Awa Pit
Verbs table
gloss | layer | 1 prs statement | 2 prs statement | 3 prs statement | 1 prs question | 2 prs question | 3 prs question | 1 fut statement | 2 fut statement | 3 fut statement | 1 fut question | 2 fut question | 3 fut question | 1 sbj pst statement | 1 undergoer pst statement | 2 pst statement | 3 pst statement | 1 pst question | 2 sbj pst question | 2 undergoer pst question | 3 pst question |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
verb | lexeme | ||||||||||||||||||||
verb | suffix 2 | is | i | i | i | is | i | s | zi | zi | zi | s | zi | w | s | zi | zi | zi | w | s | zi |
verb | suffix 1 | zero | zero | zero | zero | zero | zero | anɨ | anɨ | anɨ | anɨ | anɨ | anɨ | ta | tɨ | tɨ | tɨ | tɨ | ta | tɨ | tɨ |
Awa Pit notes
- Agreement is based on what Curnow (1997) terms a 'locutor' ~ 'non-locutor' distinction, which seems to have its origin in an evidential system. Locutor is the source of information, hence 1st person in statements and 2nd person in questions. Non-locutor is everything else.The database entry shows the mapping onto person values.
- In the past tense, locutor marking further distinguished between subject and undergoer (object, or, for some verbs, an undergoer subject).
-
Where a verb has two arguments it agrees with the locutor, if there is one; otherwise it takes non-locutor marking, as seen in the following examples from Curnow (1997: 194-99):
Libardo (na-wa) pyan-tɨ-s L. (1sg-acc) hit-past-locutor.undergoer ‘Libardo hit me.’ nu-wa=na, mɨn=ma pyan-tɨ-s? 2sg-acc=top who=inter hit-past-locutor.undergoer ‘Who hit you?’ nu=na Juan=ta pyan-tɨ-zi 2sg.(nom)=top Juan=acc hit-past-non-locutor ‘You hit Juan.’ na-wa=na mɨn=ma pyan-tɨ-zi 1sg-acc=top who=inter hit-past-non-locutor ‘Who hit me?’
References
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of south-western Colombia. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.