However, in some languages (e.g. English) “inside” seems to be conceptually, if not grammatically, linked to “down.” The amenability of -ho Nsi / to taking any of the vertical locative suffixes seems at first to preclude this sort of link. However if we consider the sentences below, it seems that perhaps the link is there: a verbal form indicating “down”ness is used not only when the vertical locative suffix agrees with it (16), but also when there is no vertical locative suffix (17, a more general sentence from a recipe), and when the vertical suffix seems to disagree (15). 15 mo.ban.no/ ‘lo buni.o, hago igo.be / hæ N bora.ho Nsi.yu that.ELA.EXF ‘well bond_friend.ARQ, now this.LOC you bora.inside.HRZ pe /.yus.e!’ pass.down.IMP Then [the bear] said, “Friend, you get into this sack.” 16 swa·ma.hi.jhai ) dai.ho Nsi /.mu pe /.yus.a.mi.ro bee.NS.CTP dahi.inside.DWN pass.down.PT.3PL.REP 15 As for the bees, they entered into the curds. 17 wadiha Nma æm.ma khæ·. N.ha leaven_herb put_down must You must put in the leaven herb. These data show at least the possibility of a conceptual link between “inside” and “down” in Yamphu, at a level that perhaps completely bypasses that of the vertical locative suffixes. Other Kiranti languages hint at this, too: Allen (1972) translates the Thulung go (which also can take any of the vertical locative suffixes) as “within” and includes within the definition the form dhaguiu “lower down” but no other forms indicating vertical dimensions, and Ebert (1999) notes for the Bantawa “inside” only a form utilizing the noun for “hole,” arguably a concept innately associated with downness. The morpheme rada N carries the meaning of below, and is found with the basic locative -pe /. It can either be affixed to a substantive or appear independently (as in 18). 18 mo.ba rada N.be /.mu ikko kay.æ /æm.be / akma tu·.ye that.ELA below.LOC.DWN one blacksmith.POS.LOC pig be.FCT lu·.haks.a.mi say.send.PT.3PL They told us that there was a pig, down below at a blacksmith’s. Like rada N, sok “top” is used with the basic locative. It generally attaches to some concrete object that has inherent topness, and seems to be the counterpart of -ra N (see table 3). 19 mo.ba si Nbu.sok.pe/ sa N. /itth.o N lokha N. /it.c.u that. ELA treee.top.LOC ascend.PF.LCQ look.PF.DU.>3 They climbed in a tree and looked [around]. 16 Similarly to the other postpositions discussed here, soN (above) attaches to the basic locative and can occur with it as an independent word or as a postposition. In the example below (20) it is part of a sentence in which, although it is not obligatory to do so (see 21), the high verticality is marked not once or twice but three times – with an adverb, with so N, a postposition, and also with the UPW vertical locative suffix, -tu. The dual marking in so N.bet.tu here may be a way of agreeing with the far-distal metto N (which is discussed below). That is, perhaps the distancing force of “further_up” implies an “above an location that is already higher than me.” It is worth noting that in Yamphu as in many of the Kiranti languages (Ebert 1994), relatives are not common – ‘above’ is most often used without a reference point, i.e. independently, (21) being an exception. 20 metto N so N.bet.tu sip.pe·.tt.æ further_up above.LOC.UPW fall.RES.PF.FCT [The snake] was a bit further up. 21 mo.ba Ri Ngatti.æ /æ khim.so N.be / less.i N.æm.be /... that.ELA Ri Ngattiya.POS house.above.LOC come.EXPS.FCT.LOC… Then I arrived above RiNgattiya’s house… Lexical As we saw in table 2, the Yamphu demonstratives have, through combining with the vertical locative suffixes, potential for an extensive structure. Indeed, Yamphu demonstratives distinguish three degrees of distance: proximal (here), distal (there), and far-distal (way over there). Combined with the three vertical locative suffixes this gives a set of three by three structures (see tables 4 and 5). Several of the demonstratives have short and long forms; in a distribution similar to that of the POS+vLOC/LOC+vLOC (see 17 above) distinction, the short forms refer to a more general area while the long forms refer to a specific spot. basic +HRZ +UPW +DWN proximal igobe / ~ ibe / ibe /yu ibettu ibe /mu distal akkobe / ~ akpe / akpe /yu akpettu akpe /mu far-distal mobe / mobe /yu mobe ttu mobe /mu table 4. demonstratives of place basic +HRZ +UPW +DWN proximal igobe / ~ ibe / igi /yu igindu ~ igitttu igimmu ~ igi /mu distal akkobe / ~ akpe / akki /yu akkittu ~ akkindu akki /mu ~ akkimmu far-distal mobe / mi /yu ~ miyu mittu ~ mindu mi /mu ~ mimmu table 5. demonstratives of direction Interestingly enough, the most common of the demonstratives to actually occur in the texts are the far-distals (as in 22, 23, and 24) 22 khi·.di. /os.e miyu hi N.si/ ti·.ra.e carry.apply.PURP.IMP over_there feed.SUP go.go_come.IMP Carry the stuff, go over there and feed him and come back. 23 …mindu.ra yo Na op.y.ok.pe·.tt.u …up_there.MED water spill.UFM.bring_down.RES.PF.>3 …water was suddenly spilt from above. 24 mo.ba mimmu ma·ks.æ gottha.bek.ko… that.ELA down_there bear.POS goth.LOC.TH… Down in the shed of the bear… Rutgers also lists a number of demonstratives he calls demonstratives of relative place and motion (see table 6). Again, although here the distinction between distal and fardistal has collapsed, the most common terms in the texts are the distal/far-distal ones (as in 21, 25, and 26) 18 ke /yoæræ N on this side kettoæra N up on this side ke /moæræ N down on this side ke /yo N further over this way ketto N further up this way ke /mo N further down this way me /yoæræ N over on the other side mettoæræ N up on the other side me /moæræ N down on the other side me /yo N further away metto N further up me /mo N further down table 6. The relative demonstratives. 25 me /yo N sokkhuma cupt.a.j.u.ro futher_lev Urtica_dioica meet.PT.DU.>3.REP A little further along they met a stinging nettle 26 metto N wa /i N cupt.u.ji.ro further_up egg meet.>3.3NS.REP Further up they met an egg. Verbal Several Yamphu verbs have correlates or forms (variously called converbs or auxiliary verbs) that can be affixed to other verbs. These range from fairly simple to elaborate, and denote concepts as far ranging as doing something prematurely or to death, or to excess, or almost, or incompletely. In the domain of space, the can denote such concepts as circumnavagant motion (2) there-and-back-again motion (2) and unforeseen motion (23, 34, 35). There are 5 basic verbs in Yamphu that indicate verticality, which can occur either independently or as an auxiliary verb modifying another verb: sa Nma 19 ‘ascend’ and yu·ma ‘descend’; kæ /ma ‘come up’, u Nma ‘come down’ and apma ‘come levelly’. Yamphu is one of the Kiranti languages in which none of the verbs of vertical motion are separable into any distinct morphemes indicating their verticality or other elements (unlike certain examples esp. in Limbu and Bantawa, e.g. (7) (8)). The first set of these verbs sa Nma ‘ascend’ and yu·ma ‘descend’, indicate general upwards or downwards motion. They can occur independently (27, 28) or as an auxiliary verb, affixed to and modifying a main verb. It seems that the auxiliary forms can affix to a wide range of main verbs (e.g. 29, 30) with pe /.yus (‘pass down’, as in 15, 16) being one of the more common combinations. 27 saks.a.j.i N ascend.PT.DU.EXPS We went up. 28 mo.ba me /mo N yu·s.a.j.i N that.ELA further_down descend.PT.DU.EXPS So we went down a bit further. 29 ‘mo.be / khak.sa.be·.tt.æ’ ka·.s.a.j.i N that.LOC pierce.ascend.RES.PF.FCT cry.PT.DU.EXPS “It’s wormed itself up into there,” we cried. 30 phe·ri paidhæk.pe / pey.yus.a.ro pheri seat.LOC sit.down.PT.REP Then he sat down on the seat It is interesting to note that the second set of these verbs, kæ /ma ‘come up’ (31), u Nma ‘come down’ (32), and apma ‘come levelly’ (33), conflate the values of vertical directionality and motion towards some point, often the speaker (see section 3 for discussion). However, the gloss of “come (vertical)” is slightly misleading for the auxiliaries that derived from these verbs can indicate either intransitive motion ‘moving 20 (oneself) towards a reference point’ (34, 35, 36) or transitive motion ‘moving something (else) towards a reference point’ (i.e. closer to “bring” – 37, 38, 39). 31 mo.ba kæ /ma.so kissima lu·.ye that.ELA come_up.INF.too fear be.FCT We are afraid to come up. 32 mo.ba uks.a.j.iN kancha.nu N that.ELA come_down.PT.DU.EXPS kancha.SOC So Kancha and I came down. 33 mo.ba dailo.ba ab.a.ro that.ELA dailo.ELA come_levelly.PT.REP Then she came over from the door. 34 hununununu hu·.ya N.gad.a.mi.ro zoom-zoom scatter.UFM.come_up.PT.3PL.REP Suddenly “zoom-zoom” they swarmed up. 35 mo.ba mindu.ra thutta.so yokto / that.ELA up_there.MED trunk.too with_a_crash ciy.y.oks.a.ro collapse.UFM.come_down.PT.REP So the log suddenly fell down from above with a crash. 36 mo.ba te·. /ab.i N.ma, siN ya N. /apt.u. N.ma that.ELA turn.com.EXPS.12NS firewood carry.bring_levelly.>3.EXAG.12NS Then we came back and brought firewood with us 37 mo.ba sæk.ktt.a.j.u N that.ELA pull.bring_up.PT.DU.>3.EXAG Then we reeled in [the line]. 38 Ragala.ba um.mukt.a.ju, Ka·makhola lend.a.ji Ragala.ELA trail.bring_down.PT.DU.>3 Kama_khola come.PT.DU They traced [the dowsing rods] from Ragala down and came to the Kama river. 39 le /y.a·pt.u.ro pa·kkhæ /.yu abandon.UFM.bring_levelly.>3.REP outside.HRZ She left him outside 21 table 7. The auxilliary forms of the verbs of vertical movement - /ab- ~ - /ap- come levelly - /apt- ~ - /ap- bring levelly - /ug-/- /uks- ~ - /uk- come down - /ukt- ~ - /uk- bring down -kad- ~ -kæt- ~ -kæ· come up -kætt- ~ -kæt- ~ -kæ·- bring up -yus- ~ -yu- ~ -yu·- descend/downward motion -saks- ~ -sa N- - ascend/upward motion 22 -3- Clearing a Space: a model for understanding spatial terminology Reference Frames In order to clearly discuss Kiranti ways of categorizing space, (i.e. “what exactly are they talking about?”) which fall somewhere between markedly codable and uncodable in English, we need to delve back into semantics. There have been many strategies proposed to formalize spatial concepts like front, up, and south, (see Levinson 1999 for review) but most seem to converge on a three-way distinction into something like Levinson’s (1996, revised in Levinson 1999) intrinsic, relative, and absolute frames of reference. In this terminology intrinsic refers to those locative statements that refer to the innate qualities of a reference object – for example, the front of a house. We know that houses have fronts, and can use this knowledge in English to say, for instance “the ball is in front of the house” (with the same meaning as “the ball is at the front of the house.” Because the intrinsic frame of reference relies on the object’s qualities, some objects don’t work: “*the ball is at the front of the tree” is unacceptable because trees do not, canonically, have fronts. However, the astute reader will be thinking that in English we can indeed say “the ball is in front of the tree.” This is an example of the relative frame of reference, and the confusion that can occur between reference frames when they share vocabulary.3 Here we 3 Henceforth, I will refer to the first, intrinsic use of the term “front” as “frontj” and the relative use of the term as “fronti” 23 are not saying “the ball is at the frontj of the tree,” but rather “the ball is in between me and the tree.” This is the essence of the relative frame: locative statements are informed by the location of the speaker. Of course, statements like “the ball is in fronti of me” also fit into this category. The final reference frame in the three-category system is the absolute. Absolute frames of reference rely neither on the speaker’s position nor on the qualities of reference objects, but rather are fixed coordinates that will yield the same naming pattern regardless of where the speaker is. The classic example of an arbitrary frame of reference in English is cardinal directions: North, South, East and West. This three-category system of reference frames is in wide use. It has been presented and used, in a variety of areas from anthropology to psychology to linguistics, with what are essentially minor modifications in terminology, by (for instance) Miller and Johnson –Laird (1976), Landau and Jackendoff (1993) and Carlson-Radvansky (1993). However, when trying to understand the idea of reference frames and apply them to the data from Kiranti languages, I came across the same problem as Levinson (1999) and Bickel (1997) – namely, the above distinction between fronti and frontj. Levinson’s model, as I presented above, attempts to solve the problem by changing what had previously been called “deictic” to “relative.” I ended up understanding the problem in a different way – one that turned out to be quite like what Bickel (1997) suggests. He goes as far as to separate out different values for the origin of the coordinate frame, the secondary reference object, and the “ground” or primary reference object. However, for his more anthropological purposes, he seems not to need this distinction after all, and moves away from the schematic towards a name-centered model (i.e. he re-conflates the values into a 24 system divided into named reference frames: “egomorphic,” “personmorphic,” “ecomorphic” etc.) I wish to make some finer distinctions between the meanings of locatives in some cases, and broader categories in others. To readily account for all of the data, I will propose a slight modification to the models of Bickel and Levinson, a more schematic approach, that allows me to frame some unanswered questions about vertical space. The World of Axles and Fixes… …is a strange place. For the moment we’ll think of it as a two dimensional plane, on which are scattered random objects (trees, balls, chairs etc.). If I want to point out one of these objects (“which ball?”) I use a coordinate frame, a sort of large cross with long telescoping arms that hovers above certain objects. Each of its arms is marked with a directional word: perhaps “right,” “left,” “front” and “back” or “north,” “south,” “east” and “west.” If the coordinate frame happens to be hovering over a tree, and its arms are marked with the words North, South, East, and West, I simply have to see which arm passes over the ball I’m trying to differentiate, (say this particular ball is under the arm marked “East”) and combine the various pieces: “which ball? the ball that is east of the tree.” This is fine, but what about our problem, “fronti” and “frontj”? In that case, the other coordinate frame would be centered on the tree, the “right,” “left,” “front,” “back” frame. But a tree doesn’t have a intrinsic front, so our model should produce “fronti,” what Levinson called relative, “the ball is to the left of the tree from my point of view.” 25 Here, on closer examination, we find that the place at which the coordinate frame passes over the tree is different than the place where it passes over the ball, and where it passes over the viewer. The coordinate frame’s origin is centered over the tree, and it is attached in such a way that if the tree were to rotate, the coordinate frame would be unaffected (and vice versa) but if the tree were to get up and walk off, the coordinate frame would stay centered above it, like a giant propeller beanie. That is, the tree functions like an axle to the coordinate frame. The ball is not attached at all. However, the viewer, off on one arm, is fixed tightly to that arm. If the viewer (or “fix”) was to move in any way that wasn’t just toward or away from the tree (in which case the telescoping arm would function smoothly) it would rotate the entire coordinate frame as it moved. (See figures 2 and 3). To put it more clearly: an axle meets the coordinate frame at its origin. If the axle moves orthogonally, the coordinate plane moves with it. If the axle rotates, the coordinate plane will not be affected. A fix may be affixed anywhere to a coordinate plain. If the fix makes a significant movement4 then it will be turning the coordinate frame about it the axle. Ideally, all of our semantically different situations could explained with different axle/fix structures – if the axle is set to the speaker, or the addressee, or some other ego (a character in a story for example), or another object; or if the fix is set to the speaker, addressee, etc. It makes a lot more sense with diagrams: 4 For a fix, motion directly towards or away from its axle is usually not significant – it is simply collapsing or expanding the coordinate frame arm which it fixed to without really changing the relationship between the fix, the axle, and the coordinate frame. Given this (i.e. discarding motion the increases or decreases the distance between the fix and axle) the only significant motion for the fix is to move on the perimeter of a circle whose center in the axle and of which the section of coordinate frame arm from the axle to the fix forms a radius. Because of this constrained significant motion, I will often refer to fix motion as “swinging.” 26 figure 1. a key to the world of axles and fixes. 27 figure 2. a b The generalized diagram that applies to statements such as “the ball is in fronti of the tree.” The axle is the reference object (a=o), a tree in our example. The fix is the ego, in this case the speaker (f=e(1))5. The target (ball) is sitting in the zone of “front.” The arrows and 2b indicate how the axles and fixes work in motion, and offer a test of the system. If the fix swings up as illustrated, the “front” zone will be rotated off the target and the L(eft) zone will be rotated on. This corresponds with speaker intuition – in the situation illustrated in 2b, we would describe the target as being to the lefti, that is “The ball is to the left of the tree.” 5 The ego is often the first person (that is, the speaker: e1) e.g. “the ball in front of the tree,” however the second person (addressee: e2) can also be indicated e.g. in imperative “(You) get the ball to the (your) left of the tree!” The ego can also indicate pretty much anything else, explicitly “The ball to left of the tree from that badger’s perspective.” For purposes of broad transcription, e will be satisfactory. 28 figure 3. a b c Generalized diagram illustrating the use of “frontj.” In 3a the fix is the object (a chair, say) and the axle is the same object (a=f=o). The target falls in the “front” zone. If the fix moves, it will rotate the CF around the axle (rotating the S(ide) zone onto the target, as predicted by speaker intuition) – the fact that the fix and axle refer to the same object is coincidental. Also, if the axle moves it will carry the CF with it, moving the “back” zone onto the target (again congruent with speaker intuition). Note that the ego is not fixed or axled onto the CF and therefore cannot affect it. This example is directly analogous to that of the most basic (Pederson 1998) English distinction “(to my) right, left, front or back.” In that case, the speaker would be both the axle and the fix (e.g. if you turn or if you move orthogonally, the domain of things “in front of you” changes).6 6 This speaker centered form can be formalized as f=a=e1. Of course, this can be applied to the second person too (f=a=e2), leading to perhaps the most famous example in the colloquial English of why we need all of this mess of axles and fixes “Your left or my left?” 29 figure 4. a b A generalized diagram of cardinal directions (still in 2 dimensions – for non- Euclidean geography see below). The reference object is the axle. Despite Levinson’s (1999) description of abstract reference frames, there is no fix (i.e. a=o, f=ø). This means that one the coordinate frame is set7 the CF will not rotate. As illustrated in 4b, if the location of the reference object changes orthogonally the zone over the target can change (in this case to west) but the CF remains, like a compass needle, floating unrotatably above the axle. This same basic axle/fix structure also applies to egocentric cardinal directions (e.g. north of me), if the speaker is the axle. 7 That is, it most be positioned with the “north” zone pointing north, just as in fig. 3 the coordinate frame had to be positioned with the “front” zone pointing away from the wide back end of the chair and when using a f=a=e construction “front” is set as “e’s ventral side.” 30 figure 5. The axle/fix model can also be applied to simple 1 dimensional locatives. In this case the telescoping nature of the CF arms is illustrated. This example is extensible to several other cases, including both well-attested and impromptu landmark-based locatives (e.g. homeward/ libraryward), ablative and mediative (through or from) cases, and even non–Euclidean cardinal directions (see below). Its form (a=e, f=o) is the last of the four broad possibilities (see fig 2. for a=o, f=e, fig 3. for a=f=e and a=f=o, and fig. 4 for f=ø). 31 Axles and Fixes: Into the third dimension Cardinal map directions (on a 2D plane) are explained by a f=ø structure. But what about non-Euclidean geography? Can this model move into the third dimension? It seems it can – consider the sentence “the target is south of me (on the globe).” We can understand this best by setting up the same structure as immediately above: a=e, f=o. The speaker is the fix and the south pole is the axle. The only difference here is that the CF, rather than being flat, is curved: mapped to the spherical earth. This sort of 3D application is useful in dealing with our locatives of interest, those of vertical placement. Consider the English locatives “up” and “down.” Now that our world has three dimensions, we can give the CF a third arm. Analogous to the axle/fix structure for map directions and globe directions, we two treatments for up and down. The first, like that of map directions, is fixless. The arms of the CF extend up and down from their origin at the axle, and if the axle rotates the arm does not turn with it (for example if the axle in question is a standing person who lies down, the CF will move a little orthogonally, but will not rotate (see figure 6). 32 Figure 6. The fixless up/down CF will not rotate as the axle does, but will follow it as it moves orthogonally. The axle, of course, is not always the speaker – it can be the addressee (e2, as in “look up”), the expected or habitual position of the target (te, as in “look down there, he’s up in a tree”), or any reference object (as in “…above the badger”). The other treatment, in the real world where we live on the surface of a sphere, simply has the “down” arm fixed at the center of the earth – however we poor axles may twist and turn, “down” remains synonymous with “towards the earth’s center.” Axles and Fixes: Yamphu in the Model How do our data from Yamphu fit into this model? Does the model illuminate them at all? For the most basic situations, it seems almost unnecessary to frame them in the world of axles and fixes. Consider (40). In akkhuma.be / ‘at/in the earth’, the simplicity of the 33 basic locative and the irrelevance of the speaker or viewers role render the a/f structure almost pointless. In essence it’s a one dimensional concept, a point – just the target. 40 cam.jari pi·.nuN kani N.æ/ mo.ba cam akkhuma.be / paddy.seed give.SOC wepe.ERG that.ELA paddy soil.LOC tub.u. N.ma sprinkle.>3.EXAG.12NS After [God] gave us this seed, we proceeded to sow it in the earth. However, as soon as a vertical locative suffix is added (41), the a/f structure unfolds into two-dimensions – something that is clear and potentially helpful. 41 Mottimb.ætt.tu ca·r ma·na siya yok.ti.be·. /.n.æ Mottimba.POS.UPW caar maanaa husked_rice seek.apply.DAT.PF.1>2.FCT I’ve looked for four maanaa of rice for you up at Mottimba’s. To understand this why Mottimba is marked as UPW, we now have a use for our a/f structure. The subject’s location is set as the axle, with Mottimba’s being the target. The fix, in this case, as with many of the medium-scale uses of the vertical locative suffixes, is a hilltop. This case is similar to that above of cardinal directions on a spherical earth (a=e, f=o). Mottimba’s falls into the “up” zone. Depending on the hilltop set as fix, the scale of the sentence can change. Indeed, at some point of broadening scope, the fix may become as far off and abstract as to make the a/f structure effectually fixless. That is, the concept of North (which Ebert (1999) asserts is rarely used in Kiranti languages) becomes conflated with that of “up.” This would explain otherwise curious sequences like (41) and may address the skepticism with which Thulung speakers greeted the idea that England was far to the north but also had farmland and a mild climate (Allen 1972). The sequence below is from a folk tale in which an animate needle is journeying up to 34 Tibet, being met and joined by other companions on his way. The tale is formulaic and repetitive, and although he is “going up to Tibet” (41.1, 41.3, 41.5) after his first two meetings the travelers go “further levelly”(41.2, 41.4). It is only after the third meeting that the travelers go “further up” (41.6). This would seem to provide evidence that in some cases, the UPW suffix indicates a fixless structure rather than one that is fixed on an actual hilltop. (Alternately, this could be an expression of the Haugen effect, which is briefly discussed in section 4.) 41.1 mo.ba khad.a.ro ‘sam.bet.tu khæ·. N.æ,’ lu·s.u.ro that.ELA go.PT.REP Tibet.LOC.UPW go.EXPS.FCT say.>3.REP Then “I’m going up to Tibet” he said. … 41.2 me /yo N sokkhuma cupt.a.j.u.ro further_levelly nettle meet.PT.DU.REP Further along they met a nettle. … 41.3 ‘sam.bet.tu khæ·. N.æ,’ ka·s.a.ro Tibet.LOC.UPW go.EXPS.FCT cry.PT.REP “Going up to Tibet”he cried … 41.4 me /yo N thutta cupt.u.ro further_levelly trunk meet.>3.REP Further along they met a log. … 41.5 ‘ka·go sam.bet.tu khæ. N.æ,’ ka·s.a.ro I.TH Tibet.LOC.UPW go.EXPS.FCT cry.PT.REP “I’m going up to Tibet” he cried” … 41.6 metto N wa /iN cupt.u.ji.ro further_up egg meet.>3.3NS.REP Further up they met an egg. In the above examples it is ambiguous whether the axle is the subject or the speaker is the real axle. That is, in the first example the speaker and the subject are the same entity, and in the second, I argued that Tibet was UPW no matter what the axle is. However, looking 35 at other sequences, it becomes clear that the default axle is the subject. For instance, to continue the folktale above, once the travelers are quite far up into the mountains, they find a house (of the folktale buffoon, the much abused bear). Inside the house they secrete themselves in various places. (e.g. 16, 42) 42 thutta.dhappa.jhai tagar.æt.tu sit.ti.ghad.a.ro trunk.big.CTP threshold.POS.UPW hang.up.go.PT.REP hung (itself) up on the threshold The vertical locative suffixes marking each of these place would be incomprehensible if they were referring to the speaker, as all of these events are happing in the speaker’s UPW zone. For that matter, a sequence as simple as “passing down in” (16) and then “swarming back up”(35) does not work unless the axle is set to the subjects. Then their sequential destinations (targets) which would all occur in the same zone for the speaker, fall into the appropriate zones. However, the speaker is certainly the axle in some occasions – for instance when the speaker and the subject are the same or when there is no subject. The speaker is also often the fix, as seems to be often dictated by the specialized verbs kæ /ma ‘come up’, u Nma ‘come down’ and apma ‘come levelly’. Take, for example, the passage below, describing how the town of Uva was founded, related by a resident of Uva. 43.1 ikko.jhai ) kæ /.nu N Walu N.he /ma khad.a one.CTP come_up.SOC Walu N.side go.PT One came up (from Bahrabise) and went toward Walu N. 43.2 ikko i.dok pa N.gad.a one this.like go_behind.come_up.PT One came up across the ridge here. 36 43.3 ikko.jhai) minmu.no / pey.yag.a one.CTP down_there.EXF sit.stay.PT One stayed behind down there. 43.4 mo.ba ikko.jhai ) Ma Nba-khim, ikko.jhai ) Ma Nji-khim that.ELA one.CTP Ma Nba-khim, one.CTP Ma Nji-khim One was Ma Nba-khim (clan), one was Ma Nji-khim (clan). 43.5 mo.dok læ· /.nu N mo.ba kani i.be / pen.i that.like do.SOC that.ELA wepi this.LOC sit.12PL After doing that, we stayed here. 43.6 Walu N.be /.mu.ha.ji Walu N.be /.mu.no / Walu N.LOC.DWN.PLNR.NS Walu N.LOC.DWN.EXF Those of Walu N down below are down in Walu N. WaluN is downstream, south, and presumably of lower elevation. Bahrabise is even further south, and presumably of even lower elevation. How do we explain the coming up towards Valun, a place that is later categorized twice as below? If we suppose that the verb kæ /ma acts as a trigger to set the speaker as the fix and the subject of the sentence, as usual, is the axle, then 43.1 and 43.2 are explained. In 43.3 and 43.5, the necessarily self-referential demonstratives minmu and ibe / seem to reset the axle – the coordinate frame of up and down axled onto the speaker takes effect, and both Bharabise (43.4) and WaluN (43.6) fall into the “down” zone. 37 A similar instance: 44.1 mo.ba ap.pes.a.j.i N that.ELA come.RES.PT.DU.EXPS Then we came this way. 44.2 ap.pe.nu N mo pusæ· /.mi kha i·.sæ·/ i·.sæ· / come.RES.SOC that snake.GEN word say.SMG say.SMG ab.a.j.i N come.PT.DU.EXPS We came, talking all the while about the snake. 44.3 ab.a.j.iN Na· /ho Nm.æ /.yu less.a.j.i N come.PT.DU.EXPS Na· /ho Nma.POS.HRZ come.PT.DU.EXPS We came and arrived at Na· /ho Nma. Although the use of apma (come across a flat plane) seems at first strange, the problems can be resolved by realizing the temporal separation that keeps the “we” implied in the dual affix to apma does not exactly include the speaker, but rather a past version of the person who happens to be speaking. That is, the idea of “speaker” must contain both temporal and physical identity. With that concept, we can easily set the speaker as the fix, as “come” implies, and the “we” as the axle, just as above. There’s also an interesting possibility here that apma might have another meaning as “arrive” (at least according to Rutger’s gloss), which meaning it would share with the English (as in “at last we came to the finish line”). In conclusion, we can perhaps start to consider specific morphemes as marking or triggering their words for certain a/f structural roles. LOC (or POS, in the locative sense) specifies a target. The addition of a vertical locative requires that there also be an axle, from whose coordinate frame the UPW, DWN or HRZ is determined. The default axle 38 seems to be the subject, but in certain conditions, it is set to the speaker or to other objects. The specialized verbs kæ /ma, u Nma and apma set the fix to the speaker. Other objects, both tangible and less, can fill the roles of target, axle and fix; but these morphemically dictated ones may be the most basic. 39 -4- The Final Frontier: questions and conclusions Mapping and Metaphor One question of particular interest (Allen 1972, Bickel 1997, Bickel and Gaenszle 1999) is that of how the vertical terminology of Kiranti languages can be applied in nonspatial domains. One element of this was already touched on in section 3 – that of the conflation of the values of UPW and ‘north’. It seems that indeed, far more is connoted, in a metaphorical sense, but the concepts of UPW and DWN than just vertical dimension. Ebert (1994, 1999) and Bickel (1997) describe associations in certain Kiranti languages between the concepts of UPW and purity, austerity, and the male gods, and between DWN and wealth, abundance, foreigners and the female gods. Bickel (1997) coined the phrase Haugen Effect, after a concept proposed in Haugen (1957). Haugen described how in Iceland, the cardinal direction terminology was often determined based on the ultimate goal of the travel, rather than the immediate canonical direction. In this way, depending on where you are going (and where you are, for in a fjord ones choices of where to go are limited) northr ‘north’ can indicate the canonical directions northeast, northwest, east, or even south. Bickel uses this concept to explain some curious instances of apparently misapplied vertical locative suffixes in the Kiranti language Belhare. This could also explain the problem in (41). Either way, by metaphor or by Haugen effect, the messiness doesn’t fit within the a/f structure but rather modifies 40 it. The most dramatic example of this mapping is the very essence of Kiranti vertical coding: it is actually diagonal coding. “UPW” and “DWN,” whatever their forms, will refer much more often to “uphill from” or “downhill from” than the canonical vertical above (e.g. (21) “meeting above the house” is meeting uphill from it, (11) the “top” of the house (see below) is not the roof but the uphill side.) On a smaller scale, Ebert and Bickel both expand on Allen’s (1972) observations in regard to the mapping of vertical terminology onto Kiranti houses. It seems houses have a top and bottom, depending on where the hearth/altar, the holiest part of the house, is. We can see this demonstrated nicely in Yamphu in (11), where igo.sok.pet.tu (this.top.LOC.UPW) or “here at the top” clearly refers to the hearth/altar, as the character being described is in the midst of cooking. There are certainly some intriguing ways in which the Kiranti spatial terms are mapped onto other, non spatial domains. Of course, this is be no means limited to these languages. A moment of thought will turn up myriad examples in English, including those mapped onto the temporal domain “backwards in time,” the judgmental domain “things are looking up,” a mix of the two “a backwards town/a progressive idea,” the emotional domain “he’s feeling pretty down/it was uplifting,” the political spectrum “left wing/right wing” and even, through borrowing from French, the social world “gauche/adroit.” (Interestingly, these all seem to take oe as the fix.) In the end, is Kiranti coding of space really unique? Li and Gleitman have demonstrated that spatial terminology, and choice of reference frames, (i.e. of where to set axles and fixes) can be manipulated by changing the environment of speakers. Speakers of Kiranti live in an environment where whether a walk is up or down could 41 exponentially increase travel times, and where not too long of a journey could take a walker up into the Himalayan snows or down to the tropical heat of the Nepali Terai. However, other languages show this kind of emphasis of the vertical dimension, and not only other mountain languages like Tzeltal (Levinson 1999). There is also elaborate marking of the vertical dimension in Fering, a dialect of Frisian language spoken mainly on small, fairly flat islands (Ebert 1999). Despite this, it seems that an environment this extreme must inform the language of its inhabitants. However, at least one model for making spatial terminology, axles and fixes, shows nearly the same structures for Kiranti vertical space as it does for simple English spatial terminology – the difference lies in the labels of the coordinate frame arms and in exactly what gets chosen as an axle or fix – both fairly fluid and malleable qualities. It may be, as Li and Gleitman suggest, that the difference is not really a conceptual one but rather simply a matter of necessity: we make and use terminology that is useful in our environment. In any case, the intricate ways in which Kiranti languages code vertical space at least show us that there is another domain that has been ventured into – another thing that language can do. 42 Works Cited Allen, N.J. (1973). The vertical dimension in Thulung classification. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford vol. 3. Oxford Antrhopological Society: 81-94 Allen, N.J. (1975). Sketch of Thulung Grammar with three texts and a glossary. Cornell University East Asia Papers no. 6. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Bickel, B. (1997). Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: where to orient oneself in Belhare. in Language and Conceptualization. J. Nuyts (ed.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 46-83. Bickel, B. (1999a). Cultural formalism and spatial language in Belhara. in Bickel and Gaenszle (eds.) pp. 73-101. Bickel, B. (2002). Belhare. The Sino-Tibetan Languages. G. Thurgood and R. J. LaPolla. London, Curzon. Bickel, B. and Martin Gaenszle (eds.) (1999). Himalayan Space: Cultural Horizons and Practices. Zurich: Völkerkundemuseum Zürich. Bloom, A. H. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on thinkng in China and the west. Hillsdale, Erlbaum. Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A. and David E. Irwin (1993) Frames of Reference in vision and language: Where is above?. Cognition 46, 223-244 Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A. and David E. Irwin (1994) Reference Frame Activation During Spatial Term Assignment. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 411-437 van Driem, G. (1987). A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin, Mouton. van Driem, G. (1993). Dumi Dictionary Database. Online: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgibin/ startq.cgi?scriptname=main&root=config&flags=eygtnnl&encoding=eng&basena me=%5Cdata%5Csintib%5Cdumet&recode=recode&hiero=gif&table_mode=tables& links=links From the Tower of Babel Project van Driem, G. (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region. Leiden, Brill. Ebert, K. (1994). The Structure of Kiranti Languages. Zurich, Universitaet Zurich. Ebert, K. (1999) The UP-DOWN Dimension in Rai Grammar and Mythology. in Bickel and Gaenszle (eds.) pp. 105-131. 43 Fisher, J. (1990). Sherpas: reflections on change in Himalayan Nepal. Berkeley, University of California Press. Hale, A. (1982). Research on Tibeto-Burman Languages. Berlin, Mouton. Hansson, G. (1991). The Rai of Eastern Neapal, Ethnic and Linguistic Grouping: Findings of the Linguistic Survey of Nepal. Kathmandu, CNAS. Haugen, E. (1957). The semantics of Icelandic Orientation. Cognitive Anthropology. S. A. Tyler. Prospect Heights, Ill., Waveland: 330-342. Katry, P. (2003). Personal Communication. Kathmandu, Nepal. Landau, B., and Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences16, 217-265. Levinson, S. C. (1999). Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. Language and Space. M. Garrett, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and P. Bloom. Cambridge, MIT Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press. Li, P. and Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the Tables: language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83, 265-294 Pederson, E. et al. (1998) Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74, 557-589 Martin, L. (1986). "Eskimo words for snow: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example." American Anthropologist 88: 418-423. Morgan, L. H. (1870). Systems of Cosanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Rutgers, R. (1998). Yamphu: Grammar, Texts and Lexicon. Leiden, CNWS Publications. Toba, S. (1984). Khaling. Tokyo, Tokyo University. Watters, Stephen. (2002). Language Death: a Review and an Examination of the Global Issue in the Bepalese Context. Gipan Vol. 2 May 2002, pp. 39-66 Winter, W. (1991-1992). "Diversity in Rai Languages: An Inspection of Verb Stems in Selected Idioms." Lingua Posnaniensis 34: 141-156. Winter, W. (2003). A Bantawa Dictionary. New York, Mouten. 44 Woodbury, A. C. (1991). Counting Eskimo words for snow: A citizen's guide. University of Texas at Austin. LINGUIST List: Vol-5-1239.