Ask me anything about Quechua

A forum for guides, lessons and sharing of useful information.
Post Reply
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

Ask me anything about the grammar and whatnot of Quechua and I will do my best to answer per the notes and resources I've acquired over the past year.

Some basic facts about the language:
-Highly synthetic
-SOV word order
-Clusivity distinction in first person plurals
-Lacks proper adpositions
-has both tense and aspect distinctions
-Productive evidential marking
-topic marking

That should be enough to get you all excited or whatevs. Ask away!

**Note: as I've mentioned before, I only have reasonable expertise/knowledge in the dialect of Cusco. I might compare grammatical structures to other dialects when I have the ability to, but this is overwhelmingly going to be Cusco Quechua.
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

A quick phonological sketch:

Consonants:
/p t tʃ k q/ - <p t ch k q>
/pʰ tʰ tʃʰ kʰ qʰ/ - <ph th chh kh qh>
/pʼ tʼ tʃʼ kʼ qʼ/ - <p' t' ch' k' q'>
/s (ʃ) h/ - <s sh h>
/m n ɲ/ - <m n ñ>
/l ʎ r w j/ - <l ll r w y>

Vowels:
/i a u/ - <i a u>

Several phonemes are marginal or otherwise restricted. /l/ appears in several words, but is strikingly more rare than the palatal lateral consonant, and much rarer than all other consonants in general. In several words it derives from Proto-Quechua *ll as well. /ʃ/ only occurs in a single morpheme--the progressive marker--but the sound [ʃ] actually occurs quite frequently in speech, as an allophone of /s/ in coda position.
/w/ seems to have merged with /j/ in the coda in most morphemes (based on word forms in other dialects), but I have seen it present in one or two words in that position.

The more marked plosives (aspirates and ejectives) can only appear in the onset as far as I can tell, and only once per word. Thus, they are entirely absent from affixes. They're much more rare than the plain series, and many instances of them are apparently from Aymara loanwords. Some say that Aymara influence is the only reason they exist in the language at all, but I can't comment on the validity of that hypothesis.

Other allophony that occurs is fairly standard. Uvular consonants lower /i u/ to [e o], and the consonants /pʰ kʰ qʰ q/ are frequently subject to fricativization, appearing as [ɸ~f x~h x~χ~h x~χ~h] when it occurs. The uvulars do this more commonly than the other consonants, and the glottal allophone [h] is more rare than other realizations, although I have definitely heard it before from native speakers.

the orthography I'm using is from what I understand, the most popularly accepted one. However, you will often see <j> for the dorsal or glottal fricatives that occur, and the vowels /i u/ are sometimes written <e o> in the environment of uvulars to match their surface realizations.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the topic of phonology for now.
User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 01:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by gach »

OK, please run us through a quick sketch of the topic marking system. Does it work symmetrically for core participants and oblique phrases? Are there any syntactic effects associated with marking a participant as a topic? And is there any special marking for what I've seen described as a contrastive or switch topic where you make a pronounced change in the topic of the discourse (the English equivalent would be the construction "As for a new topic, here follows some information concerning it")?

What about marking the focus, are there specific ways to do that or preferential syntactic positions where focal phrases tend to migrate? Can you see any difference between the handling of plain new information focus ("I bought new shoes") vs. contrastive focus ("It's the black ones that I bought")?
ImageKištaLkal sikSeic
User avatar
kanejam
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 07 Jun 2013 07:50
Location: NZ

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by kanejam »

How are sentence constituents and grammatical function marked (i.e. subject, object, oblique etc.) is there a case system and/or person marking on verbs?
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

I'll respond to your questions tomorrow, gach, because they have much more complex answers. Also, the topic-comment structure was one of the few things we never really examined in my classes to any detailed degree. I believe I'll still be able to answer your questions adequately, but it will take me a while to do so.
kanejam wrote:How are sentence constituents and grammatical function marked (i.e. subject, object, oblique etc.) is there a case system and/or person marking on verbs?
Quechua has a rather plain case system. The wikipedia article has a rather large list of 'cases', but it's a bit weird and includes things that I wouldn't refer to with that term, so I'll just include the ones that are attested in the literature I own and are also operating in a way that imo is productive to call a 'case'. The system is basically this:

accusative:
+marks objects of transitive verbs
Alqu-ta riku-ra-ni
[dog-ACC see-PST-1]
"I saw a dog"

+Adverbializes adjectives
This usage of the accusative marker is somewhat interesting, because some cases of it appear to be analyzable as part of the first usage.
allin-ta ka-sha-ni
[good-ACC be-PROG-1]
"I'm (doing) good"

However, copular usage of kay has both arguments in the nominative:
sipas-∅ ka-ni
[girl-NOM be-1]
"I'm a girl"

and this construction appears with verbs that are obviously intransitive:
taruka=qa usqha-y-ta=s ayqi-pu-sqa
[deer=TOP hurry-INF-ACC=EV.HSY flee-away-NARR]
"The deer quickly escaped"

So it appears to be an entirely different usage. Alternatively, you could say it's a different suffix that is homophonous, but that's a bit obtuse I think.

dative/illative: -man
This one's pretty innocuous. It works generally as you'd expect. Indirect objects of ditransitive verbs are marked with this:

nuqa-man aycha-ta apa-wa-y
[1-DAT meat-ACC give-1.O-IMP]
"Give me the meat"
**note that this displays the fact that Quechua is secundative wrt. verbal marking.

However, for movement situations, two markers can appear.
wasi-n-man ri-ra-n
[house-3.POSS-DAT go-PST-3]

wasi-n-kama ri-ra-n
[house-3.POSS-TERM go-PST-3]
with a typical semantic distinction; the first is more or less neutral "towards/to" and is more common. The second is a so called "terminative case" which kind of emphasizes the completion of the action I guess. It's more like "right up to", and appears mostly in customary goodbye phrases; e.g. tupananchiskama 'until we meet again'.

genitive: -pa/-q
no real need for elaboration here. This marks possessors; it's -pa after consonants and -q after vowels. Possessed objects are marked for the person and number of the possessor.

ablative: -manta
typical; basic movement away from something. Maybe somewhat interestingly, also takes the role of marking the topic of a discussion cf. English "about"
runa-simi-manta tapu-wa-y-chis
[people-language-ABL ask-1.O-IMP-PL]
"Ask me about Quechua"

locative: -pi
general locative; takes the role of 'in', 'at', etc. This is a component of many "postpositional phrases"; for example urqu pata-pi [mountain top-LOC] "on top of the mountain". The =pata-pi construction is also used for the sense of "about/concerning X"

benefactive: -paq
used for typical benefactive constructions. The benefactive can also be indicated within the verbal complex:
(Nuqa-paq) chay-ta ruwa-(pu-wa)-ra-nki-chu
[1-BEN DEM-ACC do-BEN-1.O-PST-2.S-NAFF]
"Did you do that for me?"
also a component of expressions of purpose:
kutichi-na-y-paq chay-ta qilqa-sha-ni
[answer-DEP.FUT-1-BEN DEM-ACC write-PROG-1.S]
"I'm writing this in order to answer you"
**it is very common for speakers to move the purpose clause after the verb in this construction, although theoretically the pre-main verb order is more 'proper'.
kanejam wrote:...person marking on verbs?
Quechua has polypersonal agreement, marking verbs for both subject and object. However, the actual morphemes that can be separated from each other and how they interact with each other and the rest of the verb is a little baroque. Basically, the following morphemes can be identified (some of them are different in the conditional and future tense, I can give you those ones too if you think they're relevant to your Q):
-wa- : 1.O
-su- : 2.O
-ni : 1.S
-nki : 2.S
-n : 3.S
(-yku) : 1PL.S (possibly analyzable as y-ku)
-nchis : 12.S
(-nku) : 3PL.S (convenient to analyze as n-ku)
-ku : PL.3
-chis : PL.2
-yki : 1>2
+third person object is not marked.
+the possessive morphemes occur in lieu of the subject markers in subordinate clauses

the -ku vs. -chis thing is most interesting to me. Only one of them can appear per verb, but -chis pluralizes with the sense of adding an additional second person to the mix, while -ku adds an additional third person. Thus, we love you vs. you pl. love me/us is muna-yki-ku vs. muna-yki-chis. As far as I can tell -chis always "overtakes" -ku.

Some confounding characteristics of this system:
-the first person object morpheme occurs before all inflectional morphemes, but after all derivational ones, having its own unique slot in the verbal paradigm.
-3>2 does not appear as the expected su-n, but rather su-nki! Even worse, the second person object morpheme occupies the same slot as (most of?) the tense and aspect markers, which always take priority, so one might be tempted to not call it a separate morpheme at all. However, it does appear alone with the subordinator -qti- : riku-su-qti-n [see-2.O-SUB-3] "when he sees you" so apparently it is its own thing after all.

Is this a satisfactory explanation of what you were looking for, kanejam?
User avatar
kanejam
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 07 Jun 2013 07:50
Location: NZ

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by kanejam »

Cool! I was really just looking for an overview and thought that would be a good question to demonstrate some features of Quechua. The answer is definitely satisfactory!
User avatar
gach
MVP
MVP
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 01:26
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by gach »

Teddy wrote:+Adverbializes adjectives
This usage of the accusative marker is somewhat interesting, because some cases of it appear to be analyzable as part of the first usage.
allin-ta ka-sha-ni
[good-ACC be-PROG-1]
"I'm (doing) good"

However, copular usage of kay has both arguments in the nominative:
sipas-∅ ka-ni
[girl-NOM be-1]
"I'm a girl"
Is it possible to see this as a difference between adjective and noun predication or is is more complex than that?
ImageKištaLkal sikSeic
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by Xing »

How does the evidentiality system work? Is the truth-value of the evidentials independent of the truth value of the predicates themselves? Is there an overlap between evidentiality, epistemic modality and/or other categories?
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

gach wrote:
Teddy wrote:+Adverbializes adjectives
This usage of the accusative marker is somewhat interesting, because some cases of it appear to be analyzable as part of the first usage.
allin-ta ka-sha-ni
[good-ACC be-PROG-1]
"I'm (doing) good"

However, copular usage of kay has both arguments in the nominative:
sipas-∅ ka-ni
[girl-NOM be-1]
"I'm a girl"
Is it possible to see this as a difference between adjective and noun predication or is is more complex than that?
Perhaps. Quechua doesn't distinguish adjectives and nouns in a clear way. Some lexical items are much more common in adjectival form (e.g. allin 'good'), but any adjective can operate as a noun, and any noun can operate as an adjective. The prototypical example given in my class was

(1)
llama tullu
[llama bone]
'llama bone'
vs.

(2)
tullu llama
[bone llama]
'skinny/emaciated llama'

Moreover, you can have a sentence like
(3)
Chay-pi-n iskay kawallu ka-ra-n. Nuqa yana-kama siqa-ra-ni, pay=taq ch'umpi-kama siqa-ra-n.
[DEM-LOC=EV.DIR two horse be-PST-3 1 black-TERM go.up-PST-1 3=CONTR brown-TERM go.up-PST-3]
"There were two horses there. I got on the black one, and he got on the brown one."

where lexemes that appear to semantically be adjectives operate as nominal predicates. So you could have Allin ka-ni [good be-1] "I am good/a good person" just as well.

I was thinking about your initial question, gach, and I think (3) is a nice segway into it. Quechua does in fact seem to mark contrastive focus with =taq. At the very least, your example sentence would be translated with it present and marking the salient distinction:

yana-ta=taq=mi ranti-ku-ra-ni
[black-ACC=CONTR=EV.DIR buy-REFL-PST-1]
"It's the *black* ones that I bought"

Curiously, this element is all but obligatory in questions. Nearly all content questions actually elicited will get this element attached to the interrogative morpheme, and then are answered with the topic marker on the corresponding item, or the contrastive focus marker is repeated. I'm not 100% sure of whether that indicates a real difference in meaning between the two in this context or is just a stylistic choice.

pi=taq chay-pi ka-n?
DEM-LOC who=CONTR
nuqa=qa kay-pi ka-ni
1=TOP DEM-LOC be-1
"Who is there?
It's me."
gach wrote:OK, please run us through a quick sketch of the topic marking system. Does it work symmetrically for core participants and oblique phrases? Are there any syntactic effects associated with marking a participant as a topic? And is there any special marking for what I've seen described as a contrastive or switch topic where you make a pronounced change in the topic of the discourse (the English equivalent would be the construction "As for a new topic, here follows some information concerning it")?
The same morpheme as before, =qa, is used heavily for these things. It can be applied to all core participants as well as oblique phrases (and apparently entire verb phrases as well), but the topic tends to correspond to the subject in most cases. Thus, the topic tends to be the first element in the sentence, but there's not really any topic-fronting mechanism in the language (if any phrase appears before the topic it is typically an adverbial description of time or place), other than speakers just setting it apart from the rest of the sentence prosodically. The topic will typically be repeated several times with the marker still attached, even if no change in topic has occurred. This usage seems to signal it being used to say "we're still talking about the same thing".

Some examples of usage (taken from a couple folktales):
+Just plain usage--
chay runa-kuna=qa sunqu-n ukhu-lla-pi=s ni-n-ku : kay mamaku=qa kaq-niyuq=má ka-sqa
[DEM person-PL=TOP heart-3.POSS inside-LIM-LOC=EV.HSY say-3-PL | DEM old.woman=TOP thing-POSS=EMPH be-NARR]
"Those people said with such passion: this old woman has so many possessions!"

Topic switch--
Hina=s, killa-kuna=qa tuku-ru-lla-n=taq, tuku-ru-lla-n=taq. Ch'aska=qa pacha illari-mu-y-ta hatari-q...
thus=EV.HSY moon-PL=TOP finish-COMPL-LIM-3=CONTR finish-COMPL-LIM-3=CONTR | N=TOP time sun.rises-DIR-INF-ACC get.up-HAB.PST
"then, months and months passed (and things stayed the same). Ch'aska always woke up at dawn..."

Non-initial topic:
Chay-ta riku-spa=s viudo=qa waqa-y-man-si chura-ku-n qunqaymali ka-sqa-n-manta
[DEM-ACC see-DEP.PRES=EV.HSY widower=TOP cry-INF-DAT=EV.HSY put.on-REFL-3 mistake(??) be-NARR-3-ABL]
"Seeing this, the man started to cry from the mistake he had made"
This sentence is a bit tentative as an example, because I'm only *mostly* sure it means what I think it does. The word order is atypical, and the word qunqaymali is bizarre for a couple different reasons. It's translated as "error" in the Spanish version of this text, but it appears to be separable into qunqa-y-mali. the first part is clearly the verb "forget" plus an infinitive marker, but the second part is an otherwise unattested morpheme that is phonologically unusual for this language. My professor and I theorized that it is a very early loan from Spanish "mal" that has become grammaticalized in maybe a few different words, but then fell out of use. That's the only thing I can come up with.
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

Xing wrote:How does the evidentiality system work? Is the truth-value of the evidentials independent of the truth value of the predicates themselves? Is there an overlap between evidentiality, epistemic modality and/or other categories?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5671
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by Micamo »

Teddy wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I think what he's trying to say is, within the context of the grammatical evidential system, is it possible to make a distinction between:

I saw that he didn't hit her. (Thus I'm asserting that he didn't hit her.)
I didn't see him hit her. (He may or may not have hit her, I'm not asserting either way.)

Anyway, I have a question myself: I read Zompist claim once that Quechua can question an evidential; Is this correct, and if so, how does this work?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

hmm. well, those two sentences would be translated differently, but the difference between them isn't a difference of like, morpheme M to morpheme N. The first would be the default interpretation of the evidential and the second would have to be translated with an entirely different construction. When you use the evidential in conjunction with a negative marker, it is the negativity that is being asserted. So, they are distinguished, but the evidential marker wouldn't be a salient part of the translation of #2.

I'll just go over the system in general, and maybe that will help answer the question.

So, there are three different suffixes that are commonly attributed to the evidential system of Quechua.

direct witness: -mi~-n
hearsay: -si~-s
speaker gathered evidence of assertion: -chá

The first is used when the speaker has personally seen, heard, or otherwise observed P, or they have heard that P is true from a very trustworthy source. Often enough there's no evidential marker present, and in such a situation it also takes this interpretation by default. However, having -mi be present often gives an extra sense of "sureness" to the statement.
The second is fairly self-explanatory; it appears in situations where the speaker did not witness P, but was told that it occurred (and has reason to believe that the person who told them is telling the truth). It most commonly occurs in narratives; every clause except for a character's speech within a story will be marked with the -si evidential.
The third is used when the conditions for neither of the first two are true, but the speaker still feels it is true or very likely that P has occurred. For example, upon looking up and seeing a very dark and cloudy sky, somebody might say "para-nqa=chá" [rain-3.FUT=EV.CONJ] "it looks like it's going to rain"

Some people say that the third is actually an epistemic modality marker. I can't give any opinion on that either way, because I don't understand the difference between that and evidentiality. But, hopefully the description I gave of what it actually *means* is enough for you to make your own conclusion.

As I understand it, most languages attach their evidential markers to verbs, or they appear to modify the entire phrase. It seems Quechua does not share this quality, because the position of the markers can vary depending on what elements are present in the sentence or clause. It's like there's some kind of hierarchy involved. If the negation particle mana is present, then the evidential seems to attach to it invariably. Other adverbial/non-direct argument morphemes also seem to take priority over direct arguments of the sentence, especially conjunctions and other sort of "linking" words. They absolutely never appear on the word that gets the topic marker, and are quite rare to appear on the verb unless it is the only word present. Often they'll appear on oblique arguments and direct objects as well. Not subjects so much, though.

I also think it's valuable to mention that there's two different past markers, depending on whether the speaker was a direct witness of P or not. Interestingly, the speaker has to be lucid to apply the direct past marker to a sentence: if they were very young when it occurred, or drunk, or in a dream, etc. then the indirect past (sometimes referred to as the 'narrative' past) must be used.
Micamo wrote: Anyway, I have a question myself: I read Zompist claim once that Quechua can question an evidential; Is this correct, and if so, how does this work?
This is true. According to this paper (starting at page 229) all of them can appear in questions, but I've only seen -chá occur in this situation. As described there, it often turns things into rhetorical questions. If we had a sentence like

pi-chá kay-ta ruwa-sqa?
[who-EV.CONJ DEM-ACC do-NARR]

Then it would mean 'Who could have possibly done this; God only knows, etc.' I don't have knowledge of the other two as they're used in questions so I can't help you there. I hope the paper I linked is helpful for that.
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by Xing »

Teddy wrote:
Xing wrote:How does the evidentiality system work? Is the truth-value of the evidentials independent of the truth value of the predicates themselves? Is there an overlap between evidentiality, epistemic modality and/or other categories?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Roughly what Micamo said. The distinction is basically between the two kinds of constructions:

1) I saw that he hit her.
2) He hit her. I saw it.

The difference might become more apparent with non-firsthand evidentials:

3) They said that he hit her.
4) He hit her. They said so.

5) I coclude that he hit her.
6) He hit her. I conclude it.

7) It's generally known that he hit her.
8) He hit her. It's generally known.

In the second sentence of each pair, one is directly asserting the proposition 'he hit her'. In the first sentence of each pair, one isn't. As long as we are dealing with firsthand evidentials, the two kinds of constructions are often functionally equivalent. (If you claim you have witnessed that he hit her, you probably want to claim that you're sure about it, and you are thus indirectly stating the truth of the propositon in question.) The distinction becomes more important when it comes to non-firsthand evidentials. It may also come into play when we are dealing with negations or questioning of sentences/clauses with evidentials (as in Micamo's examples).
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3033
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by Salmoneus »

Perhaps a simple question to illustrate the difference: when is the sentence untrue?

"He hit(I saw) her" - is this untrue iff he didn't hit her, or iff you didn't see it?

[If it's like English "I saw him hit her", this is false if you didn't see him hit her (regardless of whether or not she actually did). Or it could be like English "he hit her!" said in a way that makes it seem as though the speaker is certain of it - which is false iff he didn't hit her.]
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

Okay, it's much more clear to me now. The sentence is untrue iff he didn't hit her. So in xing's examples, the interpretation would be the second sentence in each pair.
User avatar
kanejam
greek
greek
Posts: 714
Joined: 07 Jun 2013 07:50
Location: NZ

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by kanejam »

Okay, apart from evidentials, what are the tenses and aspects in Quechua like? If there are different moods and modes and modals etc. then you can go into those too if you have time :)
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

Tense-Aspect-Mood in Quechua is fairly complex. There are several aspect markers, but most of them are losing their productivity in favor of lexicalization. However, I believe that most native speakers would be able to recognize and separate these morphemes if prompted properly.

Quechua's tense system is a basic past-present-future system, except for one difference that I've already mentioned: past tense is divided into complementary markers, based on the subject's relationship to the event.
+witnessed event: -ra-
+non-witnessed event: -sqa-

-sqa- seems to be solely used in conjunction with the 'hearsay' evidential =si at this point. Some authors report that it is falling out of usage entirely for most speakers, except in narratives. I can't recall a counterexample to "-sqa- only appears with =si" or produce one offhand, but I'll look through some of the papers I've got to see if anything comes up.

Present tense is unmarked, but with no other TAM morphology it often indicates a present habitual, except for verbs of a particular semantic group (cf. english "think", "know", "want", etc.). The unmarked present of kay, the copula, denotes an unchanging, inherent state of something, equivalent to Spanish ser.

Future tense is indicated by a unique set of person markers, except for second person, which is morphologically equivalent to the present. The plurality/number morphemes mentioned in a previous post are preserved (which provides evidence for their being separate morphemes). Thus,
mikhu-sha-n-ku
eat-PROG-3.PRES-PL
"they are eating"

mikhu-sha-nqa-ku
eat-PROG-3.FUT-PL
"they will be eating"

12.FUT has a curious form. In standard Cusco Quechua it is -sunchis. This appears to be -su-nchis [2.O-12.S]. However, the literal interpretation of that combination of morphemes is incoherent. The only interpretation that makes sense is that it is a single morpheme, however tempting it might be to further analyze it.

Aspect:
Far and away the most common aspectual marker in Quechua is the progressive marker, -sha-. Indeed, this morpheme is present (ha) in the majority of present tense verbs, in a situation much similar to English. It can be combined with any of the previously mentioned tense markers, as well.

mikhu-sha-sqa-ku=s
[eat-PROG-NARR-PL=HSY]
"they were eating (I am told)"

mikhu-sha-ra-n-ku
[eat-PROG-PST-3-PL]
"they were eating"

It is also used to create a 'ser-estar' distinction in the copula. I don't know if this actually arose from Spanish influence, or it was an independent development that existed in the language before colonization. In any case, it is a productive part of the language today.

Some other aspect related morphemes I have noticed are:
-paya- : frequentative
This one is pretty far along the path of lexicalization. It's also developed kind of a negative/pejorative implication in the verbs it's attested with, for example: asiy 'to laugh' asipayay 'to tease, make fun of sb.'; rimay 'to talk' rimapayay 'to talk incessantly'

-ri- : inchoative
Indicates the beginning of an action or a change in state. The latter meaning seems to be entirely lexicalized, and always occurs with certain roots.
puriy 'to walk' > puririy 'to begin walking'
illay 'shine' > illariy 'to rise (of the sun; i.e. dawn)'
sayay 'be standing' > sayariy 'stand up'
but rikch'ariy 'to wake up' does not appear to have a matching non-inchoative form. This is reasonable from a semantic standpoint.

-q : habitual+past (cf. English 'used to')
This one is used with an auxiliary kay for non-third person subjects. The auxiliary and the main verb act as phonologically distinct words, but appear to be part of the same word morphologically. Some of y'all are more experienced in linguistics than me, but I think there's a compelling argument for considering the ka in this case to be an auxiliary on its own or even some kind of affix rather than a usage of the copula. Observe these forms:

riku-wa-q ka-nki
see-1.O-HAB.PST AUX-2
"you used to see me"

riku-wa-q ka-nki-ku
see-1.O-HAB.PST AUX-2-PL
"you used to see us"

riku-q ka-sunki
see-HAB.PST AUX-3>2
"he usd. see you"
riku-q ka-yki
see-HAB.PST AUX-1>2
"I usd. see you"

riku-q-ku
see-HAB.PST-PL
"they usd. see him"

My thoughts are that since the standalone forms *ka-sunki, *ka-yki, and *ka-nki-ku are invalid, it's more reasonable to consider the morpheme ka- in this case to be different from the copula. I'd like to know what conclusions you all draw from this data, if any are possible. If they aren't, why not? Am I making a reasonable argument for my analysis here?

I was going to put up some information on the different moods of Quechua as implied by the first sentence in this post but the questions above seem kind of stimulating and it's probably better for organizational purposes to only talk about one topic at a time.

EDIT: I just noticed the way I'm formatting this info (italics, bold, brackets, etc.) is pretty inconsistent. I'm not writing these posts with any structure in mind so bare with me if it seems sloppy or whatever
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by eldin raigmore »

Teddy wrote:... so bare with me ...
Pretty sure you meant "bear with me".
I like you, Teddy, but "bare with me" is just a little too friendly. [;)]
thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1545
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by thetha »

I wasn't sure, so I looked it up. But when I noticed the possibility of a joke, I had to keep it like that :mrgreen:
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6353
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Ask me anything about Quechua

Post by eldin raigmore »

Teddy wrote:... when I noticed the possibility of a joke, I had to keep it like that
But of course you had to!
Post Reply