Politeness in Zagimaal
▲
0▲ 0 ▼ 0
How more or less polite speech works in Zagimaal
This public article was written by [Deactivated User] on 7 Jan 2019, 23:03.
[comments] zgmgrammarpragmaticsformality
?FYI...
This article is a work in progress! Check back later in case any changes have occurred.
This article is a work in progress! Check back later in case any changes have occurred.
(This article is currently just a copy-paste version of a post I made for Gramuary; it will eventually be edited into a proper article)
Zagimaal has a number of interesting features. Firstly, it (in fact, the whole family it is part of) has a fossilized politeness marker on its second person pronouns. The reconstructed 
Proto-Lintang-Raimak second-person pronoun is *hamí, which can be compared to the first-person exclusive pronoun *ní and the first-person inclusive pronoun *kí. Combined with the existence of an honorific prefix (reconstructed back to) *ha- on verbs in one of the other branches, it seems fairly clear that *hamí was originally the honorific second-person pronoun. In the transition from Proto-Lintang-Raimak to 
Proto-Zalintang, unstressed *a became schwa and then disappeared entirely, leaving an *hm sequence that lead to the Proto-Zalintang form *m̥e:, and eventually the Zagimaal second-person pronoun [m̥o] [m̥e] [m̥aw] (ergative, absolutive, dative).In modern Zagimaal, there are two notable aspects to formality (beyond simple word choice, which is minimally utilized). The first is that pronouns can be omitted as long as context makes them clear (no, there is not verb marking for them). In informal speech, pronouns are generally omitted when they represent the topic; in speech of medium formality, all first- and second-person pronouns are generally used, though third-person pronouns are still generally omitted when representing the topic; but in high-formality speech, the second-person pronouns are almost always omitted whether topic or no, and the third-person pronouns can be used even when representing the topic.
The second is word order. Zagimaal is verb-final, and all nominals recieve a ranking based on person/number, animacy, and agency (among other things; the details can be quite different in different dialects and idiolects). The highest-ranked noun comes first, and the lowest-ranked noun comes last (just before the verb). Notably, in all dialects, the ranking for person is quite consistent, and overrides all other considerations; 2<1<3. Thus, second-person pronouns (when used) must always come before first-person pronouns, which will always come before third person pronouns. This not a difference between high and low registers; it is the case in all registers. Breaking it, therefore, can actually be used as a despective, a grammaticalized lack of respect.
For examples of all of this, we can consider the "Pass me the salt" example used in the translations. In low- and medium-formality speech, it would generally be as below (note that I have interpreted "the salt" to be the topic, but it is nominal and so still included; also it is not unusual to include the second-person pronoun in Zagimaal imperatives):
m"o naw γue śin"e lhawṃ
[m̥o naw gue ʃin̥e ɬawm̩]
2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you).ERGErgative (case)
TRANS subject; agent 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I.DATDative (case)
indirect object; recipient, beneficiary, location DEFDefinite
"the".INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living things.ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument salt-ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument.TOPTopic (syntactic)
the topic (key reference point) of a sentence give-IMPImperative (mood)
command
High-formality speech, however, would have:
naw γue śin"e lhawṃ
[naw gue ʃin̥e ɬawm̩]
1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I.DATDative (case)
indirect object; recipient, beneficiary, location DEFDefinite
"the".INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living things.ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument salt-ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument.TOPTopic (syntactic)
the topic (key reference point) of a sentence give-IMPImperative (mood)
command
And the phrase could be made despective as follows:
naw γue śin"e m"o lhawṃ
[naw gue ʃin̥e m̥o ɬawm̩]
1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I.DATDative (case)
indirect object; recipient, beneficiary, location DEFDefinite
"the".INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living things.ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument salt-ABSAbsolutive (case)
TRANS object, INInanimate (gender/class)
for non-living thingsTR argument.TOPTopic (syntactic)
the topic (key reference point) of a sentence 2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you).ERGErgative (case)
TRANS subject; agent give-IMPImperative (mood)
command
This ordering would imply that "you" (the listener) are worth less to "me" (the speaker) than the salt is.
Of particular note is the following:
naw γoy lhawṃ
[naw goj ɬawm̩]
"Give it to me."
In low-formality speech, this would imply that "you" are the topic; in mid-formality speech, this phrase would be unlikely, but would still be interpreted the same; but it would not necessarily have the same implication in high-formality speech. In high-formality speech, the topic would simply be assumed to be the same as it was earlier in the conversation, most likely whatever [goj] refers to (here, the salt).
Comments
