Pearson (2001:143 ex (140) c.). # Once again, this last sequence sounds more like Foreigner Talk or Malagasy Pidgin. # Ungrammatical: Tamin’inona no namono ny akoho ny mpamboly?(0! 0 0 0) # T-amin(a)-inona no n-a(n>m)-(v)ono ny akoho ny mpamboly # Perf-with-what Foc Pst-pref.an-kill Det chicken Det farmer # Intended reading: 'With what did the farmer kill the chicken?” # As was the case with the last three sequences, the PP-argument 't-amin'ny antsy' # 'perfective.aspect-amin(a) ny antsy' has been fronted and the relevant verb 'mamono' # 'to kill' does not encode the initial Oblique case the PP-argument used to occupy: # the absence of the passive 2 circumfix 'an...an(a)' on the verbal root 'vono' # is responsible for the ungrammaticality of the last three sentences. # Adapted from Matthew Pearson (2003): Nandidy mofo tamin’ny antsy i Paoly. # N-an-didy mofo t-amin’ny antsy i Paoly. # Past-cut bread perf-with det knife det Paul # ‘Paul cut bread with the knife.’ # Ungrammatical: Amin’ny antsy no mamono ny akoho ny mpamboly.(0! 0 0 0) # null-amin(a) ny antsy no m-a(n>m)-(v)ono ny akoho ny mpamboly. # nonperf-with Det knife Foc pres-pref.an-kill Det chicken Det farmer # Intended reading:‘It’s with the knife that the farmer is killing the chickens’. # The above sequence is adapted from M. Pearson, Reed College, AFLA 10 handout, # University of Hawaii, 28 March 2003, example (14)a. # The PP 'null-amin'ny antsy''nonperfective.aspect-with the knife' is an argument of the # verb 'mamono''to kill', which contains the feature [ + CONTROL] since it describes # a DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY; when an argument is fronted, the verb must be in the # passive voice; furthermore as we have an Oblique-argument here the relevant morphology # is passive 2 form 'an...an(a)' surrounding the root 'vono''kill'. # Adapted from Matthew Pearson. Voice morphology, case and argument structure in Malagasy: # Proceedings of AFLA 11, ZAS, Berlin 2004: 229-243. # Following Paul (1999), Matthew Pearson (2004:237) makes the claim that verbs such as # 'mandroso''to serve' and 'mandidy''to cut' are di-transitive verbs. This is simply NOT # plausible at all. The reality is that in the case of the verb 'mandidy''to cut', # incorporation is very likely to be involved in the derived structure Pearson is # trying to analyse, whereas as far as 'mandroso' is concerned, the proposed constituent- # structure for this construction is simply not the appropriate one. # Consider the derived structure in Pearson (2004: 237, ex. (27)a) involving 'mandidy''to cut': Mandidy antsy ny hena ny mpamboly. # M-an-didy antsy ny hena ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-didy knife Det meat Det farmers # Original translation:'The farmer cuts the meat with a knife.' # This is a perfectly grammatical sentence with an incorporated, non-definite INSTRUMENT-Oblique. Mandidy ny hena amina antsy ny mpamboly. # M-an-didy ny hena null-amina antsy ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-didy Det meat nonperf-with knife Det farmers # Revised translation: 'The farmers cut the meat with a knife.' # I am giving here the original source sentence for the previous sequence, keeping intact the # non-definite nature of the INSTRUMENT-Oblique 'null-amina antsy''nonperfective.aspect-with/pause/knife'. # This PP is definitely an argument of the verb 'mandidy''to cut'. Mandidy amina antsy ny hena ny mpamboly. # M-an-didy // null-amina antsy // ny hena ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-didy // nonperf-with knife // Det meat Det farmers # Revised translation: 'The farmers cut //with a knife//the (previously mentioned) meat' # where the symbol // represents a pause. # I am giving here an intermediate source sentence for the previous sequence. # In this intermediate sentence the relevant PP-argument is now adjacent to the incorporating # head V 'mandidy''to cut'. Since the PP is headed by morpheme 'null', an aspect and NOT a tense-marker, # incorporation can now take place, with the drop of the grammatical preposition 'amina': This is # NOT a lexical item with content features and therefore deletion here is plausible because it # is recoverable. # Now consider the derived structure in Pearson (2004: 237, ex. (26)a) involving 'mandroso''to serve' # and where recoverability of deletion is simply impossible, hence the ungrammaticality of the sentence: # Ungrammaticality due to putative incorporation: Mandroso sakafo ny vahiny ny mpamboly. (0! 0 0 0) # M-an-d-roso sakafo ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-ep.d-roso meal Det guests Det farmers # Original translation: "The farmer serves the guests a meal.' # This sequence sounds more like Foreigner Talk than Malagasy. Mandroso sakafo ho an'ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # M-an-d-roso sakafo ho an' ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-ep.d-roso meal comp prep Det guests Det farmers # 'The farmers serve a meal to the guests.' # I am giving here the most likely source sentence for the sequence immediately above. A justification # for such a sequence is provided immediately below. Mandroso vary ho an'ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # M-an-d-roso vary ho an' ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-ep.d-roso rice comp prep Det guests Det farmers # 'The farmers serve rice to the guests.' # This sentence comes from Rajemisa Rakibolana Malagasy (1995: 612) and shows a complementizer/prep # 'ho', which constituent-selects the predicate 'an''belonging-to''ny vahiny''the guests'. Now # the particle 'ho' as used here is a lexical item and as such has content features, which once # deleted are not very likely to be recoverable. This explains why 'mandroso sakafo ny vahiny # ny mpamboly' is not quite as felicitous as the sequence involving 'mandidy' above as far as # incorporation is concerned. # An alternative to the above is a Small Clause analysis as outlined in Randriamasimanana (2002:49-51) # for truly di-transitive Malagasy verbs such as 'manolotra''to offer (someone) (something). Within such # a framework, particle an is definitely not analysed as an accusative case-marker, but rather as a # non-verbal predicate meaning 'belonging-to' introduced by complementizer 'ho'. An'ny vahiny ilay entana. # An' ny vahiny ilay entana. # belonging Det guest DX.sg luggage # 'The (previously mentioned) luggage belongs to the guests'. # This sequence shows that particle 'an' can indeed be a preposition used predicatively to mean 'to belong'; # as such it is a lexical item. # One additional factor explaining the ungrammaticality of the sequence in Pearson # (2004: 237, ex. (26)a) is what he takes to be the relevant constituent structure frame for # the a-passive equivalent of the verb 'mandroso': # Ungrammatical: Aroson'ny vehivavy ny vahiny ny sakafo.(0! 0 0 0) # A-roso-n(a) ny vehivavy ny vahiny ny sakafo. # A.passive-roso-by Det women Det guests Det meal # A.passive.V NP.2 NP.1 # where NP.2 would be a second direct object and NP.1 is the grammatical subject. # Original translation" 'The woman is serving the guests the meal.' # The absence of a LOCATIVE-PP, i.e. instead of NP.2 forces a MANIPULATIVE reading of the above # sequence in that this putative construction of Malagasy would at best mean something like # 'The women are force-feeding the guests with meals.' # Compare the above constituent structure frame, i.e. 'a.passive + NP.1 + NP.2' with typical # uses of passive verbs comprising the prefix a. Consider the Malagasy root 'roso''advance' # as used in Abinal & Malzac (1888: 550). Arosoy eto an-trano ny vahiny. # A-roso-y null-eto an-trano ny vahiny. # A.passive-roso-by.you nonperf-here in-house Det guests # A.passive LOCATIVE-preposition Subject # 'Let the guests be allowed by you into the house.' # This sequence from Abinal & Malzac clearly shows that the relevant constituent structure # for the verb 'aroso' comprises a LOCATIVE-PP structure inside the a-passive clause. # As was already explained in Randriamasimanana (2002: 60), the a-passive encodes the notion # of INCEPTION and as a direct result of spec-head relation, tends to accept in subject position # within the clause a BALLISTIC kind of referent only. The a-passive being nonperfective in # nature and since it describes some DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY, it is not necessarily accompanied # by an entailment of whatever is asserted in the embedded structure. Indeed the presence of # the embedded LOCATIVE-PP within the relevant constituent structure frame for the verb 'aroso' # guarantees that the degree of control exercised by the referent of the subject can be # explicitly and adequately delimited. As already pointed out above the absence of such # a PP-structure automatically yields a MANIPULATIVE reading as was the case with Pearson # (2004: 237, ex. (26)a)(assuming that the sequence can be interpreted at all, which probably # does not occur very often anyway). # Maria Polinsky (UC San Diego) and Eric Potsdam (University of Florida) in their workshop # entitled 'Control and control-like constructions in Malagasy', Friday April 30, 2005 # Workshop Control verbs in cross-linguistic perspective at Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, # Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS) Jägerstraße 10-11, 10117 Berlin (Mitte) present # the following clear-cut case of adjunction in Malagasy -adaptations made: Nanandrana namono ny akoho Rabe. # n-an-andrana [n-a(n>m)-vono ny akoho ] Rabe # past-pref.an.try.ACTIVE past-pref.an-kill.ACTIVE the chicken Rabe # 'Rabe tried to kill the chicken.' # Note that the first verb 'nanandrana''tried' is in the past tense with the tense prefix n-; so # is the second verb 'namono''killed' with the same past tense prefix n-. The fact that we have # the configuration n...n 'past tense ... past tense' shows that indeed we have a case of adjunction. # Consult Randriamasimanana (1999b: 522-526) ‘Clausal architecture and movement verbs in Malagasy’ for # the distinction between embedding and adjunction in Malagasy. # Part 3 - Section 1: Given the above remarks, here are some relevant findings regarding verb # subtypes in Malagasy For clarity of exposition, we shall adopt the following conventions # wherever necessary. # NP.1 = Grammatical Subject (Su), nominative (nom) # NP.2 = Direct Object (DO), accusative (acc) # NP.3 = Indirect Object (IO) # NP.4 = Oblique (Obl) # NP.5 = Genitive (Gen) # NP.6 = DO > Subject (der.Subj) # NP.7 = PP-Argument1-Oblique > Subject (der.Subj) # NP.8 = PP-Argument2-Oblique > Object (der.Object) # via Advancement to DO, in which case promotion to Su may not # be possible, given the fact that typically the relevant NP is # NOT definite; # NP.9 = PP-Adjunct; # NP.10 = PP-Adjunct > PP-Argument via incorporation; # Verbs that can accommodate the frame V THEME-NP INSTRUMENT-PP AGENT-NP-Su # in the active voice and the frame V AGENT-NP THEME-NP INSTRUMENT-NP-Su # in the passive voice: # { mandidy 'to cut', manapaka 'to chop off', manoratra 'to write', manenjika 'to chase', # manasa 'to wash', mamono 'to kill', ...} mandidy mofo amin'ny antsy i Jeanne. # m-an-didy mofo null-amin' ny antsy i Jeanne. # pres-pref.an-cut bread nonperfective-with Det knife D.sg Jeanne # an-V NP.2 PP NP.4 NP.1 # an-V THEME INSTRUMENT-Oblique AGENT-Su; # null-amina NP = PP-argument as indicated by the gloss 'nonperfective aspect'; # 'Jeanne cuts (some) bread with the knife.' nandidy mofo tamin'ny antsy i Jeanne. # n-an-didy mofo t-amin' ny antsy i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-cut bread perfective-with Det knife D.sg Jeanne # an-V NP.2 PP NP.4 NP.1 # an-V THEME INSTRUMENT-Oblique AGENT-Su; # t-amina NP = PP-argument as indicated by the gloss 'perfective aspect'; # 'Jeanne cut (some) bread with the knife.' nandidian'i Jeanne mofo ny antsy. # n-an-didi-an(a) i Jeanne mofo ny antsy. # past-an-didi-ana D.sg Jeanne bread Det.sg knife # an-V-ana NP.5 NP.2 NP.7 > NP.1 # an.V.ana AGENT-Gen THEME INSTRUMENT-Su # t-amina NP was a PP-argument & t was 'aspect', Oblique is now encoded on V; # 'The knife was used by Jeanne to cut (some) bread.' amin'ny antsy no andidian'i Jeanne mofo # null-amin' ny antsy no null-an-didi-an(a) i Jeanne mofo # nonperf-amina Det knife focus pass.pres-an-didi-ana Gen DO # PP-INSTRUMENT an-V-ana AGENT-Gen THEME-DO # null-amina NP 'INSTRUMENT-Oblique''ny antsy'; # null-amina NP was a PP-argument & t was 'aspect', Oblique is now encoded on V; # 'It is with the knife that Jeanne usually cuts (some) bread.' tamin'ny antsy no nandidian'i Jeanne mofo # t-amin' ny antsy no n-an-didi-an(a) i Jeanne mofo # perf-amina Det knife focus pass.pres-an-didi-ana Gen DO # PP-INSTRUMENT an-V-ana AGENT-Gen THEME-DO # null-amina NP 'INSTRUMENT-Oblique'; # null-amina NP was PP-argument & t was 'aspect', Oblique is now encoded on V; # 'It is with the knife that Jeanne cut (some) bread.' # Verbs that can also accommodate the frame V THEME-NP INSTRUMENT-PP AGENT-NP-Su # as well as the frame V INSTRUMENT-PP THEME-NP AGENT-NP-Su in the active voice: # { mandidy 'to cut', manapaka 'to chop off', ...} Mandidy ny hena amina antsy ny mpamboly. # M-an-didy ny hena null-amina antsy ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-didy Det meat nonperf-with knife Det farmers # an-V NP.2 PP NP.4 NP.1 # an-V THEME INSTRUMENT-Obl AGENT-Su # Non-incorporated version of INSTRUMENT-Oblique (non-definite); # 'The farmers cut the meat with a knife.' Mandidy antsy ny hena ny mpamboly. # M-an-didy antsy ny hena ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-didy knife Det meat Det farmers # an-V NP.4>NP.8 NP.2 NP.1 # an-V INSTRUMENT-Obl THEME AGENT-Su # 'The farmers cut the meat with a knife.' # Note the order V NP.4> NP.8 = der. NP.2 due to Advancement Obl > DO; # note 'antsy' = non-definite INSTRUMENT-Oblique; # 'The farmers used a knife to cut the meat.' # Nearly all verbs describing a DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY can also accommodate the frame # V THEME-NP AGENT-NP-Su PP-Adjunct as well as the frame PP-Adjunct no V THEME-NP AGENT-NP-Su # and the frame PP-Argument no an-V-an(a) AGENT-NP THEME-NP; the crucial factor here seems to be # 'viewer perspective', i.e. external viewing for the first and internal viewing for the second: handidy mofo i Jeanne amin'ny Alakamisy. # h-an-didy mofo i Jeanne null-amin(a) ny Alakamisy # fut-pref.an-didy DO Su nonpast-amina Det Thursday # an-V NP.2 NP.1 PP-Adjunct # an-V THEME AGENT-Su TIME-Oblique; # null-amina NP = PP-adjunct as 'null' on preposition 'amina' is 'tense'; # 'Jeanne will cut (some) bread on Thursday.' nandidy mofo i Jeanne tamin'ny Alakamisy. # n-an-didy mofo i Jeanne t-amin' ny Alakamisy # past-pref.an-didy DO Su past-amina Det Thursday # an-V NP.2 NP.1 PP-Adjunct # an-V THEME AGENT-Su TIME-Oblique; # t-amina NP = PP-adjunct as t on preposition 'amina' is 'tense'; # 'Jeanne cut (some) bread on Thursday.' amin'ny Alakamisy no handidy mofo i Jeanne. # null-amin' ny Alakamisy no h-an-didy mofo i Jeanne. # nonpast-on Det Thursday focus fut-pref.an-cut bread D.sg Jeanne # null-amina PP no active.voice.an-cut NP.2 NP.1 # PP-TIME-Adjunct part an-V THEME AGENT-Su # null-amina NP.7 'TIME-Oblique'; # null-amina NP.7 = PP-adjunct as 'null' on preposition = nonpast tense-marker; # 'It is on Thursday that Jeanne will cut (some) bread.' tamin'ny Alakamisy no nandidy mofo i Jeanne. # t-amin(a) ny Alakamisy no n-an-didy mofo i Jeanne # past-amina Det Thursday part past-pref.an-didy bread D.sg Jeanne # t-amina PP no active.voice.an-V NP.2 NP.1 # PP-TIME-Adjunct part an-V THEME AGENT-Su # t-amina NP.7 'TIME-Oblique'; # t-amina NP.7 = PP-adjunct as t on preposition = past tense-marker; # 'It is on Thursday that Jeanne cut (some) bread.' amin'ny Alakamisy no handidian'i Jeanne mofo. # null-amin' ny Alakamisy no h-an-didi-an(a) i Jeannne mofo. # nonperf-on Det Thursday focus fut-pref.an-cut-by D.sg Jeanne bread # null-amina PP no passive.voice.an-cut-by Genitive DO # PP-TIME-Argument part an-V-ana AGENT THEME # null-amina NP.7 'TIME-Oblique'; # null-amina NP.7 = PP-Argument as 'null' = nonperfective; # 'It is on Thursday that Jeanne will be cutting (some) bread.' # Since morpheme t- on preposition is ambiguous between 'perfective aspect' and # 'past tense', a feature switch will operate to incorporate the initial PP-Adjunct # into the VP. tamin'ny Alakamisy no nandidian'i Jeanne mofo. # t-amin' ny Alakamisy no n-an-didi-an(a) i Jeannne mofo. # perf-on Det Thursday focus past-pref.an-cut-by D.sg Jeanne bread # t-amina PP no passive.voice.an-cut-by Genitive DO # PP-TIME-Argument part an-V-ana AGENT THEME # null-amina NP.7 'TIME-Oblique' # null-amina NP.7 = PP-Argument as t = perfective; # 'It is on Thursday that Jeanne was cutting (some) bread.' # Since morpheme t- on preposition is ambiguous between 'perfective aspect' and # 'past tense', a feature switch will operate to incorporate the initial PP-Adjunct # into the VP. # Verbs of Giving-subtype 1 which can accommodate the frame # an-V THEME-NP BENEFICIARY-NP AGENT-NP-Su as well as the frame # an-V BENEFICIARY-N THEME-NP AGENT-NP-Su; # { manolotra 'to hand over', manome 'to give', ...} Nanolotra dite ny vahiny i Ketaka. # N-an-(t)olotra dite ny vahiny i Ketaka. # past-pref.an-hand.over tea Det guests D.sg Ketaka # an-V NP.2 NP.3 NP.1 # an-V DO IO Su # an-V THEME BENEFICIARY AGENT # past-pref.an-offer tea Det guests D.sg Ketaka # 'Ketaka offered (some) tea to the guests.' # Note the order DO + IO; Nanolotra ny vahiny dite i Ketaka. # N-an-(t)olotra ny vahiny dite i Ketaka. # past-pref.an-offer Det guests tea D.sg Ketaka # an-V NP.3 NP.2 NP.1 # an-V IO DO Su # an-V BENEFICIARY THEME AGENT # 'Ketaka offered (some) tea to the guests.' # Note the order IO + DO; # Verbs of Giving-subtype 2 which can accommodate the frame # an-V THEME-NP BENEFICIARY-PP AGENT-NP-Su or alternatively # the frame an-V THEME LOCATIVE-PP AGENT-NP-Su; also note # the INCEPTIVE aspect a-passive form used: # { mandroso 'to offer', ...} Mandroso vary ho an'ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # M-an-d-roso vary ho an' ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-ep.d-roso rice comp prep Det guests Det farmers # an-V NP.2 ho belong-to the guests NP.1 # an-V DO LOCATION-PP Su # an-V THEME BENEFICIARY AGENT # 'The farmers serve rice to the guests.' Mandroso vary eo amin'ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # M-an-d-roso vary null-eo amin' ny vahiny ny mpamboly. # Pres-pref.an-ep.d-roso rice prep Det guests Det farmers # an-V NP.2 nonperf-PP NP.4 NP.1 # an-V DO PP-Oblique Su # an-V THEME LOCATIVE AGENT # 'The farmers serve (some) rice to the guests.' # Note the construction V NP.2 PP-LOCATION-Oblique. Arosoy eto an-trano ny vahiny. # A-roso-y null-eto an-trano ny vahiny. # A.passive-roso-by.you nonperf-here in-house Det guests # A-V PP-LOCATIVE THEME-Su # A.passive-V LOCATIVE-Oblique THEME # 'Let the guests be allowed by you into the house.' # Verbs which can only accommodate the frame an-V THEME-NP.2 LOCATUM-NP.2 AGENT-NP-Su # V THEME LOCATION AGENT - subtype 2 (advancement obligatory): V NP.2 (Prep NP.4) > NP.2 NP.1; # { mameno 'to fill', ...} Feno vary ny sobiky. # Feno vary ny sobiky. # Full-of rice Det basket # Complex pred NP.1 # 'The basket is full of rice.' # for further explanations, consult on-line document on Malagasy adjectives. Nameno vary ny sobiky i Soa. # N-a(n>m)-(f)eno vary ny sobiky i Soa. # Past-pref.an-full rice Det basket D.sg Soa # an-V NP.2 NP.4 > NP.2 NP.1 # an-V THEME LOCATUM AGENT-Su # 'Soa packed rice into the basket.' # instead of PP, note 'ny sobiky' as a derived DO via advancement NP.4 to LOCATUM-NP.2; # passive voice evidence for advancement to DO is provided immediately below. Nofenoin'i Soa vary ny sobiky. # No-feno-in(a) i Soa vary ny sobiky # past.passive-be.full-by D.sg Soa rice Det basket # no-V-ina Genitive DO Su # no-v-ina AGENT THEME derived THEME # 'The sack was filled with rice by Soa.' # Note that the initial LOCATIVE has now become a derived THEME and allows # passive voice with passive voice 1 circumfix 'no...ina' instead of the # expected passive voice 2 circumfix 'an...ana', i.e. without Advancement to DO. Nameno ny sobiky tamin'vary i Soa.(0! 0 0 0) # N-a(n>m)-(f)eno ny sobiky t-amin'vary i Soa. # Past-pref.an-full Det basket perf-with D.sg Soa # an-V NP.4 > NP.2 ??? NP.1 # an-V LOCATUM ??? AGENT-Su # 'Soa packed the basket with rice.' # Many Motion verbs seem to be able to accommodate both PUNCTUAL and nonPUNCTUAL aspect PPs: # { mandeha 'to go', ...} # MOTION verbs - subtype 1 : PP-PUNCTUAL; Nandeha tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-root.leha perf-there prep.ami(na) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # an-V PP-Oblique NP.4 NP.1 # an-V LOCATIVE-Oblique EXPERIENCER # Literally 'Jeanne went gone to.place-of-Soa', i.e. 'Jeanne went to Soa's place.' # Note that the morpheme t- on preposition 'any' is ambiguous between a perfective # aspect-marker and a past tense-marker. # Note that the verb 'mandeha''to go' is somewhat vague as to whether it is PUNCTUAL # or nonPUNCTUAL aspect. Nalehan'i Jeanne tany i Soa. # N-a-(l>d)eh(a)-n(a) i Jeanne t-any --- i Soa. # past-a.passive-root.leha-suf.ana D.sg Jeanne past-there --- DX.sg Soa # a-V Genitive PP-Oblique --- NP.7 # a-V AGENT LOCATIVE THEME-Su # ' Jeanne went there & confronted Soa.' # Note the PUNCTUAL a-passive form on the verb; the nonPUNCTUAL aspect reading # is no longer an option. # Note also that in the above sequence, the morpheme t- on prep 'any' is # a past tense-marker; as a result, it is not incorporated into the head verb # since as already explained a tense-marker is an absolute barrier to incorporation. # In this instance, we seem to first have chopping of NP.4, i.e. 'amin(a) i Soa' # from its Preposition, then we have an advancement from LOCATIVE-PP-Oblique NP.4 to # derived DO, i.e. NP.2 & subsequently derived THEME-Su, with alternative a-passive morphology. # --- represents the initial Oblique case-marked constituent 'amin'i Soa'. # Note that here the verbal complex 'nandeha tany...' has PUNCTUAL aspect. # MOTION verbs - subtype 2 : PP-nonPUNCTUAL; Io no nandehanan'i Jeanne tany. # Io no nandehanan' i Jeanne tany. # this focus n-an-(l>d)eh(a)-n(a) i Jeanne t-any. # NP.10 focus past-pref.an-root.leha-suf.ana D.sg Jeanne past-there # NP.10 focus an-V-ana Genitive PP-Oblique # REASON foc an-V-ana AGENT LOCATION # Literally 'This is the reason why Jeanne was going there.' # Note the DURATIVE passive 2 form in 'an...ana' on the verb. # Note that clefting is mandatory. Nandeha tany i Jeanne noho io. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any i Jeanne noho io. # past-ref.an-go past-there D.sg Jeanne P this # an-V PP-Oblique EXP-Su PP-Adjunct # an-V LOCATIVE EXPERIENCER REASON # 'Jeanne was going there because of this.' # This is the initial sequence which will ultimately yield the previous one # via incorporation of PP into VP, passive 2 'an...ana' and fronting of PP. # Note that the verbal complex 'nandeha tany...' has non-PUNCTUAL aspect. # Certain Subject Control verbs require conjoined NOT embedded verbs; # { manandrana 'to try', mitsangana 'to stand', ...} Nanandrana namono ilay akoho Rabe. # n-an-andrana [n-a(n>m)-vono ilay akoho ] Rabe # past-pref.an.try past-pref.an-kill DX.sg chicken Rabe # 'Rabe tried to kill the (previously mentioned) chicken' # V.1 'nanandrana''past-try' requires adjoined V.2 'namono''past-kill; # indeed note the same past tense-marker 'n' on both verbs; Mitsangana mihinana akoho Rabe. # M-i-tsangana m-i-hinana akoho Rabe. # V.1 V.2 (NP.2) NP.1 # Pres-pref.i-stand pres-pref.i-eat chicken(s) Rabe # ‘Rabe stands eating chicken.’ # V.1 'mitsangana''to stand' requires adjoined V.2 'mihinana''to eat'; # indeed note the same present tense-marker 'm' on both verbs; # Part 3 - Section 2: More recent published data. # Before we analyse one final set of Malagasy data at the end of this section, I am reproducing # here three Malagasy sentences claimed by Eric Potsdam in his manuscript 'More Concealed Pseudocleft # in Malagasy and the Clausal typing Hypothesis' to be equivalent. The simple fact is only the (44)c. # version of the sentence is the correct Malagasy translation of 'It is under the bed that the child # hid the key' while the (44)a and (44)b versions strike me at best as Foreigner Talk and at any rate # do not have the intended reading at all. The following remarks were already made in the on-line # document entitled Malagasy Causatives & CONTROL: ESRC-OX-05-CR202, but since my purpose here is to # help avoid more confusion about the distinction between argument and adjunct, this repetition may # prove somewhat crucial. # Ungrammatical: Ao ambanin'ny fandriana no nanafina ny lakile ny zaza.(0! 0 0 0) # null-ao ambani-n ny fandriana no n-an-afina ny lakile ny zaza. # nonperf-there under-of Det.unspec bed focus past-pref.an-hide Det.unspec key Det child # Intended reading:'It is under the bed that the child hid the key.' # The above sequence is adapted from Eric Potsdam. More Concealed Pseudocleft in Malagasy and # the Clausal typing Hypothesis, example (44)a. # This sentence is irretrievably ungrammatical since the PP 'ao ambanin'ny fandriana' is not # an adjunct to the clause containing 'nanafina': (i) nanafina is a [ + CONTROL ] verb since # it clearly describes a DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY and as a direct result of this the PP # is more than likely to be an argument of the verb (ii) confirming such an analysis is the # fact that the preposition null-ao 'nonperfective-there' is not accompanied by a tense-marker, # which would be a past tense so that we would obtain the configuration past...past, the # hallmark of an adjunction. # Since the PP 'Ao ambanin'ny fandriana' is an argument of the verb 'nanafina', it is illegal # to front it and leave the verb in the active voice in Malagasy. However given the widespread # use of this type of construction among foreign linguists, this may well be Foreigner Talk. # Ungrammatical: Ao ambanin'ny fandriana no nafenin'ny zaza ny lakile. (0! 0 0 0) # null-ao ambani-n ny fandriana no n-a-(a)fenin(a) ny zaza ny lakile. # nonperf-there under-of Det.unspec bed focus past-a.pass-be.hidden-by Det child Det key # Intended reading: 'It is under the bed that the child hid the key.' # The above sequence is adapted from Eric Potsdam. More Concealed Pseudocleft in Malagasy and # the Clausal typing Hypothesis, example (44)b. # This sentence is irretrievably ungrammatical since the PP 'ao ambanin'ny fandriana' is not # an adjunct to the clause containing 'nanafina': (i) nanafina is a [ + CONTROL ] verb since # it clearly describes a DELIBERATE kind of ACTIVITY and as a direct result of this the PP # is more than likely to be an argument of the verb (ii) confirming such an analysis is the # fact that the preposition null-ao 'nonperfective-there' is not accompanied by a tense-marker, # which would be a past tense so that we would obtain the configuration past...past, the # hallmark of an adjunction. # In addition, the PP ' Ao ambanin'ny fandriana' being a LOCATIVE type of Oblique, before it # can be extracted from the clause containing the verb 'nanafina', this verb will have to # obligatorily be in the circumstantial or relative voice form of the passive. This corresponds # to the form 'nanafenana' 'past.tense.n + pref.an + root.afen(ina) + suffix.ana', where the # the circumfix prefix.an ...suffix.ana of Passive 2 is easily recognizable. Instead of the # expected Passive 2 form an...ana, we have a totally unexpected form, i.e. the suffixed # form afenina for Passive 1. Ao ambanin'ny fandriana no nanafenan'ny zaza ny lakile. # null-ao ambani-n ny fandriana no n-an-afen-an(a) ny zaza ny lakile . # nonperf-there under-of Det bed focus past-an-hide-ana Det child Det key # Intended reading:'It is under the bed that the child hid the key.' # Actual reading: 'It is under the bed that the child has hidden the key.' # The above sequence is adapted from Eric Potsdam. More Concealed Pseudocleft in Malagasy and # the Clausal typing Hypothesis, example (44)c. This is the only plausible sequence from among the # three putative versions proposed in the above-mentioned paper to have the intended reading. # The LOCATIVE-PP 'Ao ambanin'ny fandriana' being an argument of the verb 'nanafina', before it # can be extracted/fronted, the fact that this entity was a LOCATIVE-Oblique has to be encoded on # the verb 'nanafina', which must be in the circumstantial or relative voice and contain the # passive 2 circumfix an...ana. # Eric Potsdam (2005) is probably just following in the footsteps of Joachim Sabel (2003) # Malagasy as an optional multiple Wh-fronting language. Published in: Multiple Wh-Fronting. # Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229-254. # Sabel (2003) makes essentially the same type of claim as Potsdam (2004) with regard to # the following three sequences: 'As shown in (6), Wh-extraction of adjuncts such as aiza # ‘where’ is possible with all types of verbal forms'. Now I have adapted the gloss somewhat. Aiza no manasa ny lamba amin’ ny savony ny reniny? # null-aiza no m-an-(s)asa ny lamba null-amin’ ny savony ny reni-ny? # nonpast-where focus pred-pref.an-wash the clothes nonperf-with the soap the mother-of-his/hers # Intended reading: ‘Where does his/her mother wash the clothes with the soap?’ # This is the a version of sentence (6), which I have changed somewhat: 'ny reniny''mother-of-his' # or 'mother-of-hers' since otherwise the sentence sounds more like Foreigner Talk. # The meaning of the above sentence is 'His/her mother washes the clothes where?'. Just like # Potsdam's 2004 version a of his sequences (read remarks below), this is an Echo Question. # This like Potsdam (2004, ex.6a) requires a previous mention and canNOT appear discourse-initially. # This sentence is primarily about his/her mother and is accompanied by emphasis on where she # is, presented as a request for confirmation --hence the label 'Echo Question'. # At any rate, note that 'null-aiza''non-past.tense-where' is an adjunct to the verb and not an # argument as we have the configuration 'tense...tense', which suggests an adjunction. Aiza no sasan’ ny reniny amin’ ny savony ny lamba? # null-aiza no null-(s)asa-n(a) ny reni-ny ny lamba null-amin’ ny savony ? # nonpast-where focus passive.pres-wash-by the mother-of-his/hers the clothes nonperf-with the soap # Intended reading: ‘Where does the mother wash the clothes with the soap?’ # This is the b version of sentence (6), which I have changed somewhat: 'ny reniny''mother-of-his' # or 'mother-of-hers' since otherwise the sentence sounds more like Foreigner Talk. # The meaning of the above sentence is 'His/mother is washing the clothes where?'. Just like # Potsdam (2004, ex.6b) this requires a previous mention and canNOT appear discourse-initially either. # This sentence is primarily about the clothes and the PP is accompanied by emphasis on where # the clothes are, presented as a request for confirmation --hence the label 'Echo Question'. # At any rate, note that 'null-aiza''non-past.tense-where' is an adjunct to the verb and not an # argument as we have the configuration 'tense...tense', which suggests an adjunction. Aiza no anasan’ ny reniny ny lamba amin’ ny savony? # null-aiza no null-an-(s)asa-n(a) ny reni-ny ny lamba null-amin’ ny savony? # nonperf-where focus passive.pres-pref.an-wash-by the mother-of-his/hers the clothes nonperf-with the soap # Reading: ‘Where does the mother wash the clothes with the soap?’ # This sentence is primarily a query about where his/her mother washes the clothes. See detailed # comments above and below below relative to a very similar pattern in Eric Potsdam (2004) & (2005). # Contrary to the first two sequences, this one, i.e. Potsdam (2004, ex.6c) can definitely appear # discourse-initially and does NOT require the special intonation and emphasis characteristic of the # other versions. This sequence is a straightforward question, which can appear in isolation. # Note that 'null-aiza''nonperfective.aspect-where' is an argument of the verb and not just an # adjunct as we have the configuration 'nonperfective.aspect...passive.present.tense', # which clearly suggests argument status for 'aiza'. # In conclusion, of the three sentences (6)a, (6)b and (6)c proposed in Joachim Sabel (2003). # Multiple Wh-Fronting. Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.).Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229-254 # the last one --Sabel's (6)c-- is the only sequence which means 'Where did his/her mother wash the clothes?' # and can appear discourse-initially. # Once the issues raised by the last six sequences are fully understood, we come to an analysis of # three rather similar sequences from Eric Potsdam. 2004. Wh-questions in Malagasy. ZAS Papers in # Linguistics, ZASPiL Nr. 34 - October 2004: 244-258. Proceedings of AFLA 11, ZAS, Berlin. We are # interested in his sentences (5)a, (5)b and (5)c respectively. Taiza no nanafina ny lakileko ny zaza? (0! 0 0 0) # T-aiza no n-an-afina ny lakile-ko ny zaza? # past.tense-where focus past-pref.an-hide Det key-of-mine Det child # Intended reading 'Where did the child hide my key?' is NOT possible at all. # This is sequence (5)a. from Eric Potsdam (2004). # Potential reading is totally different: 'The child was where when s/he hid my key?.' # The sentence in Potsdam (2004:5a) is about the child and where s/he was when s/he hid my key; # but it is NOT at all about where the child actually hid my key! # This is an Echo Question, which requires some kind of emphasis and a special intonation. # The above sequence simply canNOT be uttered out-of-the-blue as a first sequence in a discourse; # it can only be an echo question arising from a previous and explicit statement. # In its Echo Question interpretation 'Taiza no nanafina ny lakileko ny zaza?' can be paraphrased # as 'Taiza ny zaza no nanafina ny lakileko?''Where did you say the child went to hide my key?' # In any case, 't-aiza''past.tense-where' is an adjunct to the verb 'nanafina''hid' since we # have the 'past.tense....past.tense' configuration, telling us that this is an adjunction and # that 't-aiza''past.tense' can in no way be construed as an argument of the verb. This is # why the verb 'nanafina' remains in the active voice when 'taiza' is fronted, i.e. in the # relevant Echo Question reading where the sequence can be construed as grammatical. # I mark the sequence above as ungrammatical because it does NOT and canNOT mean # 'Where did the child hid my key?' as a discourse-initial query. Nanafina ny lakileko taiza ny zaza? # N-an-afina ny lakile-ko t-aiza ny zaza? # past-pref.an-hide Det key-of-mine past.tense-where Det child # Echo Question: 'The child hid my key where?' # This is a sequence that I have created and which should be compared with the one immediately above. # This is an Echo Question, which requires some kind of emphasis and a special intonation. # This is an Echo Question cognitively equivalent to the one above proposed in E. Potsdam (2004). # Note that the PP 't-aiza''past.tense' is an adjunct to the verb 'nanafina''past.tense.hide'. # The only difference between this last sequence and the previous one is that the PP-adjunct # has not been fronted. The verb remains in the active voice as the PP-adjunct remains an adjunct # since the morpheme t- a past tense-marker is an absolute barrier to incorporation. Taiza no nafenin'ny zaza ny lakileko ? (0! 0 0 0) # T-aiza no n-a-(a)fenin(a) ny zaza ny lakile-ko ? # past.tense-where focus past-a.pass-hide-by Det child Det key-of-mine # Intended reading 'Where did the child hid my key?' is NOT possible at all. # This is sequence (5)b. from Eric Potsdam (2004). # Possible reading is totally different: 'What was the location of my key once hidden by the child?.' # The sentence in Potsdam (2004:5b) is about the key and its location once hidden by the child; # but it is NOT at all about where the child actually hid my key! # This is an Echo Question, which usually requires some emphasis and a special intonation. # The above sequence simply cannot be uttered out-of-the-blue as a first sequence in a discourse; # it can only be an echo question arising from a previous and explicit statement. # In its Echo Question interpretation 'Taiza no nafenin'ny zaza ny lakileko?' can be paraphrased # as 'Taiza ny lakileko no nafenin'ny zaza?''Where did you say was the location of my key hidden by the child? # In any case, 't-aiza''past.tense-where' is an adjunct to the verb 'nafenina''was.hidden' since we # have the 'past.tense....past.tense' configuration, telling us that this is an adjunction and # that 't-aiza''past.tense' can in no way be construed as an argument of the verb. This is # why the verb 'nanafina' can be in passive 1 and not passive 2 form when 'taiza' is fronted, i.e. # in the relevant Echo Question reading where the sequence can be construed as grammatical. # I mark the sequence above as ungrammatical because it does NOT and canNOT mean # 'Where did the child hide my key?' as a discourse-initial query. Nafenin'ny zaza taiza ny lakileko ? # N-a-(a)fenin(a) ny zaza t-aiza ny lakile-ko ? # Past-a.pass-hide-by Det child past.tense-where Det key-of-mine # 'My key was hidden where by the child? # This is a sequence that I have created and which should be compared with the one immediately above. # This is an Echo Question, which requires some kind of emphasis and a special intonation. # Note that the PP 't-aiza''past.tense' is an adjunct to the verb 'nanafina''past.tense.hide'. # The only difference between this last sequence and the previous one is that the PP-adjunct # has not been fronted. The verb remains in the active voice as the PP-adjunct remains an adjunct # since the morpheme t- a past tense-marker is an absolute barrier to incorporation. Taiza no nanafenan'ny zaza ny lakileko ? # T-aiza no n-an-afen-an(a) ny zaza ny lakile-ko ? # perf.aspect-where focus past-pref.an-hide-an(a) Det child Det key-of-mine # Intended reading: 'Where did the child hide my key?' # Actual literal reading is finally exactly as stated: 'Where did the child hide my key?' # Note that 't-aiza''perfective.aspect-where' is an argument of the verb 'nanafina'; this is made # quite obvious by the gloss of the morpheme t- as 'perfective.aspect' and NOT 'past.tense', as # was the case in the other two examples above. Because 't-aiza''perfective.aspect-where' is # an argument of the verb 'nanafina', when it is fronted passive 2 morphology 'an...an(a)' # has to surround the verbal stem 'af(i>e)na', as can be seen above. # In conclusion, of the three sentences (5)a, (5)b and (5)c proposed in Eric Potsdam. 2004. # Wh-questions in Malagasy. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, ZASPiL Nr. 34 - October 2004: 244-258. # Proceedings of AFLA 11, ZAS, Berlin, only the last one --his (5)c-- is the sequence which means #'Where did the child hid my key?' and can be used as a query discourse-initially. # Part 4: Collocations of PPs with Motion verbs. # Complex prepositions headed by a lexical preposition & with amin(a) as an Oblique case-marker: # In the case of a simple PP, the general preposition (t)amin(a) is the head of construction and # it is the one which encodes the tense/aspect marker t-; on the other hand, in the case of a # complex preposition phrase, it is the lexical preposition constituent-selected by the Motion # verb which is the head of construction and therefore carries the tense/aspect marker t-. # With a complex PP, the general preposition amin(a) is an Oblique case-marker assigned by the # lexical collocation and as such remains invariant, whereas in the case of simple prepositions, # it was the general preposition which showed the alternation null vs t- . See previous cases above. # Recall that complex prepositions are semi-frozen sequences made up of a Motion verb and its # accompanying lexical preposition. See list below. It is the lexical preposition, i.e. the head which # will solely encode the aspect/tense alternation null vs t. # Such constructions are of interest because they can help us understand how the notion of degree of # CONTROL exercised by the referent of a subject can be made explicit and be clearly delimited, as was # the case with examples such as M. Pearson (2001:30 ex (25) a.) and M. Pearson (2004: 237, ex. (26)a). # For present purposes, we will confine ourselves to two complex PPs: any amin(a) and tany amin(a). # Illustrative Examples of Motion verb collocations: Nandeha tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-root.leha perf-there prep.ami(na) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # Literally 'Jeanne went gone to.place-of-Soa', i.e. 'Jeanne went to Soa's place.' # The verb 'nandeha''went' selects the lexical preposition 'tany''perfective-there', and # the preposition behaves like an argument and the morpheme t- is glossed as 'perfective.aspect'; # in fact, this morpheme t- is a perfective aspect-marker which is ambiguous between # tense, with the meaning of 'past-go' and pure aspect, meaning 'has been': This detail # may explain the use of a-passive. See illustration below. Note that the perfective aspect # morpheme t- is encoded on the lexical preposition, and that the accompanying general # preposition amin(a) remains invariant, i.e. 'prep.ami(na)' without an aspect or # tense-marker on it: In this instance 'amina' is an Oblique case-marker; the evidence # for this comes from the following sequence. Nandeha tany Antsirabe i Jeanne. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any Antsirabe i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-root.leha perf-there Place.Name D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne went to Antsirabe.' # The place name Antsirabe itself comprises the locative preposition an(y)'at' and # tsirabe 'where there is big salt'; therefore the Location-Oblique marker 'amin(a) # is no longer necessary in front of Malagasy names of towns and cities. This has been # extended to foreign place names where a Location-Oblique marker is absent. See below. I Soa no nalehan'i Jeanne. # I Soa no n-a-leha-n(a) i Jeanne. # D.sg Soa focus past-a.passive-leha-na D.sg Jeanne # 'It was towards Soa that Jeanne went (in order to confront her).' # The Oblique case-marker 'amin(a)' from the earlier sequence has disappeared as this aspect # is now encoded on the passive voice: The a-passive voice is the relevant form to be used as # the EXPERIENCER 'i Jeanne' encoded as a genitive is capable of autonomy, i.e. only the # initial impulse is required; in fact, the passive 2 form would be totally inappropriate # as the circumfix an...an(a) is accompanied by DURATIVE or non-punctual aspect, whereas # the PP 'tany amin'i Soa''perf-prep.amin(a)' is itself in the nonDURATIVE, punctual aspect. # In this connection, consider the sequence 'Tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne''Jeanne went to Soa's place' # or 'Jeanne has been to Soa's place' but NEVER 'Jeanne was going to Soa's place'. # Ungrammatical: I Soa no nandehanan'i Jeanne.(0! 0 0 0) # I Soa no n-an-(l>d)eh(a)-an(a)-n(a) i Jeanne. # D.sg Soa focus past-pref.an-leha-suffix.ana-by D.sg Jeanne # Intended reading: 'It was towards/to see Soa that Jeanne went.' # The nonDURATIVE, punctual aspect PP 'tany amin'i Soa' has been encoded on the verb 'nandeha' as # if it was in the DURATIVE, nonpunctual aspect as indicated explicitly by the circumcifix # an...an(a) of passive 2. This sequence is irretrievably ungrammatical. Nandeha tany Oxford i Jeanne. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any Oxford i Jeanne. # past-pref.an-root.leha perf-there Oxford D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne went to Oxford.' # Note that the PP 't-any Oxford''perf-there' is an argument to the verb 'nandeha'; # following the pattern characteristic of Malagasy place names, which already comprise # a locative preposition like an (as in Antsirabe 'the town of Antsirabe', Antananarivo # 'the city of Antananarivo', the capital of Madagascar), there is no overt case-marker # in front of the foreign name Oxford. Tany Oxford no nalehan'i Jeanne. # T-any Oxford no n-a-leha-n(a) i Jeanne. # Perf-there Oxford focus past-a.passive-leha-na D.sg Jeanne # 'It was to Oxford Jeanne went.' # The punctual argument PP 't-any Oxford''perf-there' has been fronted and this is accompanied # by the a.passive voice. The DURATIVE, non-punctual passive 2 form an...an(a) is not an option, # as this would yield the following irretrievably ungrammatical sequence. See below. # Ungrammatical: Tany Oxford no nandehanan'i Jeanne.(0! 0 0 0) # T-any Oxford no n-an-(l>d)eh(a)-an(a)-n(a) i Jeanne. # Perf-there Oxford focus past-pref.an-leha-suffix.ana-by D.sg Jeanne # Intended reading: 'It was to Oxford that Jeanne went.' # The nonDURATIVE, punctual aspect PP 'tany Oxford' has been encoded on the verb 'nandeha' as # if it was in the DURATIVE, nonpunctual aspect as indicated explicitly by the circumcifix # an...an(a) of passive 2. Tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # T-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # Perf.aspect/Past.tense-there prep.ami(na) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # Literally either 'Jeanne has been/was to Soa's place' or 'Jeanne went away gone to.place-of-Soa', # i.e. 'Jeanne went to Soa's home.' # the morpheme t- on Prep tany is ambiguous between a perfective aspect-marker, as is obligatory # in the embedded structure shown earlier and a past tense-marker, as is possible when we have # an independent clause like the one under consideration below; with t- as a past tense- # marker, tany literally means 'went to...', a Motion verb. Tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # T-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # Past-there prep.ami(na) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne went to Soa's home.' # Note that the morpheme t- is glossed as 'past.tense' and not as 'perfective.aspect.' # This sequence corresponds unequivocally to a Motion verb. Nankany amin'i Soa i Jeanne no voan'ny loza. # N-ank-null-any ami-n' i Soa i Jeanne no voa-n' ny loza [ null ]. # Past-pref.ank-nonperf any Oblique-n(a) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne part voa-n(a) Det accident zero # 'Jeanne was going to Soa's place when (she = Jeanne) had the accident.' # Note that the punctual Locative preposition 'any''there' has no aspect/tense marker # t- on it and that 'n + ank' is characterised by DURATIVE, non-punctual aspect. # Only the LOCATIVE nonverbal predicate shown below can be incorporated into the higher # predicate ank. Any amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # null-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # nonperf-there prep.ami(na) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne is at Soa's place.' # Note that the morpheme null is glossed as 'nonperfective.aspect.' # This sequence illustrates the use of a LOCATIVE nonverbal predicate, which can be # incorporated into a higher predicate ank, as shown immediately above, to form a # complex Motion verb. Nandeha tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne. # N-an-(l>d)eha t-any ami-n(a) i Soa i Jeanne. # Past-pref.an-leha past-any Oblique- D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # 'Jeanne went to Soa's place.' # Note the collocation 'nandeha tany', where 't-any' is 'past.aspect-any'. Recall that # the morpheme t- is ambiguous between a perfective aspect interpretation (the case # above) and a past tense interpretation. See below. Tany amin'i Soa no nalehan'i Jeanne. # T-any ami-n(a) i Soa no n-a-(l>d)eha-na i Jeanne. # Perf-any Oblique- D.sg Soa focus n-a-leha-na D.sg Jeanne # 'It was to Soa's place Jeanne went.' Note the lack of confrontation in this case. # Note the lexical collocation 'nandeha tany' where 't-any' can be analysed as 'perf-there', # therefore an argument of the verb 'nandeha', as shown in the previous sequence; as a # result the PP-argument can be fronted and the passive voice used on the verb. Note # however that it is the a-passive form which is used, NOT passive 2, given the verbal # aspect involved in this sequence. # Collocation broken up: Tense is an absolute barrier to incorporation. Nalehan'i Jeanne tany i Soa. # N-aleha-n(a) i Jeanne t-any i Soa. # Past-aleha-na D.sg Jeanne past-there D.sg Soa # Literally: 'Soa was gone-to there by Jeanne', i.e. 'Soa was confronted by Jane, who # accosted her.' This is the passive voice equivalent to 'Nandeha tany amin'i Soa i Jeanne' # 'Jeanne went to Soa's place.' # Note the lexical collocation 'nandeha tany' where 't-any' is analysed as 'past-there', # therefore an adjunct; as an adjunct, the PP 't-any''past-there' canNOT be incorporated # into the VP headed by 'nandeha''went': The reason for this is that the past tense morpheme # t- is an absolute barrier to incorporation. # Ungrammatical: Tense is an absolute barrier to incorporation. Nankatany amin'i Soa i Jeanne.(0! 0 0 0) # N-ank-a-t-any amin' i Soa i Jeanne. # Past-pref.ank-ep.a-past-any Oblique-n(a) D.sg Soa D.sg Jeanne # Intended reading: 'Jeanne went to Soa's place.' # This sequence simply does NOT exist in Malagasy. Note the presence of the past # tense morpheme t- on the Locative preposition 'any'. First of all, note that # the prefix n-ank is superfluous since 'tany amin'i Soa''past-go to Soa's' # is already a MOTION predicate meaning 'went'. Second, 'nank' is DURATIVE, # non-punctual aspect, whereas 'tany' is nonDURATIVE, non-punctual aspect. # At any rate, morpheme t- on the preposition 'any' is a tense-marker. Nody tany aminy i Jeanne. # N-ody t-any ami-ny i Jeanne. # past-root.ody past-there prep.ami(na)-clitic.ny D.sg Jeanne # Literally 'Jeanne returned gone to.place-of-hers', i.e. 'Jeanne went home.' # Note that the clitic -ny in the above sequence can and does refer to 'i Jeanne'; # such an interpretation rests on the fact that the PP 'tany aminy' is an adjunct to # the first verb 'nody''went.back'; note that t- on Prep tany is a past tense-marker; # we have the configuration past.tense ... past.tense, the hallmark of adjunction in # in Malagasy. Tany aminy no nodian'i Jeanne.(0! 0 0 0) # T-any ami-ny no no-(o)di-an(a) i Jeanne. # Past-there amy-3rd.pers.sg.clitic focus ??? D.sg Jeanne # Intended reading:'It was to her place that Jeanne went.' # The above sequence simply does NOT exist in Malagasy: An attempt was made to break up # the lexical collocation and front the adjunct 't-any aminy''past.tense-any aminy'. # This complex PP is an idiomatic expression, a semi-frozen construction which does not # allow fronting. The ??? in the gloss means that the verb 'mody''to return' is irregular # and does not have a passive voice at all. # A list of Location-prepositions that can make up a lexical collocation with a Motion verb # is provided below: # Note that the vast majority of such collocations do not allow passive voice at all. # These are prepositions which on the one hand, are constituent-selected by a Motion # verb such as 'mandeha''to go' as in 'mandeha any''to go there' or make up a collocation # with prefix ank as in 'mankany'. And when a higher predicate m+ank combines with # any one of the following location prepositions, only the version with a nonperfective # aspect is possible; the other alternative comprising a perfective aspect/tense-marker # is never possible. The impossibility of incorporation is due to tense being an absolute # barrier for such a process. # Furthermore, in view of examples such as M. Pearson (2001:30 ex (25) a.) and M. Pearson # (2004: 237, ex. (26)a), such complex PPs may also be involved in many constructions # involving verbs such as 'mandroso''to offer', with consequences for the incorporation # process. ato tato # ato Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-over-here-near-the-speaker, but-not-quite-visible'; # tato Prep t-ato 'has.been/was-here...' or 'came-here-near-the-speaker, but-not-quite-visible'; # ato Prep null-ato 'nonperfective.aspect-ato' LOCATION, 'is-here-near-the-speaker, # but not-quite-visible'; # tato Prep t-ato 'perfective.aspect-ato' either LOCATION 'has.been/was-here-near-the-speaker, # but not-quite-visible' or MOTION TOWARDS 'came-here-near-the-speaker, but not-quite-visible'; # tato Prep t-ato 'past.tense-ato' MOTION TOWARDS 'came-here-near-the-speaker, # but not-quite-visible''; mankato # mankato Verb m+ank+ato 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.ato' # MOTION TOWARDS 'to come over-here-near-the-speaker, but-not-quite-visible'; maha-ato # maha-ato Verb m+aha+ato 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.ato' # TIME LOCATION '(the time when s.o)-is-here-near-the-speaker, but not-quite-visible'; naha-tato # naha-tato Verb n+aha+t-ato 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.ato' # TIME LOCATION '(the time when s.o)-was-here-near-the-speaker, but not-quite-visible'; ao tao # ao Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visible'; # tao Prep t-ao 'has.been/was-there...' or 'went there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visible'; # ao Prep null-ao 'nonperfective.aspect-ao' LOCATION 'is-there-near-the-hearer, # but not-quite-visible'; # tao Prep t-ao 'perfective.aspect-ao' either LOCATION 'has.been/was-there-near-the-hearer' # but not-quite-visible' or MOTION TOWARDS 'has.been/is.gone-over-there-near-the-hearer # but not-quite-visible'; # tao Prep t-ao 'past.tense-ao' MOTION TOWARDS 'went there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visible'; mankao # mankao Verb m+ank+ao 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.ao' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go over-there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visible'; maha-ao # maha-ao Verb m+aha+ao 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.ao' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-over-there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visible'; naha-tao # naha-tao Verb n+aha+t-ao 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.ao' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-over-there-near-the-hearer but not-quite-visble'; aroa taroa # aroa Prep with stress on second syllable 'over t/here-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; # taroa Prep t-aroa 'has.been/was-t/here...' or 'went/came over t/here-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; # aroa Prep null-aroa 'nonperfective.aspect-aroa' LOCATION 'is-there-near-a-third-person, # but not visible'; # taroa Prep with stress on second syllable t-ao 'perfective.aspect-ao' either LOCATION 'has.been/ # was-there-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible' or MOTION TOWARDS 'has.been/went/came-t/ # here-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; # taroa Prep t-aroa 'past.tense-ao' MOTION TOWARDS 'went/came-t/here-near-a-third-person, # but not-quite-visible'; mankaroa # mankaroa Verb m+ank+aroa 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.aroa' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go over there-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; maha-aroa # maha-aroa Verb m+aha+ao 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.aroa' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-there-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; naha-taroa # naha-taroa Verb n+aha+t-ao 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.aroa' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-there-near-a-third-person, but not-quite-visible'; atsy tatsy # atsy Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; # tatsy Prep t-atsy 'has.been/went t/here... ' or 'went t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; # atsy Prep null-atsy 'nonperfective.aspect-atsy' LOCATION, 'is-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer & # not-visible'; # tatsy Prep t-atsy with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-atsy' either LOCATION, 'has.been/was.t/ # here-near-the-speaker, slightly to the side and not quite visible' or MOTION TOWARDS, 'has.been/went/ # came-t/here, slightly to the side and not quite visible'; # tatsy Prep t-atsy 'past.tense-atsy' MOTION TOWARDS 'went/came-t/here, slightly to the side # and not quite visible'; mankatsy # mankatsy Verb m+ank+atsy 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.etsy' MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go # over t/here, slightly to the side and not quite visible'; maha-atsy # maha-atsy Verb m+aha+etsy 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.atsy' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; naha-tatsy # naha-tatsy Verb n+aha+t-atsy 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.atsy' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; any tany # any Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-over-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; # tany Prep t-any 'has.been/was-over-there...' or 'went-over-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; # any Prep null-any 'nonperfective.aspect-ato' LOCATION 'is-over-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer # & not-visible'; # tany Prep t-any with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-any' either LOCATION 'has.been/was-over-there...' # or MOTION TOWARDS 'went-over-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; # tany Prep t-any 'past.tense-any' MOTION TOWARDS 'went-over-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; mankany # mankany Verb m+ank+any 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.any' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; ankanesana # ankanesana 'null+ank+ani+s+ana''passive.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.ani-epenthetic.s- # suffix.ana' > null+ank+anes+ana literally 'to.be.gone.to', i.e.'to.be.confronted.through. # one.person.going.to.another.person'; maha-any # maha-any Verb m+aha+any 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.any' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; naha-tany # naha-tany Verb n+aha+t-any 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.any' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-there-far-from-speaker-&-hearer & not-visible'; eto teto # eto Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; # teto Prep t-eto 'has.been/was-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'' or 'came here-near-the-speaker # & quite-visible''; # eto Prep null-eto 'nonperfective.aspect-eto' LOCATION 'is-here-near-the-speaker, but visible'; # teto Prep t-eto with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-eto' either LOCATION, 'has.been/ # was-here-near-the-speaker' or MOTION TOWARDS 'has.been/came-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; # teto Prep t-eto 'past.tense-eto' MOTION TOWARDS 'came-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; manketo # manketo Verb m+ank+eto 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.eto' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to come here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; maha-eto # maha-eto Verb m+aha+eto 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.eto' TIME LOCATION, # '(the time when s.o)-is-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; naha-teto # naha-teto Verb n+aha+t-eto 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.eto' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; eo teo # eo Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-t/here-near-the-hearer & quite-visible'; # teo Prep t-eo 'has.been/was-t/here-near-the-hearer & quite-visible' or 'went/came t/here- # the-hearer& quite-visible'; # eo Prep null-eo 'nonperfective.aspect-eo' LOCATION 'is-t/here-near-the-speaker, but visible; # teo Prep t-eo with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-eo' either LOCATION, 'has.been/was- # t/here-near-the-speaker' or MOTION TOWARDS, 'has.been/went/came-t/here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; # teo Prep t-eo 'past.tense-eo' MOTION TOWARDS, 'went/came-t/here-the-speaker & quite-visible'; mankeo # mankeo Verb m+ank+eo 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.eo' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go/come t/here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; maha-eo # maha-eo Verb m+aha+eo 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.eo' TIME LOCATION, # '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; naha-teo # naha-teo Verb n+aha+t-eo 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.eo' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-t/here-near-the-speaker & quite-visible'; etsy tetsy # etsy Prep with stress on first syllable 'near-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; # tetsy Prep t-etsy 'here-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible' or # 'went/came t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; # etsy Prep null-etsy 'nonperfective.aspect-etsy' LOCATION 'is-t/here-near-the-speaker, # slightly to the side and not quite visible'; # tetsy Prep t-etsy with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-etsy' LOCATION, 'has.been-t/here-near-the-speaker, # slightly to the side and not quite visible' or MOTION TOWARDS 'has.been/came-t/here- # to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; # tetsy Prep t-etsy 'past.tense-etsy' MOTION TOWARDS, 'went/came-t/here-to-the-side # -of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible' manketsy # manketsy Verb m+ank+etsy 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.etsy' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go/come over t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; maha-etsy # maha-etsy Verb m+aha+etsy 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.etsy' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; naha-tetsy # naha-tetsy Verb n+aha+t-etsy 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.etsy' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-t/here-to-the-side-of-speaker-&-hearer, but not quite visible'; eny teny # eny Prep with stress on first syllable 'is-over-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; # teny Prep t-eny 'has.been/was-over-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible' or 'went-over-t/here- # far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; # eny Prep null-eny 'nonperfective.aspect-ato' LOCATION 'is-over-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, # and not quite visible'; # teny Prep t-any with stress on first syllable 'perfective.aspect-eny' either LOCATION, 'has.been/was- # over-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but still quite visible'; # or MOTION TOWARDS 'went-over-t/here-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; # teny Prep t-any 'past.tense-any' MOTION TOWARDS 'went-over-t/here-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; mankeny # mankeny Verb m+ank+eny 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.eny' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to go t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; maha-eny # maha-eny Verb m+aha+eny 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.eny' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; naha-teny # naha-teny Verb n+aha+t-eny 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.eny' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-t/here-far-from-the-speaker, but quite visible'; ery tery # ery Prep with stress on second syllable 'is-over-there, far-from-the-speaker, but still visible'; # ery Prep null-ery 'nonperfective.aspect-er˘' LOCATION 'is-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, # but potentially visible'; # tery Prep t-ery with stress on second syllable 'has.been/was-over-there, far, but potentially visible'; # t-ery Prep perfective-ery 'perfective.aspect-ery' either LOCATION 'has.been/was-over-there- # far-from-the-speaker, but still visible' or MOTION AWAY from speaker 'went-over-there- # far-from-the-speaker, but still visible'; # t-ery Prep with stress on second syllable 'past.tense-ery' 'past.tense-ery' MOTION AWAY from speaker # 'went-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, but still visible'; mankery # mankery Verb m+ank+ery 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.ery' MOTION AWAY from speaker, # 'to go over there, slightly to the side but still visible'; ary tary # ary Prep with stress on second syllable 'is-over-there, far, and not visible at all'; # ary Prep null-ary 'nonperfective.aspect-ary' LOCATION 'is-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, # and not visible at all'; # ary Prep 'is-over-there, far, and not visible'; # tary Prep t-ary with stress on second syllable 'perfective-ary' 'perfective.aspect-ary' either LOCATION # 'has.been-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, & not visible at all' or MOTION AWAY from speaker, # 'went-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, & not visible at all'; # t-ary Prep 'past.tense-ary' 'past.tense-ary' MOTION AWAY from speaker, 'went-over-there-far-from-the-speaker, # & not visible at all'; mankary # mankary Verb m+ank+ary 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.ary' MOTION AWAY from speaker, # 'to go over there, far-from-the-speaker and not visible'; ety # ety Prep with stress on second syllable 'is-over-here-near-the-speaker & somewhat visible, towards the speaker'; # ety Prep null-ety 'nonperfective.aspect-ety' LOCATION, 'is-over-here-near-the-speaker # & somewhat visible, towards the speaker'; # tety Prep t-ety with stress on second syllable t-ety 'perfective.aspect-ety' either LOCATION, 'has.been/was- # over-here-near-the-speaker & somewhat visible, towards the speaker' or MOTION TOWARDS the speaker 'came-over-here-near-the- # speaker & somewhat visible, towards the speaker'; # tety Prep t-ety 'past.tense-ety' MOTION TOWARDS the speaker 'came-over-here-near-the- # speaker & somewhat visible, towards the speaker'; # mankety Verb m+ank+ ety 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep. ety' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to come here-near-the-speaker, & somewhat visible'; maha-eny # maha-ety Verb m+aha+ety 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.ety' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-near-the-speaker, & quite visible'; naha-teny # naha-tety Verb n+aha+t-ety 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.ety' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-here-near-the-speaker, & quite visible'; aty # aty Prep with stress on second syllable 'is-over-here-near-the-hearer & somewhat visible, away from the hearer'; # aty Prep null-aty 'nonperfective.aspect-at˘' LOCATION, 'is-over-here-near-the-speaker # & somewhat visible, away from the hearer'; # taty Prep t-aty with stress on second syllable 'perfective.aspect-aty' either LOCATION, 'has.been/was- # over-here-near-the-speaker & somewhat visible, away from the hearer' or MOTION TOWARDS the speaker # 'came-over-here-near-the-speaker & somewhat visible, away from the hearer'; # taty Prep t-aty 'past.tense-aty' MOTION TOWARDS the speaker 'came-over-here-near-the- # speaker & somewhat visible, away from the hearer'; # mankaty Verb m+ank+ aty 'active.voice.present.tense-prefix.ank-prep.aty' # MOTION TOWARDS, 'to come here-near-the-speaker, & somewhat visible'; maha-aty # maha-aty Verb m+aha+aty 'active.voice.present-prefix.aha-prep.aty' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-is-t/here-near-the-speaker, & quite visible'; naha-teny # naha-taty Verb n+aha+t-aty 'active.voice.past.tense-prefix.aha-perfective.t-prep.aty' # TIME LOCATION, '(the time when s.o)-was-here-near-the-speaker, & quite visible'; # In addition to the above, secondary lexical prepositions can accompany a primary preposition # such as 'eo''there' forming complex structures: eo ambony 'there above', eo ambany 'there below', # eo akaiky 'there near', eo akilana/anilana 'there next to', eo anoloana 'there in front of', # eo aoriana 'there behind', etc... # Charles Randriamasimanana, PhD in Linguistics (Malagasy, Austronesian)