Inclusive in Archi Michael Daniel Moscow State University International Morphology Meeting XIII Workshop on linguistic change and variation in the languages of the Caucasus Vienna, Feb 5 to 6, 2008

Inclusives in Nakh-Daghestanian [branch][inclusive] Nakhyes Avaryes Andicyes Tsezicno Dargwayes Lakno Lezgic “northern”yes Lezgic “southern”no Khinalugyes

Examples from languages [language][‘we’ (excl)][inclusive] Chechentxovaj Avarniž(e)ni ʟ (e) Andiiš:i(l)i ʟ i(l) AgulčinXin Dargwanis:anuš:a Khinalugjin, širkin, kir Archinennent’u

Preliminaries about Archi: (ess)latelall in -a-ak-aš-aši inter -qI-qIak-qIaš-qIaši sup -t(:i)-t:ik-t:iš-t:iši cont -rak-raš-raši sub -L’-L’ak-L’aš-L’aši humloc -(m)ma-(m)mak-(m)maš-(m)maši *Terminative -kəna is never used in the corpus of about 2,000 sentences. *Translative is used on nouns only three times.

Preliminaries about Archi: SgPl 1 (masc)w- -w b- -bHPL 2 (fem)d- -r 3b- -b Ø - -t (-t’u) NPL 4 Ø - -t (-t’u) ‘we’ (both), ‘you.pl’

Paradigmatics of ‘we’: exclinclexcl reflincl refl nom/erg nennen-CL.P1 perspl nen-CL.P1-CL.P2 dat CL-elCL-el-CL.P1CL-el-CL.P1-CL.P2 gen CL-olola-CL.P1 CL-olo-CL.P2la-CL.P1-CL.P2 humloc CL we -olo- CASE la-CL we.P1-CASECL we -olo-CASE- CL.P2 la-CL we.P1-CASE- CL.P2 periph and loc la-CASEla-CASE-CL.P2

Paradigmatics of ‘we’: NOM=ERG and DAT: Inclusive is derived by adding P1 (inclusive and ‘we’ (exclusive) reflexives are identical) PERIPHERAL case and SPATIALS: Inclusive = Inclusive reflexive = ‘we’ (exclusive) reflexive (derived by adding P2) GEN and HUMLOC: Inclusive uses oblique (peripheral and locative) stem (instead of genitive stem) + P1

On the inclusivizers: P1 -(a)wu, -(a)ru, -(a)bu, (a)t’u P2 -ij u, -ij u, -ij u, -ij u with numerals in NUM N constructions with some lexical quantifiers (‘entirely’, ‘every’, ‘how much’) reflexive (with logophors)reflexive (with ‘we’ in obliques) “switch reference”identificational (‘the same’) emphatic negation

The origins Transparent morphology Not like any other inlusive in the rest of Nakh-Daghestanian Innovation? Recent?

Origins of the category Archi people:  Consider themselves to be Avars  Politically are considered Avars by the authorities  Learn Avar as their mothertongue at school  Most adults are fluent in Avar  Avar has inclusives (ni ʟ (e) ‘incl’ vs. niž(e) ‘we’ (excl)) Might have been functional borrowing!(?)

Origins of the category On the other hand, latest sociolinguistic research argues for relatively recent intensification of Archi-Avar contacts (after the 20-ies - 30-ies). Before that, Archis were much more under Lak influence (politically part of the Lak Kazikumuk ‘khanstvo’, older people bilingual in Lak more than Avar…) And Lak has no inclusive! By the time of Mikhailov’s and Kibrik group’s research (late 60-s), inclusive seems to be a well-formed category consistently used in the texts.

Laks and Avars Babu, ~1925 – Lak “from the air” > literary Avar ( at school) > Russian Saidpati, ~1916 – Lak “from the air” > literary Avar ( at school) > Russian (her father new Lak and Avar from the air, but her grand father only knew Lak) Пасихат, Ваши деды-бабки знали аварский язык? - Знали, я не знаю, как они знали, но знали. Лакский больше знали, конечно. Редкие-редкие знали аварский язык. Но знали тоже плохо, конечно. Моей маме ровесницы все знали (по-аварски). Потому что школа была тогда. В школу ходили они. - А вот до них? – Нет, до них больше лакский знали. Pasihat, 1946 – Did you grand fathers and grand mothers know Lak? – They did, I don’t know how well, but they did. They knew Lak better, of course. Few, really few knew Avar. But they did not know it well, of course. Women born around the same time as my mother was, all knew Avar. Because there was school teaching. They went to school. – And what about before their time? – No, before their time people used to know Lak more… Dobrushina 2006 on the ethnic psychological correlations and dynamics of Archi multilingualism

Early sources… The are three relatively early sources on Archi: Uslar’s letter to Schiffner (1894) – not checked Erckert Die Sprachen des Kaukasischen Sinne (betweem Uslar and Dirr) – does not help. Dirr’s Archi Language (1908)

Checking sources: Dirr osqwewuwelawuqumaqabasxirwa»boli – osqI’ w е-wuw-el-awukumakabasχir+w-a»boli – onetwo1-we.DAT-1.P1help do-INFbring+1-do(IMP)say.PF-EVID She said, bring some of them to help us (Dirr) She said, bring a couple of men to help us. Nothing is said about Archi having inclusive category but, fortunately, note on page 29: “welawu, delaru, belabu, elt’u are sometimes used instead of wel, del, bel, el, but I can not comment on the difference between them. Cf.: belabuxazinadazebxu b-el-abuχazinadāz+ e ‹b› χ ̄ u onetwo1-we.DAT-1.P1 ‹3› stay.PF Нам казна досталась. We got a military treasury.

Checking sources: Dirr jammit:išwelawuontuewt:a:t’u ja-m-mi-t:i-šw-el-awuoInt-ue t:-a:-t’u this-OBL-SUP-EL1-we.dat-1.P1head(NOM)-and become.PF-POT.NEG-NEG (Mice gathered and talked between them, sating: Our chief mouse’s force was in that money. Now there is no money anymore.) For this reason he (the ex-chief mouse) will not be able to be a boss for us. lat’ujatbaran ɬ wannat:utkoki la-t’uja-tbaran ɬ : w anna-t:u-t?i we.OBL-4.P1 (GEN,INCL) this-4(NOM)assimilar-ATR-4?(NOM)4.be (After seeing a magic dish in a poor man’s house, the king told his vezier:) We have a dish that looks like that one.

Contact hypothesis dismissed? Dirr writes that Archi have widespread knowledge of both Lak and Avar. Erckert suggests strong Avar influence; Dirr even calls Archi a mixed language. Functional borrowing from Avar excluded?

Summary of the discussion  Archi has an innovative inclusive structurally unparallelled in any other Nakh-Daghestanian language  The inclusive seems to be a recent development and might be a functional borrowing from Avar  Some research suggest, however, that massive Archi-Avar bilingualism exists after the 20-ies only  Inclusive is documented in Dirr’s texts from the turn of the century  Dirr and Erckert think they observe strong Archi-Avar bilingualism and traces of Avar influence already at that time.  The result is that we are still where we were at the beginning…