the same narrative as 70 and overlapping with it, clauses 008-016. In 70, in clauses 017 and 019 there is no NP, but it is most likely that the bi-clauses in 70 exemplify the same focusing function.
In clauses 010–022 of “Coyote and Beetle” passage 69 with all pre-quotatives sNP bi-Ø-V, there were no post-quotatives go-Ø-V and therefore no manifestation of fourth person reference-switching in that particular passage. Canonical same-non-agent units sNP bi-Ø-V: “Quote,”
go-Ø-V have been found but only when the point of view does not alternate between the two participants. Those passages are to be discussed in section 5.
Nevertheless, it seems a syntactic possibility that a canonical sNP bi-Ø-V: “Quote,” go-Ø-V construction could have occurred in passage 69 but, with the very few examples that there are in the corpus of bi-Ø-V occurring in a succession of same-non-agent units the point of view
alternating between the participants, it is impossible to say whether the absence of any go-Ø-V selected over bi-Ø-V in them in a post-quotative or non-quotative might be happenstance or not.
4.6 Possessors in quotatives
In sections 4.1–4.5, any yi-bi- full pre-quotatives in a dialogue were either always sNP oNP yi-Ø-V sections 4.1–4.4 or always sNP bi-Ø-V section 4.5. The point of view taken was that of the speaker and of the addressee respectively and therefore in both cases it alternated between
the two participants. The alternating point of view is reflected in any kin terms and their possessors that may code the participants. When a noun is possessed, the point of view taken is that of the participant coded as possessor Kuno 1987. In obviation terms, the
possessor outranks the possessed and the possessed noun is obviative; the possessor is obviative or proximate Aissen 2000:142. In Apachean the possessor, if third-person-coded, is generally coded by the proximate third person form bi-.
35
For example, in “The Killing of the Giant” clauses 012–025 in passage 49, the pre-quotatives were sNP oNP yi-Ø-V. Evidenced by the reciprocal inalienably-possessed kin terms bimá ‘his mother’ and bizhaa ‘her son’ in object function, the point of view taken is that of the speakers
since the possessor bi- is coreferential with the subject of the clause, coding the speakers Child of the Water and White Painted Woman alternately:
71 012 oNP yi-Ø-V He Child of the Water speaks to his bi- mother, White Painted Woman
016 sNP oNP yi-Ø-V White Painted Woman speaks to her bi- son 021 sNP oNP yi-Ø-V Child of the Water speaks to his bi- mother
35
In Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives, an obviative possessor has only been found once, in Kenoi’s “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”: maʔye
-í yilaatsíń -shı ̨́ yiisił
-go coyote
-
REL
3.wrist -from 3:3.grab -
SUB
‘he rabbit grabbing Coyote at his wrist’ This clause is an example of ‘possessor raising’ and the possessor pronominal yi- effectively functions as the object pronominal: yilaatsíńshı̨́_yiisił ‘he wrist_grabbed
him’ see Willie 1991:196. In Navajo, yi- may function as the possessor of inalienably-possessed body parts and kin terms and a few other frequently-used nouns such as ‘house’ and ‘horse’
Willie 2000b:372. In the northern Athabaskan languages, the cognates of yi- are not similarly constrained but may possess any noun, confirmed for Dogrib by Saxon Willie 2000b:378.
In Aissen’s terms, there is no conflict in terms of obviation; the possessed kin terms are necessarily obviative and are coreferential with the obviative object pronominals yi-. There would be conflict if the object pronominals were proximate bi-: bimá-
ń ʔábiiłⁿdí in the sense of ‘he speaks to his mother’ would be ungrammatical.
36
In fact, the meaning of bimá- ń ʔábiiłⁿdí is ‘his mother speaks to him’ and, if kin terms were used, reciprocal pairs such as ‘mother’, ‘son’
would have to occur in subject function if the pre-quotatives were consistently sNP bi-Ø-V not in object function as when the pre-quotatives are consistently sNP oNP yi-Ø-V, but none of the Mithlo and Kenoi narratives provide an example.
5 Non-alternating point of view and dialogue
In the passages presented in section 4, the pre-quotative forms were all either sNP oNP yi-Ø-V in the section 4.1–4.4 passages or occasionally intransitive or all sNP bi-Ø-V in a section 4.5 passage, and the point of view alternated between the two participants.
However, the point of view in a given dialogue may remain with one of the participants. In that case, the verb of the pre-quotative will not be consistently yi-Ø-V or bi-Ø-V, but will be yi-Ø-V when one participant is speaker and bi-Ø-V when the other. In fact, the yi-bi- alternation will
be operative as it is in the passages in section 2.1.2. The particular passages in section 2.1.2 were chosen avoiding any which contained a post- quotative go-Ø-V but in this section it will be shown that post-quotative go-Ø-V and non-quotative go-Ø-V may occur when the point of view
does not alternate between two participants and the yi-bi- alternation is operative that is, not only when the point of view alternates.
Just as post-quotative go-Ø-V marked the pragmatic paragraph peak when the point of view of the participants alternated section 4.4, it seems it can have a similar function when the point of view does not alternate as this section will seek to substantiate.
Pre-quotatives of the form sNP oNP yi-Ø-V or sNP bi-Ø-V alternate in Kenoi’s “Coyote Marries His Own Daughter” clauses 043–054 passage 72 and the point of view taken is that of the little one, Coyote’s youngest child, pre-quotatives sNP oNP yi-Ø-V occurring when the little one is
speaker and sNP bi-Ø-V when addressee. The kin terms bimá ‘his mother’ confirm that the point of view is that of the little one throughout. The
36
That is, obviation is able to explain the non-occurrence of sentences in Apachean like ‘his
i
mother speaks to him
i
’ translated with the yi-form of the verb and ‘he
i
speaks to his
i
mother’ translated with the bi-form of the verb see Aissen 2000:142ff. Appeal needs to be made to two obviation principles: that the obviation status of coreferential pronominals is the same, whether proximate or obviative, and that a possessed noun is obviative and the possessor proximate, rarely
obviative. In the northern Athabaskan languages, in the absence of an obviation system, sentences like ‘his
i
mother speaks to him
i
’ translated with the yi-form of the verb, are possible. In Slavey, direct and postpositional objects with a third person subject are ye-, and pronominal possessors of subject NP are be- in Hare and Bearlake
Slavey me- in Mountain and Southern Slavey, cognate with Navajo yi- and bi- respectively: betsį
suré yek’édi
dúwé dedi 3.mother-in-law
really 3:3.keep.watch
really they.say ‘her
i
be- mother-in-law was really watching her
i
ye- carefully’ Rice 1989:1340 and,
det’ǫǫ ghá
ʔananende mets’éke yéhndi geese
along.with 2.go.back
3.wife 3:3.say.to
‘go back with the geese, his
i
me- wife says to him
i
ye-’ The second example is from a Southern Slavey narrative made available to me by Vic Monus. Note that the subject possessors be-me- are coreferential with the
object pronominals ye- though, in other contexts, they need not be, Rice 1989:1037.
context is that Coyote has deceived his wife into thinking that he has died and so his wife is going away with her children. Coyote becomes active again when he thinks he is safely out of his family’s sight:
72 041 sNP
Ø-V The little one looked back.
042 sNP Ø-V
yi-Ø-V He saw his bi- father jump from the tree.
043 oNP
yi-Ø-V He speaks to his bi- mother:
044 “My mother, my father jumped from that tree”
045 go-Ø-V
he says to her. 046
sNP bi-Ø-V
His bi- mother speaks to him: 047
“He is gone long ago. 049
Let no one mention him,” 050
sNP bi-Ø-V
his bi- mother says to him. 051
sNP oNP
yi-Ø-V The little one speaks to his bi- mother:
053 “It is my father It is certainly him,”
054 Ø-V
he says. 055
sNP bi-Ø-V
His bi- mother stops him from saying more. go- is selected over yi- in clause 045, in the first same-non-agent unit rather than in the last unit or units as has been more frequently the case.
Probably one is to understand that the chief moment of tension is when the youngest claims to have seen his father jump from a tree. Thereafter his mother seeks to hush him up though he makes one more attempt, perhaps half-hearted, to say what he has seen, almost in the nature of a
soliloquy muttered under his breath, witness the intransitive post-quotative in clause 054.
The context of the following passage 73 from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree” clauses 008–030 is that Coyote has put pieces of money in a tree by a road, under which he is sitting. Two white men come along driving a pack train and enter into conversation with Coyote.
Coyote’s point of view is taken throughout clauses 008–030, evidenced by the fact that the verb forms are bi-Ø-V when Coyote is addressee and Ø-Vyi-Ø-V when he is speaker, and the point of view does not shift alternately between the participants:
73 008 sNP bi-Ø-V The white men speak to him Coyote:
009 “Why are you sitting here?”
010 bi-Ø-V
they say to him. 011
“No,” 012
Ø-V he says.
013 “I’m sitting guarding this tree,”
014 Ø-V
he says. 015
“Money grows on this tree,” 017
Ø-V he says.
018 sNP bi-Ø-V The white men speak to him:
019 “We buy it from you,”
020 bi-Ø-V
they say to him. 021
Ø-V He speaks:
022 “No, it’s worth a great deal,”
023 yi-Ø-V
he says to them. 024 sNP bi-Ø-V
The white men speak to him: 026
“You give that tree to us,” 027
go-Ø-V they say to him.
028 “But shake the tree,”
030 go-Ø-V
they say to him. The post-quotatives go-Ø-V occur in clauses 027 and 030
37
marking a high point at which the white men are gaining their objective and so is Coyote who is trying to fool the white men into buying the tree. From clause 031, the white men are fourth-person-tracked. Coyote agrees to
shake the tree and money falls down. Reassured, the white men give Coyote their pack train in exchange for the tree. There is another case of a pre-quotative sNP bi-Ø-V and post-quotative go-Ø-V pairing in Kenoi’s “Coyote Holds Up the Sky” clauses 022 and
025 in passage 74. After claiming that the tree in which he, Rock Lizard, is lying is supporting the sky and the sky will fall on them if the tree is not supported, Rock Lizard persuades Coyote to get into the tree to help him hold it up:
37
The verb form in clauses 027 and 030 is gołgoⁿdi ‘they both say to him’. Hoijer does not explain the second go-. In the same Coyote story the verb form gaʔash go-a-ʔash ‘they two are coming’ occurs, and in both “The Killing of the Giant” and “The Creation” the verb form ʔiłaanaagot’aash ‘they two quarrel with each
other’ is found, and again the prefix go- in these forms is unexplained. However, in t’oodagobíla ‘he did nothing to them a boy and a girl’ in “A Visit to the Mountain Spirits” by a third narrator Duncan Belacho, Hoijer identifies go- as dual Hoijer 1938:128 though in his linguistic preface the dual prefix carries high
tone ibid. 78; similarly, Hoijer 1945:203.
74 021 oNP yi-Ø-V
He Coyote threw himself into the tree. 022 sNP
bi-Ø-V Rock Lizard speaks to him Coyote:
023 “I will let those know,”
025 go-Ø-V
he says to him. 026 sNP
Coyote: 027
“Yes,” 028
Ø-V he says.
029 sNP go-Ø-V
Rock Lizard ran away from him to get help—and to escape. The point of view is with Coyote, evidenced by the pre-quotative in clause 022, and in clauses 026–028 the addressee, Rock Lizard, is not
mentioned at all so that the point of view is not with the addressee in this same-non-agent unit. But Rock Lizard is directing operations and it is his speech and his action that are important and these are highlighted by the choice of post-quotative and non-quotative go-Ø-V in clauses 025
and 029 respectively.
In presenting passage 19 from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rolling Rock” in section 2.1.4.2, the last two clauses, clauses 030 and 031, of the narrative were omitted but are included in passage 75 below. bi- and yi- alternate depending on whether Coyote or the animated rock is the
non-agent and the point of view is always Coyote’s: 75 020 sNP
Ø-V Coyote speaks:
021 “Did you ever see me running at my very best speed?”
022 oNP
yi-Ø-V he says to the rock.
023 oNP yi-Ø-V
He ran with his bi- very best speed. 024
bi- kétsíń-ee Ø-V
It is rolling along right at his heels. 025
yi-Ø-V He ran from it into a hole.
026 sNP oNP bi-Ø-V
The rock rolled over the hole. 027 sNP
bi-Ø-V The rock speaks to him Coyote:
028 “Lick it excrement off for me”
029 bi-Ø-V
it says to him. 030 sNP
oNP go-yi-Ø-V Coyote licked it all off for it go-.
031 sNP Ø-V
The rock rolled back to where it had been. In clause 030 a non-quotative, go- is selected over yi- referring to the rock, marking the climax when Coyote licks off the excrement from the
rock. Clause 031 concludes the narrative. In passage 76 from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People Go to War”, the point of view is that of the one who picked up a piece of rope. The point
about the remark of clause 010 is that they need go no further—they are satisfied with a small piece of rope for booty though they have scarcely gone any distance from their camp at all. It is the punch line and in its post-quotative clause 011 fourth person go- is selected rather than yi-:
76 005 Ø-V
They Foolish People are going along close to their camp. 006
a
oNP sNP yi-Ø-V
One of them picked up a small piece of rope. 007
sNP bi-Ø-V
The ones going to war with him gathered about him. 008
bi-yi-Ø-V They look at it the piece of rope he’d picked up for him. 009
yi-Ø-V He speaks to them:
010 “One need not share it with anyone I’m going to keep it for myself,”
011 go-Ø-V he says to them.
012 Ø-V
They went back satisfied.
a
Clause 006 of 76 is sentence 15 in section 2.1.4.1. It is pointed out there that the object NP precedes the subject NP by reason of its length—in full, the translation is ‘a small piece of rope which
long ago had apparently been used to hobble a horse’. Clauses 006 and 008 of 76 illustrate the fact that props a small piece of rope in 76 are coded by yi- whether the participant whose point of
view is taken is subject as in 006 or is object as in 008. In this section, the point of view between the participants is non-alternating; in section 4.1 there were examples of yi-coding of props with the point of view alternating: in passage 53 the prop pine logs is yi-coded in both clause
086 when Giants point of view is taken and in clause 090 when Child of the Waters is taken.
The kin terms in the following passage 77 from Kenoi’s “Coyote Marries His Own Daughter” confirm that Coyote’s point of view is taken throughout. The context is that Coyote wants to marry his eldest daughter and is hatching a scheme to obtain her:
77 001 sNP oNP yi-Ø-V
Coyote lives with his bi- many children. 004
Ø-V He pretended to be sick.
005 oNP
yi-Ø-V He speaks to his bi- wife:
006 “I am badly sick,”
007 yi-Ø-V
he says to her. 008
“Make a bed for me in that tree,” 010
go-Ø-V he says to her.
011 sNP oNP bi-go-Ø-V
His bi- wife made a bed area oNP go- for him bi- there. 012
Ø-V He lay down up there.
013 oNP yi-Ø-V
He had brought back a rotten liver. 014
yi-Ø-V He put it by his bi- side.
015 oNP
yi-Ø-V He speaks to his bi- wife:
017 “Worms falling,
018 you will know I am gone dead.
019 You will go away.
020 You will give her my daughter to anyone you meet carrying four fat prairie dogs,”
022 go-Ø-V
he says to her. There are two cases of post-quotative go-Ø-V in passage 77, attaching to the quotes of 008–009 and 016–021. Both these quotes contain
instructions that Coyote gives to his wife and which are a foreshadowing of events to come: these two quotes make the greater contribution to the development of the narrative than does the quote of 006. Similarly, verb forms go-Ø-V mark Rock Lizard’s directing of operations in clauses
025 and 029 in two same-non-agent units of passage 74. The post-quotative yi-Ø-V in clause 007 belongs to the quote clause 006; the quote clauses 008–009 have no pre-quotative.
The context of Mithlo’s “The Killing of the Eagles” clauses 028–040 passage 78 is that the eagle father has taken a seemingly dead Child of the Water to his children. The eagle children reach out to him
38
whereupon there is a hissing sound from Child of the Water:
38
See footnote 23 concerning Hoijer’s translation in which Child of the Water reaches out to the eagle children and not vice versa.
78 028
a
bi-V They eagle children are afraid of Child of the Water.
029 oNP
yi-Ø-V They call to their bi- father.
030 “This one Child of the Water says ‘ssss’ to us.”
031 sNP bi-Ø-V
Their bi- father speaks to them: 032
“Go ahead and eat him Child of the Water” 035 sNP
go-Ø-V their go- father says to them.
036 go-Ø-V
- dą́ Saying this to them-AT.WHEN
037 Ø-V
he flew away. [exit father]
038 sNP oNP yi-Ø-V
Child of the Water took out a stone axe. 039
yi-go-Ø-V He knocked them eagle children down with it.
040 go-Ø-V
He killed them. [exit children]
a
The verb in clause 028 is a unipersonal verb—one might say that literally the sense is ‘there is fear with them’—and yi- is not an option.
There is no actual pre-quotative sNP oNP yi-Ø-V to the quote of clause 030 the verb dááyózhí ‘they call to him’ in clause 029 is not a quotative
as quotatives have been defined, section 2.1.2 and the quote of clause 030 is without either a pre-quotative ʔá-O-ł-S-ⁿdí ‘say so to’ or a post-
quotative O- ł-S-ⁿdí ‘say to’. But there is a yi-bi- alternation between clauses 029 and 031, yi- referring to the eagle father and bi- to the
children so that the point of view taken is that of the children in both. This is confirmed by the fact that possessed kin terms bitaa and gotaa ‘their father’ are used in both the two same-non-agent units clauses 029–030 and 031–040.
The pre-quotative sNP bi-Ø-V in clause 031 is the only instance of a pre-quotative of this form in Mithlo’s narratives. It is paired with a post- quotative sNP go-Ø-V in clause 035, go- coding the addressee non-agents, the eagle children. Subsequently any coding of the non-agent in non-
quotatives continues to be fourth person go- within the same-non-agent unit in clauses 036, 039, and 040,
39
highlighting this unit in which the eagle children meet their death.
In the passages in this section, in which the point of view between the two participants does not alternate, both pre-quotatives sNP oNP yi- Ø-V and pre-quotatives sNP bi-Ø-V have occurred, and the canonical forms in same-non-agent units of these are as follows:
39
Note that clauses 031–040 of passage 78 are one same-non-agent unit. The agent changes in clause 038, from the eagle father to Child of the Water, but the eagle children are the non-agents in the whole unit and continue to be coded by go- after the agent change. This is one reason for speaking of ‘same-non-agent’
units rather than ‘same-agent’ units. Another reason was given in footnote 29.
79 yi-forms
bi-forms pre-quotatives
or sNP
sNP oNP yi-Ø-V
Ø-V sNP
bi-Ø-V
post-quotatives or
or oNP yi-Ø-V
Ø-V go-Ø-V
or bi-Ø-V
go-Ø-V
non-quotatives sNP
go-Ø-V sNP go-Ø-V
To quite a degree, when the pre-quotative verb form is yi-Ø-V, the presence of a subject NP is governed by whether there has been a change of subject from the previous clause. However, when a pre-quotative verb form is bi-Ø-V, then there is no example in the narratives in which the pre-
quotative has not contained a subject NP independently of whether there has been a change of subject. Props, such as the small piece of rope in clauses 006 and 008 in passage 76, and the stone axe in clauses 038 and 039 in passage 78
above, are coded by yi-. In a given passage, when the point of view is non-alternating, go- has not been selected over yi- in one same-non-agent unit coding one
participant and bi- in another same-non-agent unit coding the other participant, and unless such selections occur there can be no fourth person reference-switching.
73, for example, is a passage in which the point of view remains with Coyote throughout. go- coding Coyote is selected over bi- in post- quotatives 027 and 030, and go- selected over bi- coding Coyote might perhaps have been expected in the post-quotative 020 also and perhaps in
010 depending on pragmatics, section 4.4. But go- coding the white men has not been selected over yi- in post-quotative 023 and it seems possible that, when the point of view remains with one participant, selections of go- over bi- and yi- in post-quotatives cannot both occur in a
given passage so that fourth person reference-switching cannot occur; however, in the absence of more examples of passages in which the point of view is non-alternating, it is not possible to say with any degree of confidence whether this might be so or not.
The selection of go- over bi- also occurs in 74 in 025 and 029 Coyote, and in 78 in 035, 036, 039, and 040 the eagle children. The point of view remains with Coyote in 74 as in 73 also and the eagle children in 78. But the selection of go- over yi- can also occur yi-
coding the participant whose point of view is not taken: in passage 72 above, go- has been selected over yi- in clause 045 the little one’s mother, in passage 75 in clause 030 the rock the second pronominal refers to the excrement, in passage 76 in 011 the Foolish People,
and in passage 77 in 010 and 022 Coyote’s wife; that is, the selection is not restricted by which participant’s point of view has been taken.
In the two passages in the remainder of this section, there is no ongoing interaction between two participants but instead there is only one same-non-agent unit in which the two are both mentioned.
A same-non-agent unit sNP bi-Ø-V: “Quote,” go-Ø-V serving to mark an important event in Kenoi’s “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony” passage 80, occurs in clause 063–065. The spirit guide is mentioned in only this one same-non-agent unit. The man who knew about the
mountain spirits tells the Indians he can do nothing to help the girl who has offended the mountain spirits by what she has said. However, his spirit guide Hoijer 1938:144, xaa-
ń bich’įįyáłti-náʔa-ń ‘whoever it is who it is said speaks to him’, tells him one thing that might avail to keep her from the mountain spirits:
80 063 sNP bi-Ø-V
His spirit guide says to him: 064
“…Put that girl into a hole under the fire…,” 065
go-Ø-V he says to him.
The post-quotative go-Ø-V highlights this unit and draws attention to the spirit guide’s instructions. The Indians will follow the instructions on the fourth night of the mountain spirit ceremony and the denouement of the narrative develops from this.
Passage 81 from Kenoi’s “Coyote Dances With the Prairie Dogs” is preceded and followed by a number of intransitive clauses in which there is no mention of Puma. Coyote sets the prairie dogs he has killed to cook and goes away to sleep, and then wakes up to discover that Puma
has eaten his prairie dogs: 81 110
Ø-V -
dą́ He Coyote sleeping-AT.WHEN, 111 sNP
bi-Ø-V Puma dug out the prairie dogs of him.
112 oNP
bi-yi-Ø-V He ate the fat prairie dogs of him.
113 oNP
bi-yi-Ø-V He put back the thin prairie dogs for him.
114 sNP go-Ø-V
Puma went away from him. Clauses 111–114 in 81 are the only example found of a verb form bi-Ø-V and a verb form go-Ø-V in one non-quotative same-non-agent unit. No
example of the corresponding pair of non-quotative verb forms yi-Ø-V and go-Ø-V in one non-quotative same-non-agent unit has been found though a post-quotative verb form yi-Ø-V and non-quotative go-Ø-V in one same-non-agent unit is found in the anomalous 34 section 3.5.
The account of Puma’s eating the prairie dogs may be brief but the fourth person pronominal choice in clause 114 marks the same-non-agent unit as significant in the eyes of the narrator.
40
Note that actually there is no face-to-face interaction between Puma and Coyote Coyote is still sleeping when Puma goes away but the addition of a pronominal and postposition initial to the verbs of clauses 111, 112, 113, and 114—baa- ‘dug them out from him’, baa- ‘ate
them from him’, bá- ‘put back for him’, and goch’ą́- ‘went away from him’—transitivises the clauses making possible the mention of Coyote in
each of them so that Coyote’s point of view can be maintained in each. The choice of the fourth person pronominal go- in the last clause serves to highlight the incident.
This process of the addition of a pronominal and postposition initial to a verb has been noted before, at the end of section 4.4, in relation to clauses occurring in passages 59, 62, and 68.
40
In a Slavey Northern Athabaskan narrative parallel to “Coyote Dances With the Prairie Dogs”, the final episode is a long one in which a fox confronts Yambaa Déya, the Slavey culture hero-trickster, over ducks Yambaa Déya has set to cook
Yǫ T’ǫ́h Gondi 1970. In the Chiricahua narrative, substitute Yambaa Déya Sky Walker for Coyote; ducks fooled by Yambaa Déya’s moss-filled backpack supposedly containing his song for the prairie dogs fooled by the old worn-out soldiers’
coats Coyote was carrying like a flag; a tightly-woven tipi from which the ducks cannot escape for the prairie dogs’ holes stopped up to prevent their escape; a fox who steals the cooking ducks while Yambaa Déya takes a walk for the puma who steals the cooking prairie dogs while Coyote sleeps. Half of the Slavey narrative
describes the fox stealing the ducks and, when Yambaa Déya sets more to cook, returning and eating those too while Yambaa Déya is a powerless onlooker because stuck in a malevolent tree.
6 ‘Impersonal’ fourth person
