Egophoricity and Mirativity in Kaike

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review Watters (2006), which describes a linguistic pattern called “conjunct-disjunct” (nowadays more widely known as egophoric/non-egophoric) and mirativity in Kaike (the Dolpa district, Nepal). Watters (2006) describes three sets of conjunct/ disjunct suffixes and a set of conjunct/disjunct copulas; that is, perfective -pa and -bo, imperfective -tse and -ŋə, irrealis -ɲi and -dəra, and the conjunct existential copula ɲipa and the disjunct existential copula ɲya (as well as their negative counterparts mipa and mayã). According to him, the existential copulas have three functions, “true existential, locative, and possessive”, and he recognizes a conjunct/disjunct distinction between ɲipa and ɲya only in his locative and possessive functions. He then asserts that in the two functions ɲipa and ɲya manifest a mirative/ non-mirative distinction, which, he claims, is a feature of the conjunct/disjunct distinction. The current paper points out that his imperfective -tse and -ŋə (-cye and -ŋa in my transcription) can be recognized as egophoric and non-egophoric respectively but not as forming an oppositional contrast because their tense-aspectual significations differ. His irrealis -dəra (-darā in my transcription) is indeed non-egophoric and irrealis, but -ɲi (-nyi in my transcription) cannot be described as irrealis; it is used to express not only a future activity as he describes, but also a progressive and a habitual activity in the realis domain. The suffix cannot be described as egophoric either because in the case of habitual statements -nyi can occur with 3rd person when the verb is volitional. Two existential copulas ɲipa and ɲya (nyi-pā and nyā in my description), as well as their negative counterparts mipa and mayã (mi:-pā and mayā in my description), manifest a mirative/ non-mirative distinction regardless of their functions, and they are irrelevant to egophoricity because they all can occur with any person. Watters describes only one equational copula dzeŋpa (jyaŋ-pā in my description). There is, however, another equational copula jyã:, and the two copulas manifest a mirative/non-mirative distinction (their negative counterparts naŋ-pā and nã: do the same). Again, those copulas are irrelevant to egophoricity.