In conjunction with inalienably possessed nouns

Minor contexts involving NFCs 77 Just as in English and other languages, there are MC verbs in Jarawara that can occur either in the context of raising or control. When used in the context of control, such verbs have their normal meaning, but when used as raising verbs, they have an aspectual meaning. NFCs may also occur as complement clauses without either raising or control being involved. Speciically, NFCs may occur as transitive subjects, and they may occur as objects of transitive MC verbs when the respective subjects of the NFC and the MC do not coincide. In some examples the respective subjects of the NFC and the MC do in fact coincide, and these examples show that control is not involved, since the subject pronominal is overt in both clauses. There seem to be semantic divisions among the verbs used in this general syntactic context, suggesting that, although the surface syntax is apparently the same, there are probably syntactic diferences at some level. 3 Minor contexts involving NFCs

3.1 In conjunction with inalienably possessed nouns

There are several minor syntactic contexts where NFCs occur, which have not been listed in table 2. One of these, in NPs headed by inalienably possessed nouns, has been men- tioned above in the introduction. In the subsections which follow, I mention several other minor syntactic contexts. Before proceeding, however, I give additional evidence in favor of a diferential analysis of adjectives and inalienably possessed nouns as mentioned in the introduction. The main reason that adjectives, but not inalienably possessed nouns, should be an- alyzed as modiiers in Jarawara is that NFCs with adjectives participate in control and raising, whereas NFCs in conjunction with inalienably possessed nouns do not. The idea is that since an inalienably possessed noun is the head of the phrase and not the NFC, the possessed noun is a barrier to control or raising. But since an adjective is not the head of the phrase with which is occurs, but is a modiier, it is not a barrier to control or raising. 36 We have already seen one example of raising out of a clause containing the adjective yokana in the discussion of raising in section 2.1 above, i.e. 63. In this example, the MC is intransitive, and the NFC is a transitive Oc. The raising is very clear, as the pronominal A of the NFC irst person singular o- is overt in the MC. The adjective yokana ‘true’ is a modiier of the NFC. Example 190 below is similar, except that the NFC is an Ac clause. 190 Yama yama thing. f hani hani writing +f wato wato. nfin know yokana yokana true oha o-to-ha 1sg.s-ch-be okere. o-ke-re 1sg.s-decl+f-neg+f ‘I dont know how to write well [lit., my knowing of written things is not true].’ 36 In section 2.2 above, I proposed that there is control involving the possessor of the inalienably pos- sessed noun ati ‘voice’, in examples involving wato ‘know’ and nofa ‘want’. The diference between this phenomenon and the examples with adjectives in this section is that in the case of ati, the possessor must always be overt; that is the controller is always the possessor of ati, and cannot be in the verb. In contrast, the examples in this section show that the controller is not overt in the clause containing an adjective, but rather in the MC verb. 78 Jarawara Complement Clauses The next example 191 shows that control is also possible with NFCs that have adjec- tives as modiiers. In this example, both the MC and the NFC are transitive Oc clauses. The control is clear because again, the pronominal A of the NFC irst person singular o- is overt in the MC but not in the NFC. In this case the adjective is bite ‘small’. 191 namosami na-amosa-ma.nfin caus-be good-back bite bite small+f owatoaaro. o-wato-haaro 1sg.a-know-rp.e+f ‘I know a little how to ix them [gill nets].’ In 192 there is likewise control, but there is no pronominal, since the shared subject is third person singular, and is therefore null. In this case the MC is intransitive, and the NFC is a transitive Ac. 192 Name name mans name. m yama yama thing. f namosi na-amosa. nfin caus-be good bite bite small +f wai waa stand nofare nofa-ra +m recently- neg amaka. ama-ka sec-decl+m ‘He just stands around, not clearing brush even a little.’ 37 We have also seen an example with yokana ‘true’ 15 in the introduction above in which there is neither raising nor control. It appears that NFCs with adjectives as modiiers can occur pretty much in the same syntactic environments in which NFCs without adjectives occur, as is expected if adjectives are modiiers. The adjectives yokana and bite are the most common with NFCs, but I have seen ex- amples also with bokato ‘fair amount’ 193, ehebotee ‘big’ 194, and mati ‘a lot’ 195. The class of adjectives in Jarawara is very small, and it is probably the case that all the adjectives may be used in these ways with NFCs. 193 Faya faya so mee mee 3pl.s aabi ahaba.nfin die bokato bokato fair amount toemetemone to-ha-hemete-mone ch-be-fp.n+f-rep+f ahi. ahi then ‘A good number of them died.’ 194 faa faha water.f kaki ka-kI.nfin gocome-coming eebotee ehebotee big bara bara stop tona to-na+f ch-aux ‘The hard rain ended.’ 195 Kori kori be afraid kasi ka-na-kosa. nfin comit-aux-middle mati mati a lot ohawaamaro o-to-ha-waha-hamaro 1sg.s-ch-be-change-fp.e+f oke o-ke 1sg.s-decl+f ‘Then I got really scared.’ The facts for contexts involving NFCs with inalienably possessed nouns are quite difer- ent. There is never either control or raising; in fact, it is extremely rare for such NFCs to even be transitive. There are no sentences like 190 and 191, in which a pronominal 37 The original has the name of the man, but this has been omitted. In conjunction with inalienably possessed nouns 79 from the NFC is overt in the MC. Nor are there any cases where there are two pronominals in the NFC i.e. referencing the A and the O, which we would expect to ind if it were just a matter of overt control and raising not being allowed. Whenever a transitive verb appears in the NFC, it is almost always detransitivized by the operation described above in connection with example 43. 38 When one looks at a sentence like 196, at irst glance it looks like control. In the complex clause yobe kaniki ino mee hiri ni yaa ‘if they want to buy a house’, the NFC yobe kaniki is followed by the inalienably possessed noun ino ‘name’, and the MC verb is hiri na ‘say’. 196 yobe yobe house.m kaniki ka-nika.nfin comit-buy ino ino name+m mee mee 3pl.a hiri hiri say ni na.nom+f aux yaa yaa adjnct yobe yobe house.m mee mee 3pl.a kanika ka-nika.list comit-buy naboneke. na-habone-ke aux-int+f-decl+f ‘If they want to buy a house, they should buy a house.’ It looks like the pronominal A of the MC, mee, is also the semantic A of the NFC. But this is just a possible implication of the discourse context, and is not actually in the syntax. This is clear when we compare 197. In the context of the story, the people who were speaking were accusing the narrator of having a knife. If control were involved, they would have been speaking about their own having a knife. The non-inite verb tama ni is detransitivized. I assign the same analysis to 196, i.e. that grammatically, the verb kaniki is detransitivized, and the phrase is about the buying of a house. The subject mee is not grammatically in the NFC, even though this is the implication of the discourse context. 38 I have seen one example in which the NFC is unequivocally transitive, and the NFC is in a phrase that has as its head an inalienably possessed noun. In i, the possessed noun ino is masculine, and it refers to the same person who is the A of the MC verb. The whole NP tiwa narii ino is the O of the MC, and according to my analysis, ino is the head of the NP. Whereas the NFC in such a case is almost always detransitivized, this does not seem to be the case here. The NFC tiwa narii, if it were detransitivized, would have to have tiwa as its S. But if this were the case, then the possessed noun would have to be feminine ini, to agree with the second person S. The fact that it is masculine ino means that there is a masculine A in the NFC which is phonologically null. i tiwa tiwa 2sg.o narifi narifa. nfin help ino ino name +m hiri hiri say nane. na. cont+m-ne aux-bkg+m ‘He said he had helped you.’ So apparently it is possible to have a transitive NFC in conjunction with an inalienably possessed noun head; but in any case, this does not represent either control or raising. 80 Jarawara Complement Clauses 197 Faya faya so mee mee 3pl.poss ati ati voice yana yana start nete na-hete aux-rp.n+f mee mee 3pl.poss awineke awine-ke seem+f-decl+f yimawa yimawa knife.f tama tama hold onto ni na.nfin aux ini ini name+f mee mee 3pl.a hiri hiri say na na+f aux mati. mati 3pl.a ‘They spoke, speaking about having a knife.’ In conclusion, although it is certainly true that NFCs can occur along with both inalien- ably possessed nouns and adjectives, as I see it the possessed nouns and adjectives in these cases should receive very diferent analyses. In the next subsections I consider several other syntactic contexts in which NFCs occur outside of the central contexts listed in table 2.

3.2 Copular clauses