Infinitival subclauses in ChintangTypologisches ForschungskolloquiumRobert Schikowski21/Oct/2010

1 Introduction1.1 The Chintang language• location:

Eastern Nepal> Kosi zone (कोशी अ ल)> Dhankuta district (धनकटा िज ला)> Chintang1 (िछ ताङ) and Ahale (आहा ) VDC

• genealogy:Tibeto-Burman > ... > Kiranti > Eastern Kiranti > Chintang (Bickel 2008:3)

• speakers:4000 - 5000, majority at least bilingual (with Nepali as the second language)

• endangerment: still learned by many children but restricted to certain con-texts

1.2 Overview of relevant morphosyntax1.2.1 Verbs and nominals

Language-specific definitions:

• verb := independent lexeme inflectable for tense, mood, aspect, polarity, andperson/number of arguments; prototypically used to code relations

1Usually spelt <Chhintang> in official texts. Here, <ch> is used for [ts h ] and <c> for [ts].

Figure 1: Location of the village Chintang

• nominal := independent lexeme inflectable for case. Subclasses:

◦ noun := nominal inflectable for person/number of possessors and num-ber; prototypically used to code referents

◦ pronoun := nominal inflectable for person/number and clusivity; usedto code SAP referents

◦ deictic := nominal inflectable for number and taking the suffix -khiʔ[MOD] and derivates; used to code NSAP referents via deixis

◦ numeral := nominal taking numeral classifiers; used to code quantifiedreferents

1

Verbs loose TMA inflection and A-AGR in infinite forms:

• active participle ka-(-pa)• passive participle -mayaŋ• infinitive -ma = topic of this talk• converb -saŋa• purposive -si• reciprocal -ka (with obligatory auxiliary lus-, restoring all verbal characteris-

tics)

1.2.2 Frames

frame := pattern describing the morphosyntactic behaviour of predicates, con-taining information on

• which core roles a predicate defines (“role set”)• if and how these roles are linked to verbal agreement positions (“agreement

presence”, “agreement link”)• which cases are assigned to them

Frames are conditioned by

• lexical factors: part of spech and subclass the predicate is taken from• syntactical factors: differential marking

basic frame := frame employed by verb class with the highest type frequency un-der the differentialmarking patternwith the highest type frequency. Basic framesfor Chintang, separated by valency2:

2The formalism employed in this talk for taking down is as follows:• verb V with core roles X, Y: {X Y V} (e.g. {S V}: monovalent verb)• roles X, Y associated with agreement marker groups 1, 2: VX,Y (e.g. A P VP,A: transitive verb with

A associated with person marker groups 2 and P with person marker 1)• role R marked by case C: RC (e.g. TNOM: T marked by nominative)• infinitival subclause with obligatorily covert role X: [(X) INF]• roles X and Y coreferential in a complex clause or across frames: X1, Y1 (e.g. A1 [(A1) P INF] V-A,P:

matrix A coreferential with embedded covert A; S1, A2 P1: intransitive S (potentially) coreferen-tial with transitive P)

• monovalent: {SNOM VS} (“intransitive”)ca. 99% of monovalent verbs/39% of all verbs

• bivalent: {AERG PNOM VA,P} (“monotransitive”)ca. 93% of bivalent verbs/46% of all verbs

• trivalent: {MERG3 TNOM GLOC VM,T} (“direct object ditransitive”, Bickel et al.

2010) - ca. 47% of trivalent verbs/16% of all verbs

Note that numbers in this area greatly depend on theoretical decisions. Forinstance, if one assumes S/P ambitransitives to be lexically transitive (for whichthere are good reasons - cf. Schikowski et al. 2010) that pushes the basic mono-valent frame down to about 20% of all verbs. If one defines ditransitives basedon language-internal criteria most trivalent verbs become bivalent, pushing thebasic bivalent frame up to about 69% of all verbs.

Examples:

Intransitive - hap- ‘cry’:

(1) Ama,mother

nunubaby

hap-no.cry-IND.NPST

‘Mum, the baby is crying.’ [CLDLCh3R01S02.293]

Monotransitive - ca- ‘eat’:

(2) Rame-ŋa=taRame-ERG=FOC

biskutcookie

c-o-hatt-e.eat-3O-COMPL.TR-IND.PST

‘Rame ate up the cookie.’ [CLLDCh1R07S02.876]

Direct object ditransitive - yuŋs- ‘put’:

(3) Sa-ŋawho-ERG

marcichilli

huŋ-go-iʔMED-NMLZ1-LOC2

yuŋs-o-ŋs-e?put-3O-PRF-IND.PST

‘Who has put the chilli there?’ [CLLDCh1R05S01.115]

Some other relevant frames:3M (“mover”) is used here for themost agent-like argument in trivalent frames also involving T and

G.

2

• {MERG TERG GNOM VM,G} (“primary object ditransitive”, Bickel et al. 2010)• {MERG TNOM GNOM VM,G} (“double object ditransitive”, Bickel et al. 2010)• {SGEN/NOM EMO4

S VEMO} (“intransitive experiential”)• {AERG PNOM EMOA V3s/A,P} (“transitive experiential”)

Examples:

Primary object ditransitive - dipt- ‘cover, wrap’:

(4) Yo-sa-ŋaDEM.ACROSS-OBL-ERG

biha-kowedding-GEN

kokrice

laphoʔa-ŋaleaf-ERG

dipt-o-ko.wrap-3O-IND.NPST

‘That guy iswrapping the rice for thewedding into leaves.’ [elicitation 2010]

Double object ditransitive - pid- ‘give’:

(5) Hani-bakhra-ce2pPOR-goat-ns

sa-ŋawho-ERG

ghasagrass

pid-u-c-e?give-3O-3nsO-IND.PST

‘Who gave grass to your goats?’ [CLLDCh1R07S03.068]

Intransitive experiential - rek kat- ‘get angry’:

(6) Ak-ko1s-GEN

naTOP

chitoquick

a-rek1sPOR-anger

kaʔ-no-kha.come.up-IND.NPST-BGR

‘As for me I get angry quickly.’ [warisama talk.523]

Transitive experiential - som tukt- ‘be in love with’:

(7) RameRam

hicci-baŋtwo-CLF

warisama-ce-ŋagirl-ns-ERG

hunci-som2dPOR-heart

u-tuk-c-o-ko.3S/A-make.ache-d-3O-IND.NPST

‘Two girls are in love with Ram.’ [elicitation 2010]

1.2.3 Differential marking

Chintang is rich in differential marking patterns:

4EMO (“emotion”) is used here for the noun coding an emotion that is obligatory in all experientialframes.

• split and fluid A/M case: ERG obligatory on 3A/M, optional on 2A/M, op-tional and extremely rare on 1A/M

• fluid destinations: LOC optional on destination of intransitive motion anddirect object ditransitive G

• split G/T agreement: double object ditransitives link agreement to T (in-stead of default G) when T is SAP and G is NSAP

• split and fluid A agreement: transitive experiential frame links A-AGR to Aor dummy 3s (second option only available with 3O)

• fluid matrix S-AGR: kond- ‘must’ as matrix verb optionally links embedded Oto S-AGR

• object fading: links the mono- and ditransitive frames to alternative frameswhere P/T/G looses its agreement link and A/M in turn gets marked by NOMand is linked to S-AGR. See Schikowski (2010) for details.

2 Infinitives with dependent framesDependent frame:

• := frame which does not provide the usual full set of information (roleset,agreement link and presence, case assignment)

• depends on a separate verb to fill in the missing information

• second verb is inflected infinitely (mostly -ma [INF]) and functionally embed-ded into the clause headed by the verb using the dependent frame

• can be tailored to a certain role set but can not have referents that are notalso assigned a role by the embedded frame

• dependent frame and embedded frame together form a complex frame;agreement is realised on the matrix verb, affiliation of arguments is indeter-minate

3

• in assembling a complex frame agreement and case specifications in the ma-trix frame overwrite specifications in the embedded frame

These characteristics indicate that this construction is an instance of nuclearsubordination in the terminology of Valin and LaPolla (1997)5.Frame formalism:

• dependent frame marked by a star to indicate that it requires an embeddedverb: {*}

• information to be copied from the embedded frame is left unspecified

• specified information will overwrite information from the embedded frame

Agreement information in a complex frame is usually realised on the matrixverb, the embedded verb being blocked for agreement by -ma [INF]. However, since-ma only blocks the slots after the verb stem, prefixes can (rarely) float aroundand be realised on the infinitive. This happens both with prefixes coding S/A (8)(regular lima ulapno) and P/T/G (9) (regular nateima laptiki):

(8) Hani-biu-ce2pPOR-seed-ns

ekone

chatatime

u-li-ma3S/A-be-INF

lap-no.be.about-IND.NPST

‘Your seeds are going to sprout at the same time.’ [CLLDCh2R03S04.0555](9) Hicce

twona-tei-ma3>2-beat-INF

lapt-i-kibe.about-2/3p-IND.NPST

pai.today

‘She’s going to beat both of you.’ [CLLDCh2R03S01.198]

Nevertheless combinations of infinitives andmatrix verbs using dependent framescannot be analysed as complex verb forms. This is shown by the facts that formscan intervene between infinitive and matrix that cannot occur inside word forms(10) and that the order of the clauses can be reversed (11).

5Thematrix verbwould have to be a non-predicational nucleus. Note, however, that there are caseswhere this is counterintuitive judging from the functional side. While it is easy to accept that verbssuch as lapt- ‘be about to’ should be mere modifiers this feels, for instance, rather strange in the caseof mund- ‘forget’. If the matrix verb is in some cases not a modifier but an independent predicate thenexus would have to be cosubordination since the scope of tense and mood (but not aspect) markersis over both predicates. So far I have not found a formal difference between these types of verbs.

(10) Teiʔ-pek-kocloth-LOC1-GEN

u-tukra3sPOR-piece

wapok-masoak-INF

kinaSEQ1

rɨk-mawrap-INF

kinaSEQ1

kon-no.must-IND.NPST

‘One must soak a piece of cloth and wrap it around (the pot).’[arkha hengma.42]

(11) Mai-hi-t-u-ŋ-heNEG-be.able-NEG-3O-1sA-PST

ok-ma.peel-INF

‘I couldn’t peel it.’ [CLLDCh1R08S05.0781]

2.1 Types of dependent framesThere are five known dependent frames:

• {*} (“complete copy”)• {*VS,3s} (“dummy O-AGR”)• {*SERG VS,3s} (“S to A”)• {*VP/T/G} (“P/T/G to S”)• {*V3s} (“dummy S-AGR”)

Examples:

Complete copy - hid- ‘be able to, finish doing’:

(12) a. Pecce=leʔlePecce=only

lɨk-mago.up-INF

hi-no.be.able-IND.NPST

‘Only Pecce can go up.’ [CLLDCh3R06S05. 720]b. U-ko-no-ko-ce

3S/A-roam-IND.NPST-NMLZ1-nssa-ŋawho-ERG

hɨŋ-mafeed-INF

hid-u-ku-cebe.able-3O-IND.NPST-3nsO

naŋ?but

‘But who can feed the ones wandering around?’ [RM JK talk01.073]

Dummy O-AGR - puŋs- ‘start to’:

(13) Abonow

ChentaŋChintang

naTOP

ajikalinowadays

om-mashine-INF

puŋs-att-o-ŋs-e=ta.start-COMPL.TR-3O-PRF-IND.PST=FOC

‘Chintang really has started to shine nowadays.’ [INT JYR.0171]

4

S to A - kond- ‘want to, try to’:

(14) Ep-mastand.up-INF

kond-o-kowant-3O-IND.NPST

niEMPH

ba-sa-ŋa.PROX-OBL-ERG

‘This one wants to stand up.’ [CLLDCh4R02S01.0413]

P/T/G to S - kond- ‘must, need, should’:

(15) a. Hana2s

pha-mahelp-INF

a-kon-no?2S/A-must-IND.NPST

‘Do you need to be helped?’ [elicitation 2010]b. U-mu=ta

DIST-DEM.DOWNpok-ma-tha-maleave-INF-go-INF

a-kond-e2S/A-must-IND.PST

phe!IRR

‘One should have left you down there!’ [CLDLCh3R01S04.019]c. Lauri-ŋa

stick-ERGtei-mabeat-INF

a-kon-no!2S/A-must-IND.NPST

‘One should beat you with a stick!’ [CLLDCh1R11S02.18]

Dummy S-AGR - lis- ‘have to, be forced to’:

(16) Hui MED

belatime

abonow

anaŋa1pe

phuŋ-maflee-INF

lis-ehave.to-IND.NPST

ekdamai.very

‘That time we really had to flee.’ [LH BBB.446]

2.2 Matrix verb classesA matrix verb class is a set of verbs taking the same dependent frames. Indepen-dent frames are ignored for the moment.

• copy matrix verbs: verbs which use only {*}.

◦ lapt- ‘be about to’◦ les- ‘like doing’ (only with transitive verbs)◦ mitt- ‘plan to, (would) like to’◦ nad- ‘refuse to’ (probably only with transitive verbs)◦ ŋis- ‘know to’

• transitive matrix verbs: {*VS,3s} with intransitive embedded frame6, {*}with transitive embedded frame.

◦ chitt- ‘find the time to’◦ let- ‘stop doing (for good)’◦ mund- ‘forget to’◦ pukt- ‘start to’◦ puŋs- ‘start to’◦ phind- ‘start to’◦ tok- ‘get to’

• idiosyncratic matrix verbs:

◦ hid- ‘be able to, finish doing’: {*} is default, but {*V3s} is also (rarely)used7.

◦ latt- ‘stop doing (for a while)’: {*SERG VS,3s} with intransitive embeddedverb and volitional action, {*} in all other cases.

◦ lis- ‘have to, be forced to, be time for sb to’: {*V3s} or (rare) {*} withintransitive embedded frame, {*V3s} or {*VP/T/G} with transitive em-bedded frame8.

◦ kond- ‘want to, try to, must, should, need’: {*SERG VS,3s} with intransi-tive embedded verb and volitional action, {*}with transitive embeddedverb and volitional action; {*V3s}with intransitive embedded verb andnon-volitional action, {*V3s} or (rare) {*VP/T/G}9 with transitive em-

6For let-,mund- and puŋs- {*SERG VS,3s} is also possible. Since the conditions for SERG are not knownyet and so far I have not tested whether the other verbs in this group license this frame, too, this willbe ignored for the moment for the purpose of classification.

7This happens when the embedded agent gets faded (cf. Schikowski et al. 2010 on agent fading inChintang). What is particularly interesting here is that the fadability of the embedded A is not de-termined by the semantics of the embedded verb but by those of hid-, which also frequently fades insimple sentences.

8The functional conditions for {*V3s} vs. {*} and {*V3s} vs. {*VP/T/G} are not known yet. Sincelis- is an intransitive verb in its use in simple sentences an alternative interpretation is possible: if lis-agrees with arguments which are assigned a role by the embedded verb it can only realise one. Thechoice is then between linking S/P/T/G or nothing.

9The functional conditions for P/T/G to S are not sufficiently clear yet. So far it seems like P/T/Gto S is used to express impersonal obligations where “one” has to do something or something has to bedone.

5

bedded verb and non-volitional action.

The great picture is that {*} is the default which is overridden by more specificframes to be used under specific conditions. There is only one verb (lis-) where{*V3s} rather then {*} is the default. The reason for this is that lis- is intransitiveand thus does not license {*} with transitive embedded frames.

2.3 Dependent frames and object fadingObject fading is a differential marking pattern linking the mono- and ditransitiveframes to alternative frames where

• A/M is invariably marked by NOM• P/T/G have no agreement link• A/M is linked to S-AGR.

Example:

(17) a. Menuwa-ŋacat-ERG

sencakmouse

khoŋs-o-ko.play.with-3O-IND.NPST

‘The cat plays with the mouse.’ [elicitation 2010]b. Menuwa

catsencakmouse

khoŋ-no.play.with-IND.NPST

‘The cat plays with mice.’ [elicitation 2010]

Object fading is conditioned by the quantitative boundedness of P/T/G (cf.Schikowski 2010). P/T/G which are defined by a verb embedded into a depen-dent framemay trigger object fading just like other P/T/G,with themorphosyntaxcharacteristic of such constructions:

(18) Complete copy - hid- ‘be able to, finish doing’:a. Yo-sa-ŋa

DEM.ACROSS-OBL-ERGmiminoodles

kheiʔ-mabuy-INF

hid-o-ko.be.able-3O-IND.NPST

‘That one can buy (a pack of) noodles.’ [elicitation 2010]b. Yo-go

DEM.ACROSS-NMLZ1miminoodles

kheiʔ-mabuy-INF

hi-no.be.able-IND.NPST

‘That one can buy noodles.’ [elicitation 2010]

(19) Dummy O-AGR - puŋs- ‘start to’:a. A-nne,

1sPOR-elder.sisterleiʔ-maplant-INF

a-puŋs-u-ms-u-m-kha?2S/A-start-3O-PRF-3O-1/2nsA-BGR

‘So you’ve started to plant (it), sister?’ [CLLDCh4R03S03.0853]b. Hun-ce

MED-nsphidaŋginger

leiʔ-maplant-INF

u-puŋs-a-s-e.3S/A-start-PST-PRF-IND.PST

‘They have started planting ginger.’ [elicitation 2010]

It is remarkable that embedded object fading is possible with transitive matrixverbs such as puŋs-. This means that the dummy O-AGR which is present on theseverbs with intransitive embedded verbs is not there because both agreement po-sitions have to be filled. The only difference between the intransitive frame usedby intransitive verbs and the faded frames used by transitive verbs is in valency:the intransitive frame ismonovalent, the faded frames are polyvalent (just as theirnon-faded equivalents). Thus the rule governing dummy O-AGR is that it has to bethere when there is no P/T/G. When there is a P/T/G O-AGR carries a functionalload: if the matrix verb was always transitive all sentences would look like theywere not faded (with consequences for the referential properties of P/T/G).

Object fading is not possible with kond- ‘want to, try to’. This is functionallymotivated: the faded frame would look just like one of the non-volitional frames({V3s}or {VP/T/G}). A/Mcould be interpreted as P/T/Gbecause of their agreementlink, and it would no longer be possible to distinguish between volitional and non-volitional meanings. These distinctions are apparently more important than thesubtle referential properties conveyed by object fading.

Note that object fading is (ifmarginally) possiblewith kond- ‘must, need, should’.{*V3s} blocks agreement, which is the most important indicator of object fading,but it leaves case unmodified:

(20) Hun-ceMED-ns

thittaone

them=yaŋwhat=also

kheiʔ-mabuy-INF

kon-nɨk-nɨŋ.must-IND.NPST-NEG

‘They don’t have to buy anything.’ [Durga job.161]

The possibility of embedded object fading shows that complex frames involvingdependent frames are assembled on a relatively late stage of production. Depen-dent frames do not select a fixed frame from the frame set associated with an em-

6

bedded verb in the lexicon but precisely the frame that would be realised if theembedded verb was independent.

2.4 lis- with adjectivesA special pattern is exhibited by lis- in connection with Nepali adjectives. The de-pendent frame is {*VA}:

(21) Abonow

kunai-ŋasome-ERG

huŋ-mapay-INF

garodifficult

u-li-no.3S/A-be-IND.NPST

‘Now some have difficulties paying.’ [Jan-Gen.0540](22) Moʔ-ni

DEM.DOWN-DIRlɨk-ma=yaŋspill-INF=also

sajiloeasy

lis-i.be-2/3p

‘We easily spill it.’ [CLLDCh3R09S08.0107a]

This resembles English “raising” constructions such as He’s easy to convince, thedifference being that it is not P but A that is “raised”. This construction is differentfrom the ones discussed above in that it requires an adjective. It is not the verbbut the adjective whichmodifies the embedded verb. The function of lis- is merelyto make a predicate out of the adjective.

2.5 Matrix verbs with full framesMost verbs defining dependent frames can also be used with full frames in simplesentences, sometimes with slightly different meanings. All these verbs are mono-transitive:

• chitt- ‘find the time to’ : ‘find, attend’• hid- ‘be able to, finish doing’ : ‘handle, cope with, finish’• kond- ‘want to, try to, must, should, need’ : ‘search for, want’• latt- ‘stop doing (for a while)’ : ‘stop, have had enough of; be enough for’• let- ‘stop doing (for good)’ : ‘stop, give up’• lis- ‘have to, be forced to, be time for sb to’ : ‘be, become, happen’• mitt- ‘plan to, (would) like to’ : ‘think, think of, think about’• mund- ‘forget to’ : ‘forget’

• nad- ‘refuse to’ : ‘refuse’• ŋis- ‘know to’ : ‘know, recognise’• pukt- ‘start to’ : ‘come over, befall, attack’• puŋs- ‘start to’ : ‘start (sth)’• tok- ‘get to’ : ‘get, have’

This means that in some cases one actually would not need dependent framesbut could assume that embedded verb and matrix verb provide identical indepen-dent frames which are superimposed in a complex sentence:

(23) Marcichilli

(ca-ma)(eat-INF)

hid-u-ku-ŋ-nɨŋ.be.able-3O-IND.NPST-1sA-NEG

‘I can’t (eat) chilli.’ [field notes 2010](24) Baithak

meeting(yuŋ-ma)(sit-INF)

mund-and-o-s-e.forget-CHANGE-3O-PRF-IND.PST

‘He forgot (to attend) the meeting.’ [elicitation 2010]

The possibility of superimposed frame does make it hard to separate raising andcontrol in Chintang (which is why I do not use the terms here).

Only three verbs use only dependent frames:

• lapt- ‘be about to’10• les- ‘like’• phind- ‘start to’

3 Infinitival complement clausesComplement clause:

• := clause functioning and behaving as an argument of a superordinate verb

• formal evidence:

◦ case10This is possibly related to lapt- ‘catch, hold’. Heine and Kuteva (2002:288) give examples of verbs

meaning ‘take, seize’ grammaticalising to future tense markers.

7

◦ agreement links◦ occupation of a functional slot that could also be occupied by a nominal

argument

• subclasses:

◦ complement clauses without functional arguments (3.1)◦ complement clauses with functional arguments (3.2)

Itmaybe questionablewhether a verbwithout arguments can still forma clause.The reasonwhy this use of the infinitive is includedhere is that because of frequentargument-dropping there often is no formal difference between the two uses sothe complete exclusion of argumentless infinitives would depend on very subjec-tive decisions. For instance, the sentences below look very similar; however, thefirst infinitive must be interpreted as having a zero P anaphor while the seconddoes not have any recognisable arguments.

(25) a. Miʔ-ma-ŋathink-INF-ERG

u-laiʔ-ya-ʔa-nɨŋ,3S/A-be.enough.for-1sS/O-NEG

them.what

‘I never get enough thinking of him.’ [Intro woman.19b. Jatti

however.muchmitt-u-mthink-3O-1/2nsA

kinaSEQ1

na=yaŋTOP=also

miʔ-ma-ŋathink-INF-ERG

mai-laʔ-nɨk-nɨŋ.1nsiP-be.enough.for-IND.NPST-NEG‘However much one thinks one never gets enough of thinking.’[Intro woman.41-42]

There is another reason why “without arguments” has to be understood cum granosalis: even if a verb looses its arguments the roles they occupied can sometimesstill be expressed - the difference is that they will no longer be linked to the verbby verbal but by nominal means. For instance, the G of hupt- ‘cover’ is markedby ABS if it is an argument of hupt- (26) but by GEN if hupt- has no arguments asunderstood here (27):

(26) a. huni-gagri3pPOR-vessel

hup-ma=taʔcover

‘cover their vessel’ [CLLDCh3R08S06.289]

b. yo-sa-koDEM.ACROSS-OBL-GEN

hup-macover-INF

‘its cover’ [CLLDCh4R04S03.662]

3.1 Without argumentsThis is the use of the infinitive which presents fewest formal complications. Theverb is stripped of all arguments and used itself as an argument of another verb.This type of infinitive is syntactically perfectly nominal:

• it is inflectable for possession and number (27)• it is inflectable for case (28)• it can form the head of a complex noun phrase (29)

Its referent is either P/T/G (with transitive verbs as in (27) and (29) or the eventitself (with intransitive verbs as in (28).

(27) U-ca-ma-ce3sPOR-eat-INF-ns

charastascattered

a-pokt-u-m-cu-m!2S/A-leave-3O-1/2nsA-3nsO-1/2nsA

‘You leave his food everywhere!’ [CLLDCh2R04S04.0494](28) Abo

nowsi-ma-be-kodie-INF-LOC1-GEN

raand

yuŋ-ma-iʔ-kostay-INF-LOC2-GEN

u-tuŋgo3sPOR

li-nɨk-nɨŋ.be-IND.NPST-NEG

‘Now there is no certainty about dying or staying.’ [Intro woman.43-44](29) Huŋ-go

MED-NMLZ1miʔ-mathink-INF

jahileyaŋalways

a-micinɨŋ-be=ta1sPOR-mind-LOC1=FOC

yuw-a-k-e=ta.be-PST-IPFV-IND.PST=FOC‘That thought was always on my mind.’ [LH BBB.113]

Combinations of verbs and the infinitive in this use tend to lexicalise. Here is a listof forms (including those cited above) where it is often hard to say whether theyare nouns or infinitives.

8

• cama ‘food’ (< ca- ‘eat’)• cekma ‘saying, statement’ (<

cekt- ‘say, speak’)• chuma ‘thread, rope’ (< chud-

‘tie’)• hupma ‘lid’ (< hupt- ‘cover’)• kiʔma ‘fear’ (< kitt- ‘fear’)• khasɨŋma ‘question’ (< kha-sɨŋs-

‘ask’)• khamma ‘bite, bit’ (< khamd-

‘bite, chew’)

• khoŋma ‘game’ (< khoŋs- ‘play’)• miʔma ‘opinion’ (< mitt- ‘think’)• mukma ‘echo’ (< muk- ‘be audi-

ble’)• phaiʔma ‘water pot’ (< phatt-

‘fill’)• phiʔma ‘fart’ (< phitt- ‘fart at’)• reiʔma ‘laughter’ (< rett- ‘laugh’)• sima ‘death’ (< si- ‘die’)• suma ‘laziness’ (< sus- ‘be lazy’)• waiʔma ‘dress’ (< wat- ‘wear’)

There are also a couple of nouns that look like they once were infinitives butwhere the verbal base is lost:

• chemma ‘shelf’• chupma ‘lid’• cupma ‘kiss’• himma ‘air, wind’• lamma ‘appetite’

• ramma ‘joy’• reʔma ‘cemetery’• sakma ‘breath’• tokma ‘walking stick’

3.2 With argumentsVerbs in the infinitive can function as arguments in a matrix clause and still keeptheir own arguments. S/A/M can be kept separate in some cases but is almostnever expressed overtly (single instance so far: (30c)). The nominal behaviour ismuch less pronounced in this use:

• case marking is possible• possession and number marking are impossible• unattested as head of complex NP11

(30) Subclause as S:11All these restrictions are functionallymotivated: a predicate having arguments is less easy tomod-

ify using nominals. Quantification would theoretically be possible in the case of iterative events, butthis is unattested.

a. Mi-khasmall-NMLZ2

cula=taoven=FOC

iʔ-no,be.bad-IND.NPST

aŋ.QTAG

‘The small oven is no good, is it.’ [CLLDCh4R11S09.107]b. Hani-maŋ

2pPOR-idolnop-matouch-INF

iʔ-no,be.bad-IND.PST

aŋ.QTAG

‘Your idol mustn’t be touched, right?’ [CLLDCh2R03S05.017]c. Utti

that.muchghari=yaŋSEQ2=also

huŋ-goMED-NMLZ1

akka1s

nop-matouch-INF

iss-a-kt-e.be.bad-PST-IPFV-IND.PST‘At that time I wasn’t allowed to touch him.’ [sadstory RM.103]

(31) Subclause as A:a. Asu

how.muchu-hott-att-e-h-e3S/A-exhaust-COMPL.TR-PST-1sS/O-IND.PST

hou!AFF

‘I’m really so tired!’ [CLLDCh2R04S04.0686]b. Dinbhori=yaŋ

the.whole.day=alsokhel-agame-NTVZ

num-ma-ŋado-INF-ERG

na-hot-nɨk-nɨŋ,3>2-exhaust-IND.NPST-NEG

aŋ.QTAG‘Even playing games the whole day doesn’t make you tired, huh.’[CLLDCh2R11S03.193]

(32) Subclause as T:a. Hani-bakhra-ce

2pPOR-goat-nssa-ŋawho-ERG

ghasagrass

pid-u-c-e?give-3O-3nsO-IND.PST

‘Who gave grass to your goats?’ [CLLDCh1R07S03.068]b. Kancha-go

youngest.son-NMLZ1naTOP

caklet-ŋa=lochocolate-ERG=SURP

cek-maspeak-INF

pid-o-ko-nɨŋgive-3O-IND.NPST-NEG

jastolike

ch-a.be-PRS.3s

‘It looks like the chocolate won’t let Kancha speak.’ [CLLDCh1R02S01.0196]

(33) Subclause in peripheral roles:a. Kok

riceca-ma-beʔeat-INF-LOC1

jhagadaquarrel

li-noʔ.be-IND.NPST

9

‘A quarrel arises while eating rice.’ [CLLDCh2R07S01.1045]b. U-suma

3sPOR-lazinesskaiʔ-ma-ŋacome.up-INF-ERG

etti=tathis.much=FOC

hekt-o-ŋs-e.cut-3O-PRF-IND.PST

‘Out of laziness he has cut (only) this much.’ [CLLDCh1R06S03.0310]c. Aya,

ohkhalampa-nɨŋcold-COM

ɨ-mɨk3sPOR-eye

tuk-ma-nɨŋache-INF-COM

hol-ad-a-ŋs-eʔ!mix-COMPL.ITR-PST-PRF-IND.PST‘My, his cold has mixed with his eye-aching!’ [CLLDCh1R07S02.361-362]

d. Kamjob

khol-eopen-V.NTVZ

numd-o-khado-3O-BGR

rachan,MIR

khimhouse

num-ma-yoŋtoŋ.make-INF-FIN

‘It turned out they had announced a job for building a house.’[tangkera 04.026-27]

Each role has its own characteristics:

• S is only attested with iʔs- and with mahaʔ ‘be not, be not good’12.

• A is only attested with hott- and latt- ‘be enough for’13. Probably P must becoreferential with the embedded clause’s S/A/M.

• P is not attested. Cases where functional structure would suggest P behavecompletely differently (see 2).

• T is attestedwith pid- ‘give’ (> ‘allow to’) and buk- ‘ask for’ (> ‘ask to, encourageto’). Both are double object ditransitives. G must be coreferential with theembedded clause’s S/A/M.

• -beʔ [LOC1] is the only of the numerous locative suffixes that is attested withinfinitives.

12Two other verbs, kond- and lis-, also take what looks like S complements. There are, however, twoimportant differences to iʔs- andmahaʔ: both have quite different semantics when usedwith infinitivesthanwhenusedwithnouns (kond-does not evenhavenominal S), and both allow formorphosyntacticalinteraction with the embedded clause. This is why they have been classified as verbs taking dependentframes below (see 2).

13One other verb which looks like it could qualify (yaŋs- ‘be useful for’) does not mark INF in theposition of A by ERG, so the infinitive has to be interpreted as free (see 4).

• -ŋa [ERG] (non-A) is the most frequent case on peripheral INF. It marks rea-sons (typically emotional and immediate).

• -nɨŋ [COM] is only attested once in the whole Chintang corpus.

• -yoŋtoŋ [FIN] and its variants require S/A/M of both closes to be coreferential.

Just like argumentless infinitives combinations of infinitives and P/T/Gmay be-come lexicalised. Most examples are names of religious rituals:

• cuwawaiʔma ‘thirst’ (< cuwa ‘water’ + wat- ‘apply’)

• chakhaŋnumma. A ritual where a child is presented at the temple of Jalpa Debito ask her to protect it (< cha ‘child’ + khaŋ-numd- ‘show’).

• dasakhokma. A ritual performed to avoid illness and misfortune (dasa ‘misfor-tune’ + khokt- ‘cut up’).

• khencomma. When someone falls down or gets frightened it is believed thathe drops his soul, which then has to be called back. This practice is calledkhencomma (< khei ‘soul’ + coms- ‘call back’).

• lampaŋma. A ritual performed at funerals where the soul of a dead person issent off to the afterworld (< lam ‘way’ + paŋs- ‘send’).

• lamtakma. A part of the marriage ritual that has the meaning of transferringthe bride from her parents’ custom to that of the groom’s family (< lam ‘way’+ takt- ‘receive’).

• maŋlakhaŋma. The most important subritual of the wadhaŋmi festival. It isrepeated at different sites on different days and features the sacrifice of acock whose death is examined as to its auspiciousness (< maŋla ‘auspice’ +khaŋ- ‘watch’).

• tetteima ‘washing beetle’ (< teiʔ ‘clothes’ + ten- ‘beat’)

• thurumsupma. A subritual of many other rituals where the participants ask adeity to forget all wrong things they might have said (< thurum ‘mouth’ + sup-‘clean’).

10

• weiʔnakma. A ritual that is performed once a year around March/April to askthe gods for rain. (< weiʔ ‘rain’ + nakt- ‘ask for’).

4 Free infinitivesInfinitives are called “free” here where they are neither an argument of a matrixclause nor linked to it via a dependent frame so it is less clear how they are em-bedded into their (functional) matrix.

4.1 Consecutive infinitivesThe infinitives in this group code events which

• are made possible by a matrix event• could or do follow it in time (typically immediately, but not necessarily so)• are not asserted14.

Most verbs which are attested with this kind of infinitives have some coreferen-tiality constraint, but none have a constraint on more than one referent15. Beloware some examples.

(34) lemd- ‘persuade, coax’, prob. P=S/A/M:a. A-phuwa-ŋa

1sPOR-elder.brother-ERGrommoŋtogether

khaiʔ-mago-INF

u-lemd-e-h-e.3S/A-persuade-PST-1sS/O-IND.PST‘My brother persuaded me to go with him.’ [elicitation 2010]

b. A-phuwa-ŋa1sPOR-elder.brother-ERG

sontoloŋ-ceorange-ns

khuiʔ-masteal-INF

u-lemd-e-h-e.3S/A-persuade-PST-1sS/O-IND.PST‘My brother persuaded me to steal the oranges.’ [elicitation 2010]

14In contrast to the sequentialiser kina, which is otherwise used in this function.15In contrast to some vector verb chains where all referents must be shared.

(35) kaŋs- ‘agree’, no constraint known:a. Goru

oxkɨi-mapull-INF

kaŋ-nɨk-nɨŋ.agree-IND.NPST-NEG

‘The ox doesn’t want to pull (the plough).’ [CLLDCh1R05S01.1035]b. Anɨŋ

howhani-wa-ce2pPOR-hen-ns

nop-matouch-INF

u-kaŋ-no!3S/A-agree-IND.NPST

‘How (nicely) your chicken let themselves be touched!’[CLLDCh1R04S01.488]

(36) kat- ‘come up’ (of emotions), prob. S=S/A/M:a. Hok-ma

pound-INFi-suma2sPOR-laziness

kat-nɨk-nɨŋ?come.up-IND.NPST-NEG

‘Don’t you get lazy to pound?’ [CLLDCh1R02S04.0027]b. Them

whatwaiʔ-mawear-INF

i-ramma2sPOR-joy

kad-e?come.up-IND.PST

‘What did you enjoy wearing?’ [warisama talk.509]

There is only one example with overt S/A/M:

(37) Ajjikalinowadays

akka1s

ci-mateach-INF

ekdamaivery

baddhetoo.much

u-lis-e.3S/A-become-IND.PST

‘Nowadays they have become way too much for me too teach them.’[Durga job.011]

Consecutive infinitives do not have to modify a verb but can also modify ref-erents as relative clauses. Their function changes only slightly in this use in thatthey code a potential of the referent (without fixing the role it occupies in the rel-ative clause). Infinitival relative clauses mostly take one of the two nominalisers-go and -kha, but in contrast to finite relative clauses thesemarkers are not strictlynecessary.

(38) a. Yuŋ-malive-INF

thaloplace

cahi SPEC.TOP

naTOP

garaŋ-beGrang-LOC1

yu-i-ŋ-e-he.live-1/2pS/P-e-PST-IND.PST

‘As for our living place we lived in Grang.’ [tangkera 03.082]b. Thi

beernum-ma-gomake-INF-NMLZ1

tarikamethod

thittaone

khal-a=takind-NTVZ=FOC

li-no.be-IND.NPST

‘Themethod formaking beer is always the same.’ [thi numma.06-07]

11

c. Naand.not

thittaone

cek-ma-khatell-INF-NMLZ2

kathastory

yuŋ-no.be.there-IND.NPST

‘There also is no story to tell.’ [Student life.184a]

4.2 The negative converbLike all infinite forms16 the infinitive is negatedbymai- [NEG]. Sometimesmai- addsnothing but negation to the function of the infinitive (cf. e.g. (52b)). However,mai--ma can code functions that the bare infinitive cannot code and which cannot beexplained by the mere presence of mai-:

(39) *(Mai-)cek-maNEG-speak-INF

yu-a-nasit-IMP-INSIST

naŋ!but

‘Just sit there (without) speaking!’ [CLDLCh3R01S04.137a]

Here, mai--ma codes an event that does not happen simultaneously to a matrixevent. As indicated by the star, a bare infinitive cannot code an event that doeshappen simultaneously (as in Sit there speaking! or, more naturally, Sit there andtalk!). Non-negated simultaneous events require the converb -saŋa (which can-not be negated17). This means there is a mismatch between formal and functionalstructure: formallymai--ma is a negated infinitive, functionally it is a negated con-verb corresponding to -saŋa.

mai--ma is different from both the bare infinitive (in most uses) and from -saŋain that it does not have any coreferentiality constraints:

(40) Akka1s

mai-ni-ma=taNEG-know-INF=FOC

samayatime

bit-epass-V.NTVZ

lis-ad-e.be-COMPL.ITR-IND.PST

‘Time went by without me noticing.’ [field notes 2010](41) Maŋ

worshipnum-ma=tado-INF=FOC

ma-hi-maNEG-finish-INF

maŋkokholy.rice

a-ca-no,2S/A-eat-IND.NPST

terima,your.mother

phatare!scapegrace

16except -ka [RECP]17Except in the lexicalised combination with hid- ‘be able’ meaning ‘be ill’.

‘You eat holy rice before the worship is finished, damn, you scapegrace!’[yupung puma.262]

4.3 Infinitives without matrixInfinitives are maximally “free” where they lack a matrix. The presence of in-finitives without matrix (IWM) can only in a few cases be explained by assumingdropped matrix verbs. The reason is that functionally the bulk of IWM is homoge-neous. If there were zero matrix verbs using dependent frames IWM would haveto assume many different functions (‘can’ with dropped hid-, ‘must’ with droppedkond- etc.) - but they do not. If IWM were really complement clauses they wouldhave to be case-marked, or they would have to occupy a role in the frame of amatrix verb - but in the majority of cases such a verb cannot be reconstructed.Their function is also different from consecutive infinitives and the negative con-verb. Thus, it is easiest to assume that IWM constitute an independent use of theinfinitive.

The most frequent function of IWM is to express what happens next as viewedfrom a reference point which is by default identical to speech time. In all instance Ihave found S/A/M is human and the realisation of the IWM event involves humanvolition (be it that of S/A/M or some other human being). Temporal succession istypically immediate.

(42) a. Gakkaŋ=leafter.a.moment=only

u-lito3sPOR-gruel

thuk-macook-INF

kiSEQ1

pi-ma.give-INF

‘In a minute I’ll cook her gruel and give it to her.’[CLDLCh2R02S02.239]

b. Aŋhow

meiʔ-ma,do-INF

niyamrule

mo-goCIT-NMLZ1

ba-khiʔ=taPROX-MOD=FOC

li-no.be-IND.NPST

‘What to do, the “rule” is like this.’ [CLDLCh3R01S03.390]c. To

DEM.UPdabiknife

kukt-aʔ,take.down-IMP

i-nari2sPOR-nose

miʔmuŋa.bit

hek-ma-ca-ma-khaŋ-ma!cut-INF-eat-INF-CON-INF‘Take down the knife from there, let me try and cut off and eat yournose!’ [Ctn talk02.054]

12

Besides this there is one other function which is much less frequent. Below are allexamples I have found so far.

(43) a. Khɨcɨŋass

khaŋwatch

meiʔ-ma,CAUS-INF

aŋ.QTAG

‘He shows his ass, huh.’ [CLDLCh3R05S03.032]b. Luŋghek-ŋa=lo

stone-ERG=SURPrɨi-mascrub-INF

roicha,MIR

aŋ.QTAG

‘He’s scrubbing it with a stone.’ [CLDLCh3R05S04.207]c. Asei

some.time.agolewaloam

leŋs-osmear-3O

kheʔŋasince

mai=ta-phek-maNEG=FOC-sweep-INF

raicha.MIR

‘It looks like there’s been no sweeping since she last smeared (thefloor with) loam.’ [CLLDCh1R03S01.0374]

What these examples have in common is that the event coded by the infinitivehappens instead of something else. In (43a) the boy showinghis backwas supposedto tell where it hurts. Pots should not be scrubbedwith stones, and the floor shouldbe swept every once in a while. This makes it possible to interpret these sentencesas equational constructions. Copulas are optional in such sentences in Chintang:

(44) U-nɨŋ3sPOR-name

themwhat

naŋ?but

‘But what’s his name?’ [CLLDCh3R14S02.601]

The theme (‘what is actually done’) is covert, the rheme is filled by the infinitivalclause. If this analysis is correct the examples in (43) are rather instances of infini-tival complement clauses than matrixless. Note, however, that so far I could notfind any examples of an infinitival clause filling the position of rheme.

5 General issues5.1 The infinitive with -ceThe infinitive is different from all other infinite forms in that it can take the per-son/number marker -ce [3nsO]. -ce indexes those embedded P/T/G that would belinked to O-AGR in a finite form. There is only one form which must take -ce, but

there are some which can take it and several which can not. What conditions -cein those cases where it is optional is not known yet.

-ce is most frequently encountered in constructions involving dependentframes. However, this is largely due to kond- ‘must, should, need’ which is bothhighly frequent and takes -ce by default. Apart from kond-, -ce is only attested withhid- ‘be able to, finish doing’ and latt- ‘stop doing’. All other matrix verbs - includ-ing kond- ‘want to, try to’! - are unattested with -ce. The only framewhich requires-ce seems to be {*VP/T/G}, which is mainly used with kond- ‘must, should, need’.

(45) a. Akka1s

ci-ma-ceteach-INF-3nsO

hid-u-ŋ-cu-ŋ-nɨŋ.be.able-3O-1sA-3nsO-1sA-NEG

‘I can’t teach them.’ [Durga job.051]b. Dhup-a=ta

incense.stick-NTVZ=FOCo-ma-chok-ma-cethrow-INF-HAND-INF-3nsO

latt-u-ku-ce-nɨŋ.stop-3O-IND.NPST-3nsO-NEG‘They don’t stop throwing incense sticks at them.’[CLDLCh3R01S03.612]

c. YoDEM.ACROSS

a-nne-ce1sPOR-sister-ns

tiyaraready

u-lis-eʔ3S/A-become-IND.PST

pi-ma-cegive-INF-3nsO

u-kon-noʔ.3S/A-must-IND.NPST‘That sisters over there are ready, it should be given to them.’[CLLDCh2R10S01.359]

-ce [3nsO] is very rare on complementising infinitives. Note that -ce [3nsO] isetymologically related to but synchronically functionally different from -ce [ns],which is quite normal on complementising infinitives without arguments. Hereare the two only examples of -ce on complementising infinitives with arguments Icould find.

(46) a. Abonow

cha-cechild-ns

jammaall

panirɨŋNepali

loiʔ-ma-ce-ŋaspeak.to-INF-ns-ERG

u-iss-ad-a-ŋs-e.3S/A-be.spoilt-COMPL.ITR-PST-PRF-IND.PST‘Now all the children have been spoilt because of being spokenNepali

13

to.’ [CLLDCh2R02S01.127]b. Huŋ-go-iʔ-ko

MED-NMLZ1-LOC2-GENbewa-ceinsect-ns

jammaall

thai-ma-ce-laŋti bring.down-INF-3nsO-FIN

cuʔnu-lokbe.good-SIM

seŋ-maclean-INF

kon-no.must-IND.NPST

‘In order to remove all the insects one has to clean (the nettles) well.’[choku yakkheng.20-21]

In the group of free infinitives, -ce is found on the negative converb and in the usewithout matrix but not on consecutive infinitives:

(47) Ba-iʔPROX-LOC2

u-lɨg-a-gond-e,3S/A-enter-PST-AMB-IND.PST

them=tawhat=FOC

ma-pi-ma-ce.NEG-give-INF-3nsO

‘They went around entering here and there without giving them any-thing.’ [CLLDCh4R07S05.1323]

(48) Akka1s

hum-ma-cebury-INF-3nsO

hou!AFF

‘I’m going to bury you two!’ [CLLDCh1R02S04.0218]

5.2 Operator sharingTMA information applying to a whole complex sentence involving an infinitivalsubclause is usually marked on the matrix verb. However, some aspectual suf-fixes can either attach to the embedded or to the matrix verb. These suffixes18are:

• -dhend [CHANGE]• -hat [COMPL.ITR] and -hatt [COMPL.TR]• -yakt [IPFV]

The consequence is that embedded clause and matrix may have independent(TM)A values:

18All suffixes which can do this are so-called vector verbs. Vector verbs are verbs with a grammati-calised function which are joined with other verbs to complex words. In Chintang all vector verbs arecompatible with the infinitive except -ŋs [PRF].

(49) -dhend [CHANGE]a. Hana-ko-sa-ŋa

2s-GEN-OBL-ERGkappe-koKalpana-GEN

kɨ-ma=taknock.over-INF=FOC

hid-and-o-ko,be.able-CHANGE-3O-IND.NPST

aŋ.QTAG

‘Yours can knock over Kalpana’s, huh.’ [CLLDCh2R13S01.706]b. Huŋ-go

MED-NMLZ1nakhuwasnot

tɨk-ma-dhei-mawipe-INF-CHANGE-INF

a-hid-o-ko-nɨŋ?2S/A-be.able-3O-IND.NPST-NEG‘Can’t you wipe away that snot?’ [CLLDCh2R11S09.579]

(50) -hatt [COMPL.TR]:a. Ti-ma=ta

put.in-INF=FOChid-att-u-m,be.able-COMPL.TR-3O-1/2nsA

aŋ.QTAG

‘We should be able to put it in, right?’ [CLLDCh2R13S02.0027]b. Ca-ma-haiʔ-ma

eat-INF-COMPL.TR-INFhid-o-ŋs-e.finish-3O-PRF-IND.PST

‘He has finished eating.’ [CLLDCh4R06S03.669]

(51) -yakt [IPFV]a. Pahila-ko

earlier.times-GENmaʔmi-ceperson-ns

badhimuch

kam-awork-NTVZ

num-mado-INF

kond-a-kt-e.must-PST-IPFV-IND.PST‘The people in earlier times had to work a lot.’ [appa katha talk.005]

b. Mifire

tup-ma-yak-mablow-INF-IPFV-INF

kon-noʔ.must-IND.NPST

‘The fire must be blown (continuously).’ [arkha hengma.50]

Negation is also free to move around, with corresponding differences in scope:

(52) a. Ba-iʔPROX-LOC2

naTOP

abonow

u-pok-na-loi 3S/A-get.up-LNK-out

gothalaherdsman

num-mado-INF

ma-koi-yokt-a-ŋs-e.NEG-must-NEG-PST-PRF-IND.PST

14

‘Here they don’t have to look after the herd right after getting up.’[Durga job.260]

b. Ba-goPROX-NMLZ1

mai-seiʔ-maNEG-kill-INF

kond-a-k-e=yaŋmust-PST-IPFV-IND.PST=also

pho.REP

‘It’s said this one shouldn’t have been killed.’ [INT JYR.0634](53) a. Yoʔ-ni

DEM.ACROSS-DIRhana2s

soŋ-ma=tamove-INF=FOC

iʔ-nobe.bad-IND.NPST

naŋ!but

‘You mustn’t move there!’ [CLLDCh4R06S01.1268]b. Ba-i

PROX-LOC2mai-ca-maNEG-eat-INF

iʔ-no.be.bad-IND.NPST

‘One has to eat here.’ [CLLDCh1R06S01.1672]

6 Putting it all together6.1 RecapitulationThe Chintang infinitive in -ma covers a great range of functions. Above its useshave been classified into three groups depending on the way the infinitive is em-bedded into a matrix:

• Infinitives with dependent frames: matrix does not provide a roleset andan incomplete frame; infinitive provides what is missing. Subtypes:

◦ Complete copy: {*}◦ Dummy O-AGR: {VS,3s}◦ S to A: {SERG VS,3s}◦ P/T/G to S: {VP/T/G}◦ Dummy S-AGR: {V3s}

• Infinitival complement clauses: infinitive is an argument of the matrixverb. Subtypes:

◦ Without (functional) arguments, close to noun◦ With (functional) arguments

• Free infinitives: not formally embedded into a matrix (though there mightbe formal constraints e.g. on coreferentiality). Subtypes:

◦ Consecutive infinitives◦ Negative converb◦ Infinitives without matrix

This classification is pragmatic in nature. As the discussionhas shown infinitivalsubclauses are not only different with respect to their mode of embedding but alsoseveral other factors. Here is a list:

• What is the function of the infinitive?

• Does the infinitive (functionally) have arguments of its own?

• Which of the infinitive’s arguments can be overt?

• Does the matrix define roles?

• Do infinitive and matrix necessarily share referents?

• Is the matrix frame dependent, and if yes, in which way does it modify theembedded frame?

• Does the subclause behave like an argument of the matrix?

• Can the subclause be dropped without a change in meaning?

• Does the infinitive take -ce [3nsO]?

Figure 2 shows an overview of the distribution of these factors. Values that areassumed to determine other values while being non-predictable themselves aremarked by more intense colours than others.

The most important factor on the formal side turns out to be referent shar-ing: if all referents are shared the matrix cannot have the infinitival referent asits argument (otherwise the infinitive would have to be its own argument). Withininfinitives not sharing all arguments those can be distinguished which are them-selves an argument from thosewhich are not. These two decisions set up the threemajor groups assumed in this talk (infinitives with dependent frames, infinitivalcomplement clauses, free infinitives).

15

macroclass embedded in dependent frameembedded in dependent frameembedded in dependent frameembedded in dependent frameembedded in dependent frame complementscomplements free clausesfree clausesfree clauses

function link to modifying matrixlink to modifying matrixlink to modifying matrixlink to modifying matrixlink to modifying matrix arg.arg. conseq. neg. cvb. next event

INF has functional arg. yesyesyesyesyes no yes yesyesyes

possibly overt arg. of INF all (but indistinguishable from matrix)all (but indistinguishable from matrix)all (but indistinguishable from matrix)all (but indistinguishable from matrix)all (but indistinguishable from matrix) - all1 all1 allall

matrix defines roles varyingvaryingvaryingvaryingvarying yesyes yesyes -

must share referents allallallallall - varying nonono

matrix frame {*} {*VS,3s} {*SERG VS,3s} {*V3s} {*VP/T/G} {...}{...} {...}{...} -

INF behaves as argument nonononono yesyes nonono

INF can be dropped varyingvaryingvaryingvaryingvarying yesyes yesyes no

INF takes -ce [3nsO] rarely no no mostly always no rarely no mostlymostly

1 but overt S/A/M extremely rare

Figure 2: Properties of infinitival subclauses

16

6.2 Reducing functional heterogeneityDespite the formal differences there are many links between the five main func-tions of the infinitive (link to modifying matrix, argument, consequence, negativeconverb, next event):

• Relations embedded as infinitives into a dependent frame can sometimes beinterpreted as immediate consequences of a matrix relations, e.g. ‘I forgot tomake coffee’ = ‘I forgot the coffee and so I didn’tmake any’. Evenwhere this isnot possible thematrix verb is almost always in some sense temporarily priorto the embedded verb. For instance, if one ‘can’ or ‘knows to’ do somethingone first aquires the ability and then does it. If one ‘wants to’ or ‘must’ dosomething one first feels a desire or urge and then does what they dictate.This establishes a functional link between infinitives with dependent framesand consecutive infinitives.

• The dependent frame construction is also linked to complement clauses. Theinfinitival subclause in the frame {*V3s} looks like the S of an independentintransitive frame. The subclauses in {*VS,3s} and even more in {*SERG VS,3s}look like the P of a transitive frame. Also note that P is (together with G) theonly core role that is unattested as occupied by a complement clause. Thereason why the subclauses in these constructions have not been classified ascomplement clauses so far is that they could not be replaced by a noun (not atall in the case of {*VS,3s} and {*SERG VS,3s}, not without changing the seman-tics of the verb in the case of {V3s}). Apart from the looks all matrix verbswhich can also be used with the independent monotransitive frame function-ally have a very similar relationship to the embedded clause as they have totheir P in simple clauses.

• Some complement clauses functionally are consequences of the matrix. Thisis particularly obvious with pid- ‘allow to’, which is functionally very similarto lemd- ‘convince to’, kaŋs- ‘agree to’ and similar verbs taking free infinitivesbut has been classified as a verb taking complement clauses here because theinfinitival subclause occupies a role (T) that can also be occupied by nouns.

• The negative converb codes events which do not happen simultaneously to amatrix event. Alternatively one could say that the events coded by the neg-

ative converb could but have not happened at reference time. This again re-veals a functional link to consecutive infinitives. In fact the majority of at-tested negative converb events would have happened after the matrix event,which makes this link even stronger.

• Finally themost evident link is between consecutive infinitives and infinitiveswithout matrix. The main difference here is that infinitives without matrixare asserted. Besides, the elements of volitionality and immediate successionthat are present in all infinitives without matrix are frequent but apparentlynot obligatory with consecutive infinitives.

These links can be visualised as follows:

consequence(free INF)

argument(INF as complement clause)

negative converb(free INF)

next action(free INF)

link to modifying matrix(INF in dependent frame)

Figure 3: Functional links between infinitival constructions

The function that has most links to other functions is consequence. This func-tion is easiest to notice in consecutive infinitives because this subgroup does nothave any other remarkable formal or functional features. It is, however, presentin all infinitival constructions, sometimes marginally, sometimes typically. One

17

could take this to mean that the infinitive has the following functional character-istics19:

• the infinitival predicate is not asserted• the infinitival predicate is a potential• the infinitival predicate has a precondition in the matrix predicate

This list provides both a hypothesis on what the main factors conditioning theuse of the infinitive are and onwhat historicallymight have been the only functionof the infinitive (if one assumes the infinitive once had only one function whichwas gradually metaphorically extended).

6.3 Reducing formal heterogeneityThere are two main areas in which infinitival constructions are formally diverse:

• coreferentiality constraints: not characteristic of infinitives but of all sub-ordinating constructions in Chintang > out of the scope of this talk

• framing: only used in one other much less frequent construction (-saŋanumd- [CVB do])

Two of the most important behavioral differences in framing can be predictedfrom simpler features: agreement with embedded arguments and dummy 3sO-AGR with intransitive embedded frames.

For agreement with embedded arguments the following conditions have to befulfilled:

• Thematrix verb has to be transitive. Intransitive verbs taking infinitives suchas iʔs- ‘be bad’ or chond- ‘refuse’ cannot agree with embedded arguments (ex-cept where the referent is identical, anyway, as in khaiʔ-ma a-chon-no [go-INF2S/A-refuse-IND.NPST] ‘you refuse to Ø2s go’).

19Interestingly these characteristics point into a very similar direction as what Egan (2008:86) citesas characteristics of the English infinitive, which functionally overlap a great deal with the Chintanginfinitive. The long history of linguists strugglingwith the function of the English infinitive also shows,however, that the functional cluster given here can only be taken as a preliminary approximation.

• If the matrix verb is not intransitive there are two possibilities:

◦ If the matrix frame is dependent it must be filled with information fromthe embedded clause - otherwise the behaviour of the matrix would beleft unspecified. This will result in taking over whatever informationthere is, including agreement.

◦ If the matrix frame is independently monotransitive or if it is not fullyclear what it is (as is often the case with verbs such as hid- ‘be able to,finish (doing)’ or mitt- ‘think of, think about (doing)’) the matrix willagree with embedded arguments as soon as embedded S is coreferentialto its ownA/Mor embedded A/M and P/T/G are coreferential to its ownA/M and P/T/G, respectively. Whether embedded S is linked to S-AGRor to A-AGRwith dummy O-AGR is decided by the additional rule below.

• The choice between {*} and {*VS,3s} with embedded intransitive frames canbe predicted from the aktionsart20 of the matrix verb. If the matrix verb ispunctual {*VS,3s} will be used, if not, {*}. Confer the verbs listed under 2.2.

With a few additional (plausible) assumptions the rules for predicting framingcan be simplified even further and better motivated in functional terms:

• First, the concept of potentially transitive dependent framesneeds to bemod-ified as follows:

◦ Only those frames are truly dependent which cannot be used withoutan infinitive.

◦ All potentially transitive frames - dependent or not - define A/M andP/T/G. The P/T/G of dependent frames in the new sense are only differ-ent from independent P/T/G in that they are regularly defined doubly.For instance, les- ‘like’ is only used with infinitives; in khaŋma les- ‘liketo see’ there is one referent which is both the P of les- and of khaŋ-.

◦ When the embedded verb is intransitive the embedded event itself canfunction as P. The reason why only intransitive embedded clauses canfill P is that more nominal referents will inevitably be more prototypi-cal patients (in the sense of Dowty 1991) and will thus always win overtransitive embedded clause in the competition for P-ness.

20In the sense of Valin and LaPolla (1997).

18

• Under these assumptions the rule for agreement with embedded argumentsbecomes much easier: the matrix verb will simply agree with its own argu-ments (which are co-framed by the embedded verb).

• O-AGR will go with whatever is most P-like, be it an embedded P/T/G or anintransitive event. 3sO-AGR in {*VS,3s} is then no longer a dummy but linkedto an intransitive event.

• What remains to be explained is {*}with embedded intransitive verbs - howcan the intransitive frame be “copied” if the matrix is monotransitive? Herethe aktionsart of the matrix verb comes into play:

◦ The rule is that {*VS,3s} is used with punctual matrix verbs.◦ Punctuality is functionally akin to the positive value of the referential

variable triggering object fading (quantitative boundedness). A punc-tual event has clear temporal boundaries, a non-punctual event doesnot.

◦ This makes it possible to simply interpret “{*}” with intransitive em-bedded verbs as object fading, the object being the embedded event.21

This new explanation has several advantages:

• It fills the P gap found with complement clauses.

• Cases where so far it was not clear whether an embedded P/T/G was framedby the embedded or by the matrix verb do no longer have to be treated asexceptions.

21Note, however, that this kind of object fading is special in that it does not influence the markingof A. The ultimate reason for this might be that volitionality plays a role with intransitive embeddedclauses. Volitionality overrides object fading with kond- ‘want to, try to’, which as a matrix verb musthave O-AGR even if the referential properties of the shared P/T/G would require fading. It might thuswell be that volitionality expressed as differential casemarking of A (i.e. S in {*VS,3s} and {*SERG VS,3s}in the old interpretation) also overrides the case marking required by object fading. Volitionality isrelatively sure to be the factor conditioning Amarking in “{*SERG VS,3s}”. For “{*VS,3s}” the only clearexamples with an overt S obtained so far are non-volitional, but as has beenmentioned above there arealso examples with varying AERG where it is not clear whether the action is volitional or not. Ultimatelythedistinctionbetween{*VS,3s} and{*SERG VS,3s}might turnout to beunnecessary, volitionality beinga frame-external factor. More research is needed, though.

• There also is no need to assume that some verbs can be used with or withoutroles and that a matrix can only agree with embedded arguments if its agree-ment positions are not already linked to its own independent arguments.

• The agreement patterns of matrix verbs can be explained more easily andbased on general principles which are also at work elsewhere in the language(P selection, object fading).

• The distinction between the twomajor types ofmatrix verbs using dependentframes (copy matrix verbs and transitive matrix verbs) becomes motivated.

• Dependent frames are now only needed in a few cases, namely withkond- ‘must, need, should’ and lis- (frames {*V3s} and {*VP/T/G}) and(if volitionality-conditioned A marking does not turn out to be a morewidespread phenomenon) with kond- ‘want to, try to’ and latt- (frame {*SERGVS,3s}).

There are also a few disadvantages:• For some matrix verbs it seems to be somewhat ad hoc to postulate that they

assign A and P. The worst example here is lapt- ‘be about to’. However, va-lency is often language-specific, anyway - for instance there is no transitiveequivalent to Chintang yaŋs- ‘be useful for’.

• Generally it is unusual to have “modal” verbs such as ‘can’ and ‘want’ define Pin infinitival constructions - the default would rather be to assume that theytake another semantically more specific verb as their argument and that P“raises” from the embedded clause. However, verbs which can be used bothwith andwithout infinitives without changing their semantics present a goodargument against assuming this default in Chintang. Besides, infinitival sub-clauses are indeed always candidates for P but only become P if there are nonominal competitors.

Lo, lo, abo mande raicha katha.

19

ReferencesBickel, Balthasar. 2008. Aspects of Kiranti syntax: grammatical relations. Paper

presented at the Central Department of Linguistics Tribhuvan University, Kir-tipur, August 14, 2008.

Bickel, Balthasar, Manoj Rai, Netra Paudyal, Goma Banjade, Toya Bhatta, Mar-tin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Ichchha Rai, Novel Kishor Rai, and Sabine Stoll.2010. The syntax of three-argument verbs in chintang and belhare (southeast-ern kiranti). In Studies in ditransitive constructions, ed. Andrej Malchukov, MartinHaspelmath, and Bernard Comrie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language67:547--619.

Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite complementation. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

Heine, Bernd, and Tanja Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kirby, Susannah, William Davies, and Stanley Dubinsky. 2010. Up to d[eb]ate onraising and control. Language and Linguistics Compass 6:390--416.

Schikowski, Robert. 2010. Factors conditioning object fading in chintang. In Ref-erential hierarchy effects on the morphosyntax of verbal arguments. Leipzig.

Schikowski, Robert, Netra Paudyal, and Balthasar Bickel. 2010. Fluid transitivityin chintang. In Workshop on Valency Classes. Leipzig.

Valin, Robert Van, and Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abbreviations1 1st person2 2nd person3 3rd personA agentAGR agreementAFF affirmativeBGR backgroundCHANGE (typically irrevers.) changeCIT citationCLF numeral classifierCOM comitativeCOMPL completiveCON conatived dualDEM demonstrativeDIR directionalDIST distalEMPH emphaticERG ergativeFIN final caseFOC focusG ditransitive goalGEN genitivei inclusiveIMP imperativeIND indicativeINF infinitiveINSIST insistiveIPFV imperfectiveIRR irrealisITR intransitiveLNK linkerLOC1 locative 1 (-beʔ)LOC2 locative 2 (-iʔ)

M ditransitive agent (“mover”)MED medial (distance)MIR mirativeMOD modal adverbNEG negationNMLZ1 nominaliser 1 (-go)NMLZ2 nominaliser 2 (-kha)NOM nominativeNTVZ nativiserNPST non-pastns non-singularO object (= P/T/G)OBL oblique casep pluralPOR possessorPRF perfectPROX proximalPST pastP patientQTAG question tagRECP reciprocalREP reportatives singularS intransitive subjectSEQ1 sequentialiser 1 (kina)SEQ2 sequentialiser 2 (gari)SPEC.TOP specific topicSURP surpriseT ditransitive themeTOP topicTR transitiveV verb

20