| |
|
{
hi } |
|
| 125
|
mikrü-müi-pfü-püi-
|
{
 i
} |
‘[the] female Meitei[s]’ |
| |
|
{
sü } |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
{
hi } |
|
| 126 |
kola-müi-pfü-püi
|
{
i
} |
‘[the] female plainsman/men’ |
| |
|
{
sü } |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
{
hi } |
|
| 127
|
duka-müi-pfü-püi- |
{
i
} |
‘[the] female shop-keeper[s]’ |
| |
|
{
sü } |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
{
hi } |
|
| 128
|
oho-kase-müi-pfü-püi- |
{
i
} |
‘the female paddy-pounder[s]’ |
| |
|
{
sü } |
|
|
Note also, as evidenced in the above sets of examples, that
-pfo can occur with both -müi the agentive
suffix and -na the NG suffix at the same time and
-pfü with both -müi and -püi the NG suffix
at the same time. Such co-occurence is referentially redundant
in that -pfü and -püi on the one hand
and -pfo and -na on the other mark the
same gender viz., human feminine and masculine respectively.
However, forms with both purvey more respect than forms
without the exclusive gender markers viz. -pfü
and -pfo. Thus, modo kapi-pfü-püi
is more respectful than modo kapi-püi for instance. ota
kata-pfo-na ‘cultivator’, ota
kata-na and ota kata-o are referentially identical,
-pfo in ota kata-pfo-na
being referentially redundant, but the first one is respectful,
the second neutral with respect to intimacy/respectfulness,
while -pfo are unilaterally dependent on the preceding agentive
suffix -müi or on the following nuber markers viz.
-khru, the plural number marker and -hi)
the dual number marker or on the following number-gender
markers, -püi and -na in the case either
of derived or absolute nominals.
|
| |
|
{
*O } |
|
{
*O } |
| 129
|
modo
kapi-pfo- |
{
na } |
‘male
teacher- |
{
one } |
| |
|
{
hi)
} |
|
{
two } |
| |
|
{
khru } |
|
{
plural } |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
{
*O } |
|
{
O } |
| |
|
{
püi } |
|
{
one } |
| 130
|
modo
kapi-pfü- |
{
hi)
} |
‘female
teacher- |
{
two } |
| |
|
{khru
} |
|
{
plural } |
|
The above two examples are, however, not
possible, but for reasons which have nothing to do with the grammar of -pfu
and -pfü. The forms in paranthesis viz. -na -hi and -khru are in their turn
unilaterally dependent on individuators so that the actual correct forms are
|
| |
|
|
{
O } |
|
| 129
|
a.
|
modo
kapi-pfo- |
{
na } |
{
hi } |
| |
|
|
{
hi) } |
{
i
} |
| |
|
|
{khru} |
{
sü } |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
{
O } |
{
hi } |
| 130
|
a. |
modo
kapi-pfü- |
{
püi } |
{
i
} |
| |
|
|
{
hi) } |
{
sü } |
| |
|
|
{khru} |
|
|
| |
| 131
|
|
duka |
‘shop’ |
| |
|
|
|
| 131
|
a.
|
dukamüi |
‘shop-keeper’ |
| |
|
|
|
| |
b.
|
dukamüi-pfo |
‘male shop-keeper[s]’ |
| |
|
|
|
| |
c.
|
duka-müi-pfü |
‘female shop-keeper[s]’ |
| |
|
|
|
| |
*d
|
duka-pfo |
‘male shop-keeper’ |
| |
|
|
|
| |
*e
|
duka-pfo-na |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
*f
|
duka-pfü |
|
| |
|
|
‘female shop-keeper’ |
| |
*g
|
duka-pfü-püi |
|
|
Put another way, -pfo and pfü cannot nominalize
relative participles. They can close other morphological
constructions only when -müi, the agentive suffix
procedes them. 9 |
9
|
With the following caveats : [a] the first is about semantically agentive
forms :
|
| oja |
‘teacher’ |
| |
|
| oja-pfo |
‘male teacher[s]’ |
| |
|
| oja-pfü |
‘female teacher[s]’ |
|
I am not sure they could [not] close
notionally agentive forms.
|
