Search

In this paper we analyze the alignment systems present in the Patagonian language günün a iajüch. This language exhibits a differential marking that is registered morphologically in the verbal prefixes of the subject person and the verbal suffixes that denote the object arguments, and is linked to the lexical aspect of the verbal base as well as to the semantic roles, degrees of animacy and of control of the situation by the participants. Along with the nominative/accusative (A-S/P) alignment for active transitive and intransitive verbs, there are regularities that would indicate an active-stative split or Split–P that is manifested by alternating verb prefixes, mainly kücha-/kü- documented for the first person. On the other hand, in transitive clauses objects with Patient, Subject or Dative roles are presented by personals in the first and second person and with other morphemes in the third, while in ditransitive clauses the object with Dative role is always indexed by alienable possession affixes. Finally, the “superimposed” alignment systems are related to those of languages in contact in order to examine whether they respond to phenomena inscribed in diachrony or in areal contact., En este artículo se analizan los sistemas de alineamiento presentes en la lengua patagónica günün a yajüch. Esta lengua exhibe una marcación diferencial que se registra morfológicamente en los prefijos verbales de persona sujeto y los sufijos verbales que denotan los argumentos objeto, y se vincula con el aspecto léxico de la base verbal así como con los roles semánticos, grados de animacidad y de control de los participantes de la situación. Además de la alineación nominativo/acusativa para los verbos transitivos e intransitivos activos, existen regularidades que indicarían una escisión activa-estativa que se manifiesta mediante la alternancia de prefijos verbales, principalmente kücha-/ kü- documentados para la primera persona. Por otro lado, en las cláusulas transitivas los objetos con roles Paciente, Tema o Dativo se presentan mediante personales en la primera y segunda persona y con otros morfemas en la tercera, en tanto que en las ditransitivas el objeto con rol Dativo siempre se indexa mediante afijos de posesión alienable. Asimismo, se relacionan los sistemas de alineación “superpuestos” con los de lenguas en contacto para examinar si responden a fenómenos inscriptos en la diacronía o en el contacto areal.

For a long time one of the most bewildering conundrums of Indo- European linguistics has been the issue of how to reconstruct the alignment system of this ancient language state, given the lack of distinction between s and o marking in the Proto-Indo-European neuter nouns and the problem of the Hittite ergative. An additional complication stems from the existence of argument structure constructions where the subject(-like) argument is marked in a different case than the nominative, like the accusative or the dative. Our aim with the present article is to fill two needs with one deed and offer a unified account of this century-long bone of contention. In contribution to the ongoing discussion in the field, we claim that a semantic alignment system, in the terms of Donohue & Wichmann (2008), might not only fit better with the morphological data that are currently reconstructed for the ancestral language, but also with the existence of non-canonically case-marked subjects in general (Barðdal, Bjarnadóttir, et al. 2013; Danesi, Johnson & Barðdal 2017).