Classifier, Reflexive, and Beyond: A Synchronic and Diachronic Exploration of the Morpheme /tsa/ 'body' in Gumuz

In: Mietzner & Storch (eds.). 2015. Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions, pp. 61–71. Cologne: Koeppe. CLASSIFIER, REFLEXIVE, AND BEYOND: A SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC EXPLORATION OF THE MORPHEME /TSA/ ‘BODY’ IN GUMUZ Colleen Ahland 1 Introduction Gumuz is a Nilo-Saharan (NS) language/dialect cluster spoken in the river valleys of western Ethiopia and southeastern Sudan (Republic of Sudan). It is considered an isolate within the NS family (Bender 1997) but is likely most closely related to the Koman languages (Ahland 2013). This article focuses on two varieties of Gumuz spoken in Ethiopia: Northern Gumuz (NoG) and Southern Gumuz (SoG). In general, NoG is spoken north of Debre Zeit and Mankush and SoG is spoken to the south of these areas (see Map 1). Other languages spoken in the area are Berta (NS), Boro (Omotic), Oromo (Cushitic) and Awgni (Cushitic) (Ahland 2004). Map 1: Gumuz location 62 Colleen Ahland Gumuz verbs are highly agglutinative, many of which have incorporated nouns ( INs). The majority of these INs are body part terms which are either part of a lexicalized compound, an external possession (EP) construction, or have grammaticalized as verbal classifiers (CLs) (Ahland 2010, 2012). In this paper I explore the various functions and a possible historical source of the IN/CL /tsa/ in Gumuz which is the only incorporated body part term in Gumuz that is bound and has no corresponding free form. In Section 2, I provide an overview of Gumuz verbal morphology and discuss the various functions of /-(́)ts(a)/ as part of the verb stem. In Section 3, I briefly describe the occurrence of /tsa/ in nominal compounds. In Section 4, I discuss the historical source of /tsa/ looking both at evidence internal to Gumuz as well as external comparative evidence found in the Koman languages. Lastly, in Section 5, I summarize my conclusions regarding the multiple functions of /tsa/ and its likely historical source as an old term for ‘body’ in Gumuz which has undergone lexical replacement. 2 Functions of /-(́)ts(a)/ as part of the verb stem Gumuz verb stems are comprised of a single verb root or a verb root plus an IN/CL as part of a complex stem. These verbs stems are highly agglutinative with up to fourteen position classes in NoG (Figure 1) and thirteen in SoG (Figure 2) for non-future verbs.1 The complex verb stems are discontinuous, allowing inflectional (and derivational) morphemes to intervene. The morpheme /tsa/ is one of many body part terms that can fill the IN/CL position class and this morpheme serves several functions. It can 1) form a verb-noun lexical compound, 2) participate in an external possession construction, 3) can serve as a verbal classifier which can also function as part of a reflexive construction and 4) can index complement clauses such as perception-cognition-utterance (PCU) complements. 1 Mood Person (S / A) Person (O or object of preposition) Uncertainty Instrumental & Dative; (-5) for INTR Reciprocal Pluractional Main Verb Root Greater Plural Middle Voice Directional Incorporated Noun / Classifier Perfect Locative Figure 1: Position class chart for NoG non-future verbs (-7) (-6) (-5) (-4) (-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (+1) (+2) (+3) (+4) (+5) (+6) Gumuz follows a different position class chart for future verb stems (cf. Ahland 2012). Classifier, Reflexive and Beyond 63 Mood Remote Past Person (S / A) Instrumental & Dative Uncertainty Reciprocal Pluractional Main Verb Root Nonfuture Tense Middle Voice Directional Incorporated Noun / Classifier Locative / Past Perfect Figure 2: Position class chart for SoG non-future verbs (-7) (-6) (-5) (-4) (-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (+1) (+2) (+3) (+4) (+5) 2.1 Verb-noun lexical compounds Gumuz has a limited number of lexicalized verb-noun compounds in which the IN is distinct from the IN of an external possession construction (Section 2.2) or a verbal classifier construction (Section 2.3). Of these, there are only a few lexical verb-noun compounds in Gumuz involving /tsa/ ‘body’. Unlike Mithun’s Type I noun incorporation (1984, 1986), the IN in these verb-noun compounds does not decrease the valence of the verb; rather, the valence remains the same (1a-b, 2a-b). The only instance in which valence is decreased with the addition of a body part term like /-(́)ts(a)/ is in a reflexive construction (see Section 2.3.2). Some of these lexical verb-noun compounds have compositional semantics in which the meaning of the verb-noun pair more or less equals the sum of its parts; e.g. ‘rise’ + ‘body’ = ‘get up, stand up’ (1b).2 Other lexical compounds exhibit more idiosyncratic meanings. For example, the verb root /gam/ ‘know, find’ (2a) combines with /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ to form the complex verb stem ‘see’ (2b). NoG (1) a. f́ɗ rise ‘Rise!’ b. f́ɗ-́ts rise-body ‘Get up!’ (2) a. ́χó saŋa d-a-gam 3SG salt AFF-3SG.TR-find ‘He found salt.’ b. ́-gam-́tsa=ŋgó óminza 2SG.TR-find-body=NEG leopard ‘You didn’t see the leopard.’ 2.2 External possession constructions Arguably, the majority of incorporated nouns in Gumuz form part of an external possession (EP) construction. EP constructions involve an additional argument of the clause which serves as a possessor. With noun incorporation, the external S or O argument serves as possessor and the IN as the possessed entity (Payne and Barshi 1999). This is often referred to as “possessor raising” or “manipulation of case” 2 Example (1b) is likely related to the intransitive reflexive construction discussed in 2.3.2. However, it differs in that the verb root ‘rise’ cannot have an additional argument when /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ is incorporated. That is, there exists no transitive reflexive counterpart as with other complex verb stems in reflexive constructions. The construct in (1b), however, could be an example of how /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ has grammaticalized as a reflexive marker (in certain constructs) whereas other incorporated body part terms have not. 64 Colleen Ahland as with Mithun’s Type II noun incorporation (1984). For example in (3), ‘hyena’ is the external possessor of the IN ‘eye’. Similarly in (4), ‘hyena’ is the external possessor of the IN ‘body’. (3) (4) SoG gotaha b-a-ga-wáʃ-ag-ílíc ŋaẃ ka-nnéa hare AFF-3SG.TR-INSTR-throw-NFUT-eye hyena INSTR-dirt ‘The hare threw dirt into the hyena’s eyes.’ (lit: The hare eye-threw the hyena with dirt.) NoG d-́-ga-kóχó-ts ́́↓ḿĺa ka=ɗogwa AFF-3PL.TR-INSTR-enter-body hyena INSTR=bow ‘They entered the hyena’s body with an arrow.’ or ‘They shot the hyena with an arrow.’ (lit: ‘They body-entered the hyena with a bow.’) EP constructions in Gumuz involve incorporated body part terms that can be either literal (3, 4) or metaphorical (5, 6), both of which are usually locations. Compare the metaphorical location ‘body’ /-(́)ts(a)/ meaning ‘side’ (5) with the metaphorical location ‘hip/loins’ meaning ‘bottom’ (6). (5) (6) NoG d-ú-↓tʼóó-ts wantʃá ń=kwaatʼ́ AFF-3PL.TR-put-body cup LOC=bench ‘They put the cup on the bench (on its side).’ (lit: ‘They put the body of the cup on the bench’ or ‘They body-put the cup on the bench’) d-́-tʼoo-ʃ wantʃ́ ń=kwaatʼ́ AFF-3PL.TR-put-hip cup LOC-bench ‘They put the cup on the bench (right-side up).’ (lit: ‘They put the hip/loins of the cup on the bench’ or ‘They hip-put the cup on the bench’) 2.3 Verbal classifier and reflexive constructions in Gumuz Verbal classifier (or predicate classifier) constructions involve classifiers found in the verb stem which classify an argument of the verb (Grinevald 2000: 67), usually S or O. Reflexive constructions involve a reflexive marker that indexes a referent identical with that of the S or A argument (cf. Schladt 2000: 103). The lexical source for both verbal classifiers (Mithun 1984) and reflexive markers (Schladt 2000) are typically body part terms that originally functioned as direct objects. In Africa, the reflexive marker most commonly arises from the word for ‘body’ (Heine 2011: 50). In Gumuz, reflexive constructions can be transitive (involving A and O arguments) or intransitive (involving only S arguments). Thus, it is no surprise that in Gumuz, verbal classifier and reflexive constructions overlap, most notably with the classifier /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’. In other NS languages such as those of Central Sudanic and Kanuri, a reflexive marker has more clearly grammaticalized from the same semantic lexical source ‘body, life’ (Tucker & Bryan 1966, Schladt 2000) but with a form non-cognate with Koman and Gumuz, reconstructed as *ro ~ lu (Bender 1997: 89 ) for the “satellite” subgroup of N-S. In Section 2.3.1, I first describe the verbal classifier construction in Gumuz and give examples of /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ as a classifier. Then in Section 2.3.2, I describe reflexive constructions in Gumuz and the role /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ plays in such constructions. 2.3.1 The verbal classifier /-(́)ts(a)/ In Gumuz there are six (simple) body part terms that serve as verbal classifiers3: /-(́)kʼw(́)/ ‘head’, /(́)ć/ ‘eye’, /-(́)k’́s(a)/ ‘tooth’, /-(́)ts’́(a)/ ‘ear’, /-́́l(́)/ ‘belly’, and /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’. The classifier 3 There are ten verbal classifiers in Gumuz if one counts both the simple noun root and the complex noun root classifiers and possibly more if one includes marginal classifiers like ‘mouth’/-(́)s(a)/ (cf. Ahland 2012: 269, 324). Classifier, Reflexive and Beyond 65 /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ classifies the human body, entities associated with the human body or those that are functionally or physically body-like (objects longer than they are wide). Examples (7-8) demonstrate /(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ as a classifier and examples (9-10) demonstrate other body part term classifiers that contrast with /-(́)ts(a)/. For instance, /-́́l(́)/ ‘belly’ classifies entities that have a concave surface or encompass a large area (9) and /-(́)ć/ ‘eye’ classifies clothing (10) among other entities (cf. Ahland 2012: 270). (7) NoG ára d-ár-ʔáf-áts 1SG AFF-1SG.TR-wash-CL:body ‘I washed my hand(s).’ (8) ʔaf-áts ɓagá-ḿtsʼ́ wash-CL:body body-house ‘Wash the wall(s)ǃ’ (9) ʔaf-́́l sánéá wash-CL:belly plate ‘Wash the plate(s)ǃ’ (10) aχwa ʔaf-ác clothes wash-CL1:eye ‘Wash the clothes!’ eʔâ-m hand-1SG.POSS 2.3.2 Reflexive constructions in Gumuz In Gumuz, one can express a reflexive by means of a transitive or intransitive construction. The transitive reflexive construction involves a possessed body part term as the O argument or simply a possessed form of the word /ɓaga/ ‘body’ in NoG (11) or /boga/ ‘self’ in SoG (13)4. The main difference between a more general transitive construction (12, 14) and the transitive reflexive construction (11, 13) is that in the latter, the possessor of the O argument is the same referent as the A argument. In both transitive constructions, the classifier ‘body’ is used if the O argument is a body part term or is body-like (7-8, 1114), and the bound subject pronominal exhibits a transitive tonal pattern. (11) (12) (13) (14) 4 NoG ́ra d-́ŕ-Ɂaf-́ts 1SG AFF-1SG.TR-wash-CL:body ‘I washed my body (myself).’ ́ra d-́ŕ-Ɂaf-́ts 1SG AFF-1SG.TR-wash-CL:body ‘I washed the child’s foot/feet.’ ɓaǵ-ma body-1SG.POSS tʃogẃ-dua foot-child SoG kʼó́ b-a-tʼar-ag-́ts dog AFF-3SG.TR-lick-NFUT-CL:body ‘The dog licks himself.’ kʼó́ b-a-tʼar-ag-́ts dog AFF-3SG.TR-lick-NFUT-CL:body ‘The dog licks the person.’ bogo-ḿ self-3SG.POSS ɓaga person In SoG, the historical source for ‘self’ /boga/ is the lexeme /ɓaga/ ‘body, person’. 66 Colleen Ahland Gumuz also has an intransitive reflexive construction. This construction involves an incorporated body part term as part of a complex verb stem and an intransitive tonal melody on the bound subject pronominal. The classifier /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ can be found in both the transitive and intransitive reflexive constructions. In most instances in which the free NP lexemes for ‘body’ or ‘self’ are used in a transitive reflexive construction, one can simply eliminate this O argument and use an intransitive tonal melody to create an intransitive reflexive construct (15). Alternatively, it is also possible to have any incorporated body part term in a complex verb stem with an intransitive verbal melody (16). The transitive counterpart of this more general reflexive construction is nearly always an EP construct (17).5 (15) NoG ́ra d-́ra-Ɂaf-́ts 1SG AFF-1SG.INTR-wash-CL:body ‘I washed my body (myself).’ (16) d-́ra-ʔaf-́tʃogw AFF-1SG.INTR-wash-foot ‘I washed my feet.’ (lit: ‘I foot-washed.’) (17) d-́ŕ-↓ʔ́f-́tʃogw dua AFF-1SG.TR-wash-foot child ‘I washed the child’s feet.’ (lit: ‘I foot-washed the child.’) Therefore, while /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ serves a special function within reflexive constructions, it is not a required element for reflexives, and does not function as a reflexive marker per se. Rather, /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ maintains its designated function as verbal classifier, and as people and body part terms are classified as “bodies” in Gumuz, this verbal classifier regularly participates in reflexive constructions. 2.4 Valence increaser and the indexing of complement clauses Beyond verbal classifier, the IN/CL /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ has further grammaticalized as a valence increaser which can index certain types of clausal complements, PCU complements in particular. This valenceincreasing construction with /-(́)ts(a)/ is similar to that of a (transitive) EP or verbal classifier construction in that an O argument or clausal complement is required. The main difference is that in EP or verbal classifier constructions the verb root is transitive or labile whereas with valence-increasing constructions, the verb root is intransitive. This construction is most commonly used for adding and indexing PCU complements. For example, the PCU verb roots /ŋgaʃ/ ‘speak, talk’ and /ś́nz/ ‘think’ are intransitive (18, 20). When /-(́)ts(a)/ is added, the resulting complex verb stems take a non-finite clausal complement with /ŋgaʃ-́ts/ meaning ‘say (that), tell’ (19) and /ś́nz-́ts/ meaning ‘think about’ (21). (18) (19) 5 NoG baab-́a ziaĺ d-́e-ŋgaʃ-́ father-1SG.POSS now AFF-FUT-speak-3SG.INTR ‘My father will speak now.’ NoG noŕga ma-kód-a-ḿ d-a-ŋgaʃ-́ts book NMLZ-buy-NM-IP:O AFF-3SG.TR-speak-BODY ‘He said that he bought a book.’ Also note that there exists a corresponding internal possession construction (possessor and possessed expressed within a noun phrase) given in (12). The IN/CL /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ in this construct is not part of an EP construction. Classifier, Reflexive and Beyond (20) (21) 67 SoG b-́-ś́nz-aǵ AFF-3SG.INTR-think-NFUT ‘He thought.’ SoG b-a-ś́nz-aǵ-ts AFF-3SG.TR-think-NFUT-BODY ‘He thought about going.’ ma-tś NMLZ-go It is also possible for verbs in this construction to take non-clausal complements. In (22), for example, when the intransitive verb root ‘sing’ forms part of a valence-increasing construction with /-(́)ts(a)/, the verb stem takes the O argument ‘game’ qualified by the relative clause ‘which they play when their relatives go to the fields during the day’. (22) SoG [ga-aś-iida NMLZ2-play-children et-́́-aś́-ga REL-3PL.TR-play-NFUT nó↓ḱ=b-́i-tś-ǵ TEMP=AFF-3PL.INTR-go-NFUT ḱ́ĺḿts’a to.field ń́lóka in.day d́-gwa-́↓b́-ḿ́m PRO.PL-PLACE-home-3PL.POSS Ɂ́] ḱma-eɁ́-́ĺ-ts MED FUT-sing-1PL.EXCL.TR-BODY ḱ=́ca BEN=2PL ‘We will sing for you all a game (children’s play) which they play when their relatives go to the fields during the day.’ For transitive/labile PCU verb roots, /-(́)ts(a)/ is not added for complement clauses. In (23), the transitive verb root /gaŋ/ ‘know, find’ (NoG: /gam/) does not require the addition of /-(́)ts(a)/ in order to express a complement clause or an O argument for that matter (see example 2a).6 (23) SoG maʒá ʔá ma-u-é-á alá-má b-ár-gaŋ-gá guy MED NMLZ-go-TWRD-NM GEN-3SG.POSS AFF-1SG.TR-know-NFUT ‘I knew that the guy would come.’ (lit: ‘I knew the guy’s coming.’) The valence-increaser /-(́)ts(a)/ can also be used to index other types of non-finite verbal complements. For example, the intransitive verb root /k̂l/ means ‘return’ (24) but when /-(́)ts(a)/ is added to the verb stem, a non-finite clausal complement must be added and the meaning changes to ‘do again’ (25). (24) (25) SoG b-́r-↓kól-aǵ AFF-1SG-return-NFUT ‘I returned.’ b-́́-kól-aǵ-ts AFF-3PL.TR-return-NFUT-BODY ‘They ate again.’ ma-ś-ŋga NMLZ-eat-food In fact, if /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ were added to the verb root /gaŋ/ ‘know’(NoG: /gam/), the resulting verb stem would mean ‘see’ (see example 2b). In any case, it is clear that /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ functions as a valence increaser of sorts for intransitive verb roots and not merely a suffix that indexes certain types of complement clauses. 6 68 Colleen Ahland Another incorporated body part term /-(́)kʼw(́)/ ‘head’ can also serve as a valence increaser on intransitive verbal roots. However, this IN often functions as a causative7 and typically cross-references an O argument which is a not a nominalized verb (i.e. a non-derived noun). For example, in (25) the verb stem with the IN /-(́)ts(a)/ takes the nominalized (infinitival) verbal complement ‘to eat food’ whereas in (26) the verb stem with the IN /-(́)kʼw(́)/ (which has the same intransitive verb root /k̂l/) takes the O argument ‘book’. (26) SoG kól-akʼw noŕga return-head book ‘Return the book.’ 3 The morpheme /-tś-/ found in nouns The morpheme /tsa/ ‘body’ also appears in nominal compounds. Its occurrence on nouns parallels to some degree the distribution of class morphemes within class morpheme compounds in Gumuz (cf. Ahland 2012). The Gumuz class morphemes are classifying morphemes that form compounds with certain nouns, often functioning in a hypernym-hyponym relationship. The set of class morphemes in Gumuz is similar to the set of verbal classifiers with similar categorization: /kʼẃ-/ ‘head’, /cá-/ ‘eye’, /kʼ́s-/ ‘tooth’, /tsʼê-/ ‘ear’, and /ííl-/líí-/ ‘belly’. The morpheme /-tś-/ very rarely occurs in this sort of nominal compound and when it does, it is often preceded and followed by another noun. Class morpheme compounds, on the other hand, are typically comprised of two nouns – the class morpheme and the noun it classifies.8 In (27), /kʼẃ-/ ‘head’ classifies containers and is therefore used in a compound with ‘gourd’. The morpheme /tsa/ appears to form a part of a class morpheme compound in (28) and (29), always co-occuring with the otherwise free noun form /ɓaga/ ‘body’ and its verbal classifier counterpart /-(́)ts(a)/. This type of compound with /-tś-/ is only known to occur in NoG. (27) (28) (29) NoG kʼẃ-↓ɓ́χ́ǵ head-(specific type of)gourd ‘gourd for drinking’ NoG χókwa-ka-ts ɓagá-tsá-↓ḿtsʼ́ clean-INSTR-body body-body-house ‘Clean the wall with a cloth.’ ka-tʃéraka INSTR-cloth wíɗ-áts maχab́-ts-ɓagá-ma see-CL:body wound-body-body-1SG.POSS ‘Look at my (body) wound.’ 4 Historical source of /tsa/ The morpheme /tsa/ can be internally reconstructed as a noun-like morpheme meaning ‘body’ based on constructions like example (30) below (Ahland 2010: 165-66, 2012: 251 ). In (30), several body part terms can be used in a prepositional construction denoting ‘by oneself’. However, /tsa/ is the only body part term used in this construction that cannot be uttered on its own (31). Other examples of /-(́)kʼw(́)/ as a causative include but are not limited to the following stems formed with intransitive verb roots: /ʃ́-k’w/ (die-head) ‘kill’, /ɓ́ts’-́k’w/ (hide-head) ‘hide something’, /bit-́k’w/ (descendhead) ‘lower something’. 8 There also exist endocentric class morpheme compounds in Gumuz in which the dependent noun does not appear to be classified by the class morpheme. Rather, the whole compound belongs to the class. 7 Classifier, Reflexive and Beyond (30) a. b. c. (31) a. SoG dua child “ b-a-ɗamb-aǵ-ts AFF-3SG.TR-try-NFUT-body “ 69 ma-n-tś NMLZ-PL-go “ ka-tś-ḿ INSTR-body-3SG.POSS ka-ɓii-ḿ INSTR-neck-3SG.POSS “ “ “ ka-ć-ḿ INSTR-eye-3SG.POSS ‘The child tried to crawl by himself/herself.’(lit: ‘…with his/her body/neck/eye’) *tś-ḿ b. ɓii-ḿ c. (́l)ć-ḿ body-3SG.POSS neck-3SG.POSS eye-3SG.POSS ‘his/her body’ ‘his/her neck’ ‘his/her eye’ As mentioned previously, the free noun form for ‘body’ in Gumuz is /ɓaga/ which is also the lexeme for ‘person/people’ (see also examples 11 and 14). The polysemy of this lexeme is so commonplace in Gumuz that the compound for ‘human body’ uses /ɓaga/ as both the head and dependent noun: first as the head noun meaning ‘body’ and second as the dependent noun meaning ‘person’ (32). (32) NoG and SoG ɓaǵ-ɓaga body-person ‘person’s body’ or ‘human body’ Considering the polysemy discussed above and the comparative evidence to be presented below, I propose that the bound morpheme /tsa/ ‘body’ was once a free noun form in Gumuz that existed alongside the free noun form /ɓaga/ ‘person/people’. Over time, *tsa was incorporated into the verb stem and became phonologically reduced. As *tsa became more grammaticalized and more phonologically reduced, Gumuz speakers began to use /ɓaga/ ‘person/people’ to refer to ‘body’ in place of *tsa. In Koman, the languages most closely related to Gumuz, apparent cognates of both noun forms co-exist, namely in Komo and Uduk (Table 1). These likely co-existed as free noun forms in Gumuz as well. Table 1: Lexemes for ‘body’, ‘people’, and ‘person’ in Gumuz and Koman Koman Languages ‘body /self’ Gumuz Gwama Komo Opo Uduk (Kievet & Robertson 2011) (Manuel Otero, p.c.) (Lemi 2010) (Don Killian, p.c.) yɪs ‘body’ ɪʃ ‘body’ eːs ‘body’ ̄s ‘self, body’ ‘person’ - giba ‘people’ yiba ‘person’ -ts, -tsa -tś- (-(I)ʃ) REFL ‘body/ people’ Gumuz (all) - b̀ŋgw̌r ‘body’ ɓaga ‘body’ , people/person’ baaha ‘person’ I claim that these “cognates” from Table 1, namely those for /tsa/, are “apparent” due to the lack of regular sound correspondences. However, there is a somewhat regular sound correspondence between Koman languages and Gumuz which suggests that the correspondence in Gumuz should be /s/ instead Colleen Ahland 70 of /ts/ (Table 2).9 The protoforms for all of these lexemes appear to have the proto-segment (most likely *s) in non-word-final position. It is therefore possible that *s became /ts/ word-finally in Gumuz and the earlier proto-form in Gumuz may have been *ats or *its. Table 2: s:ʃ Regular sound correspondence in Koman plus Gumuz ‘eat’ ‘stomach, intestine’ ‘tooth’ ‘god, sky, up’ ‘body’ Gwama ʃa b̀ʃ̀ʔ ʃ́ʔ wúús yɪs Komo ʃ́ b̀ʃ ʃɛ mɪʃ ɪʃ Opo saa - see wusi eːs Uduk ʃẃ b̀ʃ ʃ̄ ḿs ̄s ś boosa kʼó-sa ḿś (NoG) *its Gumuz ḿś (SoG) 5 Conclusion The bound morpheme /tsa/ is found in both verbs and nouns in Gumuz. In verbs, the IN /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ can form part of a lexicalized verbal compound, an EP construction, a verbal classifier construction, and a valence-increasing construction in which nominalized complements (most typically PCU complements) can be added to an intransitive verb root. The IN/CL /-(́)ts(a)/ ‘body’ can also be found in reflexive constructions but its designated function in such constructions is that of verbal classifier. This bound morpheme /tsa/ is a relic of a free form that once co-existed with the synchronic free form for ‘people’ /ɓaga/. Over time, /ɓaga/ eventually replaced *tsa as the free noun form for ‘body’. Both internal evidence from Gumuz and external (comparative) evidence from the Koman languages suggest that /tsa/ ‘body’ in Gumuz is very old and not likely borrowed. Abbreviations 1PL 1SG 2PL A AFF BEN CL EP EXCL FUT IN INSTR INTR MED first person plural first person singular second person plural most agent-like argument of a verb affirmative mood benefactive classifier, either verbal or the head of a class morpheme compound external possession exclusive future tense incorporated noun instrumental intransitive medial demonstrative NEG NFUT NMLZ NMLZ2 NoG O REFL REL S SoG TR TWRD negative nonfuture tense nominalizer, verbal noun (product) nominalizer, derives nominals which retain no verbal arguments Northern Gumuz object of a verb reflexive relativizer single argument of a verb Southern Gumuz transitive action directed towards speaker, also used for an action taking place in a different location from the speaker 9 The sources for Gwama, Komo, and Opo in Table 2 are the same as those in Table 1. For Uduk, I consulted Beam and Cridland (1979). Classifier, Reflexive and Beyond 71 References Ahland, Colleen. 2004. Linguistic variation in Gumuz: A study of the relationship between historical change and intelligibility. Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Arlington. Ahland, Colleen. 2010. Noun incorporation and predicate classifiers in Gumuz. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31: 159–203. Ahland, Colleen. 2012. A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. Ahland, Colleen. 2013. The status of Gumuz as a language isolate (LSA Meeting Extended Abstracts 2013). http://elanguage.net/journals/lsameeting/issue/view/374 (25.09.2014). Beam, Mary S. & Elizabeth A. Cridland. 1979. Uduk-English Dictionary. (Linguistics Monograph Series, 4). Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, University of Khartoum. Bender, M. Lionel. 1997. The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay. Munich: Lincom. Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification, pp. 50–92. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd. 2011. Areas of grammaticalization and geographical typology. In Osamu Hieda, Christa K̈nig & Hirosi Nakagawa (eds.), Geographical Typology and Linguistic Areas, pp. 41–66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kievit, Dirk & Erika Robertson. 2012. Notes on Gwama grammar. Studies in African Linguistics 41.1: 39–59. Kebebew, Lemi. 2010. A grammatical description of Opo. Master’s thesis, Addis Ababa University. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–94. Mithun, Marianne. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization, pp. 379–397. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi. 1999. Introduction. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External Possession: What, How, Where and Why?, pp. 3–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier (ed.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, pp. 103–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. 1966. Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.