AMA on Indonesian

[Salmoneus]

I'm sorry that, as a non-linguist, I can't contribute particularly meaningfully or voluminously here. I'll try to formulate some semi-meaningful reponses to your earlier post as time and brainpower allow; sorry if you feel you've wasted your time on me there! Regarding the problems you raise here:

This maybe leads to my first problem. If C allows simple codas, why does it insert two schwas inside complex onsets? [sət.ri.ka] should be okay for variety C if it allows CVC syllables. Maybe there is a solution, but I really don't see it now.

Well, if you assume that the schwas are all there "already", then you don't have to worry about this, as this problem never arises! C merely retains all the schwas, and the fact that removing some schwas would leave perfectly legal clusters doesn't matter, because... it retains all schwas!

This seems like a pretty good reason to think that archiphonemically there are underlying schwas.

In fairness, however, having said that, it is possible to get to this outcome even with no underlying schwas - it's just less elegant.

There are five ways of doing this that I can see, although they may have very slightly different predictions, so they're not necessarily all valid in C. But the ways I can see are:

1. "repair" from right to left. /strika/ (illegal) > /st@rika/ (still illegal!) > /s@t@rika/ (legal! yay!). The alternative form /s@trika/ is legal, but inaccessible, because you can never get to if you insist on repairing illegal sequences from right to left in the order you come to them.

2. restructure syllable boundaries. /strika/ > /s@t.ri.ka/, but /tr/ is always placed in the same syllable, so > /s@.trika/, which is illegal again, so > /s@t@rika/.

3. just plain ban certain sequences, regardless of syllable structure. Just because you have coda /t/ and onset /r/ doesn't mea the cluster /tr/ has to be legal!

4. have different coda rules at the end of words. This is common - many language allow final codas but no other codas at all. Perhaps C allows any coda word-finally, but only, say, sonorants as non-final codas (allowing /komp@lek/ but not /s@trika/).

5. distinguish major and minor syllables - after all, you're in that part of the world! You could say that a major syllable can have a coda, while a minor syllable cannot (just as it cannot have any vowel other than schwa).


But I think "the schwas are all there already" is more elegant.

Second, the variation described above does not apply to all schwas. Some schwas show up in all three varieties. Note that these words would be well-formed in all three varities, even without the schwa. If we assume that all schwas are underlying and are deleted between two consonants if this would lead to a valid cluster, these forms are not expected. Similarly, if we assume that schwas are only inserted to break up illegal consonant clusters, these forms are unexpected.

A, B, C
ga.mə.lan, ga.mə.lan, ga.mə.lan `gamelan'
u.pə.ti, u.pə.ti, u.pə.ti `tax'
e.kə, e.kə, e.kə `I, me (slang)'
ə.lang, ə.lang, ə.lang `eagle'

If you assume epenthesis, you have to also assume some pre-existing schwas before epenthesis.

If you assume non-epenthesis, you have to assume a merger between two underlying (or diachronic) vowels. One vowel is schwa all along and is reduced in some dialects. The other vowel is not reduced, but subsequently merges with schwa in its realisation.

Third, and this became much clearer to me after reading the Adisasmito again, the tendencies for schwas to surface are opposite in loanwords and native roots. In native roots, higher register and slow speech tempo condition more schwas

This further reinforces the non-epenthesis model. Just as in English, schwas would be present when speaking more formally or 'clearly', but elided in more casual spech.

The alternative option - that schwas are spontaneously invented in various positions only when speaking in a high register, or slowly (perhaps because it gives speakers time to plan where to put them to sound most pompous!) - seems far less intuitive and elegant to me.

, whereas in loanwords it's the other way round. Loandwords have more schwas in lower registers and higher speech tempo. Of course, loanword phonology can be different from native phonology, I think this is still surprising.

It's interesting, but it's exactly what you'd expect if schwas are there underlyingly in native words.

Using that model, you have:
- native words have schwas
- schwas are elided in low registers
- loanwords without schwas are introduced
- low-register speakers recognise loanwords as inherently of a higher register and hypercorrect by adding schwas to them (particularly if the loanwords are SO complex that even low-register speakers don't like their clusters)
- high-register speakers recognise this as a hypercorrection and remove schwas from loanwords to return them closer to their original form

Using the opposite model you have:
- native words have no schwas
- loanwords are introduced that also have no schwas
- high-register speakers suddenly decide to introduce schwas only to native words and not loanwords
- low-register speakers rebel by perversely deciding to introduce schwas into loanwords but NOT native words, presumably just to piss off high-register speakers by doing the exact opposite from them for no apparent indepndent reason but just because!

Again, I think the former is more elegant.

[Creyeditor]

As I said before, I am convinced by your underlying schwa approach. And it seems your options 1. and 2. are also valid solutions. (IIRC Adisasmito has arguments against some of the other options, but I don't think it's super relevant here.) I also like your hypercorrection reversal idea. I think I am much less confused than I was before discussing this. I see this as a win and not as a waste of time at all

Edit: I am working on the TAM post by the way. And it's a lot of fun.

[Creyeditor]

I figured I split the TAM post up in two smaller posts. That way you get to enjoy at least some of this before I stop being overwhelmed by RL.

TAM in Indonesian part I
TAM in Indonesian is fun. I think about it often because I frequently stumble across the focus on iamitive, a future vs. non-future distinction and modal distinctions, which are slightly different from my native variety of German which has a very heavy focus on past vs. non-past. The other interesting thing IMHO is that TAM information is spread across several syntactic categories but this system is relatively stable across different varieties. I will start by describing the different semantic categories based on tense, aspect and modality with information on obligatoriness and optionality, and then a categorization into the three traditional syntactic categories, auxiliary, modal and adverb. I will continue with a short description of the syntactic properties of these categories, i.e. word order and combinatorial possibilities and with a short list of variation found in different varities that I am aware of. Finally, I will try to provide some etymological information.

SEMANTICS
Tense
The difference between past tense and present tense is usually unmarked. Some descriptions give telah as a past tense marker but I will file it with sudah as a iamitive, see below. I out of-the-blue contexts, unmarked utterances are either interpreted as referring to a past event or an event in the (extended) present.

Saya ber-temu teman.
1SG MIDDLE.VOICE-meet friend
'I meet a friend.' or 'I met a friend.'

Temporal adverbs often disambiguate time reference.

Kemarin, saya bertemu teman di Bandung.
yesterday 1SG MIDDLE.VOICE-meet friend in Bandung
'Yesterday, I met a friend in Bandung.'

Unmarked sentences can also refer to habitual events, capabilities or wishes in the present.

Saya makan nasi juga.
1SG eat rice too
'I also want to eat rice.' or 'I am also able to eat rice.' or 'I usually eat rice, too.' or 'I also ate rice.'

In contrast to the unmarked past tense, the future tense is almost always marked with akan. Unmarked forms cannot have future reference in out of the blue contexts.

Saya akan bertemu teman di Bandung.
1SG FUT MIDDLE.VOICE-meet friend in Bandung
'I will meet a friend in Bandung.'

Even with some adverbs that clearly imply future time reference, akan is still used.

Besok, saya akan bertemu teman.
tomorrow 1SG FUT MIDDLE.VOICE-meet friend
'Tomorrow, I will meet a friend.'

In certain contexts, akan can still be dropped and future time reference is inferred from the context. This is especially true for predicates that involve a change of state or change in location.

Besok, saya (akan pergi) ke Bandung.
tomorrow, 1SG (FUT go) to Bandung.
'Tomorrow, I will go to Bandung.

Aspect
The most prominent and frequent TAM marker in Indonesian is sudah. This is a so-called iamitive marker, an areal feature of South-East Asia, and often translated as 'already'. It is very much obligatory. Imagine having to insert 'already' anywhere where you could insert it and you roughly get its usage. Its semantics is sometimes related to the English Perfect.

Saya sudah makan.
1SG already eat
'I have already eaten.'

Sudah often occurs in isolation as a positive answer to a question.

Q: Sudah makan?
already eat
'Have you eaten yet?'

A: Sudah.
already
'Yes'

A slightly less frequent marker is the progressive marker sedang. It is usually describes an activity as taking place during the reference time. It is not obligatory and can be dropped relatively freely but it is still used often enough.

Saya (sedang) mem-baca buku.
1SG PROG ACT-read book
'I am reading a book.'

Two other frequent TAM markers are pernah and biasa. The former serves as an experiential ('once, ever') the latter as a habitual ('usually'). Both are relatively common but can are only obligatory of the information cannot be inferred from the context.

Saya pernah mem-baca buku.
1SG ever ACT-read book
'I once read a book.'

Saya biasa baca buku.
1SG usually read book
'I used to read books'/'I usually read books.'

Mood:
Mood is expressed by adverbs and modal verbs which express information about necessity vs. possibility and sometimes an epistemic vs. deontic distinction.

Mungkin is a very common adverb used for epistemic possibility. It is usually obligatory, I think.

Mungkin dia lagi makan.
maybe 3SG PROG eat.
'Maybe he is eating.'

Bisa is a modal verb that expresses possibility of several kind. It can be used for epistemic possibility, as well as circumstantial possibilities and capabilities and skills of any kind. Sometimes it's also used for deontic possibility, but this is not its main function, I would say. The epistemic function is often made clear in a construction using bisa jadi' 'can happen'.

Dia bisa makan.
3SG can eat
'He is able to eat.' or 'Given the circumstances, he can eat.' or 'He is allowed to eat.'

Bisa jadi dia lagi makan.
can happen 3SG PROG eat
'It's possible that he's eating.'

The modal boleh on the other hand is only allowed in deontic modality contexts (pun intended). It can express explicit permission, a right to do s.th., or similar concepts.

Dia boleh makan.
3SG be.allowed.to eat
'He is allowed to eat.'

The adverb pasti expresses weak epistemic neccesity, similar to the English adverb 'probably'.

Dia pasti lagi makan.
3SG probably PROG eat
'He is probably eating.'

Finally, the modal verb harus can be used for any kind of epistemic, deontic, or circumstantial necessity. The epistemic necessity is often disambiguated by using the form harusnya, which changes the syntactic class of the word to adverb.

Dia harus makan.
he must eat
'He is obliged to eat.' or 'Given the circumstances, he must eat.' or 'He must eat (e.g. in order to survive.)'

Dia harus-nya makan.
3SG must-ADV eat
'It is certain that he eats' or 'He should be eating right now.'

Finally, there is a modal verb mau, which expresses desire, i.e. what some call bouletic modality. It has some special properties when it comes to syntax and cross-variety variation but we'll come to that in a second.

Saya mau makan.
I want eat
'I want to eat.'

[Creyeditor]

Just wanted to mention that I am still working on the next post. Turns out, the syntactic properties of Indonesian TAM markers are pretty complex and still the subject of ongoing research. I am thinking about how to simplify it and what to exclude right now but I might actually have time to do this in the next few months so stay tuned.

[Creyeditor]

TAM in Indonesian part II
SYNTAX

So, I tried to come up with a consensus classification of the syntactic behavior of Indonesian TAM markers and I soon noticed that there is no consensus. Compare the three following classifications from Wiktionary, KBBI jaring (the official Indonesian dictionary by the Indonesian government) and the reference grammar by Sneddon.

The three classifications do not only differ in terminology, they also differ drastically in their groupings. I tried to put them in an ASCII table and IINM, they only agree on very few groupings. They all group the future marker akan with the progressive marker sedang and the experiental marker pernah ('once') . They also group the habitual aspect marker biasa with the modal marker pasti 'probably'. Sneddon also mentions that the future marker akan could alternatively be grouped as a modal, similar to mau 'want'. This would group akan with harus 'must' in all systems and mau with boleh 'may' in all systems.

Code: Select all

+------------+----------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
+------------+----------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
| TAM marker |  gloss   |     Sneddon     |   KBBI    | Wiktionary |
+------------+----------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
+------------+----------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
| bisa       | can      | modal           | verb      | verb*      |
|            |          |                 +-----------+            |
| boleh      | may      |                 | adverb    |            |
|            |          |                 |           +------------+
| harus      | must     |                 |           | adverb**   |
|            |          +-----------------+           +------------+
| mau        | want     | verb            |           | verb*      |
|            |          +-----------------+           |            |
| sudah      | IAM      | temporal marker |           |            |
|            |          |                 |           +------------+
| akan       | FUT      |                 |           | adverb**   |
|            |          |                 |           |            |
| sedang     | PROG     |                 |           |            |
|            |          |                 |           |            |
| pernah     | once     |                 |           |            |
|            |          +-----------------+           |            |
| mungkin    | maybe    | adjunct         |           |            |
|            |          |                 +-----------+------------+
| biasa      | HAB      |                 | adjective | adjective  |
|            |          |                 |           |            |
| pasti      | probably |                 |           |            |
+------------+----------+-----------------+-----------+------------+

So, what do you do if there are three competing standards? You add another one. I did a simple syntactic distribution test, based on the following sentence.

Dia tidak makan nasi.
3SG NEG eat rice
He does not eat rice.

I checked for each position ([1] Dia [2] tidak [3] makan [4] nasi [5].) if the marker can occur. Note that these are my non-native intuitions and that there are other syntactic tests that might justify a different classification. I noted Y for acceptable without further context, M for acceptable only with further context (i.e. intonation, tag questions, previous discourse) and N for not acceptable.

Code: Select all

             [1] Dia [2] tidak [3] makan [4] nasi [5].
akan    FUT   M       Y         Y         N        N
sudah   IAM   M       Y         N         N        M       
sedang  PROG  N       Y         N         N        N
pernah  once  Y       Y         Y         N        M
biasa   HAB   Y       Y         Y         N        M
mungkin maybe Y       Y         Y         N        Y
bisa    can   M       Y         Y         N        M
boleh   may   M       Y         Y         N        M
pasti   PROB  Y       Y         M         M        Y
harus   must  M       Y         Y         N        M
mau     want  M       Y         Y         N        M

As you can see, there is more of a continuum in terms of possible positions. Nothing can easily be placed between the verb and the object and all of them can occur between the subject and the negation. If we order them from most flexible to least flexible, we get the following:

Code: Select all

             [1] Dia [2] tidak [3] makan [4] nasi [5].
mungkin maybe Y       Y         Y         N        Y
pasti   PROB  Y       Y         M         M        Y
pernah  once  Y       Y         Y         N        M
biasa   HAB   Y       Y         Y         N        M
bisa    can   M       Y         Y         N        M
boleh   may   M       Y         Y         N        M
harus   must  M       Y         Y         N        M
mau     want  M       Y         Y         N        M
akan    FUT   M       Y         Y         N        N
sudah   IAM   M       Y         N         N        M       
sedang  PROG  N       Y         N         N        N

We can get the following generalizations from that. Only the modal markers mungkin ('maybe') and pasti ('probably') can occur in sentence final position. We can potentially group all markers that can occur without further context in initial position as adverbs (or adjuncts in Sneddon's terms) , which adds pernah ('once') and the habitual marker biasa to the group. Modal (verbs) can then be classified as markers that can occur before or after negation and with more context in final position. This includes bisa 'can', boleh 'may', harus 'must', mau 'want'. The future marker akan is similar, except that it cannot occur in final position. Finally, the iamitive marker sudah and the progressive marker can both only occur before negation but not after it. This could yield the following classification.

Code: Select all

MODAL ADVERBS
mungkin POT   Y       Y         Y         N        Y
pasti   PROB  Y       Y         M         M        Y

ASPECTUAL ADVERBS
pernah  once  Y       Y         Y         N        M
biasa   HAB   Y       Y         Y         N        M

MODAL AUXILIARIES
bisa    can   M       Y         Y         N        M
boleh   may   M       Y         Y         N        M
harus   must  M       Y         Y         N        M
mau     want  M       Y         Y         N        M

TEMPORAL AUXILIARIES
akan    FUT   M       Y         Y         N        N

ASPECTURAL AUXILIARIES
sudah   IAM   M       Y         N         N        M       
sedang  PROG  N       Y         N         N        N

This system, I think, is similar to Sneddons, which might be a good thing? Sorry, I just noticed there were not many actual Indonesian sentences in this post. I hope it is still interesting to some of you.

[Visions1]

This whole thread is a gem (something about seeing words in Indonesian makes me feel cheery inside).
And this post was actually very easy to follow and quite useful. Thanks! I'll have to remember it.

[Creyeditor]

Thank you for the nice words. I still might add some example sentences in the next post.

[Creyeditor]

TAM in Indonesian part III
SYNTAX examples

Now that I know my categories, here are some examples. I decided to have a post with some examples but not all possible examples because this post is already very long.

The modal adverbs mungkin and pasti can occur in initial position without any context.

Pasti kamu belum mandi.
probably 2SG not.yet take.a.shower
You probably haven't taken a shower yet

There is only a slight difference in meaning if these modal adverbs occur in sentence-final position.

Kamu belum mandi pasti.
2SG not.yet take.a.shower probably
You probably haven't taken a shower yet.

Of course, mungkin and pasti can also occur in between the subject and the verb.

Dia mungkin bukan yang paling populer.
3SG maybe not.N REL SUPERL popular
Maybe s/he is not the most popular one.

The aspectual adverbs pernah and biasa can also occur in initial position.

Biasa kamu tidur jam berapa?
HAB 2SG sleep hour how.many
When do you usually go to bed?

They are much more frequent between the subject and the verb though.

Kamu pernah ke Indonesia?
2SG once to Indonesia
Did you ever visit Indonesia?

The modal auxiliaries boleh, bisa, harus, mau usually occur between the subject and the verb. The position with regard to the negation tidak influences the scope and thus the semantics.

Orang hamil boleh tidak tidur siang.
person pregnant may NEG sleep noon
Pregnant people are allowed to not take a nap at noon.

Orang hamil tidak boleh tidur siang.
person pregnant NEG may sleep noon
Pregnant people are not allowed to take a nap at noon.

Modal auxiliaries can also occur in final position. This is common as the answer to some question or as a continuation of some previous discours and it usually has a semantic effect.

A: Besok, saya akan telpon lagi.
tomorrow 1SG FUT phone again
Tomorrow, I will call you again.

B: Kamu ke sini boleh.
2SG to here may
You could come here. (Implication: You should come here!)

Similarly, they can occur in initial position. This is often the case in questions.

Boleh saya bertanya?
boleh saya ber-tanya?
may 2SG MID-ask
May I ask a question?

The temporal auxiliary akan (FUT) can occur before or after the negation. I think there is a difference in semantic scope but this is sometimes blurred.

Kamu akan tidak sanggup.
2SG FUT NEG capable
You won't be able to deal with it. (In the future, there will be a point, where you are not able to deal with it.)

Kamu tidak akan sanggup.
2SG NEG FUT capable
You won't be able to deal with it. (In the future, there will be no point, where you are able to deal with it.)

The aspectual auxiliaries sedang (PROG) and sudah 'already' cannot occur after negation. This might be for different reasons though. For progressive, there only seems to be the following order.

Saya sedang tidak puasa.
1SG PROG NEG fasting
I am not fasting right now.

For the iamitive, the reverse scope is expressed by a special negation marker belum 'not yet'.

Saya sudah tidak lapar.
1SG already NEG hungry
I am not hungry anymore.

Saya belum lapar.
1SG not.yet hungry
I am not hungry yet.

---

So, why do people talk about adjectives and verbs instead? Here are some additional properties that might be the reason for saying that.

Some TAM markers seem to be able to directly modify nouns. This is especially true for biasa 'usually', which means normal in this case.

Saya bukan orang biasa.
1SG not.N person normal
I am not a normal person

It is also true for pasti 'probably' to some extent. However, this can only modify nouns that have some inherent modal value and even then its's more common to use the relative clause particle.

prediksi (yang) pasti
prediction (REL) probably
A probable prediction

This might explain why the two are grouped with adjectives in some accounts.

As for verbs, the question is what verbs do. If verbs need to be able to take a nominal argument, then mau 'want' and bisa 'can' could be grouped as verbs. Maybe also boleh but I am not too sure here.

Saya mau nasi.
1SG want rice
I want rice

Dia bisa bahasa indonesia.
3SG can language Indonesia
S/He knows Indonesian.

Dia boleh coklat.
3SG may chocolate
S/He is allowed to eat/take a piece of chocolate.

Mau 'want' is also special in that it can take whole clauses as a complement. This means that the subject of wanting and the subject of the wanted action don't have to coincide. This is different from other TAM markers.

Saya tidak mau dia tinggal di sini.
1SG NEG want 3SG stay LOC here
`I don't want him/her to stay here.'

---

Something that I just noticed yesterday, is that all TAM markers that can occur after negation can also be fronted together with the negation. I guess this puts focus on the negated TAM marker.

Tidak mungkin dia sudah pernah menang.
NEG maybe 3SG already once win
It is impossible that s/he ever won.

Tidak biasa suami bangun pagi.
NEG usually husband get.up morning
Husbands do not usually get up early.

Tidak boleh kalian main di sini.
NEG may 2PL play LOC here
You are not allowed to play here.

If you want to combine several markers, I guess that works if there is no contradiction. Long strings of TAM markers are definitely possible and combinations of two or three TAM markers are common. Here is an extreme example.

Mungkin dia sudah pernah tidak biasa mau makan.
maybe 3SG already once NEG usually want eat.
Maybe there was a time when s/he did not usually want to eat.

---

The next post will probably be on the etymology or dialectal variation in Indonesian TAM markers.

[Visions1]

Kamu (tidak) akan [tidak] sanggup has typo in gloss