El camp dels estudis culturals comparats

As detailed above (4.6–4.9), an inflected verb in Ulwa typically has exactly one TAM suffix (which may be null in certain imperfective verb forms). There are circumstances, however, in which perfective verbs may be marked twice—that is, they take the form stem-plus-perfective-plus-perfective. In such instances, the second perfective marker adopts the vowel from the verb stem, preventing the otherwise impossible sequence *-p-p. Thus, for example, verbs with a-final stems have the form [stem]-p-ap, and verbs with o-final stems have the form [stem]-p-op. This may be viewed as a type of reduplication.

The semantic effect of this double perfective is often one of signaling that an action is all-the-more over-and-done-with. Since a (single) perfective marker typically signals that the event is viewed as whole and completed, this double marking could be seen as superfluous. Indeed, it may be that—as speakers use different TAM suffixes ever more interchangeably, perhaps as the result of grammatical attrition—the extra perfective marking is simply redundant (more on this below in this section, and see Chapter 15 for structural changes due to grammatical attrition).

There are instances, however, in which the double perfective functions something like the pluperfect category of some European languages, showing that an event is not only viewed as a completed whole, but that is has been completed before some other event in the past. These usages can often be translated with the English auxiliary had plus the past participle, as in the examples below.

(4.028) Man nïkapap.

ma=n nï=kï-p-ap 3SG=OBL 1SG=say-PRF-PRF

‘(She) had told me.’ (T11) (4.029) Mana man masapap.

mana ma=n ma=asa-p-ap

spear 3SG=OBL 3SG=hit-PRF-PRF

‘(They) had killed him with a spear.’ (T32)

(4.030) Nï mape Madangpe ndïlopop.

nï ma=p-e Madang-p-e ndï=lo-p-op

1SG 3SG=be-DEP [place]-be-DEP 3PL=cut-PRF-PRF

‘I had made them when I was there in Madang.’ (T11) (4.031) Ndïnji inga mol lopope.

ndïnji inga ma=ul lo-p-op-e 3PL.POSS in.law 3SG=with go-PRF-PRF-DEP

‘(They) had gone with their in-law.’ (T30) (4.032) Asika lïmndï ndïlpïpe …

asi-ka lïmndï ndï=lï-p-ïp-e

sit-let eye 3PL=put-PRF-PRF-DEP

‘After (they) had sat and watched them, …’

… ngala luke asi tï nap ndala une.

ngala luke asi tï na-p ndï=ala uni-e

this.PL too sit take DETR-be 3PL=for shout-DEP

‘… these people also took seats, cheering them on.’ (T27)

The double perfective can, similarly, provide the sense of ‘already’, and is translated accordingly in the following example.

(4.033) Numbu ala nungunupop.

numbu ala nungun-u-p-op

post that.PL break-put-PRF-PRF

‘Those posts have already broken.’ (T37)

It is also possible for the word ta ‘already’ to appear within a clause exhibiting such a construction, as in:

(4.034) Nïnji wot yena mï ta nipop.

nïnji wot yena mï ta ni-p-op

1SG.POSS younger woman 3SG already die-PRF-PRF

‘My younger sister has already died.’ (T22)

(In the example above, however, it may be that the form /nip/ has been reanalyzed as

morphophonemic, a new verb ‘die’, derived from the perfective form of the verb n- ‘act, die’.) The two sentences above (4.033 and 4.034) also illustrate the fact that the vowels in the second perfective suffix do not always match the final vowel of the verb stem. Indeed, there is variability even within certain verb forms (e.g., there are attested forms such as lï-p-ap ‘put-PRF

-’ alongside lï-p-ïp, as seen in 4.032 above). It may be that some of these putative second

perfective forms are actually reduced forms of the past copular suffix -wap (10.3). Indeed, it is not unlikely that they have all derived (historically) from wap, which is often pronounced [wɔp]:

thus, it could be assumed that first the /w/ has been lost; then, when following non-low vowels, the vowel [ɔ] is colored to [o], and when following the low vowel, it is colored to [a]. The following sentences further exemplify the form -op, following the stem-final vowels i and u.

(4.035) Ane nda ine nda nipop.

ane anda i-n-e anda ni-p-op

sun that.SG come-PRF-DEP that.SG die-PRF-PRF

‘That (woman) died the day before yesterday.’ (T32) (4.036) John maweka i Mongima ul ngalan upop.

John maweka i Mongima ul ngala=n u-p-op

[name] also go.PRF [name] with this.PL=OBL put-PRF-PRF

‘John had also gone and planted these with Mongima.’ (T11)

In many instances (as in the following sentences), it is not clear whether the inclusion of a double perfective should be taken to convey any sense different from that of a regular (single) perfective verb form.

(4.037) An ndamapape inim nga ambipe.

an ndï=ama-p-ap-e inim nga ambi-p-e

1PL.EXCL 3PL=eat-PRF-PRF-DEP water this.SG big-be-DEP

‘We were eating them (fish), but (now) the water is high (again)’ (T11) (4.038) Monam ala ndï ndïn maytapap.

monam ala ndï ndï=n ma=ita-p-ap

tree.sp that.PL 3PL 3PL=OBL 3SG=build-PRF-PRF

‘Monam trees—they had(?) built it with these.’ (T11) (4.039) Mï maka aw ndïn mopop.

mï maka aw ndï=n ma=u-p-op

3SG thus betel.nut 3PL=OBL 3SG=put-PRF-PRF

‘He had(?) planted the betel nut there.’ (T11)

Some of the examples above may reflect grammatical attrition; as verbal suffixes come to be used in increasingly interchangeable ways, they lose their aspectual force: perhaps such seemingly redundant (i.e., extra) perfective markers are used to show that the meaning intended is truly perfective. A good example to bolster this hypothesis is to be found in how the suppletive perfective form of the word ‘go’ ma- is used. The form i ‘go.PRF’ is intrinsically marked for

perfective aspect. Nevertheless, speakers on occasion add what seems to be a perfective suffix—

that is, as if they were treating this form as unmarked for aspect and thus requiring a perfective suffix—as in the following:

(4.040) Li kïkal wopa nda ango mbiyap.

li-i kïkal wopa anda ango mbï-i-ap

down-go.PRF ear all that.SG NEG here-go.PRF-PRF

‘(She) went downstream, but that deaf one did not stay here.’ (T11) (4.041) Ndï lïmndï ute iyapen.

ndï lïmndï u=uta-e i-ap-en

3PL eye 2SG=grind-DEP go.PRF-PRF-NMLZ

‘They were the ones who had gone and watched over you.’ (T10) (4.042) Ngata ala iwapapen.

ngata ala i-wap-ap-en

grand that.PL go.PRF-be.PST-PRF-NMLZ

‘(Our) ancestors are the ones who had gone (there).’ (T11)

In the examples above, the first (4.040) reflects the perfective form i with an unnecessary additional perfective marker -ap. The second example (4.041), however, shows how i—with the perfective form -ap—can function in a double perfective construction. The third example (4.042), finally, shows how a double perfective construction can function when i ‘go’ is

reanalyzed as lacking (intrinsic) TAM marking. This last example also illustrates the use of wap

‘be.PST’ as a perfective/past marker. I hypothesize that this is a recent innovation, one influenced by grammatical attrition in the face of competing influences from the dominant language, Tok Pisin (see Chapter 15).