Further properties of third person bi- and yi-

Quotative verb forms 10 are defined here by both structure and function. In function, they introduce or close quotes; in structure they have the form transitive ʔá-O-ł-S-ⁿdí ‘say so to’ or intransitive ʔá-S- ⁿdí ‘say so’. ʔá- occurs in pre-quotatives and not in post-quotatives; a pre-quotative clause alone is a grammatical sentence but a post-quotative clause without a quote is not. Not all quotes have a pre- quotative and post-quotative, and a quote may occur without one or both. 11 Note that by definition O- ch’įį-yá-S-ł-ti ‘speak to’, for example, is not a quotative. When passages such as the above are studied in which there are two major participants onstage, third-person-coded, and the point of view remains with one of them, the more topical participant, the canonical forms are found to be as follows, in which the A. forms occur when the topical participant is subject and the B. forms when the topical participant is object: 5 A. or sNP sNP oNP yi-Ø-V Ø-V verb transitive or intransitive; topical participant is subject, and if the verb is transitive the other participant is coded by obviative yi-; sNP is generally absent with change of subject B. sNP bi-Ø-V topical participant is object, coded by proximate object bi-; sNP is generally present with change of subject In fact, any NP, subject or object, tends to code the less-topical participant. ‘Props’ are coded by yi- when the subject is third person, illustrated by the props ‘all his strength’ in 018 and ‘his very best speed’ in 023 of 4 above. Attention will be drawn to other examples as they arise. Canonical forms are those ‘bare bones’ of clause structures which occur with a certain frequency; that is, excluding those that are judged to be rare or quite infrequent. By the ‘bare bones’ of a clause is meant the verb including in it only those pronominals which code the two interacting participants, together with any NP coindexed with the pronominals. The point of view does not always remain with one participant and the forms which occur in that case are discussed in section 4. Also, chart 5 above does not cover the case of clauses containing verb forms go-Ø-V in which go- is the fourth person object pronominal which, in the absence of participant tracking by means of the fourth person section 3, occur in certain post-quotative and non-quotative clauses to be discussed in sections 4 and 5 for when the point of view does not remain, and for when it does remain, with one participant.

2.1.3 Further properties of third person bi- and yi-

Before attention is directed towards the fourth person, some further properties of the third person pronominals bi- and yi- will be documented, particularly noting those features to which reference will be made in following sections. 10 Pre-quotative verb forms ʔádaabiłjiⁿdí ‘3:4. DISTR .say.so.to’ do not occur in their full form; instead, ʔáałjiⁿdí ‘3:4.say.so.to’ and ʔádaałjiⁿdí ‘3:4. DISTR .say.so.to’ are found though Hoijer 1938 never analyses these forms. ʔádaiłⁿdí ‘3:3. DISTR .say.so.to’ is found for ʔádaayiiłⁿdí and optionally ʔáyiiłⁿdí ʔáiłⁿdí ‘3:3.say.so.to’. ʔádaabiiłⁿdí ‘3:3.say.so.to’ does not contract. Reductions are not found in the post-quotatives. In Mithlo’s narratives, the quotative verb stem always carries high tone. In Kenoi’s narratives, it does so in his mountain spirit narratives and in his Coyote story “Coyote Marries His Own Daughter”; however, in his Foolish People narratives, in his ‘at-night’ narratives, and in his Coyote stories in general it carries low tone, with three exceptions. 11 Webster 2006:353 uses the term “Apachean quotative couplet” for co-occurring pre- and post-quotatives and says they are not found in Navajo ibid. 354. Perkins 1978:136 observes that in Navajo, when the subject is inanimate, 12 there is no yi-bi- variation and only bi- is possible and in that case the subject-object word order is immaterial grammatically see also Saxon 2001, Rice Saxon 2005:732. No exception to these findings has been found in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s Chiricahua texts. Examples follow from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree”: 6 dí -í ditsį -í bééso baanáńt’í ̨ This - REL tree - REL money 3:3.grow.from a oNP sNP bi-Ø-V ‘this tree, money grows on it’ a In the verb glosses, the figures represent the person of the pronominals and work inwards toward the stem, and therefore the last figure represents the person of the subject. and from his “Coyote Holds Up the Sky”: 7 dí -í yá béyańʔá -í [hóńshtą] this - REL sky 3:3.brace.up - REL [3:1s.hold] sNP oNP bi-Ø-V ‘[I hold] this tree that braces up the sky’ In the subsections following, the focus will be on clauses in which the subject is animate. In Apachean studies, a principle of ‘parallel processing’ says that in a complex sentence consisting of two transitive clauses with coreferential third person subjects and coreferential third person direct objects, both object pronominals are yi- or both are bi-. If the objects are not coreferential but the subject of one clause has reference to the object of the other, then the object pronominals are bi- in the one and yi- in the other Willie 1991:135f, Willie Jelinek 2000:269f. If an intransitive verb and indirect postpositional object is syntactically equivalent to a transitive verb, then parallel processing should hold with respect to indirect objects as well as direct. However, there are examples in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives which do not accord with parallel processing. In Kenoi’s “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony” and “The Visit of the Mountain Spirits”, whenever the mountain spirits worship the ceremonial fire, the clause structure oNP yi-Ø-V occurs, but whenever the mountain spirits circle toward the fire or move around it, the clause structure oNP bi-Ø-V occurs, the object pronominals, whether yi- or bi-, having reference to the fire. The essential difference is that the object is direct with the verb base ł-zı̨́ ‘worship’, and the object is postpositional in the other two cases, with postpositions -ch’įį ‘toward’ or -ná ‘around’. In 8, a direct object i- yi- occurs in the first verb and an indirect object hi- bi- occurs in the second verb, both having reference to the fire: 8 kǫǫ -í daisí ̨ -go, hinájazhosh a -náʔa fire - REL 3:3. DISTR .worship - SUB 3:3.group.moves.around - NARR ‘worshipping the fire, they are moving around it as a group’ a The verb stem is -zhóósh, -zhoozh ‘several move as a group’, the stem with which the derivational prefix ji- collocates. See example 3, table note a. Plurality of the participants is signalled by da- daa- ‘distributive’ in the first verb and by the stem -zhosh ‘group moves’ in the second. In the following sentence in Mithlo’s “The Killing of the Prairie Dogs”, hi- in the first verb is postpositional, with postposition -ch’įį, and i- yi- a direct object in the second, both having reference to the fire: 12 Actually, in Navajo—and so most likely in Apache also—this is strictly true only when the subject is non-agentive as well as inanimate Rice Saxon 2005:715. If the subject is inanimate agentive, variation is found. 9 kǫǫ -í ʔáxááné -zhį hich’įįdaaneesʔá ̨ -go dainéłʔí ̨ -go, […] fire - REL close -to 3:3. DISTR .put.head.toward - SUB 3:3. DISTR .look.at - SUB […] ‘they having put their heads close to the fire, they looking at it, [he threw the salt into the fire toward them]’ In these two cases 8 and 9, assuming that hi- 13 is a variant of bi-, a proximate bi- in one clause is coreferential with an obviative yi- i- in the other in violation of parallel processing. In 10 from Kenoi’s “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”, there is an additional example of coreferential obviative direct object yi- i- and proximate postpositional object bi- hi- in a complex sentence: 10 ʔigoiʔáń -ji ch’ídégoda ʔáilá -go hich’įįʔinádiłⁿdi - náʔa hole -to in.vain 3:3.do.so - SUB 3:3.keep.on.extending.hand.in.toward - NARR ‘doing him reaching into the hole in vain, he keeps on extending his hand in toward him’ It seems that the violations of parallel processing may arise because, unless there is Subject-Object Inversion, direct objects with the third person subject Ø- can only be yi-, 14 as in the first, second, and first verbs of 8, 9, and 10 respectively. The one example that has been found in the corpus of a transitive clause with the third person subject Ø- in which a third person direct object appears to be bi-, not yi-, occurs in the following sentence from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People and the Horse”: 11 ʔiłch’ą́go haʔdaajiistsas -go biłnádiiłgho -náʔa in.all.directions 3:3.whip - SUB 3:3.run.with - NARR ‘he Mescalero whipping him horse alternately on both sides, he horse ran with him Mescalero’ In the first verb, -daaji- -da-a-ji- -daa-bi-ji-, and a- bi- 15 is the direct object. It could have been expected that the direct object would have been yi- i-, not only by virtue of being a direct object but also because the third person objects in the two clauses 16 are non-coreferential, and therefore will be coded by bi- in the one and by yi- in the other see ‘parallel processing’ earlier in this section. A solution would be to take refuge in a suggestion that -daaji- is a mis-transcription for -daiji- -daa-yi-ji-. Presumably in the right context Subject-Object Inversion occurs in Chiricahua Apache with respect to direct objects as it does in other Apache languages Jicarilla, Sandoval 1984; San Carlos, de Reuse 2006. Subject-Object Inversion occurs in Chiricahua Apache with respect to postpositional objects, illustrated for example by the following from Mithlo’s “Coyote Obtains Fire”: 13 See footnote 1. 14 In this, Chiricahua Apache would parallel Kaska, Gwich’in, Dena’ina, and others; see footnote 8. 15 In the first verb, if the direct object were yi-, then -dai- -daa-yi- would be expected instead of -daa- -daa-bi-, direct object bi-. These reductions are similar to those found in quotatives, see footnote 10. 16 Hoijer 1938:131 says that ji- in the verb is the 3a [fourth person] subject prefix. If so, the coreferential pronominal in the second verb of this complex sentence should be fourth person also. However, clearly the Mescalero rider is third-person-coded in the second clause by an indirect object bi-. Therefore it seems likely that ji- is not the fourth person subject prefix but is the adverbial ji- ‘out into space’, describing the motion of the whip through the air, and the subject is third person Ø-; i.e. the Mescalero is third-person-coded in both clauses. Another occurrence of adverbial ji- is found in 115 see the table note in this example 115. 12 ʔákoo ʔá - ń maʔye -ń ńłch’iʔ -í bijoosⁿdee a -go […] then that - REL coyote - REL wind - REL 3:3.help - SUB […] oNP sNP bi-Ø-V ‘then that Coyote the wind helping him […]’ a bijoosⁿdee ‘he helped him’ is not a fourth person ji- subject form and nor is the bi- a direct object: the form gojoonáánásⁿdee ‘he helped him again’ occurs in Mithlo’s “The Quarrel Between Thunder and Wind”, in which joo- is clearly left of the subject prefix positions and direct object position in the verb. Hoijer calls joo- a thematic derivational prefix 1938:103 and bi- could be said to occur with a zero postposition see Young Morgan 1992:846. All object yi- are not direct, of course: postpositional object yi-, animate or inanimate, is found with such verbs as ‘return to’, ‘run from’, ‘pick up for’, ‘know about’, and ‘sit with’, and in the transitive quotative ‘say so to’. 2.1.4 Exceptional yi-bi-Ø-V clauses In transitive clauses then, when both subject and object are third person, the coindexing rules between the pronominals in the verb and any NP adjuncts normally yield the direct and inverse clause structures sNP oNP yi-Ø-V and oNP sNP bi-Ø-V or there is no NP adjunct. The apparently excluded transitive clauses are oNP sNP yi-Ø-V and sNP oNP bi-Ø-V. 2.1.4.1 Clauses oNP sNP yi-Ø-V Rice and Saxon analyse oNP sNP yi-Ø-V clauses in Navajo in terms of “focus movement” adopting the term from Willie 1991:207 in which the sNP and oNP of a clause sNP oNP yi-Ø-V are inverted without any modification of the verb word and there may be a resultant violation of the animacy hierarchy, a lower-ranking object preceding the subject. In the examples they discuss, the oNP may be a question word and focal Rice Saxon 2005:730. However, in examples of oNP sNP yi-Ø-V in Mithlo and Kenoi’s narratives, it is the sNP which is focal and the oNP if present is a fronted topic. In “The Foolish People and the Missing Pack”, the pack- owner when he misses his pack first asks xaa- ń xééł shaanáyinʔą́ ‘who has taken my pack from me?’ in which the focal subject NP xaa- ń ‘who?’ precedes the object NP xééł ‘pack’, the normal order when the verb form is yi-Ø-V normally question words occur where a corresponding non-interrogative word would Willie 1991:203f. When he repeats his question he says koyá xééł nníʔą́-í, xá-ń shaanáyinʔą́ ‘the pack I put here, who has taken it from me?’, oNP sNP yi-Ø-V, in which the object is fronted. The verb word is unchanged, and the fact that a fronted lower-ranking inanimate object now precedes a human subject does not block the fronting. In Kenoi’s “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony”, successive clauses are: 13 gá ̨hé hooghé -í doo xádá ̨ ʔiyáa yégósį -da - náʔa mt.spirit 3.be.called - REL NEG then someone 3:3.know.about - NEG - NARR oNP sNP yi-Ø-V ‘mountain spirits no one at that time knows about them’ ⁿdé dáhóołeʔé yégósį - náʔa -ń […] man only.one 3:3.know.about - NARR - REL […] sNP yi-Ø-V ‘only one man who knows about them [lives among the Indians…]’ In both clauses, the sNP denoting the one knowing or not knowing about the mountain spirits is the focus. In the first clause, the oNP denoting the mountain spirits is a fronted topic. In Mithlo’s “The Child of the Water”, as White Painted Woman’s children are being born, it happens that: 14 ghééʔye hooghé - ń kaayinłⁿdé - náʔa Giant 3.be.called - REL 4:3:3.eat.obj.from - NARR sNP go-yi-Ø-V ‘he who is called Giant eats them White Painted Woman’s children from her’ The sNP is again focal, ‘Giant it is who eats them …’, reintroducing Giant. Besides further examples of oNP sNP yi-Ø-V in which the sNP is focal, two additional instances of oNP sNP yi-Ø-V have been located in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives and the object NP is probably preposed by reason of its sheer length though an object NP may be long without its being preposed. The following example is from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People Go to War”: 15 tł’óół bizą́ą́yé -í ʔiłk’idą́ łı ̨́- beeʔiłédaastł’ǫ́ - náʔa -í łiʔ -ń rope small - REL long.ago horse- 3:3.tie.together.with - NARR - REL one - REL oNP sNP náinlá - náʔa 3:3.pick.up - NARR yi-Ø-V ‘a small piece of rope which had apparently been used long ago to hobble a horse one of them picked up’ Jung 2000:97 has an example from Lipan Apache in which the clause structure is oNP sNP yi-Ø-V and mentions that there are others in which “heavy object noun phrases” are preposed yielding the same structure. Willie 1991:61 also says that in Navajo the normal interpretation of NP NP yi-Ø-V clauses may be overridden by NP which are “long complex nominals”, yielding oNP sNP yi-Ø-V. 2.1.4.2 Clauses sNP oNP bi-Ø-V As mentioned above section 2.1.3, sNP oNP bi-Ø-V may occur in Navajo when the subject is inanimate, as observed by Perkins. However, there are a limited number of clause structures sNP oNP bi-Ø-V in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s Chiricahua Apache narratives in which the subject is animate and such cases appear not to have been much discussed in the literature, probably for the reason that their analysis generally requires a larger discourse context than one sentence. Perkins has data from Navajo in which bi- has a “focusing function” 1978:126: 16 ashkii at’ééd hastiin yíighah ch’íínílóóz boy girl man yi-past led ‘the boy led the girl past the man’ ashkii at’ééd hastiin bíighah ch’íínílóóz boy girl man bi-past led ‘past the man, the boy led the girl’ In the latter case, the fact of the leading past is “more consequential” and bi- “directs emphasis” onto the man to use Perkins’ words, ibid. 126. Although yi- and bi- contrast in these two sentences, there is no Subject-Object Inversion. 17 17 See also Sandoval 1984:169 for yi-bi- alternation with no Subject-Object Inversion. The examples from Chiricahua Apache in this section also show bi- in a focusing or highlighting function, generally in a single clause not within a span of clauses. When sNP oNP bi-Ø-V occurs and the subject is animate, sNP Ø- refers to a higher-level topic. At the same time, oNP bi- refers to an entity that is topical within the clause to some degree: as noted, in a topicality hierarchy, bi- yi- so that the choice of proximate bi- over obviative yi- in some way foregrounds the object in that clause and draws attention to it. It could be said that there are two topics in such clauses functioning at different levels. The display 17 constitutes the whole brief narrative of Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rock Rabbit”. Coyote is the higher-level topic and the coding in general is the default third person participant reference strategy set out in chart 5 section 2.1.2. But in clause 004 the rabbit is coded by proximate bi- when Coyote, on seeing the rabbit, reacts at the turning point in the narrative the ‘jumping towards’, the “more consequential” action: 17 001 sNP Ø-V Coyote is walking along. 002 sNP Ø-V yi-Ø-V He saw a rabbit lying on the edge of the road. 003 a oNP bi-V passive That rabbit was rock-filled. 004 bi-Ø-V He jumped toward it. 005 Ø-V He took a bite in the middle. 006 “Ow I thought it was a rabbit” 007 Ø-V he says. a The verb form in 003 is a passive, unipersonal, so yi- is not an option. An earlier example occurred in passage 3 above. In Kenoi’s “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”, Coyote is again the higher-level topic and the coding in general is the default third person participant reference strategy set out in chart 5, bi- coding Coyote and yi- coding the rabbit. However, verb forms bi-Ø-V occur in clauses 009 and 015, and in neither case does proximate bi- code the higher-level topic, Coyote. The choices of proximate bi- over obviative yi- in clauses 009 and 015 again mark Coyote’s reactions on seeing the rabbit, this time going on past the rabbit when he supposes it to be a rock-filled rabbit in contrast to jumping towards it 004 in 17 when he had supposed it to be a live rabbit, and then this time running after it on seeing it jump up: 18 008 yi-Ø-V He Coyote did not pay attention to it rabbit. 009 bi-Ø-V He went on past it. 010 Ø-V Further on he looked back. 011 sNP Ø-V yi-Ø-V He saw the rabbit had jumped up. 012 Ø-V He berates himself. 013 “Child of a Coyote He goes about without a bit of sense” 014 Ø-V he says. 015 oNP bi-Ø-V He runs after the rabbit. 016 bi-Ø-V He rabbit ran from him into a dead tree. Passage 19 below includes clauses from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rolling Rock” that precede and follow those displayed in passage 4 from the same narrative, repeating only the first and the last clauses 015 and 025 of that passage. Both in the clauses displayed below and in the omitted clauses 016– 024 when Coyote is running from the rock and the rock is rolling along right at his heels, Coyote as object is coded by proximate bi- and the animated rock as object by obviative yi- generally. However, this default third person participant reference strategy is not followed in clause 013, and in clause 026, the hole a prop that the rock covers is coded by proximate bi- even though, coding a prop, it would be expected that this object pronominal would be yi-. Both these latter two clauses are sNP oNP bi-Ø-V in structure: 19 010 Ø-V He Coyote speaks: 011 “So? where is there a rock that moves about” 012 Ø-V -go he saying-SUB 013 oNP bi-Ø-V he defecated on the rock. 014 Ø-V He went out over there. 015 sNP bi-Ø-V The rock rolled out after him. 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 off for me” 029 bi-Ø-V it says to him. Rocks do not defecate and clearly Coyote is subject in 013. The bi-coding of the rock foregrounds the rock in this clause in some way. The event is unexpected and surprising. It is certainly one of the key events in the narrative. In clause 026, the animated rock is obviously covering the hole, not the hole the rock; moreover, proximate bi- is not coding Coyote, the higher-level topic, but rather the hole. This is another key event, the culmination of the rock’s pursuit of Coyote in clauses 015–025. Did the hole cooperate with the rock acting against Coyote in some way? This idea stems from Shayne who found that the prefixing of bi- to the verb may indicate in some cases that “the goal somehow participates in the event” 1982:397. 18 In Mithlo’s “The Gambling Game For Night and Day”, neglecting the go-coding of the fourth-person- tracked small ones in the matrix clause, the clause is another instance of oNP bi-Ø-V: 20 ditsį łą́ -í sikaa -í bich’įįkaadaahíⁿdá - náʔa tree 3.be.many - REL 3.clump.lies - REL 3:4:3. DISTR .sg.drag.from.toward - NARR oNP bi-go-Ø-V ‘he bear goes dragging from them small ones toward a clump of many trees’ In any case, the bi-coding of the inanimate trees is unexpected. Is in fact the explanation of the bi-coding that the trees somehow participate in the event? By enabling the bear to get away from the attacking small ones? In the sentence immediately following, the trees may be bi-coded again but exceptionally the postposition -ghé ‘in’ occurs without an overt postpositional pronominal: 21 ditsį sikaa -í kaaghédaayá - náʔa tree 3.clump.lies - REL 4:3:3. DISTR .sg.go.in.from - NARR oNP go-bi-Ø-V ‘he went into the clump of trees from them’ Kenoi’s “The Visit of the Mountain Spirits” has been about two supernatural mountain spirits who join the Indian dancers decorated as mountain spirits and whom the Indians unwisely try to follow when they return to the mountains. Consequently many Indians died. In the Coda to the narrative, the narrator contrasts the thinking of the Indians of the past to the thinking of present-day Indians about the mountain spirits. In speaking of the Indians of the past, he says: 18 De Reuse too describes this phenomenon in San Carlos Apache. The following sNP oNP yi -Ø-V sentence implies that Mary, the subject, has full control of the remembering: Mary nnéé yínálnii ‘Mary remembered the man’; whereas the sNP oNP bi-Ø-V sentence seems to imply that the man, the object, caused Mary to remember: Mary nnéé bínálnii ‘Mary remembered the man’ implying that the man caused Mary to remember him de Reuse 2006:238. 22 104 a sNP oNP bi-Ø-V These mountain spirits are valuable to the Indians. 105 sNP Ø-V The Indians worship them. 106 “They live in the sacred mountains,” 107 sNP Ø-V the Indians say. 108 oNP bi-Ø-V They the mountain spirits talk to those Indians who know about mountain spirits. a Hoijer’s translation of díídíí gą́hé-í ⁿdé biłʔílí-náʔa in clause 104 is ‘the Indians respected the mountain spirits’; ‘these mountain spirits were [valuable] with the Indians’ is a more word-for-word translation. The verb is a ‘psych’ verb of a type in which there is no yi-bi- choice Jelinek Willie 1996:27. The whole narrative is clearly about the mountain spirits but in the Coda the Indians are a secondary topic. In clause 108 the Indians of the past are coded by proximate bi- rather than obviative yi- in the structure oNP bi-Ø-V, drawing attention to the surprising fact that the mountain spirits talked to the oldtimers, because today as the narrator says, “they do not talk to us [and] therefore you will not believe” that they used to. For a final example of sNP oNP bi-Ø-V, consider the following quote in Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree”. Coyote has fooled two white men and has driven off with their pack train. They go after him and ask in the coyote town: 23 ʔįįshí ̨ łaʔ - ń xééł hiłʔinayoł - ń [doo xaaóóʔí ̨ -da ] here that.one - REL pack 3: INDEF :3.drive - REL [ NEG 2s.see.someone - NEG ] sNP oNP bi-Ø-V “[You don’t see] anyone here driving a pack train?” The feature distinguishing the person the two white men are looking for is that he is driving a pack train. hi- bi- in xééł hiłʔinayoł ‘he is driving animals; ʔ- ‘ INDEF ’ with packs’ is coindexed with xééł ‘pack’ and probably draws attention to this fact.

2.2 The fourth person pronominals