GILLES AUTHIER Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, UMR 7192.

Finite and non-finite : prosodic distinctions on Budugh verb stems

Abstract: In Budugh, a small Daghestanian language spoken in Azerbaijan, verb-stems,

defined as verb forms uninflected for tense or mood, can be used either as dependent of

nouns (‘participles’) and other predicates (verbal nouns or hereafter ‘masdars’, and

‘sequential converbs’) or as finite non-indicative verb forms, that is with modal use,

especially in a variety of injunctive nuances. The main distinction between dependent and

independent uses is prosodic: dependent verb forms adopt the prosodic features of nouns,

while the same forms, if syntactically independent, share the same prosodic pattern as other

indicative or more complex modal forms which are segmentally marked (suffixed) as such.

Introduction

Budugh1 is an unwritten language belonging to the Lezgic branch of the Daghestanian family2. Nowadays it is spoken as a first language by at most 200 speakers, all inhabitants of a single village of north-eastern Azerbaijan. Despite generalised bilingualism in Azerbaijani, which can probably account for the recent development of a 9-vowel system (ı, i, u, ü, o, ö, e, a, a’)3 and vowel harmony, it preserves typically Daghestanian, and more specifically Proto-Lezgic features. In particular, gender-number agreement with S/P (Single argument or Patient) nouns is infixed on discontinuous or ‘bipartite’4 lexical stems of synthetic verbs5. These two features give rise to ‘introflected’, partially apophonic paradigms. Person is expressed by free pronouns, and not indexed on verbs.

- 1 I am immensely indebted to my friend and main informant Adigoezel Hadjiev for teaching me his rare language; he provided most of the data for this paper. I also wish to express my gratitude to Timur Maisak, Yura Lander, Lena Kalinina, and to Isabelle Bril for very helpful comments on a first version of this paper. Remaining errors are, however, of my sole responsibility. 2 This branch comprises ‘core’ languages of Lezgian, Tabassaran, Aghul, Tsakhur, Rutul, Kryz, and Budugh, all located along the watershed-line of the Great Caucasus range and the peripheral Udi (to the south) and Archi (to the north). 3 /a/ is pronounced centrally except in contact with back consonants and in initial position; while /a’/ is pronounced more open and back. 4 For this term applied to Daghestanian languages, see van den Berg (2003). 5 Verbal predicates are also represented by compound verbs, which are not relevant here.

An analysis of the rich and complex morphology of Budugh synthetic verbs will be found in (Authier, to appear). The present paper will address the original interaction of syntax and prosody associated with bare verb stems6. It will be shown that the opposition between finiteness and non-finiteness can be unmarked segmentally, and left to interpretation from the syntactic context and intonational contour of the clause; this is of some importance for the question of finiteness formulated as follows: how are dependent and independent verb forms related morphologically in a given language ?7. The first and second sections give outline the verbal categories expressed morphologically on verb-stems, and give an overview of parts of speech and word order in Budugh. The third and fourth sections present the prosody of imperfective verb stems according to the syntactic domains in which they are found, showing the relationship between segmentally homonymous forms and the correlation of stress distinctions with syntactic function. Sections five and six propose a classification of perfective stems and illustrate the dependent and independent uses of these forms.

Structure of verb stems

The basic frame of any Budugh lexical verb stem consists of two or three original elements: one or two preverbs, and a root. Verb stems can also display:

- negative marking infixed after the first preverb; - voice distinction, signalled by apophony and vowel harmony8; - infixed and partially vowel-harmonic indexation of S/P; - aspect marking, in the form of affixed sonorants and vowels.

All verbs in Budugh are minimally made up of a root (one consonant plus a sonorant element in some but not all verbs), preceded by one or two preverbs. The first preverbs originally had spatial meaning; the second preverbs are synchronically opaque, usually labelled ‘expressive’, and probably originating from a process of incorporation affecting serialised verbs. Following the cliticisation of these locational adverbs (in the first

- 6 I define verb stems in Budugh as minimal existing verb forms from which other forms are straightforwardly derived through morpheme suffixation’. 7 On this topic, see the recent detailed description by N. Evans of a reanalysis proces called by him ‘Insubordination in Finiteness (Nikolaeva, 2007), and in the same volume the insightful study by Kalinina & Sumbatova (2007) on independent use of formally non-finite forms in some Daghestanian languages remotely apparented with Budugh. 8 Since Budugh causative and anticausative voices are irrelevant to the problem of dependency, they will not be addressed here, cf. Authier (2009, to appear).

preverbal slot) and of the incorporated serial verbs (in the second preverbal slot), a derivational pattern resulted which at some stage affected all the languages central to the Lezgic sub-family9. Consequently, all Budugh verbs are bi- or tripartite10. Gender and number are now indexed inside verb stems, just after the first or second preverb. The root itself has either a single obstruent, or an obstruent followed by a sonorant, and a vowel which may mark transitivity. As in most Daghestanian languages11, Budugh verbs have the gender and number of their Patient or Single argument cross-referenced on a pre-root (post-preverbal) slot. The gender-number agreement system comprises six ‘gender-number classes’ of agreement : human masculine (M), human adult feminine (F), Animate (A, which includes not only all animals and plants, but also non-adult human females and quite a few motivated categories of abstract nouns, especially those meaning a speech act), inanimate (N for ‘neuter’), non-human plural (NPL), and human plural (HPL). On the majority of verb forms agreement for M, N and NPL is unmarked (‘zero’). Nouns expressing S and P are in the ‘absolutive’ case. The Agent noun of a transitive predicate is marked with ergative case, and not indexed on verb forms, except for person and number in injunctive forms. Gender and number, which were originally marked by initial prefixes (as is still the case in Avar for instance), have often been trapped between root and preverb and become marked suprasegmentally, with processes of vowel harmony. The following examples show indexation of P and S respectively: (1) ma’lla’-cır lem ğùvotu-ri (2) ma’lla’-cır lemér ğùtu-ri Mullah-ERG donkey A.beat.PRS Mullah-ERG donkey-PL NPL.beat.PRS

‘Mullah beats the donkey.’ ‘Mullah beats the donkeys.’ (3) ma’lla’ vìxhici (4) lem vǜxhücü Mullah M.go.NAR donkey A.go.NAR

‘Mullah went.’ ‘The donkey went.’

- 9 This full-fledged derivational system with two preverbal slots is found in Tsakhur, Rutul, Aghul, Tabassaran and Budugh. Kryz verbs may have only one preverb if any: obviously the two preverb slots have become conflated in Kryz, where some preverbs have locational origin while others do not. Budugh is unique in having all its verbs, without exception, preverbed. Kryz retains many unpreverbed verbs. It is less clear whether peripheral Lezgic languages Udi and Archi once had a similar system of preverbs. Note that Khinalug has its own system of preverbs with almost no formal cognates in the surrounding Lezgic languages. 10 Unlike other closely related languages like Kryz, Agul or Rutul, which have preserved a rather large proportion of root verbs, without any trace of preverbation. 11 This system of agreement has been totally lost in only three Daghestanian languages: Udi, Aghul and Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993), all members of the ‘Lezgic’ branch.

Finite indicative, as well as semantically complex converbal forms always bear a suffixed copula and the former may also add a past-tense marker in final position. For instance, the following form üzöbülq’üla’vini can be analysed as follows: üzöbülq’ü- -la’vi-ni causative.cry.HPL progressive-Past

(was/ were (at that moment) being caused to cry) ü- zö- bü- l- q’ü- la’- vi- ni 1st Preverb

2nd Preverb

Human Plural ‘Gender/Class’

Imperfective aspect

(causative) Root

Simultaneous converb

Copula Past

Cognitive accessibility of such an intricate form probably proceeds in two steps: first the stem, a semantic compound of preverbs and a root, segmentally or non-segmentally marked for valency, aspect and ‘gender / number’ of the Absolutive argument must be recognised and retrieved from the competent speaker’s mental dictionary; then the Tense-Mood ending, which is produced with minimal allomorphy, is identified. Affixation in Budugh is thus of two types:

- infixes evolving into suprasegmental and non-concatenative formatives on the stems;

- suffixes after the stems. The paper will focus on the unsuffixed forms or ‘verb stems’. All verbs

have two series of verb stems and forms, perfective and imperfective. Broadly speaking, imperfective aspect can be marked by a sonorant (-r, -l, -n) immediately prefixed to the root), while perfective aspect can also be marked by a low vowel (-a, -e, -o, -ö) or a sonorant immediately suffixed to the root.

Apophony and suppletion also occur, and the verb stem paradigms are in fact often intricate, with few ‘classes’ of verbs. An example of non-straightforward aspectual derivation involving a change of preverbs is the verb ‘be’:

‘Be’ PF IPF

M/N/NPL

F

A

HPL

sa-xha sa-rxha soxho < *sa-v-xha sabka < *sa-b-xha

yi-xha-r yi-r-xha-r yuxhor < *yi-v-xha-r yıbkar < *yi-b-xha-r

An example of suppletive paradigm is the verb ‘go’:

‘Go’ PF IPF

M

F

A

N/NPL

HPL

vi-xhi vi-r-xhi vüxhü < *vi-v-xhi vidki < *vi-d-xhi vibki < *vi-b-xhi

ça-ğar ça-r-ğar çoğor < *ça-v-ğar ça-ğ-ar ça-b-ğar

Word order, parts of speech and stress position and nature

Budugh clearly has distinct word-classes, associated with specific inflec-tional morpheme compatibilities and syntactically determined stress proper-ties. Grammatical relations are indicated by case suffixes and indexation of S/P on the verbs. Only verbs can bear Tense, Mood, and Aspect inflection. While derivational suffixes are rare, and outside the scope of this study, conversion of verbs from predicates to arguments (Masdars, Infinitives), attributes (Participles) and adverbs (Converbs) is rich, inflectional12, and possible for all verbs without restriction. With the exception of a few particles, semantic word-classes bear stress. Substantive nouns and other arguments (substantivised attributes) have final or stem-final stress (though this is weakly audible on absolutive Patients in their pragmatically neutral preverbal position). But on verbs, stress position and nature is determined by their syntactic function:

- finite verb-forms have initial falling stress; - subordinate verb-forms are non-finite, having final rising stress like

nouns; - an intermediate prosodic characterisation is the initial rising stress

which appears on the ‘sequential’ form used for co-subordination. Dependent verb forms retain their verbal internal syntax, and have their

own arguments in the embedded clause marked in the same way as in an independent clause. But in the valency of the matrix clause, they fill an argument position, inflect for case, and crucially undergo a stress shift, thus sharing their stress pattern with genuine nouns. Budugh is a strict GN (genitive-N), AN (adjective-N), SOV language, with ergative case marking, as shown below :

mallá-co rij ‘the mullah’s daughter’; q’usú mallá’ ‘the old mullah’; mallá’-cır rij ğìvataci ‘The mullah beat the daughter’.

-

12 On inflectional category-changing morphology, see Haspelmath (2002).

Word order can be only slightly modified for pragmatics purposes. As in Azerbaijani or in Kryz, focused constituents tend to occur in preverbal position, while topics are clause-initial: ugo rij mallá’-cır ğìvataci ‘It was the mullah himself who beat his daughter’ (here mallá’ is focused and rij is topicalised). Since Budugh is a strict SOV language, initial stress indicates de facto the end of a finite (independent) or sequential (suspensive) clause: the falling intonation feature is a marker of both syntactic finiteness and pragmatic completeness. Once verbs are converted into syntactic attributes, arguments, and adverbs –named respectively participles (perfective & imperfective), verbal nouns (perfective infinitives vs imperfective masdar13) and converbs–their stress shifts to the last syllable of the stem, indicating non-finiteness. This suprasegmental feature has a discriminating function between other-wise homonymous forms. On unsuffixed verb stems, rising and falling stresses must be added to the list of verbal morphological devices. Basically, a prosodic feature system is the main device affected to part-of-speech-changing. The same segmental bare stems are used as independent (finite) and as dependent (subordinate) predicates, provided that their pitch accent shifts from the first to the last syllable. Budugh makes productive use of this pattern, both series of aspectual verb stems –perfective and imperfective– show their dependent and independent functions distinguished by stress. There is no further distinction between the formal-functional series: gender-number cross-referencing is marked in the same way on both ‘finite’ and ‘non-finite’ homonymous forms.

Prosody and syntax of imperfective verb stems

Given that all nouns in Budugh are characterised by final stress and rising prosody, while all finite non-interrogative verb forms have an initial stress and falling prosody, all verb stems have two variants, distinguished by the position and nature of their stress. Since the classification of imperfective stems is slightly less complex than the perfective one, we address them in this order. All imperfective stems have thus two accentual forms and syntactic interpretations:

- 13 Masdar and infinitive are convenient labels justified by the respective ability of these forms to inflect for case. Perfective and imperfective aspects have no necessary link with either one of these deverbal categories: in contrast to Budugh, the Lezgian infinitive is morphologically imperfective, while its masdar is morphologically perfective, cf. Haspelmath 1993.

non-finite: Masdar/IPF participle finite: Debitive mood ‘slay’

M/N(PL)/A/HPL sorkú

sòrku

‘hang’ tr. M/N(PL)

ˤanxú

ˤànxu

F ˤanxú ˤànx-u A ˤonxú ˤònxu HPL ˤabonxú ˤàbonxu

‘hang’ intr. M/N(PL)

ˤanxán

ˤànxan

F ˤanxán ˤànxan A ˤonxón ˤònxon HPL ˤabanxán ˤàbanxan

‘go’ M/N/NPL

çağár

çàğar

F çağár çàrğar A çoğór çòğor HPL çabğár çàbğar

‘carry’ M

çiğí

çìği

F çirğí çìrği A çüğǘ çǜğür HPL çibğí çìbği

The oxytonic variant of the imperfective stem is a verbal noun or ‘Masdar’, while the homonymous form with falling stress on the first syllable is a debitive mood, used as a finite predicate in both independent and dependent clauses. Following Evans (2007), we have shown in Authier (to appear) that the former Allative-Purposive case-marker -u present on the majority of the Imperfective verb-stems explains their use as attributes of nouns (participles) and as an argument in the valency of matrix verbs (Masdar)14, which we now turn to.

The Masdar as a verbal noun with S/P argument function

The Masdar is strictly speaking a verbal noun, and as such it bears a word-final rising stress. It can be inflected for most of the 15 cases of the Budugh declension; these forms do not concern us here. A non-inflected, or ‘Absolutive’ form of the Masdar is used in nominal predicates like:

- 14 For the relationship between participles and masdars in the related language Kryz, see Authier (2007).

(6) dıx ğurzár ˤari-vi, laħki ğalq’ál pis-i early M.rise.MSD good-COP much M.lie.MSD bad-COP

‘It is good to get up early, sleeping for a long time is bad.’ (7) dard ğaqu ˤari-vi, a-c cidir si’i ħaram-i worry N.tell.MSD good-COP 3-N hidden N.do.MSD forbidden-COP

‘It is good to tell one’s worries, hide them is bad.’ (8) sordobut’ vodo’ú ç’ov-i! berries gather.MSD enough-COP

‘Enough with gathering berries!’ (9) vın Aħmad-o bada çağár ç’ov-i 2 A.-AD near M.go.MSD enough-COP

‘You should not anymore go to Ahmad.’ (10) duşma’n-ca xab-a’r ğaraxhár-ın igiduval-i enemy-IN hand-EL M.escape.MSD-also bravery-COP

‘Escape from one’s enemy’s hands is bravery as well.’ (11) a-cber susundakir cüre sib’í lazım-i 3-PL REC.SUBEL apart HPL.do.MSD necessary-COP

‘It is necessary to separate them.’ (12) Zo kıda-pişe k’ul ğirví, k’ul ˤoxuts’ú vi. 1.AD work-job house.A A.build.MSD house.A A.demolish.MSD COP

‘My job is to build a house, and to demolish a house.’

Used as the argument of a number of verbs (‘finish’, ‘stop’, ‘manage’, ‘know (how)’, ‘see’ and ‘want’15), the Absolutive Masdar controls Neutral agreement on these verbs. This is a case of subordination, since the Masdar retains a separate indexation of its own prime argument: (13) rij-eri dağ-ra’ q’ala’ ğöç’ǘ başarmi sì’i-rni girl-ERG mountain-PL.IN head.IN A.climb.MSD managing N.do-IMPF

‘The girl was able to climb to the summit of the mountains.’

- 15 With ‘want’ and ‘know (how)’ the Masdar has an obligatorily coreferent subject which, if expressed, is in the Dative case -z.

(14) rij-eri mektub yezmi sü’ǘ başarmi sì’i-rni girl-ERG letter.A writing A.do.MSD managing N.do-IMPF

‘The girl can write a letter.’ (15) lem-ildir anğırmi yuxhór yot’u-ci donkey-ERG braying A.be.MSD N.cut-NAR

‘The donkey stopped braying.’ (16) rij-ez k’ul-ca çoğór yìka-ci girl-DAT house-IN A.go.MSD N.want-NAR

‘The girl wants to go home.’ (17) hil ye-z çabğár yìka-ci now 4-DAT HPL.go.MSD N.want-NAR

‘Now we want to go.’ (18) ts’eʕ şıma çüröq’ǘ ye-z hàts’ar-dad. goat.A how A.reach.CAUS.MSD 4-DAT know-NEG.PRS-N

‘We do not know how to make the goat reach [that place].’ The verb ‘see’ can have its verbal complement in the Masdar form, and accordingly take Neutral gender-agreement rather than agree with the subordinate Absolutive argument (here çalam ‘boot’ which is Animate): (19) u-n-uz suncu pineçi-ri áq’ul-nu çalam serví idxa-ci 3-H-DAT one.OBL cobbler-ERG M.sit-SEQ boot.A A.sew.MSD(N) N.see-NAR

‘He saw a cobbler who was sitting and sewing boots (literally: cobbler’s sitting...).’

Raising the S/P argument of the Masdar in complement clauses

Alternatively, the same main verbs and a few others may agree with the S/P argument of the Masdar. This 'Long-Distance Agreement' phenomenon is characteristic of a sort of verbal serialisation commonly found in Daghestanian languages16: (20) gada-rı ğaye ğaldırmi sü’ǘ başarmi sǜ’ü-rnü boy-ERG stone.A lifting A.do.MSD managing A.do-IMPF

‘The boy was able to lift a stone.’

- 16 See for instance Polinsky & Potsdam (2001).

(21) gada-ri ug-unda’ şidir kita’b suxuts’ú ħar sǜ’ü-ra’vini boy-ERG self-PL.IN sister book.A read.MSD learning A.do.PROG.PST

‘Brother was teaching his sister to read books.’ (22) Mura’d-ır kita’b ğounú k’yan söxün-cü M.ERG book.A A.take.MSD at.heart A.forget.CAUS-NAR

‘Murad forgot to take a book.’ (23) ˤali-ri xor ğüşğǘ k’yan ğùğo-ci Ali- ERG dog A.bring.MSD at.heart A.bring-NAR

‘Ali remembered to bring the dog.’ (24) ma’lla’-cíz lem ğuvotú hàvats’ar-da-b Mullah-DAT donkey A.beat.MSD A.know-PRS.NEG-A

‘Mullah doesn’t know how to beat the donkey.’ (25) zo rij ug-u duxoruz ğorunú yìrka-cni 1.AD girl self-AD son.DAT F.take.MSD F.want-NAR.PST

‘He wanted to take my daughter for his son.’ (26) ˤali-z mağ k’yan sönxǘ yùko-ci A.-DAT tale.A at.heart A.forget.MSD A.want-NAR

‘Ali wants to forget the tale.’ (27) k’ul-ca barxuda’-cız u-cber aborot’ú yìbka-ci house-IN master-DAT 3-HPL.ABS HPL.kill.MSD HPL.want-NAR

‘The house-master wanted to kill them.’ With verbs meaning ‘stop’ or ‘finish’, the matrix verb, as a rule, agrees with the Absolutive argument of the Masdar: (28) ˤayel-cir gita’ra’ çorot’ú ˤàvaqa-ci child-ERG guitar.A A.strike.MSD A.hold-NAR

‘The child stopped playing the guitar.’ (29) ˤayel-cir kita’b suxuts’ú ˤàvaqa-ci / pasar sǜ’ür-cü child-ERG book.A read.MSD A.hold-NAR finished A.do-NAR

‘The boy stopped reading the book.’

The Masdar as an imperfective participle

The imperfective stem (of any verb) or Masdar can also be used as a dependent of a noun, that is as a participle, used in relative clauses:

(30) yin yıbkár cıga’-ca 4 HPL.be.IPF.PRT place-IN

‘To the place where we were.’ (31) a-d unkón k’ul-ca 3-A A.remain.IPF.PRT house-IN

‘In the house where she stays.’ (32) sa-b kep’p’i, xhim çağár kovsa one-A thick smoke N.go.IPF.PRT ember.A

‘A thick and smoking ember.’ (33) hec-ir ˤodoxú k’ul woman-ERG house.A NEG.A.demolish.PF.PRT

‘A house which a woman destroys not (will stand for ever)...’ It often has a prospective, deontic value: (34) ğuş-ulur dan soʕul-ú vaxt-i. bird-ERG corn eat-IPF.PRT time-COP

‘It is time for the bird to eat corn.’ (35) a-d xhın suxhú cıga’-ca (vuq’-a) q’àxuts’u-ri. 3-M grass mow.IPF.PRT place-IN meadow-IN find-PRS

‘They find him at the place for grass-mowing = the meadow.’ (36) va’ çüröq’ǘ ç’el-i zox 2.IN A.reach.CAUS.IPF.PRT word.A-COP 1.APUD

‘I have something to tell you.’ These participles can also be used without a head noun: (37) bişq’ab-ca soʕulú èyeci plate-IN eat.IPF.PRT N.put-NAR

‘He put food (cf. French ‘à manger’, English ‘things to eat’) on a plate.’ Since participles are unoriented, this gives rise to an interesting homonymy of Action noun (Masdar stricto sensu) and Agent noun (the free participle); this bare form fills the absolutive case slot as Subject of intransitive verbs or object of transitive controlling verbs. Such headless relative clauses are often lexicalised:

(38) za’ xakila’ araxhár laħkivni 1.IN behind M.come.IPF.PRT many-COP.PST

‘Many were courting me.’ (39) vez irqí za’ kıl-imer da-d 5.DAT see.IPF.PRT 1.IN arm-PL COP.NEG-N

‘What you see are not my arms.’ (40) filan şeher-ce sa-r aza’n yuts’ú -vi a.certain city-IN one-M call.to.prayer give.IPF.PRT-COP

‘In a certain city there is a (‘call-to-prayer-giver’ =) muezzin.’ The same absolutive unmarked form, but with the semantic role of a Stimulus, headless participle constructions are used for complementation with the verb ‘see’. The controlling verb takes gender agreement with the Absolutive participant of the subordinate clause: (41) gada-z (ug-unda’) ada Ğuba-ca çağár ìrqa-ci boy-DAT self-PL.IN father Quba-IN M.go.IPF.PRT M.see-NAR

‘The boy saw his father going to Quba.’ (42) padşah-cır ug-o rij-eri dogru yu’ú ìdxa-cı king-ERG self-AD girl-ERG true say.IPF.PRT ?/MSD ? N.see-NAR

‘The king saw that his daughter had said the truth.’ Note that the fact that Imperfective participle is not formally distinct from the Masdar is a rather trivial phenomenon typologically, since complement and relative clauses are more often than not related in languages, differing only in the nature (noun or verb) of their head.

Disembedding the Masdar: the debitive mood

Used in deliberative clauses17, masdars are often introduced as an afterthought, and postposed to their alleged matrix verb. In this externalised position, the Masdar can acquire the initial falling stress typical of finite verbs. Since the matrix verb is finite and final –marking the end of a self-standing, independent clause–, the extraposed non-finite form becomes ‘stranded’, and forcibly acquires syntactic autonomy, which implies a shift and change of place of stress. A new, ‘insubordinated’ form, though segmentally homonymous to the Masdar is consequently used as a finite ‘debitive’ mood. This process is expected with Masdars ending in –u, since

- 17 A similar finite deliberative use of a formally non-finite form is Spanish A ver se... ‘Let’s see if...’.

they are supposed to derive from a case-marked, purposive form, which in itself may well not require a matrix predicate18. A similar use with modal ‘debitive’ value seems to have extended by analogy to all imperfective stems, including those not ending in -u, and indeed, all Masdars can be used both in independent (sentence-final) and embedded (subordinate) syntactic position. - Independent use, finite form: (43) ts’eʕ halma sòrku! goat this.way PV.slay.DEB

‘A goat should be slain this way.’ (44) ma’lla’-cír lem ğùvotu! Mullah-ERG donkey(A) A.beat.DEB

‘Mullah should beat the donkey.’ (45) lem çòğor donkey A.go.DEB

‘The donkey should go’. (46) zo hec-a icin hiçhanız ǜdörqü 1.AD woman-IN face.A nobody.DAT A.NEG.see.DEB

‘No one should see the face of my wife.’ (47) (ye-z ts’eʕ havats’ar-da-b) : şıma / sòrku? 4-DAT goat A.know-PRS.NEG-A how (A.)slay.DEB

‘We do not know how a goat should be slain’ (48) ma’llá’-cır lem çǜğü / lemér çìği Mullah-ERG donkey A.go.CAUS.DEB donkey.PL NPL.go.CAUS.DEB

‘Mullah should bring the donkey(/s)’. (49) vın gerek yıxta’ cıga’-ca çàğar, har cıga’ va-z ìrqi. 2 must faraway place-IN M.go.DEB every place 2-D N.see.DEB

‘You have to go and see faraway places.’

- 18 Other Lezgic languages have another finite form (Future) derived from a purposive form ending in -z, that is an originally dative case-marker.

- Subordinate use: (50) ma’llá’-cız lem çüğǘ yìkaci / yùkoci Mullah-DAT donkey A.go.CAUS.MSD N.want.NAR N.want.NAR

‘Mullah wants to bring the donkey’.

(51) ma’llá’-cız lem çüğǘ hàts’ar-da-d / hàvats’ar-da-b Mullah-DAT donkey A.go.CAUS.MSD know-NEG.PRS-N/A.know-NEG.PRS-A

‘Mullah knows how to bring the donkey’. (52) ye-z ts’eʕ (şıma) sorkú hàvats’ar-da-b 4-DAT goat how (A.)slay.DEB A.know-PRS.NEG-A

‘We do not know how to slay a goat.’ (53) ye-z ts’eʕ havats’ar-da-b şıma sorkú 4-DAT goat A.know-PRS.NEG-A how (A.)slay.MSD

‘We do not know how a goat should be slain’ By means of the complementiser ki, a finite debitive form can also be subordinated: (54) vın şi-vi ki, k’ul ğirve-ni a-d ˤòxuts’u? 2 what-COP KI house.A A.build-SEQ 3-A A.demolish.DEB

‘Who are you to build a house and then demolish it?’ (55) a-n-ız hats’ar-dadni ki, boʕlu rij şi sǜ’ü 3-H-DAT know-NEG.N.IPF KI big girl what A.do.DEB

‘He did not know what to do with his older daughter.’ (56) zaz yıka-cki rij ǜrqü 1.DAT want-NAR+KI girl.A A.see.DEB

‘I want to see the girl.’ (57) vaz yıka-cki, zını sàrq’ar 2.DAT want-NAR+KI 1-also M.die.DEB

‘You want me to die also.’ (58) ˤali-z yıka-ci ki, meʕlim-cir ug k’yan sènxi A.-DAT N.want-NAR KI teacher-ERG self at.heart M.forget.DEB

‘Ali wants his teacher to forget him.’

Morphosyntactic classification and uses of the perfective stems

Uninflected perfective verb stems, like the imperfective ones, have either nominal dependent uses or modal injunctive values, with the same accentual distinction which was observed in the imperfective between the Masdar and the Debitive mood. But, according to their phonological shape, the perfec-tive stems can be divided into three broad classes, labelled ‘augmented’ (the root-consonant is followed by a sonorant), ‘thematic’ (the root-consonant is followed by an open vowel), and ‘radical’ (the root-consonant appears bare or followed by a vowel). For a morphological description of this classification, see Authier (to appear). Each class of perfective stems shows a specific mapping for their finite and non-finite uses. The following charts shows that the bare verb stem can be used in imperative, sequential, optative, participles and short infinitive functions with distinctive stress properties.

Augmented perfective class

These ‘augmented’ verb stems can be used in imperative, sequential and short infinitive19 functions, with distinctive stress properties, while optative and participles take a special suffix: Imperative Optative Sequential Infinitive Participle ‘sit’

M/NPL

ɭàq’ul

ɭàq’ul-e

ɭáq’ul

ɭaq’úl

ɭaq’ul-í F ɭàlq’ul etc... ɭálq’ul ɭalq’úl etc...

A ɭòq’ul ɭóq’ul ɭoq’úl

HPL ɭàbq’ul ɭábq’ul ɭabq’úl

‘take’ M/N/NPL

ğèyin

ğèyin-e

ğéyin

ğeyín

ğeyin-í

F ğèrin etc... ğérin ğerín etc... A ğèvin ğévin ğevín HPL ğèbin ğébin ğebín

Thematic perfective class

Imperative Optative Sequential Short Infinitive = Participle ‘be’

M/N/NPL saxh!

sàxha

sáxha

saxhá

F sàrıxh! sàrxha sárxha sarxhá A sòxh! sòxho sóxho soxhó HPL sabka-da! sàbka sábka sabká

- 19 There is also a ‘long’ infinitive, bearing the dative marker -z.

‘keep!’ M/N/NPL

àqa

àqa

áqa

aqá

F ˤàraq ˤàraqa ˤáraqa ˤaraqá A ˤàvaq ˤàvaqa ˤávaqa ˤavaqá NPL/HPL ˤàbaq ˤàbaqa ˤábaqa ˤabaqá

The Thematic perfective stems are used as 1) optatives, 2) short infinitives with the potential predicate ‘be (able)’, 3) participles, 4) sequential converbs.

Radical perfective class

Imperative Optative Sequential short Infinitive = Participle ‘kill’

M/N/NPL àt’w!

àt’o

át’u

at’ú

F àrt’w! àrt’o árt’u art’ ú A àbt’w! àbt’o ábt’u abt’ú HPL àbart’a-da! àbart’a ábart’a abart’á

‘enter’ M/N

ˤàç’w!

ˤàç’o

ˤáç’u

ˤaç’ú

F ˤàrç’w! ˤàrç’o ˤárç’u ˤarç’ú A/HPL ˤàbç’w! ˤàbç’o ˤábç’u ˤabç’ú NPL ˤàbarç’w! ˤàbarç’a ˤábarç’a ˤabarç’á

These irregular and labialised-root (or ‘third class’/‘strong’) verb stems are used as 1) short infinitives with the potential predicate ‘be (able)’, 2) sequential converbs, 3) participles.

Perfective participles

The perfective participle are non-finite verb forms used in relative clauses. It is characterised by final rising stress as on nouns. Perfective verb stems ending in a sonorant take a special participial suffix –i to be used as participles: (59) la’ sökür-ǘ ç’uval-co cıga’-ca that A.slay.PF-PRT sheep-AD place-IN

‘In exchange for that slain sheep.’ Thematic and radical classes use the verb stem: (60) rij-eri ug-ur yıpá si’i-ri. girl-ERG self-ERG say.PF.PRT do-PRS

‘The girl will do what she has said.’

(61) avatá doldom-ca sa’s A.beat.PF.PRT drum(A)-IN sound

‘The sound of the beaten drum.’ (62) vın yez ˤuğó xurak sàʕal ! 2 4.DAT bring.PF.PRT bread eat.IMP

‘Eat the food that you have brought us!’ (63) vö xazna yobt’ú q’uqa-r ğuldur 5.AD treasure(A) A.cut.PF.PRT forty-M robber

‘The forty robbers who have stolen your treasure...’ (64) vın vixhí rix-a’ 2 M.go.PF.PRT way-IN

‘On the way by which you went...’

In rare instances, the participle is found as predicate in Wh-interrogative main clauses: (65) ulu rij heyen vǘxhü? a-nda’ ada a-noxun ˤalsal-a’vi this girl where A.go.PF.Interr 3-PL.IN father 3-H.DIR M.search-PROG

‘Where has this girl gone? Her father is looking for her.’

The short infinitive

The short infinitive is unmarked in all three classes; it is rare but attested as object-like complementation or as intransitive subject, that is, filling the unmarked-absolutive constituent slot : (66) zın rıx-a’ ˤarxhú sundovor-un yumo’u! 1 way-IN M.descend.INF one.H.ADEL-even PROH.tell

‘Do not tell anybody that I have gone away!’ (67) çulca ibkín-ın ivovor ˤari-vi outside HPL.remain.INF-even 3.not.H.ADEL good-COP

‘This is better than remaining outside.’ (68) za’ t’il k’ıbsa-ci, k’ıbsá çaz-i ? 1.IN finger.A A.bite-NAR A.bite.INF what.DAT-COP

‘I bit my finger, (but) to what purpose did I bite it?’ It tends to form a single phonological word when used in a very common construction with the verb ‘be (able)’ immediately following, the subject being expressed in the Adelative case:

(69) andovor ebxír sàbka-da-b = ebxirsàbkadab 3.HPL.ADEL HPL.sleep.INF HPL.be-NEG.NAR-HPL HPL.sleep.can.NEG.NAR

‘They could not fall asleep.’ (lit. from them were not (to) sleep)

Short Sequential converbs

All perfective stems can be used as ‘sequential’ converbs, which are characterised by an initial rising stress. This coordinating strategy is parallel to the Azerbaijani converb in -Ib, but the Budugh sequential, contrary to the ‘perfective general converbs’ of Azerbaijani or Akhwakh (Creissels, this volume) is usually the bare stem. It is used in clause-chaining with same subjects (S/A/E)20: (70) ğari ton-a’ q’osiye súrga k’aşıl sàrxha-ci old.wife oven-IN inside F.burn.SEQ coal F.be-NAR

‘The old woman burned in the oven and became coal. (71) vı-nı andarı ugugunda-zın ğéyin tùğo 2-also 3PL.ERG REFL.PL-CUM take.SEQ bring.OPT

‘Let them also take you with them.’ (72) nişa’na ğéyin vìxhe sign N.take.SEQ M.go.OPT

‘Let him take the sign, and go.’ (73) ğılınc ğévin ˤò-şuğ! sword.A A.take.SEQ A.bring.IMP

‘Take the sword and bring it!’ (74) xilğılda’ yiq’iye ğíka ìrkin-ci. horse.IN back.IN M.stick.SEQ M.remain-NAR

‘He remained stuck on the back of the horse.’ (75) middeʕi-cir hec árt’ú ğìcergir-ci enemy-ERG woman F.kill.SEQ F.throw-NAR

‘The enemy killed the woman and threw her away.’ The case-marking of the shared subject (Agent or Single argument: note the accusative alignment, or Experiencer), is most frequently controlled by the valency of the sequential verb form:

- 20 Note that coordinative conjunctions exist in Budugh like in other Lezgic languages, but are all Arabic loans associated with very formal registers, and not often used.

(76) middeʕi-cir furi-mber sébkir vìxhi-ci enemy-ERG man-PL HPL.slay.SEQ M.go-NAR

‘The enemy slew the men and went.’ (77) Malla’-cır lem ğívata vìxhi-ci Mullah-ERG donkey A.beat.SEQ M.go-NAR

‘Mullah beat the donkey and went.’ (78) rij vǘxhü lemer ğìta-ci girl A.go.SEQ donkey.PL NPL.beat-NAR

‘The girl went and beat the donkeys.’ The unmarked or ‘short’ Sequential form is also often used with the verb ‘finish’ 21 which agrees either with the Ergative Agent of a transitive verb: (79) dide-ri gada sézin pasar sàrxha-ci mother-ERG boy M.wash.SEQ finished F.be-NAR

‘Mother finished washing the boy.’

- or with its Absolutive Patient: (80) gada-rı kita’b súxo pasar sǜ’ür-cü boy-ERG book.A read.SEQ finished A.do-NAR

‘The boy finished reading the book.’ Note there is an alternate, suffixed form with –nV which seems to be used when non-shared arguments are inserted between both verb forms : (81) ˤari yıxhar-a’ ki, vın virxhi-ni xhad-ri sì’i. good N.be-EVT KI 2 F.go-SEQ water-PL NPL.do.DEB

‘You’d better go and make a stew.’ (82) ğara’ sa-b mek’ ˤábt’u-na a-dır tona’ àrʕa-ci old.wife.IN one-A kick.A A.kick-SEQ 3-ABS.F oven.IN F.push-NAR

‘(He) gave a kick to the old woman and pushed her into the oven.’

Optative forms

The optative, like all non-interrogative finite moods, is characterised by an initial falling stress and always has a low vowel. Thematic stems are identified as optatives provided that they show this initial falling stress:

- 21 see a comparable use in Kryz in AUTHIER 2008.

(83) ma’lla’-cır lem ğıvata Mullah-ERG donkey A.beat.OPT

‘Let Mullah beat the donkey!’ (84) ˤari-n-a’ raħmat, şit’an-ca naʕ lat sòxho. good-H-IN mercy devil-IN curse.A A.be.OPT

‘Mercy to the righteous, and a curse to the devil!’ The optative is widely used in subordination with purposive meaning, postposed and often, but not obligatorily, introduced by ki or other particles like heter (for wishes) after all sorts of verbs, including ‘want’. The matrix clause is introduced by an optative-controlling particle: (85) zın ˤayel-ber a-n-o yıvaci heter ˤabaqa 1 child-PL 3-H-AD give-NAR so.that HPL.keep.OPT

‘I gave the children to her to keep.’ (86) rij-ez yıkan saxha-cki, Aħmad kuça-ca ğàrğo girl-DAT wish N.be-NAR+KI Ahmad street-IN M.lead.out.OPT

‘The girl wanted to make Ahmad go out in the street.’ (87) ˤada’ xhad ˤalt’u-lni ki, sadke ğedil sàxha on water pour-IMPF KI a.little soft be.OPT

‘She would pour water on it so that it would become a bit softer.’ (88) diderbez yıka-ci ki, ug-unda’ ˤayelber nuğa sàbka mother.PL.DAT N.want-NAR KI self-PL.IN child.PL glad HPL.be.OPT

‘It is the mother's wish that the child be glad.’ The ‘Augmented’ stems must add this low vowel to their bare perfective stem in order to express optative modality: (89) hats’ar-ındarı hadats’ar-ciber ħar sìb’ir-e! know-HPL.ERG NEG.know-HPL.ABS teaching HPL.do.OPT

‘Let those who know teach those who do not know.’ ‘Radical’ verb stems form their optative by lowering the high vowel of the verb stem (u > o, ü > ö, i > e): (90) imeri yodortu-ra’ ki, ülüm vo bada ʕ ǜxhö. 3.NHPL.ERG NEG.leave-EVT KI death.A 2.AD near come.OPT

‘They will not permit any eyes to come near you.’

(91) ça’ güre ç’uval ğe vǜxhö ? what.IN considering sheep today A.go.OPT

‘Why should a sheep go today?’ (92) ma’llá’ vìxhe! (93) lem vǜxhö! Mullah M.go.OPT donkey A.go.OPT

‘Let Mullah go!’ ‘Let the donkey go!’

Conclusion

We have shown that, although endowed with a rich segmental morphology, a language like Budugh makes a very central use of stress or intonative distinctions to discriminate between the different syntactic functions of lexical verbs. The segmentally unmarked verbal forms or ‘stems’ that we have presented are very common in Budugh natural discourse. One can find sentences only made up of such forms with different accent patterns and syntactic functions: (94) hàzebtir ğábç’u sòğo! A.leave.IMP A.go.out.SEQ A.freeze.OPT

‘Let her go out and freeze!’

The use of this form gives much concision to Budugh discourse. Predicates tend to be more often subordinated than in European languages, because subordination-marking is very light, especially for clause-chaining, using sequentials. Nevertheless, given their polysemy, labelling these unmarked forms is not straightforward. It is stress pattern and stress position which helps discrimi-nate between verb stems used as nouns and arguments (final stress), and verb stems used as finite forms and as head-predicates (initial stress). Once recognised, such accentual patterns clarify the situation. Sequential verb forms fall in between ....

Fairly strict word order rules, along with specific prosody associated with purely syntactic categories, make it unnecessary to write stress position and nature (falling or rising) in text transcriptions. Strict word order rules and stress properties of word classes also provide a sufficient explanation for this remarkable distribution: there is no reason to assume any segmental origin for the functional stress shift giving rise to this state of affairs. Finiteness and non-finiteness are marked by stress pattern, i.e. stress types and positions, and are not linked to the segmental forms of verb stems. Bare stems have not only dependent uses: most perfective and imperfective stems

also have modal values; these finite modal values might be the result of some kind of ‘insubordination’22, but since not much is known about the diachrony of Budugh, we reserve our judgement on this hypothesis. In any case, the fact that the same verb-forms in Budugh can be found in dependent and independent clauses forces us to discard the current definition of finiteness as a morphological feature. Kalinina and Sumbatova (2007) have presented arguments to dissociate the assumed link between main clause status and finiteness, allowing certain types of main clauses to be non-finite, provided that they take a default non-assertive or non- indicative modality. This is confirmed by Budugh data: in this language, conversion by shift of accent pattern is a productive feature in its verbal morphology, although the grammar of this language is otherwise characterised by rich inflectional morphology. It replaces category-changing deverbal derivation which, as in most Daghestanian languages, is non-existent. Indeed, such a ‘syntactic accentual’ system may well be an inherited feature. Abbreviations: 1 first person singular; 2 second person singular; 3 third person; 4 first person plural; 5 second person plural; A ‘animate’ noun or agreement; ABS absolutive; AD adlocative; APUD apudlocative; CAUS causative; COM comitative; COP copula; DAT dative; DEB debitive; DIR directive; ERG ergative; EVT eventual mood = ‘irrealis’ of Akhwakh (cf. Creissels, this vol.); F human feminine noun or agreement; GEN genitive; HPL human plural noun or agreement; IF conditional converb; IMP imperative; IN inessive; EL elative; INF infinitive; IPF imperfective; M human masculine noun or agreement; MSD masdar; NPL non-human plural; OBL oblique; OPT optative; NAR narrative tense; PF perfective; PROG progressive; PROH prohibitive; PRS present; PST past; PRT participle; REC reciprocal; REFL reflexive; SEQ sequential converb; SUBEL subelative. References Authier, G. 2007. Actance et changements de valence en Kryz. In: A. Donabédian (ed), Le

Sujet. Paris: Cahiers de Linguistique de l'INALCO. — 2007. Participes et Masdar en Kryz : une syntaxe mixte. Nominalisarions. Faits de

Langues 33, Paris: Peeters. — 2008. Eléments de grammaire kryz. Paris: Peeters.

— From recipient-marking cases to tense and mood in Lezgic in Authier, G. &

Maisak, T. (eds) Tense, Mood, and Aspect in Daghestanian languages. — to appear. The detransitive voice in Kryz. In: Authier, G. & Haude, K. (eds)

‘Valency, Voice and Ergativity’, Mouton. — in preparation: Aspect, tense, and mood in Budugh

- 22 See Evans (2007).

Evans, N. R.D. 2007. Insubordination. In: Nikolaeva Irina (ed) Finiteness. OUP. Haspelmath, M. 1989. From Purposive to Infinitive – a universal path of

grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10. Haspelmath, M. 1994. A Grammar of Lezgian. Mouton. Haspelmath, M. 2002, Understanding morphology. London: Arnold. Kalinina, E. & Sumbatova N. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-

Daghestanian languages. In: NIKOLAEVA IRINA (ed) Finiteness. OUP. Polinsky, M. and POTSDAM, E. 2001. Long Distance Agreement and Topic in Tsez. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 19. van den Berg, H. 2003. Spatial prefixes in Dargi (East Caucasian). In: Dressler, W. &

Kiefer, F. (eds), Special issue of Acta Linguistica Hungarica, vol. 50.