Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:1 (2019) ► pp.195–230
News from the field

General converbs in Andi

ORCID logo | Linguistic Convergence Laboratory NRU HSE Moscow
This paper describes the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of general converb constructions in Andi, a language of the Avar-Andic group of the East Caucasian language family. There are two general converbs in Andi, both of which are homophonous with a finite verb form (the aorist and the perfect, respectively). There is a considerable functional overlap between the two converbs. Both can be used to render the first stage of a complex event. The perfect / converb can also specify manner. An additive particle lo often accompanies the perfect as converb, while a specialised particle lodːu appears with the aorist as converb. The situation in Andi is unusual, because the two converbs are functionally very similar and not opposed in terms of aspect. In addition, Andi seems to be the only East Caucasian language where a specialised particle (i.e. lodːu) is found in this type of converbal clauses.
Keywords: general converb, additive, Andi, East Caucasian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Andi
    • 2.1Andi verbal morphology
      • 2.1.1Periphrastic and nonfinite forms
      • 2.1.2The perfect / general converb
  • 3.Perfect / General converb 1 (pst -dːu)
    • 3.1Resultative
    • 3.2Evidentiality
    • 3.3Preceding event
    • 3.4Cause
    • 3.5Manner and simultaneity
    • 3.6Clause chaining
  • 4.Aorist / General converb 2 (pst -ø)
    • 4.1Preceding event
    • 4.2Instrumental
    • 4.3Clause chaining
  • 5.The particles lodːu and lo
    • 5.1The aorist converb and lodːu
    • 5.2The perfect converb and lo
      • 5.2.1The additive lo and its functions in Andi
      • 5.2.2The additive in converbal clauses
    • 5.3The particles lo and lodu in Zilo
    • 5.4The function of particles in converbal clauses
    • 5.5The lo construction vs. the lodːu construction
  • 6.Conclusion
    • 6.1Semantics
    • 6.2Particles
    • 6.3General converbs in Andi and East Caucasian
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18026.ver
References (41)
References
Alisultanova, Mesedu A. (transl.) & Patimat A. Magomedova (ed.). 2010. Dunjalla baχunnirsːi χalɢilƛol ɢʷanab mits’ːillasːol muχal [World fairy tales in Andi]. Makhachkala: Nural iršad.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2018. Aorist, resultative and perfect in Shiri Dargwa and beyond. In Diana Forker & Timur Maisak (eds.), The semantics of verbal categories in Nakh-Daghestanian languages, 80–119. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Helma van den. 2004. Coordinating constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 197–226. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cercvadze, Ilja I. 1965. Andijskij jazyk (Rezjume) [The Andi language (Summary) (in Russian)]. In Ilja Cercvadze, 4Andiuri ena [The Andi language (in Georgian)], 311–392. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker & Zaira Khalilova. 2012. Adverbial clauses in the Tsezic languages. In Volker Gast & Holger Diessel (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective, 157–190. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2009. Participles and finiteness: the case of Akhvakh. Linguistic Discovery 7.1. 106–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. External agreement in the converbal construction of Northern Akhvakh. In Volker Gast & Holger Diessel (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective, 127–156. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern. STUF – Language typology and Universals 61(4). 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirr, Adolf M. 1906. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk andijskago jazyka [A grammar sketch of Andi] Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i plemën Kavkaza [Collection of materials for the description of places and tribes of the Caucasus]. Tbilisi: Upravlenie Kavkazskago Učebnago Okruga.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Arienne. 2000. Direct and indirect experience in Salar. In Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 45–59. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eulenberg, Alexander, Konstantin Kazenin, A. Solovjeva & Sergej Tatevosov. 1996. Adjunct clauses. In Alexandr E. Kibrik, Sergej G. Tatevosov & Alexander Eulenberg (eds.), Godoberi, 197–209. München / Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 1801. 69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana & Oleg Belyaev. 2016. Word order and focus particles in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 239–262. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995a. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–56. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1995b. Contextual and specialized converbs in Lezgian. Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 415–440. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina Sumbatova. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations, 183–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena Ju. & Svetlana Ju. Toldova. 1999. Atributivizacija [Attributivization]. In Alexandr E. Kibrik & Jakov G. Testelets (eds.), Élementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osvečšenii [Elements of Tsakhur in a typological perspective], 377–419. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. Deepričastnye konstrukcii [Gerundial constructions]. Alexandr E. Kibrik, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Jekaterina A. Ljutikova & Sergej G. Tatevosov (eds.), Bagvalinskij jazyk. Grammatika. Teksty. Slovari [The Bagvalal language. Grammar. Texts. Dictionary], 554–594. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. & Yakov G. Testelets. 2004. Where coordination meets subordination: Converb constructions in Tsakhur (Daghestanian). In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 227–240. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira A. 2011. Evidentiality in Tsezic languages. Linguistic Discovery 9(2). 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Alexandr E. & Sandro V. Kodzasov. 1990. Sopostavitel’noe izučenie Dagestanskix jazykov. Imja. Fonetika [Comparative study of Daghestanian languages. Nouns. Phonetics]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrei A. 1985. Absentiv-Aorist un Resultativ in der andischen Sprache. In Heinz Fähnrich (ed.), Sprachen Europas und Asiens, 55–66. Jena: Friedrich Schiller Universität.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1995. The meaning of converb constructions. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 57–96. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 365–384. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. To appear. Structural and functional variations of the perfect in the Lezgic languages. In Kristin Melum Eide & Marc Fryd (eds.), The perfect volume. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2018. The aorist/perfect distinction in Nizh Udi. In Diana Forker & Timur Maisak (eds.), The semantics of verbal categories in Nakh-Daghestanian languages, 120–165. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak, Timur A. 2016. Glagol’naja sistema rikvaninskogo govora andijskogo jazyka: formoobrazovanie [The verbal system of the Rikvani dialect of Andi: conjugation]. Andi working seminar. Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow. October 2016. (Handout)Google Scholar
2017. Éndoklitiki vnutri glagola: teper’ i v andijskom [Endoclitics inside the verb: now also in Andi]. Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov [Typology of morphosyntactic parameters]. Insititute of Contemporary Linguistic Research (MPGU) / Institute of Linguistics RAS. Moscow. 25–27.10.2017. (Handout)Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina. 2010. Tense, aspect and mood in Chechen. Leipzig: University of Leipzig dissertation.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. Some typological parameters of converbs. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 97–136. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna & David A. Peterson. 2010. Contact-induced spread of the rare Type 5 clitic. LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore. 07.01.2010. (Extended abstract) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rochant, Neige. 2016. Subordinate particles in Zilo dialect of Andi. Andi working seminar. Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow. November 2016. (Handout)Google Scholar
Rochant, Neige & Samira Verhees. 2017. The (auxiliary) verb b-iʁidu in Andi. Historical Linguistics of the Caucasus. École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris. 12–14.04.2017. (Handout)Google Scholar
Salimov, Xangerej S. 2010 (1968). Gagatlinskij govor andijskogo jazyka [The Gagatli dialect of Andi]. Makhachkala: Institut Jazyka, Literatury I Iskusstva imeni G. Cadasy.Google Scholar
Sulejmanov, Jakub G. 1957. Grammatičeskij očerk andijskogo jazyka. Na materiale govora s. Rikvani [A sketch of the grammar of Andi. Based on material from the dialect of the village Rikvani]. Moscow: Institut Jazykoznanija Akademii Nauk Sojuza SSR Moskva dissertation.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhees, Samira. 2018. The perfect in Avar and Andi. Cross-linguistic variation among two closely-related East Caucasian languages. In Dalila Ayoun, Agnès Celle & Laure Lansari (eds.), Tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 261–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
Lukašdi bosam rerhanoɬːi χabar [Gospel of Luke (in Andi)]. Moscow: Institute for Bible Translation. 2015.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Maisak, Timur & Samira Verhees
2024. The ‘Still Not’ Present in Andi: identifying the grammaticalization source. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Maisak, Timur A.
2023. Chapter 5. From an adverb/postposition ‘behind’ to a discourse marker. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.