function i.e. it can stand for the whole sentence. The
former is exemplified by the future tense marker ie
|
| 17. |
ai1 |
kokhru 2 |
le3 |
‘I1 |
will3 |
play2 |
| 17a. |
ai1 |
le2 |
|
‘I1 |
will2
‘ |
|
|
Note that le stands for the whole verb phrase.
The latter is exemplified by all lexical-morphological units
except that in Mao, every sentence, be it composed of a
single word or a string of words, is marked morphologically
by a sentence-final e.
|
| A: |
hihi |
adi-y-e |
‘what is this?’ |
| B: |
larübvü-e |
|
‘It is a book’ |
|
|
A subword couldn’t perform either the potential phrase
or the potential sentence function so that the criterion
of isolability is a sufficient-criterion as regards wordhood
vis-a-vis affixhood. Isolability from a whole sentence
is, however, not sufficient as phrases, not just words,
can stand for full sentences. Isolability of either kind
is not necessary as notionally dependent forms like certain
noun attributes are not isolable, but are obviously words
on other criteria. Thus kazhü ‘good’ of
|
|
18 |
larübvü1 |
kazhü2
|
‘good2 |
book1 |
|
is not possible but is still a word. Further, isolability,
from immediate linguistic context conflicts with the criterion
of potential pause. There is no potential pause between
kokhru ‘play’ and le ‘will’ of 17, for
instance, but le isolable, as we saw, and is clearly
an integral unit with isolability overriding Potential Pause.
It conflicts with the criterion of Elliptibility too, as
we will see. |
3.0.2.3.
|
Potential Mobility |
Phonic
material which is potentially mobile across linguistic space
is a word. Thus, ai ‘I’ and ni-yi ‘you[sg.]-acc’
are words because they can interchange positions :
|
| 19
|
ai1 |
ni-yi2
|
kade3
|
le4 |
‘I1
will4 meet3
you2 |
| 19a. |
ni-yi2 |
ai1
|
kade3 |
le4 |
|
|
So are ocü ‘houses’ and idu ‘yesterday’
as in
|
| 20 |
ocü1 |
idu2 |
akri- ie3 |
‘houses1 |
collapsed3
yesterday2 |
| 20a. |
idu2 |
ocü1
|
akiri-ie3
|
|
|
|
and adi-ko-e ‘what-eq-sntmrkr’ and hihi ‘this’
as in
|
| 21 |
hihi1 |
adi2
-ko-e |
|
| |
|
|
‘what [is] this1
?’ |
| 21a. |
adi2
-ko-e |
hihi1
|
|
|
In contrast, -yi of ni-yi [e.g. 19], - ie
of akri-ie
[e.g. 20] and -ko or -e of adi-koe [e.g.
21] are not words because they are not mobile, but are subject
to a rigid temporal order :
|
| * ai |
yi-ni |
kade |
le |
‘I will meet you’ |
| * ocü |
idu |
ie |
akri |
‘houses collapsed
yesterday’ |
| * hihi |
ko-e |
adi |
|
‘what is this?’ |
|
|
Mobility is not necessary as phonic material which,
intuitively clearly, constitutes word-sized units need not be potentially
mobile. The constituent elements of the complement NP in 22 are not free as
to position :
|
|
22. |
omüi-hi1
|
oba2 |
kaxi3 |
bu-e4
|
‘man1
|
has4 |
two3 |
hands2 |
|
There is no felicitous
|
|
22a. |
omüi-hi
|
kaxi
|
oba |
bu-e |
|
The Mao Naga verb-complex is constrained by
a rigid morpheme order, Consider 23 below :
|
|
23 |
ai1 |
rü2 |
mazhü3 |
le4 |
I1 |
will4 |
write2
well3 |
|
There is no
|
| 23a. |
ai1 |
mazhü2 |
rü3 |
le4 |
‘I will
write well’ |
| 23b. |
ai1 |
rü2 |
le4 |
mazhü3 |
|
| 23c. |
ai1 |
le4 |
rü4 |
mazhü3 |
|
| 23d. |
ai1 |
le4 |
mazhü3 |
rü2 |
|
|
but each of the three constituents of the
verb-complex is a word on various criteria. Potential Mobility is not
sufficient either because phonic material subject to potential mobility
could constitute a phrase as well. That is, Potential Mobility could keep
the word and the bound morpheme apart, but could not keep the word and the
syntactic phrase apart. Thus in the variant pair of sentences,
|
| 19b. |
ai1 |
ni2 |
pfo-yi3 |
kade4 |
le5
|
| |
‘I1 |
will5 |
meet4
|
your2 |
father3 |
| 19c.
|
ni2
|
pfo-yi3
|
ai1
|
kade4
|
le5
|
|
