4 / 2016-06-01 19:54:27

Multi-verb Structures of Standard Lhaovo

10276,10282,10277,10278,10279,10280,10281

In languages of Burmish group of Tibeto-Burman branch, not only a simple verb, but also a unit consisting of multiple verb morphemes without any overt intervening relators can stand in the position of the head of verb phrase. Hereafter let us call such a unit ‘multi-verb structure (MVS)’ after Enfield (2008), an extensive study of this phenomena in Lao. (He uses the term ‘construction’ rather than ‘structure’.)

In Lhaovo, a language which belongs to Northern sub-group of Burmish group, MVSs composed of two verbs are classified into ‘open’ MVSs and ‘closed’ MVSs according to whether the combination of the first verb (V1) and the second verb (V2) is fixed or not. The former are the MVSs where either V1 or V2 is fixed and the fixed member can be combined with various verbs. The fixed members often suffer semantic bleaching. The latter are those where the combination of V1 and V2 is fairly fixed. In closed MVSs, either V1 and V2 are synonymous or they denote successive events.

Enfield (2008) employs several grammatical phenomena to test the headship of MVSs in Lao, furthermore to clarify various internal structures underlying them. Though Enfield do not use the grammatical phenomena to classify MVSs, they are available to this purpose. So I will use several grammatical phenomena as criteria of the classifying Lhaovo MVSs. I propose the below criteria:

Criterion 1: The meanings of V1 and V2 in (1) are preserved in the corresponding parataxis construction (2).

(1) V1-V2-TA-raH.
-RLS-FML

(2) V1-TA-raH, V2-TA-raH.
-RLS-FML -RLS-FML

Criterion 2: Focusization of V2 in the form of (3) is possible.

(3) V2-aF V1-V2-TA-raH.
-FOC -RLS-FML

Criterion 3: Either (5) or (6), or both serve as a ‘yes-answer’ to the question (4).

(4) V1-V2-TA(-raH)-'iF? --- (5) V1-TA-raH. / (6) V2-TA-raH.
-RLS(-FML)-Q -RLS-FML -RLS-FML

(TA: an abstract element triggering tonal alternation F→L; L→H; H→H to the syllable immediately preceding to it, RLS: Realis sentence marker, FML: Indicator of formality, FOC: Indicator of focus, Q: Indicator of question)

In open MVSs, Criterion 1 is never met, Criterion 2 is met when V1 is the fixed member, and the verb which meets Criterion 3 is regarded as the head of the structure. (There is no open MVS where both V1 and V2 meet Criterion 3. Note that for several open MVSs neither V1 nor V2 meet Criterion 3.) In sum, Criteria 2, 3 divide open MVSs into four classes:

A. V1(Fixed, Head)-V2(Open) B. V1(Fixed)-V2(Open, Head)
C. V1(Open, Head)-V2(Fixed), and D. V1(Open)-V2(Fixed, Head).

Though closed MVSs do not show the convergence to several classes neatly as in the case of open MVSs, many of them meet Criteria 1 and 2. Roughly speaking, both V1 and V2 meet Criterion 3 if V1 and V2 are synonymous, and neither of them meet it if V1 and V2 denote successive events.

Finally, it is worthwhile to mention that the same tonal alternation as triggered by Realis sentence marker in (1)-(6) occurs in V1 of some MVSs, and does not occur in V1 of other MVSs. It seems possible to analyze the tonal alternation is triggered by an abstract marker of, say, coordination of verbs, in the same manner as that triggered by Realis sentence marker. But the analysis means that V1 suffering tonal alternation is a kind of phrase, and is challenged by instances of recursive open MVS formation involving both MVS with and without tonal alternation. So the analysis turns out to be untenable.