Verb Classification in Mayrinax Atayal

Verb Classification in Mayrinax Atayal

Huang, Mei-chin.

Oceanic Linguistics, Volume 39, Number 2, December 2000, pp. 364-390(Article)

Published by University of Hawai'i PressDOI: 10.1353/ol.2000.0016

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Duke University Libraries at 07/22/12 7:37AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ol/summary/v039/39.2huang.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ol/summary/v039/39.2huang.html

Oceanic Linguistics, Volume 39, no. 2 (December 2000)© by University of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.

Verb Classi²cation in Mayrinax Atayal1

Lillian M. Huangnational taiwan normal university

Verb classes are examined in Mayrinax Atayal, an Austronesian languagespoken in Taiwan, based on certain semantic, morphological, and syntacticproperties. Focus markers; negative, imperative, and causative constructions;the tense/aspect/mood system of the language; and a dimension of greater-lesser dynamicity (or stativity) are all investigated. The primary distinctionbetween dynamic and stative verbs is supported by the different behaviors ofverbs in the various constructions. Because degrees of dynamicity/stativityof Mayrinax verbs are relative rather than absolute, a continuum is proposedwith dynamic verbs and stative verbs appearing at the two extremes.

1. INTRODUCTION. Atayal is one of the more widespread of the Formosan lan-guages, ranging from Ilan Prefecture in the northeast of Taiwan to Taipei andTaoyuan Prefectures in the north, and southward through Hsinchu, Miaoli, and Tai-chung Prefectures to Nantou in the central portion of the island. It consists of twomajor subgroups, namely, Squliq and C¿uli¿, the latter of which is considered asbeing more conservative. The dialectal variant examined in this paper is that of May-rinax, a C¿uli¿ dialect spoken in Chinshui Village, Taian Hsiang, Miaoli Prefecture.Of all Formosan languages and dialects, Mayrinax is one of the only two known dia-lects that show certain distinctions between the male and female forms of speech; theother dialect is Pa¿kuali¿ (cf. Li 1980). While such distinctions between the male andfemale speech forms are still preserved in the older generation’s speech, youngerspeakers tend to ignore these differences and mix the two forms in their speech.

This paper attempts to examine verb classes in Mayrinax Atayal. To our know-ledge, there are four studies2 that deal primarily with verb classi²cation in certain For-mosan languages; namely, Jeng (1981) on Yami, Chen (1987) and Y. Huang (1988)on Amis, and Tseng (1989) on Squliq Atayal. Most of these studies rely heavily on

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the IACL 8th Annual Conference held at MelbourneUniversity July 5–7, 1999. I would like to thank Professors Sander Adelaar and Heng-hsiung Jeng fortheir comments made at the conference. Moreover, I want to thank Professors Stanley Starosta, PaulLi, Dah-an Ho, Byron Bender, Jackson Sun, Dr. Elizabeth Zeitoun, and two anonymous reviewers fortheir suggestions on a later version. Also, I would like to show my gratitude to my major Mayrinaxinformant Mr. Ba¿ay na¿ Payan (Tang Ching-fa in Chinese), who has been very patient and kind towork with me since 1987. Finally, I want to thank the National Science Council of R.O.C. for the²nancial support of the work on Formosan languages that is represented in part here, and whose aidwas provided through grants NSC 87-2411-H003-003 and NSC 88-2411-H003-003.

2. There are some other Formosan studies, e.g., Li (1973), Jeng (1977), and Rau (1992) that havegiven some treatment to Formosan verb classes as part of their work.

verb classification in mayrinax atayal 365

syntax—case relations, case forms, and distributional properties. In this paper, weattempt to classify Mayrinax verbs on the basis of certain semantic, morphological,and syntactic properties. We ²rst consider how verbs are formed in the language. Wethen show a primary classi²cation for them, namely, dynamic verbs versus stativeverbs.3 While dynamic verbs designate actions, processes, or situations, stative verbstend to denote properties, states, or resultant states. We attempt to justify such aclassi²cation by examining the semantic dynamicity (or stativity) of Mayrinax verbs,and the morphosyntactic behaviors they exhibit in the focus system,4 in negative,imperative, and causative constructions, and in the tense/aspect/mood system.

2. VERB FORMATION IN MAYRINAX ATAYAL. Languages may have vari-ous ways of forming verbs. In this section, we will investigate how verbs are formedin Mayrinax Atayal. The language has words that are inherent verbs. As pointed outby Huang (1995), agent-focus verbs appearing in af²rmative imperatives are consid-ered to be basic forms5 that are also used in agent-focus realis negative declaratives.These verbs can be further af²xed with varying focus markers, tense/aspect/moodmarkers, and/or causative markers, with or without overt af²xation, depending on,among other factors, which argument is in focus (e.g., agent, patient, location, instru-ment, or bene²ciary) and what syntactic construction a given verb is being used in(e.g., declarative or imperative, af²rmative or negative). In addition to the above-men-tioned inherent verbs and their derivatives af²xed with different focus, tense/aspect/mood, and/or causative markers, Mayrinax Atayal has verbs whose basic forms arederived from nouns af²xed with either a causative marker, a stative marker, a preposi-tion, or a zero-morpheme focus marker,6 as exempli²ed in (1–4).7

(1) Verbs derived from nouns af²xed with the causative marker pa-: a. pa- + qa�u�i¥ ‘hat’ � paqa�u�i¥ ‘Put on a hat! (AF.imp)’8

b. pa- + tunaq ‘sputum’ � ptunaq ‘Spit! (AF.imp)’

3. While some linguists (e.g., Yeh 1991) may use the term “active verb,” “dynamic verb” is usedhere to prevent readers from misinterpreting “active” as in the active–passive voice contrast.

4. The term focus as used here “refers to the phenomenon whereby an af²x on a verb (the focusaf²x) establishes a special relationship between the verb and one of the noun phrases in thesentence” (French 1988:1). In other words, it is a special relation between the subject (i.e., thefocused noun phrase) and the verb.

5. These forms are not verbal roots though. The stative marker ka- needs to be af²xed if the verbin question is a stative one, as discussed in 4.2.

6. We consider all the verbs in Mayrinax to have focus markers. Hence, the zero morpheme Ø isregarded as a focus marker when verbs appear in, e.g., agent-focus imperatives/negativedeclaratives and patient-focus af²rmative imperatives, as shown in table 1.

7. The abbreviations and symbols used in this paper are as follows: 1sg, ²rst person singular;acc, Accusative; AF, Agent focus; aff, Af²rmative; BF, Bene²ciary focus; caus, causative;decl, declarative; der, derivational; excl, exclusive; gen, genitive; IF, Instrument focus; imp,imperative; incl, inclusive; irr, irrealis; LF, Locative focus; lin, linker; NAF, Non-Agentfocus; neg, negation; neu, neutral; nom, nominative; nrf, nonreferential; part, particle; PF,Patient focus; perf, perfective aspect; pl, plural; prep, preposition; prog, progressive aspect;rf, referential; stat, stative; < >, indicating the enclosed element is an in²x or its gloss; =,indicating the following bound pronoun is a clitic. As for the basic structures of MayrinaxAtayal, please refer to Huang 1995.

366 oceanic linguistics, vol. 39, no. 2

c. pa- + si- + ¥a¥ay ‘saliva’ � psi¥a¥ay ‘salivate (AF.neg)’9 d. pa- + si- + �uq ‘sap; juice’ � psi�uq ‘juice; suck (AF.neg)’

(2) Verbs derived from nouns af²xed with the stative marker ka-:10

a. ka- + na�akis ‘old man’ � kana�akis ‘old (AF.neg)’b. ka- + ¿ulaqi¿ ‘child’ � ka¿ulaqi¿ ‘young (AF.neg)’

(3) Verbs derived from nouns af²xed with the locative i- (< prep i¿ ):11

i- + �a�awiq ‘above’� i�a�awiq ‘tall’(4) Verbs derived from nouns af²xed with a zero-morpheme agent-focus

marker; in other words, nouns surface as verbs in agent-focus imperatives:a. haγri ‘bridge’ + Ø � haγri ‘Build a bridge! (AF.imp)’b. hanaa¥ ‘voice’ + Ø � hanaa¥ ‘Make (some) sound! (AF.imp)’

The above denominal verbs, like inherent verbs, serve as basic verbal forms andcan also be af²xed with other focus markers, tense/aspect/mood markers, and/orcausative markers to form new derivatives.12 Examples follow.

(5) a. m- + paqa�u�i¥ ‘Put on a hat! (AF.imp)’ � maqa�u�i¥ ‘put on a hat(AF)’13

a�. paqa�u�i¥ ‘Put on a hat! (AF.imp)’ + -un � paq�u�i¥un ‘put a haton s.o. (PF.decl)’

b. kana�akis ‘old (AF.neg)’ + Ø � na�akis ‘old (AF)’14

b�. pa- + kana�akis ‘old (AF.neg)’ + -un � pakan�akisun ‘make s.o.old (PF.decl)’

c. haγri ‘Build a bridge! (AF.imp)’ + -um- � humaγri ‘build a bridge(AF)’

c�. haγri ‘Build a bridge! (AF.imp)’ + -i � haγri¿i ‘Build the bridge!(PF.imp)’

8. AF.imp indicates that the agent focus marker in question appears in an imperative sentence;AF.neg refers to the agent focus marker that occurs in negative sentences; AF alone withoutany further indication designates its presence in an af²rmative sentence.

9. It seems that this denominal verb psi¥a¥ay ‘salivate’ and the following one psi�uq ‘juice’ arederived from nouns af²xed with si- and then pre²xed by the causative marker pa-. An anony-mous reviewer points out that the element si- also occurs in Rukai, deriving ‘have N’ verbsfrom N nouns. Ross (1995:758) also states that “from re³exes in Sediq, Amis, and Rukai …PAN *Si- was added to a noun N to make a verb meaning ‘have, possess, wear N’.” However,we have no data of verbs af²xed with si- without a cooccurring pa-, so the meaning of si- inMayrinax remains unidenti²ed. Further investigation is intended.

10. This marker is examined in more detail in 4.2.11. Mayrinax verbs derived in this way are relatively few, but such a formation can be found in

Labuan Rukai (Zeitoun et al. 1999:22) as well:(i) a. i- + daanº ‘house’ � y-a-daanº ‘be in the house’

b. i- + ba�iw ‘village’ � y-a-ba�iw ‘rest (in the village)’A similar formation with demonstrative pronouns is also found in Rukai, Amis, and Paiwan(Zeitoun et al. 1999:22):

(ii) Labuan Rukai: i- + kai ‘this’ � y-a-kai ‘be; exist’(iii) Amis: i- + ra ‘that’ � i-ra ‘have; exist’(iv) Paiwan: i- + zua ‘that’ � i-zua ‘have; exist’

12. The analysis given here differs from Huang (1995:41), which treats denominal verbs as beingdirectly derived from nouns; certain derivational ordering, as presented here, is needed.

13. Atayal presents a number of phonological alternations, e.g., p- ~ m- in (5a). Also, unlessspeci²ed (e.g., “AF.imp” in [1a–b]), a morpheme glossed as “AF” refers to an AF-marked verbthat is used in af²rmative declarative sentences.

14. The reason for the absence of the stative marker ka- in (5b) will become clear in later discussion.


The language also has a verb that is formed by a demonstrative pronoun af²xedwith a focus marker, as shown in (6).15

(6) hani ‘this’ + -an � hani¿an ‘there is; exists (here and now) (AF)’

One thing worth our attention is that although the verb hani¿an appears to containthe LF marker -an, it is limited in that it only appears in existential/locative/pos-sessive constructions and cannot take any other focus af²xation.

3. SEMANTIC NATURE OF MAYRINAX VERBS. In our everyday life, weperceive activities being performed or experienced, identi²cations being made,things happening, and circumstances existing. All such happenings, occurrences,and situations, except for natural phenomena like weather, are generally mani-fested in two components: events or participants. Semantically, events can be ofvarious kinds with respect to the dynamicity (or stativity) they designate. Someevents are quite dynamic and actionlike, whereas others are completely static.Below let us ²rst consider some sentences in Mayrinax Atayal:

(7) a. m-astatail ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-jump nom.rf child ‘The child is jumping.’

b. m-ahiy=ci¿ cku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-hit=1sg.nom acc.rf child ‘I am hitting the child.’

c. l<um>a¥uy ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿swim<AF> nom.rf child ‘The child is swimming.’

d. t<um>uti¥ cku¿ ¿ulaqi¿ ku¿ kanairilbeat<AF> acc.rf child nom.rf woman‘The woman is beating the child.’

(8) a. ma-qilaap ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-sleep nom mother‘Mother is sleeping.’

b. ma-qiyanux ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-live nom mother‘Mother lives/is alive.’

c. Ø-aruwa ¿i¿ yuminAF-leave nom Yumin‘Yumin (has) left.’

d. Ø-tayhok i¿ taypak ¿i¿ yuminAF-arrive prep Taipei nom Yumin‘Yumin (has) arrived at Taipei.’

15. Though Mayrinax does not seem to have other verbs formed in this way, verb formation withdemonstrative pronouns is also found in Rukai, Amis, and Paiwan, as shown in note 11.


(9) a. ma-¿oway ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-tired nom.rf child ‘The child is tired.’

b. ma-¿icu¿=ci¿ cu¿.�alayAF-afraid=1sg.nom very ‘I am very afraid.’

c. Ø-maskaiyu¥ cu¿.�alay ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-hungry very nom.rf child ‘The child is very hungry.’

d. Ø-qihma cu¿.�alay ku¿ ruwas na¿ γi�unAF-thick very nom.rf book gen.nrf Japan‘This Japanese book is very thick.’

As expected, events like ‘jumping’, ‘swimming’, ‘hitting’, and ‘beating’ (as in[7a-d]) are prototypically actionlike and show greater activity; and events like‘sleeping’, ‘living’, ‘leaving’, and ‘arriving’ (as in [8a–d]) seem to designate rela-tively less action; whereas events such as ‘tired’, ‘afraid’, ‘hungry’, ‘thick’ (as in[9a–d]) indicate even much less or no action at all and are rather static. Apparently,different events seem to illustrate different degrees of dynamicity (or stativity),and thus present different semantic nature/structuring. Such differences seem toexist cross-culturally. The question one may ask then is how dynamic events (i.e.,events showing great activity) can be differentiated grammatically from stativeevents (i.e., events designating not so much action or no action at all). In the fol-lowing discussion, we try to relate the semantic differences mentioned here to themorphology and syntax of verbs that manifest events in Mayrinax Atayal.

4. MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF MAYRINAX VERBS. As exempli²edin sentences (7–9), events are linguistically represented by verbs (including whatEnglish speakers regard as adjectives) that appear sentence initially and are morpho-logically marked. These verbal af²xes, like in most of the other Formosan and West-ern Austronesian languages, form the basis of the focus system of the language. Table1 presents the focus markers of the language (Huang 2000).

TABLE 1. FOCUS MARKERS OF MAYRINAX ATAYAL*

* “i. force” stands for “illocutionary force,” a term taken from Van Valin and LaPolla(1997:41). The terms “projective” and “atemporal” are from Ross (1995:795). “TAM” =tense/aspect/mood, and AF, PF, LF, IF, and BF stand for the various focuses listed in note 7.

polarity Af²rmative Negative

i. force Declarative Imperative Declarative Imperative

TAM Realis Irrealis

TAM Neutral Perfective Future Projective Atemporal

AF m-; ma-; -um-; Ø Ø m-/ma/-um- …-ay Ø

PF -un Ø -un -aw Ø -i

LF -an -ay -i

IF/BF si- Ø -anay -ani


In what follows, we investigate how dynamic events are differentiated gram-matically from stative ones in Mayrinax Atayal. We examine the focus markers,the negative construction, the tense/aspect/mood system, the imperative construc-tion, and the causative construction.

4.1 FOCUS MARKERS. In Formosan languages such as Saisiyat and Paiwan,dynamic verbs can be distinguished from stative verbs because each set is af²xedwith different focus markers—for instance, m-/-om-/-ºm- for dynamic verbs, andØ-/ma- for stative verbs in Saisiyat and Paiwan, respectively. Examples follow:

(10) Saisiyat (Yeh, pers. comm.)a. m-kalaha¥ ‘take care’; h<om>a¥ih ‘cry’b. Ø-¿oʃok ‘drunk’; Ø-sopaloy ‘big’

(11) Paiwan (Chang, pers. comm.)a. d<ºm>i¿ºdi¿ºs ‘water (v.)’; r<ºm>ºkut ‘threaten’b. Ø-na¥ua¿ ‘good; kind’; ma-rºkut ‘afraid’

Mayrinax Atayal presents a similar but not exactly identical distinction. As pre-sented in table 1, the language has various AF markers in realis af²rmative declar-ative sentences; namely, m-, ma-, -um-, Ø-. Although Huang (1995:39) remarksthat the choice of the named focus markers is lexically determined, with a morecareful investigation, we notice that the above-mentioned different AF af²xesmark verbs designating events of different dynamicity (or stativity). This becomesclearer in the following discussion.

4.1.1 Dynamic–Stative Continuum. Recall sentences (7–9). Verbs manifestingprototypical dynamic events like ‘jumping’, ‘swimming’, ‘hitting’, and ‘beating’are af²xed with m- or -um-; verbs designating relatively less dynamic (and morestative) events like ‘sleeping’, ‘living’, ‘leaving’, and ‘arriving’ are marked by ma-or Ø-; and verbs representing states like ‘tired’, ‘afraid’, ‘hungry’, and ‘thick’ arealso af²xed with ma- or Ø-. Here, one may postulate that the semantic dynamic–stative contrast is morphologically marked by m-/-um- vs. ma-/Ø-. Furthermore,when examining the 237 verbs collected during past ²eld trips (see the appendix),one may notice that, as the English glosses illustrate, verbs marked by m-/-um-designate greater action than those marked by ma-/Ø-, although a few exceptionsmay be perceived. For instance, some verbs marked by m-/-um- manifest events ofless activity, e.g., ‘lying’ and ‘kneeling’ in (12a–b) (vs. [7a–d]), while some verbsaf²xed with ma-/Ø- designate more actionlike events, e.g., ‘washing (clothes)’ and‘swinging’ in (12c–d) (vs. [8a–d]):

(12) a. m-atγaγaaγ i¿ paγa¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-lie prep bed nom mother‘Mother is lying in bed.’

b. k<um>antatali ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿kneel<AF> nom.rf child ‘The child is kneeling.’


c. ma-�ahuq ¿i¿ limuyAF-wash nom Limuy‘Limuy is washing (clothes).’

d. Ø-palalu¿ cu¿ ¿ulaqi¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-swing acc.nrf child nom mother‘Mother is swinging a child.’

However, the above-postulated correspondence between semantic dynamicity/stativity and morphological marking is not accurate. As is discussed in 4.2–4.5,verbs marked with ma- and Ø-, though having super²cially identical marking,actually belong to separate verb classes. In order to differentiate these verb classes,we represent ma- and Ø- verbs manifesting more dynamic events as ma1- and Ø1-verbs, and those designating events of less action and greater stativity as ma2- andØ2- verbs. Consequently, Mayrinax verbs manifesting dynamic events can bemarked with m-/-um-/ma1-/Ø1- af²xes, and verbs designating stative events areaf²xed with ma2- and Ø2-.

Another point deserving our attention here is that, among the above-mentioned237 verbs (including 15 denominal verbs), there are 177 dynamic verbs and 60 stat-ive verbs, as shown in table 2. Observe that, when compared with verbs containingm- and -um-, the number of verbs af²xed with ma1- and Ø1- (9 and 20, respectively)is relatively small. Furthermore, most of the ma1-/Ø1- verbs do not require thecopresence of a noun designating the second (i.e., patient) argument and are intran-sitive, especially the Ø1-marked verbs (see their English glosses in the appendix). Inother words, within the dynamic verbs, varying degrees of dynamicity are noted.

Moreover, as illustrated by the English glosses in the appendix and as will bediscussed later, even within the stative verbs, different degrees of stativity can alsobe perceived. That is, those marked by ma2- seem to designate more temporaryproperties or less stative events (and are hence more actionlike), whereas thoseaf²xed with Ø2- tend to manifest states, or inherent or permanent properties.

To sum up what has been discussed above, it seems legitimate to postulate that,although the primary division of verbs in Mayrinax Atayal is the dynamic–stativecontrast, verbs in the language constitute a continuum, with prototypical dynamicverbs (i.e., marked by m-/-um-) and stative verbs (marked by ma2-/Ø2-) appearingat the two extremes, and ma1-/Ø1- verbs appearing in between and designating lessdynamic events. However, the differences among these verbs are relative ratherthan absolute. Figure 1 summarizes the preceding discussion.

TABLE 2. DYNAMIC VS. STATIVE VERBS

dynamic stative

m- -um- ma1- Ø1- ma2- Ø2-

number 76 72 9 20 23 37

percent 32.1% 30.4% 3.8% 8.4% 9.7% 15.6%

subtotals 177 60

total 237 (100%)


In what follows, we provide some Mayrinax examples to further illustrate thesemantic contrast of dynamicity-stativity and the presence of such a dynamic–stative continuum in the language.

4.1.2 Examples Illustrating the Continuum. First, consider the following pairof sentences with verbs af²xed with AF markers -um- and ma2-:

(13) a. γ<um>a¿a¥=ci¿ cu¿ pila¿lose<AF>=1sg.nom acc.nrf money‘I lost money.’

b. ma2-γa¿a¥16 ku¿ pila¿=muAF-lost nom.rf money=1sg.gen‘My money is gone/lost.’

Note that the verbs γuma¿a¥ in (13a) and maγa¿a¥ in (13b) contain the same ele-ment γa¿a¥.17 Yet, as indicated by the English gloss, the two events seem to presentdifferent degrees of action; that is, while (13a) designates a more dynamic event‘losing money’, (13b) stresses more the state of ‘money’s being gone/lost’. Gram-matically, the language seems to manifest such dynamic–stative contrasts by utiliz-ing different focus markers; that is, -um- in (13a) marks a dynamic event, and ma2-

in (13b) marks a stative one. As a result, it is legitimate to consider that verbs withthe AF-marker -um- are more likely to designate more dynamic events than verbswith ma2- do. Another set of sentences showing a similar contrast is given in (14).

(14) a. t<um>aqu¿ cku¿ na�akis ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿push.down<AF> acc.rf old.man nom.rf child ‘The child pushed the old man (to fall) down.’

b. ma2-taqu¿ ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-fall.down nom.rf child ‘The child fell down.’ (He is on the ³oor now.)

Again, the two verbs in question, though containing the same element taqu¿,18

manifest events of different activity. That is, tumaqu¿ in (14a) designates a moredynamic event ‘pushing someone down’, and mataqu¿ in (14b) represents one’sno-external-force action and emphasizes more the resultant stage of the event‘falling down’, that is, the state of ‘being on the ³oor’. The postulation that seman-tic contrast between dynamic and stative events can be manifested by means of thefocus markers -um- and ma2-, as presented above, is further con²rmed here.

FIGURE 1. DYNAMIC–STATIVE CONTINUUM

dynamic verbs stative verbs

x x

m-; -um- ma1-; Ø1- ma2- Ø2-

16. It will become clear in later sections that the AF marker ma- and Ø- in sentences (13–17) and(19–20) should be treated as ma2- and Ø2- instead of ma1- and Ø1-.

17. The reason for using such a neutral term as “element” here is that the stems of the two verbs inquestion are not the same; i.e., γa¿a¥ for γuma¿a¥ in (13a) and kaγa¿a¥ for maγa¿a¥ in (13b),as is discussed in 4.2.

18. Similar to the verbs γuma¿a¥ and maγa¿a¥ in (13a–b), tumaqu¿ has its basic form taqu¿ appear-ing in imperatives and negative declaratives, while mataqu¿ has kataqu¿ instead.


A similar set of examples, though containing different AF markers, m- and ma2-,is provided in (15).

(15) a. m-qa¿ cu¿ saraman ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿ kariariaxAF-break acc.nrf bowl nom.rf child every.day‘The child breaks bowls every day.’

b. ma2-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl is broken.’ (not knowing why it broke)

Observe that the verbs mqa¿ in (15a) and ma�uqa¿ in (15b) both include the ele-ment qa¿ (in fact, the stem of the two verbs shares �uqa¿, which is used in negativeand imperative constructions, as is discussed in 4.2). Like the events ‘being gone/lost’ in (13b) and ‘falling down (and being on the ³oor now)’ in (14b), ma�uqa¿ in(15b) focuses on the bowl’s being in a ‘broken’ state; no actor (i.e., the one break-ing the bowl) is implied. On the other hand, mqa¿ in (15a) manifests the action‘breaking bowl’ instead of the state. As expected, the two events mentioned hereillustrate different degrees of activity (or stativity), and thus one may postulate thatthe two AF markers m- and ma2- are used here to designate varying dynamicity/stativity, with m- marking greater dynamicity and ma2- more stativity.

That verbs marked with the AF af²x m- manifest events of dynamicity greaterthan those af²xed with ma2- can be further evidenced by the following similar butnot exactly identical examples; unlike those in (13–15), the verbs here share noelements:

(16) a. m-anaquh=ci¿ la¿AF-frightened=1sg.nom part‘I am scared.’ (because of an external factor, e.g., an earthquake)

b. ma2-¿icu¿=ci¿ la¿AF-afraid=1sg.nom part‘I am afraid.’

Note that both (16a–b) are one-argument sentences, and both manifest people’semotional states. However, as the additional English gloss shows, manaquh in(16a) always implies an external cause/force19 that makes the participant scared,

19. This external cause/force of the event can in fact be explicitly expressed, as shown below:

(1) a. m-anaquh=ci¿ cku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-frightened=1sg.nom acc.rf child ‘I am scared by the child.’ (because he almost fell down)

b. ma2-¿icu¿=ci¿ cu¿ xuilAF-afraid=1sg.nom acc.nrf dog‘I am afraid of dogs.’

Apparently, the greater/less dynamicity of the two named events have nothing to do with thepresence of the second argument. Also, though (1a) is a grammatical sentence, the speakerprefers to have the verb af²xed with the NAF (i.e., IF) marker si-, as shown below:

(1) a�. si-¿naquh=mu ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿IF-frightened=1sg.gen nom.rf child ‘I am scared by the child.’


and this outside force somehow makes the situation seem more activated, so thatone may expect that more happenings are going on. On the other hand, such animplication is not present with the verb ma¿icu¿ in (16b); the fear is more likethe participant’s inner feeling, and the event is relatively somewhat more stat-ive than the one manifested by manaquh.

Like (16a–b), the two verbs in (17) do not share any element either.

(17) a. m-aγna�alay ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-fat nom.rf child ‘The child is fat.’ (because of his eating a lot)

b. Ø2-kithu¿ ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-fat nom.rf child ‘The child is fat.’ (inborn characteristic; without eating a lot)

While the verbs in (17a–b) both refer to someone’s being fat, the verb maγna�a-lay in (17a) implies that the child’s fatness is because of his or her eating a lot. Thestate of ‘being fat’ is the result of his/her eating; the action ‘eating’ has happenedbefore. However, the participant’s being fat manifested by the verb kithu¿ in (17b)does not offer such an implication; the child’s fatness is an inborn characteristicand has nothing to do with eating. Consequently, if one has to make a choicebetween the two verbs named, the verb maγna�alay instead of kithu¿ is a bettercandidate for being regarded as a dynamic verb. Notice that the verb maγna�alayis af²xed with m-,20 while the latter has Ø2-, which seems to again support our ear-lier assumption that verbs af²xed with m- (or -um-) manifest events of activitygreater than verbs marked with the af²x Ø2- (or ma2-) do.

Let us examine another set of sentences.

(18) a. m-acay ku¿ hi¿ ka¿ haniAF-cooked nom.rf meat lin this‘This meat is cooked.’ (some activity must have taken place before)

b. ma2-tiluq ku¿ hi¿ ka¿ haniAF-raw nom.rf meat lin this‘This meat is raw.’

Compare the two verbs macay ‘cooked’ and matiluq ‘raw’ in (18a–b). As theEnglish gloss illustrates, (18a) seems to describe the outcome of a dynamic event,that is, ‘cooking’ that has occurred before the meat’s being cooked and its nowbeing ready to be served. On the contrary, (18b) does not imply any event takingplace prior to the meat’s being in a ‘raw’ state. Again, like (17a) vs. (17b), (18a)differs from (18b) in that a history is implied in (18a) but not in (18b), whichresults in treating verbs af²xed with m- as more dynamic than verbs containing theaf²x ma2-.

To sum up, we may well propose that verbs af²xed with m- or -um- designatemore dynamic events, whereas those marked with ma2- or Ø2- manifest events ofless activity, or even states.

20. One anonymous reviewer asks how one can know that this verb is af²xed with m- rather thanma-. It is because verbs like this, when in different structures (e.g., negatives, imperatives,causatives), show m- ~ p- alternation (e.g., [34c]) instead of omitting the ma-.


Next, examine the two dynamic AF markers m- and -um-. As Huang(1995:39–40) points out, Mayrinax Atayal has some verbs that can take bothmarkers, as the following examples illustrate:

(19) a. m-itaal cu¿ xuil ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-watch acc.nrf dog nom.rf child‘The child is looking at a dog.’

a�. k<um>itaal cu¿ xuil ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿watch<AF> acc.nrf dog nom.rf child ‘The child is looking at a dog.’

b. m-hahapuy=cu nku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-cook=1sg.nom ben.rf child‘I am cooking for the child.’

b�. γ<um>hahapuy=cu nku¿ ¿ulaqi¿cook<AF>=1sg.nom ben.rf child ‘I am cooking for the child.’

However, Huang (1995:39–40) is unable to identify the semantic differencesbetween the two markers. Which of the two AF markers m- and -um- designateshigher dynamicity remains a question.

As for the distinctions between the two stative markers ma2- or Ø2-, let us ²rstcompare the sentences below:

(20) a. ma2-t¥i=ci¿ cu¿.kaa¥ laAF-satiated=1sg.nom very part‘I am very full now.’ (Eating must have taken place.)

b. Ø2-maskaiyu¥21 ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-hungry nom.rf child ‘The child is hungry.’

Note that the two verbs mat¥i ‘satiated’ and maskaiyu¥ ‘hungry’ in (20a–b)present a similar contrast to that mentioned for (18a–b), that is, being with or with-out a history, and thus, with a greater or lesser degree of dynamicity/stativity.Hence, it seems reasonable to believe that the verb marked with Ø2- designates amore stative event than the verb af²xed with ma2- does. The following set of sen-tences further supports such a postulation:

(21) a. ma2-hiqa¥ ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-slender nom mother‘Mother is slender.’ (because of her illness)

b. Ø2-iqhi¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-slender nom mother‘Mother is slender.’ (inborn characteristic)

As illustrated by the additional English gloss, the state of one’s being slenderexpressed by the verb mahiqa¥ in (21a) seems to designate a transitory one, and toimply a cause/history of one’s illness; whereas the state represented by the verb

21. The verb maskaiyu¥ is considered as being af²xed with Ø instead of ma- because ma remains in theverb stem in negatives, where verb stems are used. Thus, ma is part of the verb stem, rather thanbeing a focus marker.


iqhi¿ in (21b) tends to describe one’s inherent and permanent characteristics, withno history implied. Figure 2 presents some of the Mayrinax verbs that belong tothe different classes mentioned in ²gure 1.

In the present section, we have tried to demonstrate that there exists a continuumof dynamic and stative verbs in Mayrinax Atayal, and that the primary divisionwithin the verbs differentiates dynamic verbs from stative ones. In other words,verbs af²xed with m-, -um-, ma1- or Ø1- seem to designate dynamic events, whileverbs marked by ma2- or Ø2- manifest stative ones. In the following sections, somemorphological and syntactic manifestations will be provided to support such a majordivision, with special emphasis on separating ma1-/Ø1- from ma2-/Ø2-.

4.2 NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. In Mayrinax Atayal, as mentioned insection 2, basic verbal stems (not verbal roots) are used in forming AF imperativesand negatives. Below let us compare some agent-focus realis af²rmative declara-tive sentences containing dynamic verbs and their negative counterparts:

(22) a. m-astatail ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-jump nom.rf child ‘The child is jumping.’

a�. ini¿ Ø-pastatail ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿neg AF-jump nom.rf child ‘The child didn’t jump.’

b. m-aniq cu¿ qulih ¿i¿ yaya¿AF-eat acc.nrf ²sh nom mother‘Mother is eating ²sh.’

FIGURE 2. SOME MAYRINAX VERBS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES

dynamic verbs stative verbs

m-; -um- ma1-; Ø1- ma2- Ø2-

x x

m-astatail ‘jump’ ma-¿tu�ainay ‘sell’ ma-¿o�a¿ ‘clean’ Ø-i�a�awiq ‘tall’

m-qa¿ ‘break’ ma-�ainay ‘buy’ ma-uraγ ‘dirty’ Ø-irarauq ‘short’

m-hahapuy ‘cook’ ma-�ahuq ‘wash (clothes)’

ma-howiq ‘wet’ Ø-qanaru¿uh ‘long’

m-itaal ‘watch’ ma-qilaap ‘sleep’ ma-r¥o¿ ‘dry’ Ø-isiti¥ ‘short’

m-aγna�alay ‘fat (from eating)’

ma-qiyanux ‘live (not die)’

ma-�uqa¿ ‘broken’ Ø-kithu¿ ‘fat (inborn)’

m-anaquh ‘frightened’ Ø-�uina ‘graduate’ ma-hiqa¥ ‘slender (be-cause of illness)’

Ø-iqhi¿ ‘slender (inborn)’

t-um-uti¥ ‘beat’ Ø-ka�aux ‘borrow’ ma-¿icu¿ ‘afraid’ Ø-kihma ‘thick’

γ-um-hahapuy ‘cook’ Ø-panaip ‘²sh’ ma-s¿a¥ ‘angry; ²erce’ Ø-lih�iq ‘thin’

k-um-itaal ‘watch’ Ø-tulqi¥ ‘hide (Vi)’ ma-t¥i ‘satiated’ Ø-maskaiyu¥ ‘hungry’

h-um-akay ‘walk’ Ø-aruwa ‘leave’ ma-tiluq ‘raw’ Ø-rahuwal ‘big’

q-um-aluap ‘hunt’ Ø-tayhok ‘arrive’ ma-¿o�a¿ ‘clean’ Ø-i�a�awiq ‘tall’


b�. ini¿ Ø-qaniq cu¿ qulih ¿i¿ yaya¿neg AF-eat acc.nrf ²sh nom mother‘Mother did not eat ²sh.’

c. m-ahiy cu¿ xuil ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-hit acc.nrf dog nom.rf child ‘The child is hiting a dog.’

c�. ini¿ Ø-�ahiy cu¿ xuil ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿neg AF-hit acc.nrf dog nom.rf child ‘The child didn’t hit a dog.’

(23) a. γ<um>a¿a¥=ci¿ cu¿ pila¿lose<AF>=1sg.nom acc.nrf money‘I lost money.’

a�. ini¿=cu Ø-γa¿a¥ cu¿ pila¿neg=1sg.nom AF-lose acc.rf money‘I didn’t lose money.’

b. ma1-�ahuq ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-wash nom.rf child ‘The child is washing clothes.’

b�. ini¿ Ø-�ahuq ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿neg AF-wash nom.rf child ‘The child did not wash clothes.’

c. Ø1-tayhok i¿ taypak ¿i¿ yuminAF-arrive prep Taipei nom Yumin‘Yumin arrived at Taipei.’

c�. ini¿ Ø-tayhok i¿ taypak ¿i¿ yuminneg AF-arrive prep Taipei nom Yumin‘Yumin didn’t arrive at Taipei.’

Note that the verbs in the above sentences are dynamic ones, and that the verbforms in each pair are different. In (a–c) sentences of (22–23), which are realisaf²rmative declarative sentences, the AF markers m-, -um-, ma1- or Ø1- arepresent, while in their negative counterparts, as shown in (a�–c�), the verb stemsthat also appear in imperatives are used. Observe that while the AF markers -um-,ma1-, and Ø1- in (23a–c) disappear in the negative constructions (23a�–c�), the af²xm- in (22a–c) alternates with Ø, ¿, �, γ, k , p, or q in (22a�–c�).22 More examples ofstems of dynamic verbs are given in table 3.

Now examine the following sets of sentences that contain stative verbs:

(24) a. ma2-γa¿a¥ ku¿ pila¿=muAF-lost nom.rf money=1sg.gen‘My money is gone/lost.’

a�. ini¿ Ø-ka-γa¿a¥ ku¿ pila¿=muneg AF-stat-lost nom.rf money=1sg.gen‘My money is not gone/lost.�

22. It is interesting to note that out of 76 verbs marked by m-, there are 40 verbs showing p- ~ m-alternations, and 5 �- ~ m- alternations. That there are more p-/�- ~ m- alternations may berelated somehow to the fact that these sounds are all labials.


b. ma2-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl is broken.’

b�. ini¿ Ø-ka-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanneg AF-stat-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl is not broken.’

c. Ø2-qanaru¿uh ku¿ haγri=niamAF-long nom.rf bridge=1pl.excl.gen‘Our bridge is long.’

c�. ini¿ Ø-ka-qnaru¿uh ku¿ haγri=niamneg AF-stat-long nom.rf bridge=1pl.excl.gen‘Our bridge is not long.’

d. Ø2-kithu¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿=muAF-fat nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is fat.’

d�. ini¿ Ø-ka-kithu¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿=muneg AF-stat-fat nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is not fat.’

As shown in these examples, when the verbs in question are stative, ka- is present innegative sentences. Hence, it is plausible to treat ka- as a stative marker,23 and its pres-ence or absence in the stem forms appearing in negative declarative sentences can beused as another piece of morphological evidence when differentiating dynamic verbsfrom stative verbs. More examples of stative verbs are given in table 4.

In addition to the morphological differences discussed above, one may noticesemantic diversity when examining negative declarative constructions containingdynamic and stative verbs. Recall the English glosses of (22–24). When dynamicverbs occur in negative sentences (e.g., [22–23]), the sentences give a reading of

TABLE 3. DYNAMIC VERB STEMS IN NEGATIVE DECLARATIVES

AF #C affirmative negative affirmative negative

Ø m-nu�uwaγ Ø-nu�uwaγ ‘drink’ m-thawnak Ø-thawnak ‘sit’

¿ m-aras Ø-¿aras ‘bring’ m-anca¿ruh Ø-¿anca¿ruh ‘stand’

� m-ahiy Ø-��ahiy ‘hit’ m-aiq Ø-��aiq ‘give’

m- � m-hahapuy Ø-��hahapuy ‘cook’

k m-itaal Ø-kitaal ‘see’ m-uhaal Ø-kuhaal ‘sick’

p m-astatail Ø-pastatail ‘jump’ m-aktaliyu¥ Ø-paktaliyu¥ ‘run’

q m-aniq Ø-qaniq ‘eat’ m-aqainut Ø-qaqainut ‘adopt’

-um- Ø c<um>u�u¿ Ø-cu�u¿ ‘wrap’ n<um>aγa¿ Ø-naγa¿ ‘wait’

ma1- Ø ma1-�ahuq Ø-�ahuq ‘wash (clothes)’

ma1-qilaap Ø-qilaap ‘sleep’

Ø1- Ø Ø1-tayhok Ø-tayhok ‘arrive’ Ø1-panaip Ø-panaip ‘²sh’

23. Li (1973) treats this marker ka- in Rukai as an inchoative marker, while Chang (1992) andChen (1996) regard the marker in Paiwan and Seediq, respectively, as an activizer. However,as discussed here (and in Zeitoun and Huang 2000), we believe that ka- is better treated, atleast in Mayrinax Atayal, as a stative marker.


‘past event’, whereas stative verbs in negative sentences (e.g., [24]) tend to desig-nate ‘present states’ instead.

That dynamic verbs and stative verbs can be morphologically differentiated innegative declarative constructions through the presence or absence of the stativemarker ka- will be further evidenced by the denominal verbs. As exempli²edbelow, denominal verbs can be either dynamic or stative, depending on whatextended verbal meanings original nouns may contribute. Consider:

(25) a. ¥a¥ay ‘saliva’a�. m-si-¥a¥ay ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿

AF-der-saliva nom.rf child ‘The child is salivating.’

a�. ini¿ Ø-psi¥a¥ay ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿neg AF-salivate nom.rf child ‘The child didn’t salivate.’

b. quwas ‘song’b�. m-aquwas24 ku¿ kanairil

AF-sing nom.rf woman‘The woman is singing.’

b�.ini¿ Ø-paquwas ku¿ kanairilneg AF-sing nom.rf woman‘The woman didn’t sing.’

c. haγri ‘bridge’c�. h<um>aγri=cami

build.bridge<AF>=1pl.excl.nom‘We are building a bridge.’

c�. ini¿=cami Ø-haγrineg=1pl.excl.nom AF-build.bridge‘We didn’t build a bridge.’

d. tunaq ‘sputum’d�. Ø1-ptunaq ku¿ na�akis

AF-spit nom.rf old.man‘The old man is spitting.’

TABLE 4. STATIVE VERB STEMS IN NEGATIVE DECLARATIVES

AF affirmative negative affirmative negative

ma2-γa¿a¥ Ø-ka-γa¿a¥ ‘lost; gone’ ma2-¿icu¿ Ø-ka-¿icu¿ ‘afraid’

ma2- ma2-�uqa¿ Ø-ka-�uqa¿ ‘broken’ ma2-hiqa¥ Ø-ka-hiqa¥ ‘stupid’

ma2-¿oway Ø-ka-¿oway ‘tired’ ma2-sa�iq Ø-ka-sa�iq ‘lazy’

Ø2-kithu¿ Ø-ka-kithu¿ ‘fat’ Ø2-lal�i¥ Ø-ka-lal�i¥ ‘sweet’

Ø2- Ø2-capa¥ Ø-ka-capa¥ ‘old’ Ø2-lawkah Ø-ka-lawkah ‘strong’

Ø2-qihma Ø-ka-qihma ‘thick’ Ø2-tikay Ø-ka-tikay ‘small’

24. Departing from what Huang (1995:18) suggests, the AF marker of the verb maquwas is ana-lyzed here as m- instead of ma-, because the stem of the verb ‘sing’ is paquwas, as given in(25b�), which is derived from the noun quwas ‘song’ af²xed with the causative marker pa-,and hence the vowel a is present in the stem. Thus, the AF marker of the verb maquwas shouldbe m- instead of ma-.


d�.ini¿ Ø-ptunaq ku¿ na�akisneg AF-spit nom.rf old.man‘The old man didn’t spit.’

(26) a. na�akis ‘old man’a�. Ø2-na�akis la ¿i¿ yaya¿=mu

AF-old part nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother has become old.’

a�. ini¿ Ø-ka-na�akis ¿i¿ yaya¿=muneg AF-stat-old nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is not old.’

b. ¿ulaqi¿ ‘child’b�. Ø2-¿ulaqi¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿=mu na¿

AF-young nom mother=1sg.gen still‘My mother is still young.’

b�.ini¿ Ø-ka-¿ulaqi¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿=muneg AF-stat-young nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is not young.’

Note that the denominal verbs af²xed with m- (e.g., [25a�–b�]) have an alternateconsonant (p- in all the denominal verbs having been collected) in the negativedeclarative sentences, as shown in (25a�–b�). On the other hand, the denominalverbs in (25c�–d�) marked with -um- and Ø1-, like the earlier-mentioned -um- andØ- verbs, merely lose the named AF markers in the named construction withoutgaining any consonants, as shown in (25c�–d�). However, as for stative denominalverbs like na�akis ‘old’ and ¿ulaqi¿ ‘young’ in (26a�–b�), when occurring in nega-tive declarative sentences (26a�–b�), the stative marker ka- is present. Conse-quently, it is noted that denominal verbs behave like inherent verbs. Table 5presents some examples of denominal verbs in the language.

4.3 THE TENSE/ASPECT/MOOD SYSTEM. According to Huang (1995), thetense/aspect/mood markers in Mayrinax Atayal include the in²x -in-, the pre²x pa-,

TABLE 5. DENOMINAL VERBS

AF noun denominal verb negativedynamic verbsm- ¥a¥ay ‘saliva’ m-si¥a¥ay Ø-psi¥a¥ay ‘salivate’

¥ihi ‘snivel’ m-si¥ihi Ø-psi¥ihi ‘snivel’situi¥ ‘clothes’ m-situi¥ Ø-psitui¥ ‘put on/wear (clothes)’quwas ‘song’ m-aquwas Ø-paquwas ‘sing’qa�u�i¥ ‘hat’ m-aqa�u�i¥ Ø-paqa�u�i¥ ‘put on/wear a hat’

-um- capi¥ ‘broom’ c<um>api¥ Ø-capi¥ ‘sweep’haγri ‘bridge’ h<um>aγri Ø-haγri ‘build a bridge’hanaa¥ ‘voice’ h<um>anaa¥ Ø-hanaa¥ ‘voice’

Ø1 tunaq ‘sputum’ Ø1-ptunaq Ø-ptunaq ‘spit’stative verbsØ2 na�akis ‘old man’ Ø2-na�akis Ø-ka-na�akis ‘old’

¿ulaqi¿ ‘child’ Ø2-¿ulaqi¿ Ø-ka-ulaqi¿ ‘young’


and the auxiliaries kia¿ and hani¿an: -in- is a perfective aspect marker, pa- an irrealismarker, and kia¿ and hani¿an progressive aspect markers. In what follows, thesemarkers are used to support the dynamic–stative division within Mayrinax verbs.

4.3.1 The Perfective Aspect Marker -in-. Recall what is stated in 4.1, thatdynamic verbs are af²xed with m- or -um-, and that stative verbs and some lessdynamic/stative verbs are marked with ma- or Ø- (ma2-/Ø2- for the stative and ma1-/Ø1- for the dynamic). As exempli²ed below, the perfective aspect marker -in-cooccurs with the AF markers m-, -um-, and ma- (both ma1- and ma2-):

(27) a. m-qa¿ cu¿ saraman ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿ kariariaxAF-break acc.nrf bowl nom.rf child every.day‘The child breaks a bowl every day.’

a�. m<in>qa¿ cu¿ saraman ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF<perf>break acc.nrf bowl nom.rf child ‘The child broke a bowl.’

b. l<um>a¥uy ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿swim<AF> nom.rf child ‘The child is swimming.’

b�. l<um><in>a¥uy ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿swim<AF><perf> nom.rf child ‘The child swam.’

c. ma1-qilaap ku¿ na�akisAF-sleep nom.rf old.man‘The old man is sleeping.’

c�. m<in>a1-qilaap ku¿ na�akisAF<perf>AF-sleep nom.rf old.man‘The old man slept.’

d. ma2-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl is broken.’

d�. m<in>a2-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF<perf>AF-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl was broken.’

As illustrated above, the in²x -in- appears immediately after the m consonant,whether it is the AF marker m- (e.g., [27a�]), the second consonant of the AF marker-um- (e.g., [27b�]), or the ²rst consonant of the AF marker ma- (e.g., [27c�–d�]).

Concerning verbs without any overt AF markers, that is, Ø-marked verbs, thepresence of the perfective aspect marker -in- helps differentiate the dynamic verbsfrom the stative ones. Compare the following sentences:

(28) a. Ø1-panaip ¿i¿ ya�a¿AF-²sh nom father‘Father is ²shing.’

a�. Ø1-p<in>anaip ¿i¿ ya�a¿AF-²sh<perf> nom father‘Father ²shed.’


b. Ø1-ptunaq ku¿ na�akisAF-spit nom.rf old.man‘The old man is spitting.’

b�. Ø1-p<in>tunaq ku¿ na�akisAF-spit<perf> nom.rf old.man‘The old man spat.’

(29) a. Ø2-kithu¿ ¿i¿ tali¿AF-fat nom Tali¿‘Tali¿ is fat.’

a�. m<in>(a)-kithu¿ ¿i¿ tali¿ ru¿ ini¿ Ø-ka-kithu¿ laAF<perf>AF-fat nom Tali¿ and neg AF-stat-fat part‘Tali¿ used to be fat, and he is not fat (now).’

b. Ø2-rahuwal ku¿ kaii=muAF-big nom.rf language=1sg.gen‘My voice is big (loud).’

b�. m<in>(a)-rahuwal ku¿ kaii=muAF<perf>AF-big nom.rf language=1sg.gen‘My voice was big (loud).’

As shown in (28a�–b�), the perfective aspect marker -in- follows the ²rst consonantof Ø1-marked dynamic verbs, without any additional af²xation, just like the otherdynamic verbs marked by m-, -um-, and ma1-. However, when the perfective aspectmarker is af²xed to Ø2-marked stative verbs, the AF marker ma- (resembling theAF marker ma2- for stative verbs, as in [27d�]), is then copresent with stative verbs,as illustrated by (29a�–b�). Consequently, the perfective af²x -in- can be one of thegrammatical devices that support the primary dynamic–stative division.

One more thing deserving our attention here is the reoccurrence of the markerma2- in stative verbs (e.g., [29a�–b�]) seems to support some Austronesianists’claim of PAn *ma- as ‘stative’ (e.g., Blust 1999). Also, recall the earlier analysisthat showed that Ø2-verbs seem to designate events of more stativity than ma2-verbs do, as illustrated in (20–21). Perhaps the elision of ma2- in the stative verbs(i.e., Ø2-marked stative verbs) is used to indicate the lack or diminution of activity,just as Ø1- also marks verbs designating less activity than the overt AF markers m-/-um-/ma1- do, as mentioned in 4.1.

4.3.2 The Irrealis Marker pa-. Like the perfective aspect marker -in- mentionedabove, the irrealis marker pa- in Mayrinax Atayal can also be used to differentiatestative verbs from dynamic verbs. Compare the following sets of sentences:

(30) a . m-qa¿ cu¿ saraman ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿ kariariaxAF-break acc.nrf bowl nom.rf child every.day‘The child breaks a bowl every day.’

a�� Ø-pa-�uqa¿ cu¿ saraman ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-irr-break acc.nrf bowl nom.rf child ‘The child will break a bowl.’

b. t<um>aqu¿ cku¿ na�akis ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿push.down<AF> acc.rf old.man nom.rf child ‘The child pushed the old man (to fall) down.’


b�. Ø-pa-taqu¿ cku¿ na�akis ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-irr-push.down acc.rf old.man nom.rf child ‘The child will push the old man (to fall) down.’

c. ma1-qilaap ku¿ na�akisAF-sleep nom.rf old.man‘The old man is sleeping.’

c�. Ø-pa-qilaap ku¿ na�akisAF-irr-sleep nom.rf old.man‘The old man will sleep.’

d. Ø1-panaip ¿i¿ ya�a¿AF-²sh nom father‘Father is ²shing.’

d�. Ø-pa-panaip ¿i¿ ya�a¿AF-irr-²sh nom father‘Father will ²sh.’

(31) a. Ø2-kithu¿ ku¿ na�akisAF-fat nom.rf old.man‘The old man is fat.’

a�. Ø-pa-ka-kithu¿ ku¿ na�akisAF-irr-stat-fat nom.rf old.man‘The old man will be fat.’

b. Ø2-na�akis ¿i¿ yaya¿=muAF-old nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is old.’

b�� Ø-pa-ka-na�akis ¿i¿ yaya¿=muAF-irr-stat-old nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother will be old.’

c. ma2-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl is broken.’

c�� Ø-pa-ka-�uqa¿ ku¿ saramanAF-irr-stat-broken nom.rf bowl ‘The bowl will be broken.’ (It’s on the edge of the table and maydrop off.)

d. ma2-taqu¿ ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-fall.down nom.rf child ‘The child fell down.’ (He is on the ³oor now)

d�. Ø-pa-ka-taqu¿ ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF-irr-stat-fall.down nom.rf child ‘The child will fall down.’

As illustrated in (30a–d), when the irrealis marker pa- is af²xed to dynamic verbs,the verb stems that are used in negative declaratives (as discussed in 4.2) appearand follow the irrealis marker to designate unrealized events. However, when pa-is af²xed to stative verbs, as shown in (31a–d), we note that the stative marker ka-needs to be copresent. It is plausible then to regard constructions with the irrealismarker pa- as another grammatical device that supports the primary dynamic–stative division postulated in the present paper.


4.3.3 The Progressive Aspectual Markers kia¿ and hani¿an. In additional tothe above-mentioned tense/aspect/mood markers -in- and pa-, the language hasprogressive aspectual markers kia¿ and hani¿an, which give on-going interpreta-tions. As expected, while dynamic verbs may cooccur with these progressivemarkers, as shown in (32a–d), stative verbs are not allowed—or at least are notespecially free—to coappear with them, as shown in (33a–b):

(32) a. kia¿ ¿i¿ m-aniq cu¿ qulih ¿i¿ yaya¿=muprog lin AF-eat acc.nrf ²sh nom mother=1sg.gen‘My mother is eating ²sh (now).’

b. kia¿ ¿i¿ k<um>itaal cku¿ ¿ulaqi¿ ku¿ kanairilprog lin watch<AF> acc.nrf child nom.rf woman‘The woman is looking at the child.’

c. hani¿an ¿i¿ ma1-qilaap ku¿ na�akisprog lin AF-sleep nom.rf old.man‘The old man is sleeping (here).’

d. hani¿an ¿i¿ Ø1-panaip ¿i¿ ya�a¿=muprog lin AF-²sh nom father=1sg.gen‘My father is ²shing (here).’

(33) a. *kia¿ ¿i¿ ma2-γotiq ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿prog lin AF-stupid nom.rf child ‘?The child is being stupid.’

b. *kia¿ ¿i¿ Ø2-kithu¿ ¿i¿ yaya¿=muprog lin AF-fat nom mother=1sg.gen‘?My mother is being fat (now).’

As shown above, the grammaticality of sentences containing both dynamic verbs(instead of stative verbs) and a progressive aspectual marker in the language isanother piece of evidence that supports the dynamic–stative division within theMayrinax verbs.

4.4 IMPERATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. The possibility of appearing inimperative sentences can also help justify whether a verb is more dynamic orstative. Examine:

(34) a. Ø-pastatailAF.imp-jump‘Jump!’

b. Ø-taqu¿ cku¿ ¿ulaqi¿AF.imp-push.down acc.rf child ‘Push the child (to fall) down!’

c. Ø-paγna�alayAF.imp-fat‘Get fat (by eating)!’

(35) a.*Ø-ka-¿oway b. *Ø-ka-kithu¿AF.imp-stat-tired AF.imp-stat-fat‘*Be tired!’ ‘*Be fat!


As demonstrated in the above sentences, more dynamic verbs seem to occur inimperative sentences more easily (e.g., [34a–c]), and relatively stative verbs areless likely, or at least, less free to appear in such constructions (e.g., [35a–b]),unless they are af²xed with the causative marker pa- and form dynamic verbs,which will be discussed in the next section. Evidently, dynamic verbs behave dif-ferently from stative ones in imperative constructions, which further supports theclaim of the dynamic–stative verb division.

4.5 CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. In Mayrinax Atayal, there is a caus-ative marker pa-. When verbs are af²xed with this marker, they need to be in theirstem forms, just as when they appear in negative constructions, as discussed in4.2. Hence, the stative marker ka- is required to show up before stative verbs arepre²xed with the causative marker pa-;25 as in pa-ka-rahuwal ‘make big’, pa-ka-o�a¿ ‘make clean’, pa-ka-i�a�awiq ‘make tall’, and pa-ka-¥iho¿ ‘make bitter’. Onthe other hand, there is no such need when forming the causative counterparts ofdynamic verbs, as in pa-qaniq ‘feed; make eat’, pa-pastatail ‘make jump’, pa-pasiaq ‘make laugh’, pa-kitaal ‘make watch’, and pa-paquwas ‘make sing’.Below are some declarative and imperative sentences containing causative verbs,with or without the marker ka-, when af²xed with the PF marker -un or the LFmarker -an in declaratives (e.g., [36–37]), and the PF marker -Ø or the LF marker-i in imperatives (e.g., [38–39]):26

(36) a. pa-pasiaq-un ni¿ yumin ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿caus-laugh-PF gen Yumin nom.rf child ‘Yumin made the child laugh.’

b. pa-qaniq-an ni¿ yaya¿ cu¿ qulih ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿caus-eat-LF gen mother acc.nrf ²sh nom.rf child ‘Mother made the child eat ²sh.’

(37) a. pa-ka-isiti¥-un=mu ku¿ papatiq ka¿ hanicaus-stat-short-PF=1sg.gen nom.rf pen lin this‘I shortened this pen.’

b. pa-ka-tanah-un=mu ku¿ a�aγ=mu na¿ tunuxcaus-stat-red-PF=1sg.gen nom.rf hair=1sg.gen gen head‘I made/dyed my hair red.’

(38) a. pa-pasiaq-Ø ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿caus-laugh-PF.imp nom.rf child ‘Make the child laugh!’

25. Blust (1999:347) states that “Pazeh basically has two forms of the causative pre²x: pa-, whichforms the causative of dynamic verbs, and paka-, which forms the causative of stative verbs.”Without considering constructions other than causatives in Mayrinax, the present study mighthave drawn a similar conclusion. However, taking into account syntactic structures like thenegatives, imperatives, and the tense/aspect/mood system, in addition to causatives, leads usto believe that pa- in Mayrinax Atayal is a causative marker for both dynamic and stativeverbs, and that ka- is a stative marker. For a cross-linguistic investigation of the causativemarker pa- and related issues, please refer to Zeitoun and Huang (2000).

26. Concerning the usage of the NAF focus markers af²xed to causative verbs in various con-structions, please see Huang (1995:70–79).


b. pa-pastatail-Ø ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿caus-jump-PF.imp nom.rf child ‘Let the child jump!’

c. pa-qaniq-i cu¿ qulih ku¿ ¿ulaqi¿caus-eat-LF.imp acc.nrf ²sh nom.rf child ‘Feed the child with ²sh!’

(39) a. pa-ka-rahuwal-Ø tikay ku¿ kaii=su¿caus-stat-big-PF.imp little nom.rf language=2S.gen‘Speak a little bit louder!’

b. pa-ka-hnuq-Ø tikay ku¿ hii¥ ka¿ hanicaus-stat-soft-PF.imp little nom.rf candy lin this‘Soften this candy a little bit!’

c. pa-ka-payux-Ø ku¿ pila¿=su¿caus-stat-plenty-PF.imp nom.rf money=2S.gen‘Produce more money!’

As noted above, in sentences containing stative verbs af²xed with the causativemarker pa-, the stative marker ka- is present, as shown in (37) and (39), whereas insentences containing causative verbs derived from dynamic verbs, no such markeris needed, as given in (36) and (38). Consequently, that the causative formsderived from dynamic verbs are different from those derived from stative verbs(i.e., the presence and absence of ka-) proves to be another piece of evidence thathelps justify the primary dynamic–stative division within Mayrinax verbs.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS. In this paper, verbs in Mayrinax Atayal areexamined from morphological, syntactic, and semantic perspectives. The focusmarkers, negative, imperative, and causative constructions, the tense/aspect/moodsystem, and greater/lesser semantic dynamicity (and stativity) are all part of theinvestigation. The primary distinction between dynamic and stative verbs is sup-ported by the different behaviors the cited verbs illustrate in the various construc-tions, which can be schematized as in table 6.

TABLE 6. MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVICES FOR DYNAMIC/STATIVE VERBS*

* C1 refers to the initial consonant of the stem that is absent from the verb in the af²rma-tive declarative construction but present where indicated in the table, as discussed in4.2. C2 refers to the ²rst consonant of the root of the Ø-marked verb. Pluses andminuses indicate whether or not the verb occurs in the construction indicated.

declarative tense/aspect/mood imperative causativeaffirmative negative perfective irrealis progressive

dynamicm- Ø-C1 m-in- pa-C1 + + pa-C1

-um- Ø- -um-in- pa- + + pa-ma1- Ø- m-in-(a)- pa- + + pa-Ø1- Ø- Ø-C2-in- pa- + + pa-

stativema2- Ø-ka- m-in-(a)- pa-ka- – – pa-ka-Ø2- Ø-ka- m-in-(a)- pa-ka- – – pa-ka-


Furthermore, because degrees of dynamicity (and stativity) of Mayrinax verbsare relative rather than absolute, a continuum with prototypical dynamic verbs andstative verbs appearing at the two extremes is also proposed and supported.

REFERENCES

Blust, Robert. 1999. Notes on Pazeh phonology and morphology. Oceanic Linguistics38:321–365.

Chang, Hsiou-chuan A. 1992. Causative constructions in Paiwan. M.A. thesis,National Tsing Hua University (Hsinchu).

Chen, Jie-hui. 1996. A preliminary study on negation in Seediq (in Chinese). M.A. the-sis, National Tsing Hua University (Hsinchu).

French, Koleen Matsuda. 1988. The focus system in Philippine languages: An histori-cal overview. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 18.2 & 19.1:1–27.

Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A study of Mayrinax syntax. Taipei: Crane Publishing.———. 1996. A syntactic and semantic study of -ay, -aw, and -anay in Mayrinax

Atayal. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 22:15–36.———. 2000. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: A syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic

perspective. To be presented at The 7th International Symposium on Chinese Lan-guages and Linguistics, National Chung Cheng University, December 22–24.

Huang, Lillian M., Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie Yeh, Anna Chang, and Joy Wu. 1998. Atypological overview of nominal case marking systems of Formosan languages.In Selected Papers from the First International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan21–48. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Huang, Ya-jiun. 1988. Amis verb classi²cation. M.A. thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University(Taipei).

Jeng, Heng-syung. 1977. Topic and focus in Bunun. Institute of History and PhilologySpecial Publication No. 72. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

———. 1981. Yami verbal classi²cation and the cooccurrences of cases. PhilippineJournal of Linguistics 12.1.

Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1973. Rukai structure. Institute of History and Philology, SpecialPublication, No. 64. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

———.1980. Men’s and women’s speech in Mayrinax. In Papers in honor of ProfessorLin Yu-k’eng on her seventieth birthday, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li, George Yung-chaoChen, Morris Wei-hsin Tien, and Frederic Feng-fu Tsao, 9–17. Taipei: Wen ShinPublishing Co.

Rau, Der-hwa Victoria. 1992. A grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Ross, Malcolm D. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: Evi-

dence from Taiwan. In Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng,727–791. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Tseng, Chiou-yuh. 1989. Atayal verb classi²cation. M.A. thesis, Fu Jen Catholic Uni-versity (Taipei).

Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, andfunction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yeh, Meili. 1991. Saisiyat structure. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University (Hsinchu).Zeitoun, Elizabeth, and Lillian M. Huang. 2000. Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker

of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39:391–414.Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie Yeh, and Anna Chang. 1999. Existential, posses-

sive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38:1–42.


APPENDIX : MAYRINAX VERBS

1. dynamic verbs1.1 dynamic verbs marked with m-m-a�icuw ‘thunder’ m-acay ‘cooked’m-aγaih ‘divorce’ m-aγal ‘take’m-aγalawaγ black’ m-aγ�atunux ‘pretty’m-aγiyay ‘escape’ m-aγna�alay ‘fat (eating)’m-ahiy ‘beat; hit’ m-aima¿ ‘bathe; wash (hands)’m-aiq ‘give’ m-akaal ‘speak’m-akahuy ‘chop wood’ m-akaiwa¥ ‘boast’m-aknamatimati¿ ‘laborious’ m-alaha¥ ‘look after; take care’m-alax ‘set free; give up’ m-ana�ah ‘fat (eating)’m-an�ahaaγ ³y’ m-anaquh ‘frightened’m-anata¿ ‘angry; furious’ m-anca¿rux ‘stand up’m-ancapa¿a¥ ‘on purpose’ m-aniq ‘eat’m-anthawnaq ‘sit’ m-aqainut ‘adopt’m-aqas ‘happy; ecstatic’ m-aqtaliyu¥ ‘run’m-aqut ‘ask’ m-aras ‘bring; take’m-as�inii¥ ‘rich’ m-asiaq ‘laugh’m-asina¿ ‘request (money)’ m-astatail ‘jump’m-asuwaγ yawn’ m-atas ‘write’m-atγaγaaγ lie (on bed)’ m-atγilata¿ ‘go out’m-atiaq ‘study’ m-�il�il ‘tremble’m-γona¿o¿ ‘play’ m-hahapuy ‘cook’m-hul ‘tie’ m-inuqil ‘die’m-i¥aha¿ ‘open (mouth)’ m-i¥ilis ‘cry’m-iraraumuul ‘lower head’ m-itaal ‘see’m-itutul ‘wake up’ m-nu�uwaγ drink’m-qa¿ ‘break (bowls)’ m-qi�aq ‘learn’m-siluhiy ‘landslide’ m-situri¥ ‘drip’m-skakaro¿ ‘chat’ m-tauwauw ‘work’m-tiqaru ‘²nish’ m-tupau¥ ‘faint’m-tuqaqairan ‘dizzy’ m-tutuliq ‘get up’m-u ‘shoot’ m-uhaal ‘get sick; painful’m-uhniq ‘stop’ m-umuwa¿ ‘work in the ²eld’m-u¥ ‘listen; hear’ m-usa¿ ‘go’m-utaq ‘vomit’ m-utu¿ ‘chop wood’m-uwah ‘come’

1.2 dynamic verbs marked with -um-¿-um-¿iwan ‘replace’ k-um-antatali ‘kneel’¿-um-a�uh ‘pat; touch’ k-um-at ‘bite’¿-um-i¥at ‘rob’ k-um-itaal ‘see’¿-um-iyop ‘blow’ k-um-iyom ‘search’¿-um-u�u ‘join; link’ k-um-ut ‘kill; cut’c-um-a¿i¥ ‘sew’ l-um-a¥lu¥ ‘think’c-um-a�u¿ ‘wrap’ l-um-a¥uy ‘swim’


dynamic verbs marked with -um- (continued)c-um-apuh ‘sweep (³oor)’ l-um-aqi¥ ‘hide’c-um-aqis ‘sew’ l-um-puγ ‘count’c-um-�u¿ ‘throw’ n-um-aγa¿ ‘wait’c-um-hu¿ ‘pound (rice)’ q-um-aluap ‘hunt’c-um-iyuq ‘answer’ q-um-¿lo¿ ‘close’c-um-u�u¿ ‘roast’ q-um-uriq ‘steal’c-um-uli¥ ‘burn’ q-um-uwax ‘wash (dishes)’c-um-uruh ‘roast’ q-um-uwalax ‘rain’γ-um-a¿a¥ ‘lose’ r-um-aγ ‘help’γ-um-awah ‘open (door)’ r-um-aγaap ‘catch (²sh)’γ-um-hahapuy ‘cook (rice)’ r-um-ahiy ‘dry in the open air’γ-um-i�aq ‘hold (in arms)’ r-um-aqaap ‘catch’γ-um-irγir ‘sift’ r-um-ui¿ ‘beat’γ-um-isuna¿ ‘breathe’ s-um-amaγ ‘lay a mat’γ-um-o¿oq ‘bury’ s-um-apiyal ‘dream’h-um-a� ‘stab’ s-um-auq ‘smell’h-um-akay ‘walk’ s-um-iahaγ ‘lie (down)’h-um-aoγ ‘fetch (water)’ s-um-i¥uhuγ ‘snore’h-um-aynas ‘pass by’ s-um-iuwal ‘like’h-um-�i¥ ‘leak’ s-um-uku¿ ‘put’h-um-i�aγ ‘cut’ t-um-ahuq ‘cook (dishes)’h-um-ihip ‘kiss; lick’ t-um-apaq ‘hit (with hand)’h-um-uluy ‘pull’ t-um-aqu¿ ‘push down’k-um-aal ‘speak; say’ t-um-inun ‘weave’k-um-aihow ‘dig’ t-um-u�un ‘thank’k-um-amil ‘scratch’ t-um-uti¥ ‘beat’k-um-anha¿hlay ‘crippled’

1.3 dynamic verbs marked with ma-ma-¿tu�ainay ‘sell’ ma-qaqa¿uh ‘busy’ma-�ahuq ‘wash (clothes)’ ma-qilaap ‘sleep’ma-�ainay ‘buy’ ma-qiyanux ‘live (not die)’ma-haaγ ‘chase’ ma-sacka¿ ‘welcome’ma-pa¥a¿ ‘carry on the back’

1.4 dynamic verbs marked with Ø-Ø-aruwa ‘leave’ Ø-psacoγ ‘cough’Ø-awuni ‘come’ Ø-psi�aq ‘teach’Ø-�uina ‘graduate’ Ø-psi�qa¿ ‘explode’Ø-ka�aux ‘borrow’ Ø-psihow ‘suck’Ø-palalu¿ ‘swing’ Ø-qa�alay ‘build’Ø-palawatux ‘bark’ Ø-tayhok ‘arrive’Ø-panaip ‘²sh’ Ø-toraqis ‘wash face’Ø-panaturi¥ ‘point at’ Ø-tulqi¥ ‘hide (intr.)’Ø-paqati ‘throw away’ Ø-tusasiq ‘rest’Ø-pasilay ‘thresh (rice)’


2. stative verbs2.1 stative verbs marked with ma-ma-¿icu¿ ‘afraid’ ma-¥iho¿ ‘bitter’ma-¿o�a¿ ‘white; clean’ ma-ohum ‘brave’ma-¿oway ‘tired’ ma-pulu¥ ‘deaf’ma-�uqa¿ ‘broken’ ma-r¥o¿ ‘dry; thirsty’ma-γa¿a¥ ‘missing; lost’ ma-s¿a¥ ‘angry; ²erce’ma-γaliq ‘havingholes(clothes)’ ma-sa�iq ‘lazy’ma-γotiq ‘stupid’ ma-tanah ‘red; ripe’ma-hiqa¥ ‘slender (sick)’ ma-taqu¿ ‘fall down’ma-hnuq ‘cheap; soft’ ma-tiluq ‘raw’ma-huwah ‘broken; destroyed’ ma-t¿¥i¿ ‘satiated; full’ma-huwiq ‘wet’ ma-uraγ ‘dirty’ma-kiluh ‘hot (not cold)’

2.2 stative verbs marked with Ø-Ø-¿aqih ‘bad’ Ø-lal�i¥ ‘sweet’Ø-¿ayihu¥ ‘dif²cult’ Ø-lawkah ‘strong’Ø-¿iqas ‘new’ Ø-lih�iq ‘thin (not thick)’Ø-�alaiq ‘good; clever’ Ø-lihaqa¿ ‘light(not heavy)’Ø-�aq ‘able’ Ø-lihka¿ ‘fast’Ø-�osinuq ‘drunk’ Ø-maskaiyu¥ ‘hungry’Ø-capa¥ ‘old (not new)’ Ø-payux ‘much; plenty’Ø-γihaaq ‘cold (weather)’ Ø-qanaru¿uh ‘long’Ø-ha�aaγ ‘many’ Ø-rahuwal ‘big’Ø-hailaaγ ‘diligent’ Ø-sawkan ‘stinking’Ø-i�a�awiq ‘tall’ Ø-shahia¿ ‘delicious’Ø-imuliq ‘heavy’ Ø-s¥akowaq ‘noisy’Ø-iqhi¿ ‘slender (inborn)’ Ø-tatimo¿ ‘salty’Ø-irarauq ‘short (not tall)’ Ø-tikay ‘small’Ø-isiti¥ ‘short’ Ø-trato¿ ‘cold (water)’Ø-kia¿ ~ ma-kia¿ ‘exist; live’ Ø-ukas ‘not exist; without’Ø-kihma ‘thick’ Ø-mamati¿ ‘expensive; hard (not

soft); capable’Ø-kithu¿ ‘fat (inborn)’

3. denominal verbs3.1 denominal dynamic verbs3.1.1 denominal dynamic verbs marked with m-m-aqa�u�i¥ ‘put on; wear (hat)’ m-si�uq ‘juice’m-aquwas ‘sing ‘ m-si¥a¥ay ‘salivate’ m-asramu¿uh ‘bleed’ m-si¥ihi ‘snivel’ m-situi¥ ‘put on;wear(clothes)’

3.1.2 denominal dynamic verbs marked with -um-c-um-api¥ ‘sweep’ h-um-anaa¥ ‘make sound’γ-um-iluγ ‘accompany’ t-um-aptap ‘lightening; fan’denominal dynamic verbs marked with -um- (continued)


h-um-aγri ‘build a bridge’

3.1.3 denominal dynamic verbs marked with Ø-Ø-ptunaq ‘spit’

3.2 denominal stative verbs marked with Ø-Ø-¿ulaqi¿ ‘young’ Ø-na�akis ‘old’

Dept. of English, NTNU162 Hoping E. Road, Sec. 1Taipei 10601, Taiwan, [email protected]

Verb Classification in Mayrinax Atayal

Documents

Transcript of Verb Classification in Mayrinax Atayal