8,353 research outputs found
Evidentiality in Deedmongol
No full textEvidentiality in Deedmongol is spoken in different parts of Qinghai (Haixi, Henan) and Gansu (Subei). In the moribund dialect of Henan as described by Balogh (2017a: 52), an Amdo-Tibetan-style evidentiality system (cf. Sun 1993) has arisen that distinguishes between the speaker’s own actions and events committed by somebody else, which in the past are further divided into those that the speaker witnessed and those that she inferred (cf. (1)-(5)).
For Haixi as described by Oyunceceg (2009: 155-160, 163-164), there are the past tense forms -w & -ɑːdw (< -ɢad oduba) [“speaker satisfied”], -lɑː & -ɑːdlɑː [with witnessed or participatory examples] and -dtʃɑː (no simple -dʒɑː) [“sudden realization of recent events”] which resemble the basic tripartite factual-direct-indirect opposition of other Oirat varieties (Goto 2009, Skribnik & Seesing 2014) and Middle Mongol (Brosig 2014) with the interference of the auxiliary od- ‘go there’ resembling Amdo Tibetan -tʰæ (cf. Zemp 2017: 622). The present progressive has -dʒiː (< -ju bu-i) [including non-participatory examples, cf. (6)] and -dʒæːn (< -ju bayi-na).
The role of factors like speaker control/certainty in Henan Oirat remains unclear, but due to its rapid decline (Balogh 2017b), a thorough investigation is no longer feasible. For Haixi Oirat, it’s unclear whether it features a bipartite past-tense evidentiality system (direct-indirect regardless of participation) with an evidentially neutral -w or a tripartite evidentiality system (participatory-direct-indirect). This presentation investigates this question using published materials (Oyunnasun n.d., Baɢatur 2016: 1242-1341) and own data (all of which are closer to Southern Standard Mongolian than Oyunceceg’s examples).
Examples
(1) Kiilik-εεn ʊγaa-jiγlaa. ‘I washed my shirt’ (speaker’s own action)
(2) Woroo or-jiku. ‘It rained /It was raining.’ (directly witnessed)
(3) Woroo or-jiγċəə. ‘It has rained /It has been raining’ (not witnessed)
(4) Wə kiilik-εεn ʊγaa-jii. ‘I am washing my shirt’ (speaker’s own action)
(5) Ter kiilik-εεn ʊγaa-jεεn. ‘He is washing his shirt.’ (non-speaker actor)
(6) ʃiniŋ-d jɔwω-sen æmite-s dɔː lɑ̌ kyr-tʃiː. (Oyunceceg 2009: 163)
Xining-DAT go-PRF.PTCP person-PL now FOC.PCL(only) arrive-DIR.PRS.PROG
‘The people who went to Xining are returning only now.’
Bibliography
Baɢatur, D. (ed.) 2016. Monggul kelen-ü bayiɢaji yariyan-u materiyal-un emkidkel [A collection of naturally occuring Mongolian speech]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongġul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Balogh, Mátyás. 2017a. Henan Oirat: a shrinking pool of unique linguistic features. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 245: 36-62.
Balogh, Mátyás. 2017b. The demise of Oirat in the Henan Region of Qinghai and the Mongolization of a Mongol Autonomous County. Tüüxijn sudlal 46: 36-51.
Brosig, Benjamin. 2014. The aspect-evidentiality system of Middle Mongol. Ural-Altaic studies 13(2): 7-38.
Goto, K. V. 2009. Sistema finitnych form prošedšego vremeni v kalmyckom jazyke [The system of finite past tense forms in Kalmyk]. Acta linguistica petropolitana V.2: 124-159.
Oyunnasun. n.d. Kökenaɢur aman ayalɢun-u üge kelelge-yin materiyal [Text material of the Qinghai dialect]. Lanzhou: Baraɢun qoyidu-yin ündüsüten-ü yeke surɢaɢuli. Master thesis.
Oyunceceg. 2009. Degedü mongɢol aman ayalɢun-u sudulul [An investigation of the Deedmongol dialect]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongɢul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Skribnik, Elena & Seesing, Olga. 2014. Evidentiality in Kalmyk. In: Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, R. (eds.), The grammar of knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 148-170.
Sun, Jackson. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63: 945-1001.
Zemp, Marius. 2017. The origin and evolution of the opposition between testimonial and factual evidentials in Purik and other varieties of Tibetan. Open Linguistics 3: 613–637
A distinct marker of completion and inadvertence within the tense-aspect-evidentiality-system of Khalkha Mongolian
No full textIn Khalkha Mongolian, the so-called “Completive” or “Intensive” marker -čix- is found in 12% of finite predicates (in a 6-hour corpus of free conversation). Its meaning is usually described as stressing the completion of an action (e.g. ÖMYSMSDSMKBSG 1964: 490). In the aspecto-temporal domain, -čix- denotes the attainment of actional boundaries and may disambiguate predicates in which such attainment is optional. For instance, it is incompatible with progressive marking and forces past-referring interpretations of perfective markers (1), resultative interpretations of resultative-continuative markers, and future-referring interpretations for the non-past forms of inceptive-stative verbs (2).
(1) a. av-čix-laa. b. av-laa.
take-COMPL-IM.DIR.PST take-IM.DIR.PST
‘[SUBJ] took it.’ ‘[SUBJ] is about to take it.’ / ‘[SUBJ] took it.’
(2) a. med-čix-ne. b. med-ne.
come.to.know+know-COMPL-NPST come.to.know+know-NPST
‘[SUBJ] will come to know.’ ‘[SUBJ] knows.’
However, actional meanings don’t exhaust the semantic range of -čix-. Meanings such as unexpectedness, suddenness, forcefulness (Svantesson 2003: 168), inadvertent or dissatisfactory execution (Brosig 2014: 46-51 on closely related Khorchin Mongolian) or carelessness (informants) have been suggested, but not demonstrated. Similar notions have been reported for the Turkic auxiliary verbs tašla-/kamiš- ‘throw away’ and ïːδ- ‘send away, release’ (Johanson & Csató 2018: 154). which are comparable since -čix- is connected with -ž orxi- [-CVB + ‘abandon’] (Luvsanvandan 1968: 143) by a cross-linguistically attested grammaticalization path for completive aspect (Kuteva et al. 2019: 252-253).
Judging from Khalkha corpus data, it appears evident that marking the attainment of actional boundaries cannot account for the wide distribution of -čix-. With the Perfect Participle in -sAn, the Completive mostly shows up in contexts in which the speaker lacks full control, either with inherently uncontrollable actions (3) or with events that the speaker can partially influence (4). This usage is also frequent with other markers such as habituals (5).
(3) šönö-d=öö bür arv-an xed bol-čix-son bai-san.
night-DAT=RPOSS complete ten-ATTR how.many become-COMPL-PRF.PTCP AUX-IM.PRS
‘At night, it had even turned ten something [minus degrees].’
(4) aaan. + ooon. + aan, odoo oilgo-čix-son.
INTERJ INTERJ INTERJ now understand-COMPL.PRF.PTCP
‘Ahhh. Ohhh. Well, now I understood.’
(5) yaay, bi barag borc-iig tüüxii-geer=nʲ id-čix-deg bai-san=yum=šd.
INTERJ 1SG almost dried.beef-ACC raw-INS=3POSS eat-COMPL-HAB.PTCP AUX-PRF.PTCP=ASS=DP
‘Ick, I used to eat the dried beef stripes almost raw [since I so much liked soup with beef stripes, I didn’t care to wait for them to soften up back then].’
In this presentation, then, using corpus data confirmed by multiple informants, we will explore
1. the extent to which -čix- is required to facilitate an aspectual interpretation or rather helps to express notions related to reduced agency such as lack of anticipation, control, volitionality or care
2. whether the form always takes the perspective of the speaker or might also relate to the control etc. of the subject or another participant
3. how -čix- correlates with aspectual and evidential suffixes which reflect the speaker’s perspective, and to what extent it fulfills a role that in several Southern Mongolic languages (e.g Fried 2018) is fulfilled by evidential markers.
Bibliography
Brosig, Benjamin. 2014. The tense-aspect system of Khorchin Mongolian. In: Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay Whaley (eds.), Typology of languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 3-65.
Fried, Robert. 2018. Egophoricity in Mangghuer: Insights from pragmatic uses of the subjective/objective distinction. In: Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 197–224.
Johanson, Lars & Eva Csató. 2018. Grammaticalisation in Turkic. In: Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Grammaticalisation from a typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 146-165.
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luvsanvandan, Š. 1968. Orčin cagiin mongol xelnii bütec: Mongol xelnii üg, nöxcöl xoyor nʲ [The structure of contemporary Mongolian: the words and suffixes of Mongolian. Ulaanbaatar: Šinžlex uxaanii akademi.
Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin mongγul sudulul-un degedü surγaγuli-yin mongγul kele bicig sudulqu γajar [Institute for Mongolian language and script at the faculty of Mongolian studies of Inner Mongolia University]. 1964. Odu üy-e-yin mongγul kele [Modern Mongolian]. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In: Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge: 154–176
J.C. Painter letter to Benjamin Lundy
No full textLetter from J.E. Painter to (presumably) Benjamin Lundy, answering a request for information about the history and operations of the Underground Railroad. Letter includes details of a story of an ex-slave transported on the Underground Railroad through Ohio and stories of the plight of other fugitive slaves crossing the Ohio River.
Benjamin Lundy (1789-1839) was a prominent Quaker abolitionist best known for his development of abolitionist periodicals. His "Genius of Universal Emancipation" was first published in 1821 from his home in Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, and enjoyed a wide circulation across the antebellum United States. In the 1820s, the young William Lloyd Garrison came to work for The Genius. Benjamin Lundy traveled widely seeking subscriptions to The Genius, giving talks about the anti-slavery movement, and observing and documenting the conditions of enslaved people across the Americas. He was also involved in the establishment of freed slave colonies in Mexico
Mexican land grant contract to Benjamin Lundy, March 10, 1835 (English)
No full textLegal document from an unsigned officer to Benjamin Lundy, authorizing him rights as empresario to a tract of land in then-Mexico. The document extends a previous treaty made to Lundy by the government of Mexico from November 17, 1823 -- presumably, this land is to be the site of Lundy's freed slave colony. Original Spanish-language document is also a part of this collection. Benjamin Lundy (1789-1839) was a prominent Quaker abolitionist best known for his development of abolitionist periodicals. His Genius of Universal Emancipation was first published in 1821 from his home in Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, and enjoyed a wide circulation across the antebellum United States. In the 1820s, the young William Lloyd Garrison came to work for The Genius. Benjamin Lundy traveled widely seeking subscriptions to The Genius, giving talks about the anti-slavery movement, and observing and documenting the conditions of enslaved people across the Americas. He was also involved in the establishment of freed slave colonies in Mexico
Eli Nichols letter to Benjamin Lundy, March 17th, 1839
No full textFriendly note from Eli Nichols to Benjamin Lundy covering topics in contemporary abolition, ranging from the social status of abolitionists to the oppression of the poor. Much of the letter concerns a review of contemporary social movements in equality-based education, including Shaker and Quaker communities. The letter concludes in discussion of Nichols' and Lundy's interest in forming a freed slave colony or community in then-Mexico, and describes the climate and culture of those regions in detail. Benjamin Lundy (1789-1839) was a prominent Quaker abolitionist best known for his development of abolitionist periodicals. His Genius of Universal Emancipation was first published in 1821 from his home in Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, and enjoyed a wide circulation across the antebellum United States. In the 1820s, the young William Lloyd Garrison came to work for The Genius. Benjamin Lundy traveled widely seeking subscriptions to The Genius, giving talks about the anti-slavery movement, and observing and documenting the conditions of enslaved people across the Americas. He was also involved in the establishment of freed slave colonies in Mexico
Mexican land grant contract to Benjamin Lundy, March 10, 1835 (Spanish)
No full textLegal document in Spanish from the government of Tamaulipas, Mexico, to Benjamin Lundy, which appears to grant Lundy the rights of empresario for his proposed colony for freed slaves in Tamaulipas. This document appears to be truncated; it ends abruptly after 2 pages. Collection also includes a period translation of this contract with Lundy in English, which appears to contain the full text of the agreement. Benjamin Lundy (1789-1839) was a prominent Quaker abolitionist best known for his development of abolitionist periodicals. His Genius of Universal Emancipation was first published in 1821 from his home in Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, and enjoyed a wide circulation across the antebellum United States. In the 1820s, the young William Lloyd Garrison came to work for The Genius. Benjamin Lundy traveled widely seeking subscriptions to The Genius, giving talks about the anti-slavery movement, and observing and documenting the conditions of enslaved people across the Americas. He was also involved in the establishment of freed slave colonies in Mexico
General Benjamin Butler Letter Regarding the naming of Newport News, Virginia
No full textDigital images of an original letter written by Former Union Major-General Benjamin Butler in reply to a query by author, Edwin Everett Hale on how Newport News, Virginia had received it's name. both sides of the original letter are included along with a typed transcription of the letter
Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian
No full textQuoted clauses in which an intention is declared are cross-linguistically known to develop into clauses that directly ascribe an intention to their subjects, and further into clauses that express the imminence of an event. In Khalkha Mongolian, several quotative constructions based on the quotative verb ge- have come to ascribe intention and then developed further semantic extensions:
(i) The pattern -x ge-, featuring a fossilized Middle Mongol future-referring participial suffix, is used in a group of constructions that cover the semantic space between future time reference, intention (initially of the current speaker), and imminence.
(ii) Quotational clauses ending in a particular tense-aspect-evidentiality suffix (including -n) and subordinated by a linking converb ge-ž/ge-ed are often systematically ambiguous between quotation and their purposive, causal and concessive extensions. Noun phrases with similar properties additionally allow for (dedicational-)benefactive and (allocational-)functive uses.
(iii) The pattern -n ge-, which in other Central Mongolic varieties resembles -x ge-, conveys the speaker’s disbelief and anger about an actor’s willful deeds when used in echo questions marked by -n=AA.
Based on conversational corpus data, this paper tries to provide a comprehensive picture of Khalkha Mongolian constructions in which the speaker’s awareness of the subject’s speech or thoughts is reinterpreted as attributing intentions and their derived notions
Extended uses of the quotative verb ge- in Khalkha Mongolian
No full textThe Khalkha Mongolian quotative verb ge- is hihgly polyfunctional. It is morpho-phonologically irregular and distributionally almost doesn’t overlap with other verbs. (i) Next to actual quotation, (ii) it can express intent and derived from this prospectivity, connective notions like causation, and some peripheral semantic roles. (iii) With specialized converbal suffixes, it forms adversative and similar quasi-conjunctions when preceded by clauses or markers of information structure when preceded by noun phrases. (iv) It can accommodate ideophones and names, and participles used for naming like gedeg and geseŋ (with the additive focus clitic =č) also contribute to information structure. (v) Several sentence-final forms like ge-ž=üü fulfill illocutionary and stance-conveying functions, (iv) and there are multiple minor functions such as forming iussives. This paper is meant to provide a concise sketch of how these individual constructions relate to each other, connecting it to previous research within and outside of Mongolian studies
Die modernen mongolischen Sprachen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ökologie und Evidenz
No full textAlle modernen mongolische Sprachen gehen auf die Sprache(n) der Stammesföderation Chinggis Khans zurück. Außer Mogholi (in Afghanistan) und Kalmückisch (am kaspischen Meer) werden sie im Großraum Mongolei gesprochen. Im Süden (Ost-Qinghai, West-Gansu) finden sich die südmongolischen Sprachen. Im Südwesten und Westen (West-Qinghai, Xinjiang, Westmongolei) befinden sich verschiedene oiratische Mundarten, im Norden (Baikhalsee, Hulunbuir) das Burjatische, im Nordosten (Hulunbuir, Qiqihar) das Dagurische, und südlich davon (nördlich und nordöstlich von Peking) die ostmongolischen Mundarten.
Sprache und Lebenssituation dieser Sprechergemeinschaften unterscheiden sich beträchtlich. Während etwa Mogholi und Henan-Oiratisch bestenfalls noch von einzelnen gesprochen werden, sind eher urbane Varietäten wie Santa (300,000) und Khalkha (3,000,000) sowie das meist bäuerliche Khorchin (>1,000,000) lokal gut verankert.
Ein wichtiger Faktor für die Sprachentwicklung ist Sprachkontakt, was auch die Grammatik betrifft. Das Mittelmongolische kann bei verbalen Vergangenheitsformen etwa anzeigen, wodurch man etwas weiß (direkte Wahrnehmung oder Schlussfolgerung/Hörensagen). In stark russisch oder chinesisch geprägter Umgebung (Burjatisch, Santa) fehlt das inzwischen. Im Einflussbereich des Tibetischen (Mongghul, Khalkha) gibt es solche Unterscheidungen dagegen auch bei Gegenwartsformen.
Dieser Vortrag will einen kurzen, aber weit gefassten Überblick über die modernen mongolischen Sprachen in ihrem gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhang bieten. Neben Verbreitung und Sprachökologie stehen ihre jeweiligen sprachlichen Alleinstellungsmerkmale und die Entwicklung des Verbalsystems im Fokus
- …
