Chapter 34Nominal Subclasses and Dependence
Common nouns, locative nouns, pronouns, and formal nouns, compared through possession, independence, modification, and grammatical location.
34.1 Four subclasses in Nakagawa's account
Nakagawa distinguishes common nouns, locative nouns, pronouns, and formal nouns by their form, person marking, independence, and permitted modifiers Nakagawa (2022: §3); Nakagawa (2024: 214–217). Bugaeva uses three noun subclasses, common, relational, and bound nouns, with pronouns separate Bugaeva (2012: 469–470). Her relational nouns correspond broadly to Nakagawa's locative nouns, and her small bound-noun class to formal nouns.
| Subclass | Form distinction | Person marking | Typical dependence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common noun | Conceptual and affiliative | A-series possessor on the affiliative | An affiliative presupposes a related entity. |
| Locative noun | Basic and long | O-series reference point, with lexical limits | A Type-1 basic form needs a reference expression or person marker. |
| Pronoun | No corresponding possessive pair | No possessive person prefix | Can form a noun phrase independently. |
| Formal noun | No corresponding possessive pair | No possessive person prefix | Requires a modifier; permitted types vary by item. |
These contrasts concern grammatical distribution. A noun phrase can lack an overt possessor or reference expression while still referring to an entity recoverable from the context Nakagawa (2022: §3.3).
34.2 Common nouns and the affiliative form
The conceptual form presents an entity without explicitly relating it to another. The affiliative form presents it in such a relation, often possession. For example, tek “hand” has teke(he), with an optional longer ending Nakagawa (2024: 217, 227). The first-person form is ku=tekehe “my hand” Nakagawa (2024: 216).
34.2.1 The extent of the paradigm
Bugaeva states that some Southern Hokkaido common nouns lack possessive forms Bugaeva (2012: 470). Nakagawa argues that an affiliative can potentially be formed when a suitable semantic relation is available Nakagawa (2024: 230) ‹contested›. The latter account also retains unresolved conditions involving particular modifiers and constructions Nakagawa (2024: 230–233).
Suffix selection is partly lexical and varies by dialect. The final vowel alone does not determine every ending Nakagawa (2024: 226–230). The forms are described in Chapter 45 (Affiliative Suffix Patterns).
34.3 Two senses of nominal dependence
The label bound noun has different uses in descriptions of Ainu. Bugaeva's 2012 subclass contains forms that require a modifier: for example, tan kur “this person,” with bare *kur excluded in the cited contrast Bugaeva (2012: 470). In her account of possession, bound inalienables instead describes dependence associated with possessive morphology Bugaeva (2022: §5.1.1). Requiring a modifier and requiring a possessive relation are distinct grammatical properties.
34.3.1 Kinship nouns
Kinship terms differ in whether they can be used in address and in the forms used for reference. A reference-only term can still describe the speaker's own relative Nakagawa (2024: 222–224). Some terms also depend on the sex of the person through whom the relation is defined: tures is a man's younger sister, while matak is a woman's younger sister Nakagawa (2024: 223–224). Their possessive and address patterns are treated in Chapter 48 (Kinship, Address, and Possession).
34.3.2 Independence and contextual reference
Nakagawa ranks common-noun conceptual forms, Type-2 locative nouns, and pronouns as relatively independent. Affiliatives and long locative forms can constitute a noun phrase while presupposing a possessor or reference point. Basic Type-1 locatives have stronger syntactic dependence, and formal nouns require modification Nakagawa (2022: §3.3). This account distinguishes several degrees of dependence within the nominal domain.
34.4 Locative nouns and grammatical locations
Locative nouns such as ka “top” and sam “side” identify a spatial relation to a reference point. They take O-series markers, as in en=ka “above me” Nakagawa (2024: 216). They also supply the grammatical location required by locative particles and certain verbs.
Common-noun conceptual forms generally require a locative noun in such constructions. Nakagawa's Saru contrast has nupuri or ta “at the mountain,” with or before ta; he rejects bare nupuri ta in that example Nakagawa (2024: 216, example 233). Lexical and regional exceptions include uses of kotan “village,” mosir “land,” and place names Nakagawa (2022: §4.5).
Common-noun affiliatives generally function as locations too. Nakagawa's Chitose example places the affiliative of “mouth” directly before the source particle:
There are exceptions, including kinship terms in the 2022 account and a Shizunai example with cisehe or ta, where an affiliative is still followed by a locative noun Nakagawa (2022: §4.5); Nakagawa (2024: 220–221). The constructional details are described in Chapter 53 (Place Particles and Motion Expressions).
34.4.1 Basic and long forms
Type-1 locatives such as sam require a preceding reference expression when the basic form is unprefixed. A person prefix can supply that relation: Nakagawa's Chitose example begins en=sam un “to my side” without a preceding noun phrase Nakagawa (2024: 239–241, example 281). Long forms can occur with their reference point understood from context.
Type-2 locatives, including soy “outside” and kim “mountains, inland,” allow independent basic forms. They also have long forms, such as soykehe and kimkehe. Nakagawa reports that person marking remains unconfirmed for many members of this type Nakagawa (2024: 245–246). See Chapter 52 (Relational Nouns, Spatial Forms, and Quasi-Incorporation) for the wider inventory.
34.4.2 Differences between the locative analyses
Nakagawa's 2022 account permits locative nouns to be modified by a verb phrase Nakagawa (2022: §3.4, Table 3). His 2024 grammar explicitly excludes this possibility, alongside the corresponding restriction on pronouns Nakagawa (2024: 215, Table 47) ‹contested›. Clause modification therefore receives different treatments even within these two closely related classification schemes.
34.5 Proper names
Refsing distinguishes proper names from general nouns, noting restrictions on affixes and the rarity of preceding modifiers in her Shizunai account Refsing (1986: 75, 89). Nakagawa discusses their distinctive behavior without establishing a separate major noun subclass Nakagawa (2024: 233) ‹contested›. Both accounts recognize that names differ in typical distribution from ordinary descriptive nouns.
34.6 Pronouns and formal nouns
Pronouns can stand as noun phrases but do not take the ordinary possessive morphology. Formal nouns depend on modifiers, with item-specific restrictions Nakagawa (2022: §§3.1–3.4). Their respective systems are described in Chapter 49 (Independent Personal Pronouns) and Chapter 35 (Formal Nouns and Nominalizing Constructions).
The evidential forms ruwe, hawe, siri, and humi preserve affiliative morphology. Nakagawa relates their formal-noun-like uses to ordinary nouns, while Bugaeva assigns evidential uses to particles Nakagawa (2024: 258–259); Bugaeva (2012: 470) ‹contested›. Nominal origin and current constructional function receive separate treatment in Chapter 120 (Formal Nouns and Evidential Constructions).
References cited in this chapter
Bugaeva (2012) ·Bugaeva (2022) ·Nakagawa (2022) ·Nakagawa (2024) ·Refsing (1986)