Misplaced Pages

#125874

21-579: Most Panoan languages are spoken in either Peru or western Brazil; a few are in Bolivia. All Tacanan languages are spoken in Bolivia (Ese’ejja is also spoken in Peru). Migliazza has presented lexical evidence in support of a genetic relationship between the Panoan and Yanomaman languages. He also suggests that a Panoan– Chibchan relationship is plausible. Jolkesky (2016) also notes that there are lexical similarities with

42-501: Is a family of languages spoken by about 20,000 Yanomami people in southern Venezuela and northwestern Brazil ( Roraima , Amazonas ). Ferreira, Machado & Senra (2019) divide the Yanomaman family into two branches, with six languages in total. Sanumá is the most lexically distinct. Yanomamö has the most speakers (20,000), while Yãnoma has the fewest (178). Internal classification by Jolkesky (2016): († = extinct) Yanomaman

63-458: Is a type of possession in which a noun is obligatorily possessed by its possessor. Nouns or nominal affixes in an inalienable possession relationship cannot exist independently or be "alienated" from their possessor. Inalienable nouns include body parts (such as leg , which is necessarily "someone's leg" even if it is severed from the body), kinship terms (such as mother ), and part-whole relations (such as top ). Many languages reflect

84-455: Is highly polysynthetic . Adjectival concepts are expressed by means of stative verbs, there are no true adjectives. Adjectival stative verbs follow their noun. There are five demonstratives which have to be chosen according to distance from speaker and hearer and also according to visibility, a feature shared by many native Brazilian languages such as Tupian ones including Old Tupi . Demonstratives, numerals, classifiers and quantifiers precede

105-408: Is important to note that they are just the most common types of inalienable nouns. Languages with an alienable/inalienable possession distinction differ in which classes fall under each type of possession. However, if a language has such a distinction, kinship roles or body parts (or both) make up some of the entities that are inalienably possessed. Also, languages may make different distinctions within

126-412: Is impossible to say that a particular relationship is an example of inalienable possession without specifying the languages for which that holds true. For example, neighbor may be an inalienable noun in one language but alienable in another. Additionally, in some languages, one entity can be both alienably possessed and inalienably possessed, and its type of possession is influenced by other properties of

147-567: Is not what the Yanomami call themselves and is instead a word in their language meaning "man" or "human being". The American anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon adopted this term with the transcription Ya̧nomamö to use as an exonym to refer to the culture and, by extension, the people. The word is pronounced with nasalisation of all the vowels. As the phoneme indicated by the spelling 'ö' does not occur in English, variations in spelling and pronunciation of

168-673: Is the most common kind of binary possessive class system, but it is not the only one. Some languages have more than two possessive classes. In Papua New Guinea , for example, Anêm has at least 20 classes, and Amele has 32. Statistically, 15–20% of the world's languages have obligatory possession . With inalienable possession, the two entities have a permanent association in which the possessed has little control over their possessor. For instance, body parts (under normal circumstances) do not change and cannot be removed from their possessor. The following real-world relationships often fall under inalienable possession: Alienable possession, on

189-517: Is usually not connected with any other language family. Joseph Greenberg has suggested a relationship between Yanomaman and Macro-Chibchan . Migliazza (1985) has suggested a connection with Panoan and Chibchan. Neither proposal is widely accepted. Jolkesky (2016) notes that there are lexical similarities with the Irantxe , Taruma , Katukina-Katawixi , Puinave-Kak , Tupi , Arawa , Guahibo , and Jivaro language families due to contact. Yanomami

210-500: The Arawakan languages due to contact. Below is a list of lexical cognates shared between Proto-Pano and Proto-Takana, demonstrating the genetic relatedness of the Pano and Takana branches. The two branches also share many basic cognate grammatical morphemes. Yanomaman languages Yanomaman , also as Yanomam , Yanomáman , Yamomámi , and Yanomamana (also Shamatari , Shirianan ),

231-454: The asterisk). French cannot use the inalienable possession construction for a relationship that is alienable. Al to.the tavolo, table qualcuno someone gli it. DAT ha has segato sawn tutte all le the gambe legs Al tavolo, qualcuno gli ha segato tutte le gambe to.the table someone it.DAT has sawn all the legs 'The table, someone has sawn off all its legs' *   La

SECTION 10

#1732845633126

252-573: The axe' Relative clauses are formed by adding a relativizing ('REL' below) suffix to the verb: wãro-n man- ERG shama tapir shyra-wei kill- REL ware-ma eat- COMPL wãro-n shama shyra-wei ware-ma man-ERG tapir kill-REL eat-COMPL 'the man who killed the tapir ate it' Sanuma dialect also has a relative pronoun ĩ . Loukotka (1968) lists the following basic vocabulary items for Yanomaman language varieties. Alienable and inalienable possession In linguistics , inalienable possession ( abbreviated INAL )

273-558: The categories on how many and which entities are treated as inalienable. Moreover, some languages allow the same noun to be either alienable or inalienable. Thus, trying to determine if a noun is alienable or inalienable based on its meaning or its affiliation to a specific noun category (for instance, body parts ) can be difficult. Although the relationships listed above are likely to be instances of inalienable possession, those that are ultimately classified as inalienable depend on conventions that are specific by language and culture. It

294-401: The distinction but vary in how they mark inalienable possession. Cross-linguistically, inalienability correlates with many morphological , syntactic , and semantic properties. In general, the alienable–inalienable distinction is an example of a binary possessive class system in which a language distinguishes two kinds of possession (alienable and inalienable). The alienability distinction

315-462: The head noun. There is a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession , again a common areal feature, and a rich system of verbal classifiers, almost a hundred, they are obligatory and appear just before the verb root. The distinction between inclusive and exclusive 1st person plural, a feature shared by most Native American languages, has been lost in Yanam and Yanomam dialects, but retained in

336-523: The name have developed, with Yanomami , Yanomamö , Ya̧nomamö , and Yanomama all being used. Some anthropologists have used the spelling Yanomamɨ to indicate the vowel [ ɨ ] , but because many presses and typesetters eliminate the diacritical marks, the pronunciation /i/ and spelling of the name with ⟨i⟩ has emerged. Yanomaman languages have a phonological distinction between oral and nasal vowels. There are seven basic vowel qualities: /a e i o u ɨ ə/, which can occur as oral or nasal sounds. In

357-538: The other hand, has a less permanent association between the two entities. For instance, most objects may or may not be possessed. When such types of objects are possessed, the possession is alienable . Alienable possession is used generally for tangible items that one might cease to own at some point (such as my money ), but inalienable possession generally refers to a perpetual relationship that cannot be readily severed (such as my mother or my arm ). The table above outlines some common inalienable relationships, but it

378-508: The others. Yanomami morphosyntactic alignment is ergative–absolutive , which means that the subject of an intransitive verb is marked the same way as the object of a transitive verb, while the subject of a transitive verb is marked differently. The ergative case marker is -ny . The verb agrees with both subject and object. Evidentiality in the Yanomami dialect is marked on the verb and has four levels: eyewitness, deduced, reported, and assumed. Other dialects have fewer levels. The object of

399-525: The sentence. Thus, whether a certain type of relationship is described as alienable or inalienable can be arbitrary. In that respect, alienability is similar to other types of noun classes such as grammatical gender . The examples below illustrate that the same phrase, the table's legs , is regarded as inalienable possession in Italian but alienable possession in French : (1b) is ungrammatical (as indicated by

420-471: The table above, the practical orthography is shown in angle brackets below the phoneme, if different. The Yanomaman languages present extensive nasal harmony . When in Yanomaman words, a vowel is phonetically nasalized , all vowels that follow within the same word are also nasalized. The consonants of Yanomama are shown in the table below: Yanomaman languages are SOV, suffixing, predominantly head-marking with elements of dependent-marking . Its typology

441-427: The verb can be incorporated into it, especially if it not in focus: Non-incorporated: kamijə-ny 1sg - ERG sipara axe ja-puhi-i 1sg -want- DYN kamijə-ny sipara ja-puhi-i 1sg-ERG axe 1sg-want-DYN 'I want an/the axe' Incorporated: kamijə-ny 1sg - ERG ja-sipara-puhi-i 1sg -axe-want- DYN kamijə-ny ja-sipara-puhi-i 1sg-ERG 1sg-axe-want-DYN 'I want [it],

SECTION 20

#1732845633126
#125874