Cover not available
Article published In:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 444–458
Regular Article

Truth, person, and personal truth

Kuke copulas, a construction caught between descriptive systems

ORCID logo | Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages
| Tribhuvan University
In this paper we present data on the copula system of Kuke, a language of the lower Nubri valley, in northern Nepal. We present data showing that the system of copulas cannot easily be categorised in terms of the different descriptive categories that are frequently used in discussion of languages of the Himalayan region (evidentiality, egophoricity, conjunct/disjunct). Further, the different contrasts encoded in the morphologically simple copula system shows a range of semantics (loosely associated with first person interpretations) that has rarely been described as occurring in one system.
Keywords: Kuke, Nubri, Nepal, Himalayas, evidentiality, egophoricity, mirativity, copula, personal
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background, 1: Kuke
  • 3.Background, 2: Categories and labels
  • 4.Kuke and the essentials of the system of copulas
  • 5.Extended uses of copulas
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17027.don
References (28)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. Verb agreement and epistemic marking: a typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, Paul Widmer & P. Schwieger (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kadbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 1–14. Halle/Saale: International Institute for Tibetana nd Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna, Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd ed., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botne, Robert. 1995. The Pronominal Origin of an Evidential. Diachronica 121. 201–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Language documentation and verb inflection typology: The case of Northern Akhvakh (Nakh-Daghestanian). Handout presented at Chronos 9, Paris, 2–4 September 2008.
Curnow, Timothy J. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40(3). 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 203–213. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1992. The historical status of the conjunct-disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 251. 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren. 2014. Evidentiality in Lamjung Yolmo. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 71. 76–114.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In R. L. Trail (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian linguistics 71, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2005. Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar. Himalayan Linguistics 51. 1–48.Google Scholar
Hari, Anna Mari. 2010. Yohlmo grammar sketch. Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Silke. 1989. Erzälungen und Dialekt von Diṅri. Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Huber, Brigitte. 2000. Preliminary report on the evidential categories in Lende Tibetan (Kyirong). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 231. 153–174.Google Scholar
. 2005. The Tibetan dialect of Lende (Kyirong). Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy & Chenglong, Huang. 2003. A grammar of Qiang. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, Tom. 2014. Grammatical relations in Tamang, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 231. 13–37.Google Scholar
Schöttelndreyer, Burkhard. 1980. Person markers in Sherpa. In R. E. Trail (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 71, 125–130. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics A-53.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 2008. Arguments against the concept of ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In B. Huber, M. Volkart & P. Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek, Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier, 281–308. Saale: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas & Sangda, Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: language and civilization. Boulder, CO: Snow Lion.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel. 2015. The transformation of verb agreement into epistemic marking: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective, 53–74. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. 2017. Copulas in Denjongke or Sikkimese Bhutian. In Nathan W. Hill & Lauren Gawne (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 302, 297–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar