| Voice marking | Proper marker | no | |
| Voice marking | Lookalike marker | yes | FYI: the only affixes which can be suspected to be valency-changing markers are classifiers -mi and -i (KS).
FYI: The classifier -i aligns exclusively with INTR verbs which assume obligatory unexpressed P (KS).
Classifiers have aspectual meanings not always easy to ascertain. They are also connected to valency classes (monovalent, bivalent, and both) (McGregor 1990: 195).
BUT
'it is clear that the choice of classifier distinguishes between the four transitivity types. The classifiers cannot, however, be regarded as 'derivational' affixes, marking the change in the transitivity value of the root. And neither the classifier itself nor the VP as a whole can be (as a rule) specified as to transitivity type.' (McGregor 1990: 322)
12 verb classifiers
'Form Valence Semantic characteristics
(1) +A 1, 2 Extendible; 'extend'
(2) +ADDI 2 Accomplishment; 'put'
(3) +DI 1, 2 Accomplishment; 'catch'
(4) +MI 1, 2 Accomplishment; 'effect'
(5) +BINI 1, 2 Accomplishment; 'hit'
(6) +I 1 Extendible; 'go, be'
(7) +BINDI 1 Accomplishment; 'get, become'
(8) +ANI 1 Accomplishment; 'fall'
(9) +ARNlt 1, 2 Accomplishment; 'emerge'
(10) +BIRLI 1, 2 Accomplishment; 'consume'
(11) +ARNlz 1 Extendible; Reflexive/Reciprocal
(12) +MARNI 1 Accomplishment; Reflexive/Reciprocal""
(McGregor 1990: 195)
FYI: 'The function of the classifiers is to indicate the type of process that is referred to. They classify the lexical words (which realise the VP role Process in Fl) with which they occur, thereby modifying their significance. Classifiers do not divide the set of verbal lexemes into disjoint subsets. Most verbal lexemes collocate with more than one classifier, and the choice between these classifiers distinguishes among various process types that may be referred to by the same lexical item.' McGregor 1990: 201).
|
| Voice marking | Synthetic marker | n/a | |
| Voice marking | Analytical marker | n/a | |
| Flagging | S-argument flagging | yes/no | ERG coding implies the volitionality of the agent (KS).
(McGregor 1990: 318)
nganyi-ngga jiginya-yoo moow-la-nhi
I-ERG child-DAT looked-1SG.NOM-3SG.OBL-CLSF
‘I looked for the child.’
(McGregor 1990: 321)
nganyi mila-ngir-i
I.ABS see-PRES/(1SG)N+CLSF
‘I am looking.’
|
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging | yes | '[...] there exists an agnate clause in which a DAT PP occurs instead of the LOC (..). The exact meaning contrast between the two modes of expression remains unclear, and would appear to lie in the way the situation is viewed, rather than (necessarily) in differences in the extra-linguistic reality referred to.' (McGregor 1990: 321)
|
| Flagging | P-oblique unflagging | no | |
| Flagging | P-oblique flagging variation | yes | '[...] there exists an agnate clause in which a DAT PP occurs instead of the LOC (..). The exact meaning contrast between the two modes of expression remains unclear, and would appear to lie in the way the situation is viewed, rather than (necessarily) in differences in the extra-linguistic reality referred to.' (McGregor 1990: 321)
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexed | yes | FYI: In all types of P-demoting constructions, S is always indexed on the verb unless it is 3SG (KS).
(McGregor 1990: 322)
nganyi-ngga mawoolyi-yoo mila-li-mi-widdangi
I-ERG children-DAT glance-1SG.NOM-CLSF-3PL.OBL
‘I glanced at the children.'
(McGregor 1990: 325; glosses completed by K. Stroński)
yaanya-ngga ngaddagi-yoo / -ya thoolng-∅-mi-ngadda
other-erg my-dat / loc kick-3sg.nom-clsf-1sg.obl
‘The other (man) kicked at me.’
|
| Indexation | S-argument indexation conditioned | yes | FYI: In all types of P-demoting constructions, S is indexed on the verb unless it is 3SG (KS).
(McGregor 1990: 322)
nganyi-ngga mawoolyi-yoo mila-li-mi-widdangi
I-ERG children-DAT glance-1SG.NOM-CLSF-3PL.OBL
‘I glanced at the children.'
(McGregor 1990: 325; glosses completed by K. Stroński)
yaanya-ngga ngaddagi-yoo / -ya thoolng-∅-mi-ngadda
other-erg my-dat / loc kick-3sg.nom-clsf-1sg.obl
‘The other (man) kicked at me.’
|
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is generic (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P is indefinite (non-specific) | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Incorporated P can be referential | n/a | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique is indefinite (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Oblique can be referential | yes | We have seen that some clause types have an inherent participant role, the nonMedium Goal, which is realised by a DAT PP and is in addition cross-referenced by an oblique pronominal enclitic to the VP (McGregor 1990: 330).
(McGregor 1990: 318)
yaanya-ngga ngaddagi-yoo / -ya thoolng-∅-mi-ngadda
other-ERG my-DAT / LOC kick-3SG.NOM-CLSF-1SG.OBL
‘The other (man) kicked at me.’
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is generic (non-specific) | no | |
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P is indefinite (non-specific) | yes | (McGregor 1990: 321; glosses by K. Stroński)
nganyi mila-ngir-i
I.ABS see-PRS./(1SG)N-CLSF
‘I am looking.’
- The verb mila- has only A index and A is unflagged. P is obligatorily unexpressed.
- classificator -i is reserved for intransitives
|
| P-individuation properties | Eliminated P can be referential | yes | 'it is not unusual for clauses to consist of a VP only, or of a VP together with phrases and words which refer to non-participant entities, qualities, etc. (see section 5.3.1 below). Even in ""isolation"" it is common for the clause to occur without phrasal reference to its participants. This is especially true for first and second person participants. ' (McGregor 1990: 320)
(McGregor 1990: 366)
moongaya mila-wa-win-mi bidi-yooddoo-ngga
morning see-PRGR-3PL.NOM-CLSF they-dual-ERG
‘In the morning, they two were looking (at the fishing lines).’
|
| Oblique affectedness | Less affected oblique | yes | (McGregor 1990: 325; glosses completed by K. Stroński)
a.
nganyi-ngga boolja / thadda thoolng-li-mi-nhi
I-ERG ball.ABS / I dog.ABS kicked-1SG.NOM-CLSF-3SG.OBL
‘I kicked the ball/dog.’
b.
yaanya-ngga ngaddagi-yoo / -ya thoolng-∅-mi-ngadda
other-ERG my-DAT / LOC kick-3SG.NOM-CLSF-1SG.OBL
‘The other (man) kicked at me.’
The contrast in all such examples seems to be exactly the one proposed here -that is, whether the process is actualised through the Goal, or need not be actualised through the Goal. (b), but not (a) allows that the process may not have been effective, that the kick may not have connected.' (McGregor 1990: 325)
|
| P-constraining properties | Animacy constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Person constrains oblique demotion | no | |
| P-constraining properties | Number constrains oblique demotion | no | |