Chapter 158Internal Reconstruction and Grammaticalization
Proposed lexical sources of grammatical forms, the expansion of possessive kor, person and nominalization histories, and limits of segmentation.
158.1 Recovering earlier grammatical structure
Grammaticalization describes the development of grammatical functions from lexical words or larger constructions. Ainu provides transparent relationships between some verbs and grammatical forms, but resemblance alone does not determine the order or date of changes. Alonso de la Fuente emphasizes the uneven documentation, especially for the history of person marking Alonso de la Fuente (2022: §3.1).
His proposed pathways include ani ‘hold’ to an instrumental expression, kusu ‘reason’ to a causal connective, and an anaphoric ne to the copula. He relates aspectual a/rok to ‘sit down’; this proposal must be kept distinct from derivational -an and existential an Alonso de la Fuente (2022: §3.1). For present-day aspect analyses, see Chapter 111 (A, Rok, and Aan: Earlier Situations and Discovery).
158.2 Lexical verbs in derived predicates
Alonso reproduces Dettmer's examples of verb formation from nominal or other bases. These illustrate recognizable lexical sources without establishing that every pattern remains freely productive Alonso de la Fuente (2022: §3.1, Table 16, citing Dettmer 1989).
| Formation | Meaning | Associated lexical source |
|---|---|---|
| cuk-an | become autumn | an ‘exist’ |
| ruyanpe-as | rain | as ‘stand’ |
| sake-kar | brew sake | kar ‘make’ |
| hon-kor | be pregnant | kor ‘have’ |
| soy-ne | go outside | ne ‘be, become’ |
| tum-sak | be weak | sak ‘lack’ |
| e-se | agree, consent | compared with sewri ‘throat’ |
The final comparison is less direct than a surviving independent verb with the same form. Compound formation, incorporation, and affixation also require synchronic diagnostics; an etymological interpretation does not settle the present grammatical boundary.
158.3 Possession and the expansion of kor
Bugaeva and colleagues propose an earlier set of possessive verbs distinguishing such relationships as hunting, food preparation, and use of objects, followed by wider use of general kor ‘have’. Their argument combines surviving specific constructions with lexicalized nouns Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel (2022: 57–59).
‘My grilled food.’
Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel 2022: 58; Example 29a; Nakagawa et al. 2020, K7803231UP.033
The source's segmented analysis of the lexical noun aep is retained. The first predicate specifies preparation.
‘My food.’
Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel 2022: 59; Saru, Example 29b; Tamura 1985:6
The source compares the general possessive predicate kor with more specific verbs.
The authors also show that modern possessive kor retains relative-clause properties: it can carry number and aspect marking and take adverbial modifiers. Its conventional possessive function therefore coexists with verbal syntax Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel (2022: 59, examples 30–33).
158.4 Person and nominalization: proposed histories
Refsing suggests an etymological connection between existential an and person forms. Bugaeva proposes a development from inclusive reference to logophoric use. These concern different steps: a possible source of morphology and a possible expansion of its discourse functions Refsing (1986: 218–219, §14.10.4); Bugaeva (2008: §4.2.2). Neither makes every modern use of the fourth-person series interchangeable; see Chapter 67 (Fourth-Person Forms and Their Uses).
Bugaeva separately proposes a tentative history of nominalization: zero nominalization, constructions with nominalizing words, Sakhalin verbal forms with possessive-style agreement, and independent clause uses of those forms. She considers adverbial constructions containing a copula a possible starting point for the Sakhalin development Bugaeva (2016: 114, §6). The proposed sequence organizes cross-dialectal evidence; its stages are not dated documentary observations. Present constructional differences are treated in Chapter 101 (P and Pe: Participants, Content, and Clause Endings) and Chapter 106 (Nominalized Complements and Complex Predicates).
158.5 The limits of segmentation
Alonso explores whether recurring final segments in nouns might preserve older class terms or classifiers. He distinguishes compound heads from grammatical classifiers and notes the difficulty of testing some proposed analyses Alonso de la Fuente (2022: §3.2, Table 17). A shared final consonant among words with related meanings does not by itself establish a productive ancestral suffix.
Even familiar lexical forms admit competing historical analyses. For cep ‘fish’, Alonso's reconstructed stages and Bugaeva and colleagues' exclusive-person analysis of its components use different labels and arguments Alonso de la Fuente (2022: §4, Table 18); Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel (2022: 58, example 28). Such proposals should be evaluated against their correspondences and constructional evidence; a newly segmented spelling is not an additional attested utterance.
References cited in this chapter
Alonso de la Fuente (2022) ·Bugaeva (2008) ·Bugaeva (2016) ·Bugaeva, Nichols & Bickel (2022) ·Refsing (1986)