Predicative Possession - Oxford Studien Intypology And Linguistictheory Phần 4 pps

A similar, though not completely identical, grammaticalization process can be reconstructed for Breton, the ‘sister language’ of Cornish. Again, we can document a Topic-Locational construction for earlier stages of the language and for at least some of the modern dialects. (70)Middle Breton (Indo-European, Celtic) N’ e-m eus pried ebet neg to-me be.pres.3sg spouse neg ‘I don’t have a spouse’ (Locker 1954: 502) (71)Modern Breton (Indo-European, Celtic) Ur velo c’hlas a-m eus indef bicycle blue to-me be.pres.3sg ‘I have a blue bicycle’ (Press 1986: 139) On a par with Cornish, some dialects of Breton – for example, the western dialect of Ile de Croix; see Ternes (1970) – have reanalysed the combination of the dative pronoun and the be-verb as a transitive form, w ith the possessee as the direct object. However, unlike Cornish, this reanalysis has not resulted in a substitution of the agreement suYxes of the possessee for those of the possessor. Instead, the dative pronoun got reanalysed as an agreement preWx on the new transitive have-verb. This verb, which has the inWnitive bes (Ternes 1970: 293)orendevout/kaout (Press 1986: 139) is therefore highly irregular in its Xexion: it is the only verb in the language which has preWxal subject agreement, instead of the suYxal X exion of all other verbs. Its etymo- logical relation to the verb but/bezan ‘to be’ still shows from the fact that the inWnitive of the have-verb can be but in addition to its other forms, and that the form bet is used as the past participle of both ‘to be’ and ‘to have’. For further details on the reanalysis of the ‘dative+be’-construction into an irregular transitive verb ‘to have’ in Breton see Lewis and Pedersen 1961: 213–14. Examples of the reanalysed construction are given in (73). (72)West Breton (Indo-European, Celtic) Was-ed argat be.past.3sg-neg money ‘There was no money’ (Ternes 1970: 291) (73)West Breton (Indo-European, Celtic) a. Nesad end-was-ed argat my.father 3sg.m-have.past-neg money ‘My father had no money’ (Ternes 1970: 291) 234 The typology of predicative possession b. Xind-wa unami 3sg.f-have.past friend ‘She had a friend’ (Ternes 1970: 382) The form of Have-Drift exempliWed by Breton has a parallel in Damana, a Chibchan language from Colombia. Trillos Amaya (1999) mentions a verb k u n u n, which, at some places in the description, is treated as a monomor- phemic verb ‘to have’, while at other places it is glossed as a complex item k u - n u n, consisting of the dative/benefactive adposition k u ‘for’ and the verb n u n ‘to be’. That the construction is in the middle of a reanalysis is shown by the fact that, in the same grammar, the marking of the possessor in the verbal complex is sometimes given as a patientive preWx on the k u n u n-verb (thereby assigning the possessor the function of complement to the incorporated postposition k u ‘for’), while at other times the possessor is indexed by an active preWx, so that one has to conclude that the possessor functions as the subject here. (74)Damana (Chibchan) a. Maigua bunkuibia nu h-ku-nun-ka three egg 1sg.pat-for-be-fact ‘I have three eggs’ (Trillos Amaya 1999: 88) b. Paka nu j-ku-nan-ka cow 1sg.act-for-be-fact ‘I have a cow’ (Trillos Amaya 1999: 19, 142) c. Bı ´ u paka mu h-kunun-k  a? how.much cow 2sg.act-have-q ‘How many cows do you have?’ (Trillos Amaya 1999: 150) It is possible, though by no means certain, that other Chibchan languages have undergone this Ha v e-Drift as well. Thus, it might be the case that the Rama ha ve- verb kwaakar has its origin in a c omb ination of the be-v erb aakar and some preWx ku-/kw-, which would then parallel the incorporated item -k U - in Damana. (75)Rama (Chibchan) a. Tiiskam n-aakar-a taim-ki child 1sg-be-past time-at ‘At the time, I was a child’ (Colette Grinevald p.c.) b. Kapupu i-kwaakar-u frog 3-have-past ‘She had a frog’ (Colette Grinevald p.c.) Transitivization 235 In the cases of Have-Drift from Topic-Locational hybrids presented thus far, a pronominal adverb plus a be-verb got reanalysed as a transitive have-verb, with transfer of subject properties to the possessor NP. A variant of this process is a case in which no be-verb is present, and in which the pronominal adverb itself is reanalysed as a transitive predicate. Thus, we can represent this form of Have-Drift by the following schema: (76) Source PR PE x-LOC Ô Target PR PE x-HAVE A well-known case of this particular type of Have-Drift is the predicative possession construction in Maltese. In a widely used textbook on linguistic typology, Comrie (1981 a, 1989) reconstructed the development of the con- struction in this modern Arabic dialect, starting from the observation that this construction employs the element g  and. This is a preposition with the meaning ‘at (the house of)’; like all prepositions in Maltese, it takes object suYxes if its complement is pronominal. The locative use of this preposition is illustrated in the following sentences: (77)Maltese (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) a. Il-ktieb gand Pawlu art-book at P. ‘The book is at Pawlu’s’ (Comrie 1989: 221) b. Il-ktieb gand-u art-book at-3sg.m.obj ‘The book is at his house’ (Comrie 1989: 221) c. Il-ktieb kien gand-u/ gand Pawlu art-book be.past.3sg at-3sg.m.obj /at P. ‘The book was at his house/at Pawlu’s’ (Comrie 1989: 222) However, in the possessive construction the preposition g  and cannot take full noun phrases as its complement. In the present tense one has to construct the possessor NP in topic position, and to index it on the preposition by means of a pronominal suYx. It should be remarked that the possessive construction diVers from the locative construction in non- present tenses as well. In these tenses the possessive construction does not retain the preposition g  and. Instead, the construction uses ‘a form deriv- ing etymologically from ‘‘be’’ (cf. kien ‘‘(he) was’’, sa jkun ‘‘(he) will be’’) plus the prepositional suYx l- ‘‘to’’ plus the pronominal suYxes’ (Comrie 1989: 220). 236 The typology of predicative possession (78)Maltese (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) a. *Gand Pawlu ktieb at P. book b. Pawlu gand-u ktieb P. at-3sg.m.obj book ‘Pawlu has a book’ (Comrie 1989: 221) c. Pawlu kel-l-u ktieb P. it.was-to-him book ‘Pawlu had a book’ (Comrie 1989: 221) d. Pawlu sa jkol-l-u obz_a P. fut pcp.m.be-to-him loaf(F) ‘Pawlu will have a loaf’ (Comrie 1989: 222) In other words, Maltese has a Topic-Locational Possessive. Now, it can be argued that the construction has actually shifted into the direction of a Have- Possessive. For one thing, it can be shown that the g  and-complex or the kel- complex in the possessive construction gets the negation form that is used for verbs in Maltese; this negation strategy consists in placing the circumWx ma/m’. . . x around the predicate. (79)Maltese (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) Pawlu m’ gand-u-x ktieb P. NEG at-3sg.m.obj-neg book ‘Pawlu does not have a book’ (Comrie 1989: 222) Thus, it appears that: The possessive element (g  and / kell / sa jkoll ) behaves like a verb, in particular in that it negates like a verb. Note, moreover, that it agrees with the possessor NP, though irregularly so; by means of prepositional object suYxes rather than by the usual subject agreement markers . . . Finally, the possessive verb does not agree with the possessed noun phrase; this is clearest in the future tense, where one would expect *tkoll as the feminine of jkoll , though in fact only Pawlu sa jkollu  ob z_ a ‘Pawlu will have a loaf ’ is possible, not *Pawlu sa tkollu  ob z_ a. (Comrie 1989: 222) In sum, one can say that the grammaticalization of the possessive construc- tion in Maltese has resulted in the creation of a ‘have’-like verb, which has the possessor as its subject. It can be added that, in modern Arabic dialects, the transfer of subject properties from the possessee to the possessor in the original Locational Possessive is not limited to Maltese. Martin Haspelmath (p.c.) reports that in Tunisian Arabic the Locational Possessive has come to be Transitivization 237 challenged by an ‘innovative’ construction illustrated in (80b). Although, in this latter construction, no new ‘have’-like element has been created, we can nonetheless observe that the predicate shows subject agreement with the possessor instead of with the possessee. (80)Tunisian Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) a. Kaan øand-i X be.3sg.past at-1sg X ‘I had X’ (Martin Haspelmath p.c.) b. Kunt øand-i X be.1sg.past at-1sg X ‘I had X’ (Martin Haspelmath p.c.) The case of Have-Drift shown by Maltese may have a parallel in one of the possessive constructions of Lokono, an Arawakan language of Surinam. This construction – which covers inalienable, alienable, and temporary possession alike – features the item amyn, which, in the source, is glossed as a verb meaning ‘to have’. The item receives subject preWxes that agree with the possessor NP, and aspectual markings by means of suYxes. (81)Lokono (Arawakan, Northern Maipuran) a. Kakythinon k-amyn-ka khaboho people 3pl-have-perf hand ‘People have hands’ (Pet 1987: 32) b. B-amyn-ka nana you-have-perf pineapple ‘Do you have pineapples?’ (Pet 1987: 279) c. By-simalha by-amyn-ka your-gun you-have-perf ‘Do you have your gun?’ (Pet 1987: 249) Further inspection reveals that the item amyn ‘to have’ is at least homoph- onous with the locational postposition amyn ‘near’. A characteristic of this – and several other – postpositions in Lokono is that they cannot take nominal complements directly; their complements can only be pronominal preWxes. If the complement is also referred to by a nominal phrase, this phrase stands unmarked in front of the pronominally marked adposition. In other words, if one wants to express a meaning like ‘near the people’, a postpositional phrase like kakythinon amyn (lit. ‘people near’) is not possible. Instead, the construc- tion can only be kakythinon k-amyn (lit. ‘people 3pl-near’). Probably, the reason for this is that in Lokono, as in many other languages, adpositions have 238 The typology of predicative possession their origin in locational nouns like ‘back’ or ‘side’, and that adpositional phrases therefore have arisen from adnominal possessive constructions like ‘people their-side(-at)’. Given this, one might venture the following reconstruction of the devel- opment of the Lokono possessive construction. One might assume that the source of this construction was a locative/existential sentence, with the pos- sessee as the subject and the possessor as the complement of the postposition amyn. As locative/existential sentences in Lokono do not have an overt be- verb, the construction may have been something along the lines of the following (non-attested, conjectured) formation: (82)Lokono (Arawakan, Northern Maipuran) Kakythinon k-amyn khaboho people 3pl-near hand lit. ‘Near the people are hands’ Now, on the basis of constructions like this, a possibility for reanalysis presents itself. To be precise, in such a construction several conditions which foster a reanalysis of the construction as a Have-Possessive are fulWlled. For a start, since Lokono is basically an SVO language, this construction shows the possessor in subject position and the possessee in object position. Furthermore, since Lokono does not distinguish between subject preWxes on verbs and possessive preWxes on nouns, the preWxes on the postposition are readily reinterpreted as subject preWxes on a verbal formation. Hence, the erstwhile postpositional item may have been reanalysed as a verb with the meaning ‘have’, with its verbal status being clinched by the ability to take aspectual marking. Needless to say, this reconstruction of the Lokono pos- sessive construction in terms of Have-Drift from a Locational Possessive w ill have to remain speculative, as no diachronic data on the language are available. It can be said, however, that this reconstruction does provide an explanation for the remarkable polysemy of the item amyn, which is given as both ‘near’ and ‘have’ in the glossary that is appended to the grammatical description in Pet (1987). 6.5 Why Have-Drift? The above exposition will have shown that transitivization, or Have-Drift, is a process that takes all three of the intransitive types of predicative possession as its source, and that it is clearly not to be regarded as some genetically or areally restricted phenomenon. It is, of course, completely justiWed to ask for an explanation for this. That is, one may ask for a motivation of the fact that Transitivization 239 the Have-Possessive, or at least a transitive possessive construction, appears to function as some ‘terminus’ for diachronic reanalysis of other possessive types. In my opinion, the answer to this question is probably complex, in that the motivation for Have-Drift may very well lie in a ‘conspiracy’ of both syntactic and semantic ‘forces’ that are at work in natural language. First, the fact that, in cases of indeWnite possession, the possessor is topical (see Section 1.5.2) may be a driving force behind the shift towards Have- Possessives. As is well known, topics make good subjects. Therefore, we can expect that there will be diachronic processes by which possessor NPs acquire subject properties if they do not have them already. Have-Drift can thus be seen as one of the processes that are geared towards manoeuvring a non- subject possessor NP into subject function. With Topic Possessives, these processes can work fairly unproblematically, as a shift from a sentential topic to a sentential subject is known to be a very general diachronic pattern in languages. In Locational Possessives, the shift from an oblique possessor to a sentence subject is probably too complicated to be eVectuated completely. Nevertheless, we do Wnd cases in which an oblique possessor NP has gained at least some of the subject properties that the language has at its disposal. Above, we saw an example from Tunisian Arabic (80b), in which an oblique possessor is seen to govern subject agreement on verbs. Furthermore, we Wnd a well-documented case of the transfer of subject properties to an oblique possessor in the possessive construction of Hungarian. As we have noted in Section 3.2, this construction can be classiWed as a Locational Possessive with additional possessor indexing on the possessee. (83)Hungarian (Uralic, Ugric) Afe ´ rW-ak-nak van h  aza-uk art man-pl-dat be.3sg.pres house-their ‘The men have a house’ (Biermann 1985: 15) This example shows that the possessee governs subject agreement on the verb, which is a major subject priv ilege in Hungarian as well as in many other languages. However, the oblique possessor can be shown to have several subject privileges as well. For one thing, as is shown in Biermann (1985: 96), the oblique possessor can be omitted if its reference has been established in previous discourse; in Hungarian, this type of ellipsis is a privilege of subjects. (84)Hungarian (Uralic, Ugric) Peter meg-esz-i mind-et. Van e ´ tv  agy-a P. -nom perf-eat-3sg all-acc is appetite-his ‘Peter eats up everything. (He) has an appetite’ (Biermann 1985: 96 ) 240 The typology of predicative possession Moreover, oblique possessor NPs license null-anaphora for subjects in the following discourse, which again is a subject privilege in Hungarian. Thus, in the following sentence (85), the subject of the second clause is understood to be ‘Peter’, and not ‘his wife’. (85) hungarian (Uralic, Ugric) Pe ´ ter-nek van felese ´ g-e, de nem szeret-i P. -dat is wife-his but not love-3sg ‘Peter has a wife, but (he) does not love (her)’ (Biermann 1985: 138) These examples show that, even in languages in which promoting a possessor NP into full subject function is unfeasible, there can be a tendency to assign at least some subject properties to that possessor NP. In short, the popularity of Have-Drift among the world’s languages might be explained on the basis of the following line of reasoning: (a) Possessors in indeWnite possessive constructions are topics. (b) Topics ‘want’ to be subjects. (c) Therefore: possessors in indeWnite possessive constructions ‘want’ to be subjects. (d) Have-Drift is a process that turns possessors into subjects. (e) Therefore: indeWnite possessive constructions may ‘want’ to undergo Have-Drift. I am of the opinion that this line of reasoning is plausible, and that the pressure on possessor NPs to become subjects is a real motivation behind the dia- chronic process of Have-Drift. At the same time, however, I think it is safe to say that this ‘subject pressure’ cannot be the whole story about the ‘desire’ of languages to turn their possessive constructions into transitive sentences. First of all, we can note that the line of reasoning sketched above holds not only for Have-Drift, but also for other grammaticalization processes, such as predica- tivization. After all, predicativ ization, too, has a target structure in which the possessor NP is the subject, but that target structure remains intransitive. Secondly, if ‘subject pressure’ were the only motivation behind Have-Drift, it is diYcult to see why it would work on With-Possessives, in which the possessor is the subject from the very start. Still, as we have seen in Section 6.2, Have-Drift can very well take With-Possessives as a source structure. One could speculate, then, that in the process of Have-Drift another ‘force’ may be at work. The semantic/cognitive notion of iconicity, as deWned in Haiman (1980, 1983b), might provide a good candidate here. In Section 1.3 I have stated that the concept of possession is to be deWned as the intersection of two parameters, which are, in principle, independent of one another. Now, Transitivization 241 I think it can be defended that the three intransitive possessive types are iconic to the Wrst parameter in the deWnition of possession, that is, the parameter of spatial contact: after all, these three possessive types have their foundation in locative/existential constructions. Opposed to this, the Have-Possessive is iconic with regard to the second parameter, i.e. control: the transitive agent–patient pattern of this possession type can be seen as a formal match of the semantic distinction between possessor and possessee in terms of ‘power’ in the possessive relationship. Seen from this perspective, one might view the phenomenon of Have-Drift as a process by which languages shift their iconicity with regard to spatial contact in the direction of an iconicity with regard to control. If this suggestion is accepted, it becomes clear why the promotion of the possessor into subject status is not enough. In many languages, subject status of the possessor is a necessary feature of a control- iconic possessive construction, but in order to be completely iconic in this way the possessor must also be interpretable as a ‘controlling’ participant, i.e. as an agent. It must be conceded, however, that an explanation of Have-Drift in terms of an iconicity shift is not without its problems. As has been pointed out to me by Sonia Cristofaro (p.c.), in at least some cases Have-Drift is actually just a syntactic process of recombination of the various items in the sentence, by which oblique markers come to be associated with the verb rather than with the possessee. This process results in a syntactically transitive construction, but there is no evidence that, besides syntactic transitivity (which is an accidental result of the process of recombination), the new construction diVers from the source construction in conceptual terms, e.g. with respect to higher vs. lower control. More generally, since have-verbs have a relatively low degree of agentivity, it is not quite obvious that Have-Possessives involve higher control than other possession types. Moreover, we are faced with the curious but nonetheless well-established fact that Topic Possessives and With-Possessives have the potential to shift into Have-Possessives, but that the reverse – that is, a shift from a Have- Possessive into some other possessive type – is never encountered. This fact also raises problems for an explanation of possessive-type shift in terms of iconicity: it is hard to see why there should there be a shift from spatial contact towards control, but not the other way around. After all, then, an explanation in terms of formal motivations of diachronic reanalysis processes may be the right perspective on Have-Drift. That is, it may be the case that Have-Possessives do not turn into other possessive types because such a shift would involve reanalysis operations that are less straightforward than those that lead to the reverse shift. A drift from Have-Possessives to a 242 The typology of predicative possession With-Possessive would involve, among other things, the reanalysis of a direct object into an oblique adjunct (with the introduction of oblique marking into the clause), and a drift from a Have-Possessive into a Topic Possessive would – again, among other things – require the reanalysis of a direct object as a sentential subject. There is hardly any independent evidence that such putative diachronic processes are possible at all, whereas the reanalysis pro- cesses that lead to Have-Drift can be rated as speciWc instances of more general operations in diachronic change. Transitivization 243 [...]... sha-te-hati-iahs-ont-ha’ still coinc-duplic-m.pl.ag-cross-attach-hab shakoti-ienenhaton-hs-kwE’ ne onkwe-honwe m.pl/pl-arrest-hab-past art person-real ‘While everybody was still a Catholic, they used to arrest the Indian people’ (Marianne Mithun p.c.) ( 24) Abkhaz (North-West Caucasian) ` ` Amra d-an@-c8o-w sara a-w@s A she-when-sleep-nonfin.stat.pres I art-work -z-w-we-yt’ it-I-do-dyn-fin ‘When Amra is... Central-East Bantu) U-ki-ni-piga ni-tak-u-shtaki 2sg.subj-pcp-1sg.obj-hit 1sg.subj-fut-2sg.obj-accuse ‘If you hit me, I will accuse you’ (Loogman 1965: 209) (22) Siberian Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut) Kaate-yaqminigu qalghigh-aqe-fte-uq arrive-3sg.trans.particip.mood song-prog-apparently-3sg.indic ‘When he arrived, it (the bird) was singing’ (De Reuse 19 94: 52) (23) Mohawk (Iroquoian) ´ She:kon sha-te-hati-iahs-ont-ha’... formations in Bedawi and Navajo (19) Bedawi (Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic) ´ ˆ ´ ´ ˇ Anı o-gau sum-an--hob e Bilal abya 1sg.nom art-house enter-1sg.perf-vn-at B already ´-he ı 3sg.perf-go ‘When I entered the house, Bilal was already gone’ (Reinisch 1893 III: 190) (20) Navajo (Na-Dene, Athapaskan) ´ ´ ´´ ´ ´ ´ ´ T’ah ‘ana-s-tsıÁsı-go ci-ma‘nt’e ‘a-din still stat-1sg-be.small-conv my-mother 3.stat-be.missing ‘When... aYx This situation is illustrated in the following adverbial clauses from Aleut, Ubykh, and Basque: (25) Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) ˆ Txin quyuqali-ku-x-ngaan 3sg.abs go.to.bed-pres-3sg-dat ‘When he went to bed ’ (Bergsland 1997: 24) (26) Ubykh (North-West Caucasian) A-c8a-ga a-le-t-in the-house-in 3abs-be.in-imperf-loc ´ ‘While she was in the house ’ (Dumezil 1933: 85) 2 The notion of ‘deranked predicate’... 60) (17) Monumbo (Papuan, Bogia) ´ ´ Indaro-naka uken 1pl.return-sim 3sg.die ‘As we returned, she died’ (Vormann and Scharfenberger 19 14: 45 ) (18) Kolyma Yukaghir (Yukaghir) Numø-ge jaqa-l-u-ge numø-ge oj-l’e-˛i house-loc arrive-vn-1/2-ds/loc house-loc neg-be-3pl.intr ‘I came home, but they were not at home’ (Maslova 2003a: 160) Even full retention of both PNG and TAM marking in a deranked predicate is... father-your here be.3sg.pres ‘Your father is here’ (Conzemius 1929: 110) (40 ) Luganda (Niger-Kordofanian, North-East Bantu) a Mukasa n-ange tu-li babazzi M and- 1sg 1pl.pres-cop carpenters ‘Mukasa and I are carpenters’ (Ashton et al 19 54: 43 4) b Omugaati gu-li mu kabada loaf 3sg.pres-be in cupboard ‘The loaf is in the cupboard’ (Ashton et al 19 54: 82) The other two possible forms of shared encoding are rather... using the verb yu ‘to be’ (30) Yavapai (Yuman) ˇ a Maria hayko-v-c yu-m M Anglo-dem-subj be-asp ‘Maria is an Anglo’ (Kendall 1976: 157) ˇ b Cnapuk-c miyul-l yu-m ant-subj sugar-in be-asp ‘There is an ant in the sugar/The ant is in the sugar’ (Kendall 1976: 25) In contrast to this, Japanese and Amharic are split-languages, as the nominal copula and the locational/existential verb employed by these languages... hay.acc enter-pcp come.down.3sg.past rain.nom ‘As I was bringing in the hay, it started raining’ (Endzelin 1922: 993) (11) Northern Paiute (Uto-Aztecan, Numic) n’ tanomani-no’o U mia-no’o- 3sg.acc/gen go-along-ds.sim 1sg.nom run-along ‘While he was going along, I was running along’ (Snapp et al 1982: 76) (12) Konkani (Indo-European, Indic) Pedru ve-tana ˛ Paulu ye-ta ˛ P go-sim.conv P come-3sg.pres ‘As... Tamm (19 94) and Nikolaeva (2007) for further discussion In search of determinant factors 261 We also encounter cases in which the deranked predicate has retained its full possibilities in PNG-agreement, as is demonstrated by examples from Bilin, Monumbo, and Kolyma Yukaghir (16) Bilin (Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic) ´ ˆ ´ ˆ nı kau-l grux e Kuara lab--na-dı sun go.down-3sg-vn-com 3sg.nom house-dat go.3sg.perf... pronominal possessive item This situation is illustrated in example (7) from Vogul (6) Finnish (Uralic, Balto-Finnic) ¨ Kalle-n tul-le-ssa Pekka lahti K.-gen come-inf-iness P leave.past.3sg ‘When Kalle arrived, Pekka left’ (Karlsson 1983: 218) (7) Vogul (Uralic, Ugric) Man usn jal-ke-w-t 1pl city.to go-vn-our-loc ‘At our going to the city: When we go to the city’ (Riese 2001: 90) Alternatively, the subject . the subject here. ( 74) Damana (Chibchan) a. Maigua bunkuibia nu h-ku-nun-ka three egg 1sg.pat-for-be-fact ‘I have three eggs’ (Trillos Amaya 1999: 88) b. Paka nu j-ku-nan-ka cow 1sg.act-for-be-fact ‘I have. Kakythinon k-amyn-ka khaboho people 3pl-have-perf hand ‘People have hands’ (Pet 1987: 32) b. B-amyn-ka nana you-have-perf pineapple ‘Do you have pineapples?’ (Pet 1987: 279) c. By-simalha by-amyn-ka your-gun. item -k U - in Damana. (75)Rama (Chibchan) a. Tiiskam n-aakar-a taim-ki child 1sg-be-past time-at ‘At the time, I was a child’ (Colette Grinevald p.c.) b. Kapupu i-kwaakar-u frog 3-have-past ‘She