THE YORÙBÁ PROGRESSIVE
THE YORÙBÁ PROGRESSIVE
Credit: Prof L. O. Adewole
Yoruba for academic purpose
1. Introduction
To many linguists, there are striking
parallels in many unrelated languages between the locative and the
progressive expressions. In some languages, the claim is that it is not
only possible to give examples to show the semantic relationship of
those two expressions but to show that the syntactic markers of such
expressions are connected. While there is a fairly general agreement on
the first claim, opinion still differs as to whether the
progressive-locative connection should be extended to the syntactic
form.
In his discussion on the Yoruba verbal
system, Welmers (1973: 313-315) advances arguments to show that the
Yoruba progressive is not only semantically similar to the locative but
that both share the same form. Comrie (1976: 101), on the other hand,
while not denying that some progressive-locative connections exist in
the language, notes that there “is a slight difference between the
progressive and the strictly locative constructions…” marked by ń and ní respectively.
In this paper, we shall provide further
evidence to support Comrie (1976) that if a strong case can be made for a
semantic resemblance between the progressive and the locative
expressions in Yoruba, the same cannot be extended to their syntactic
forms.
2. n/l Alternation
To start with, we find it very difficult to accept the claim that both ní, the locative marker, and ń, the progressive marker, have l
as their allomorph (Comrie 1976: 101). The progressive marker in the
language always occurs immediately before consonants. This is because
the item immediately precedes only items with [+V] feature and items
with this feature have initial consonants. The said allomorph, on the
other hand, immediately precedes only vowels except i i.e. ní ọ̀nà (lọ́nà) “on the way”
This is not to say that one cannot give examples in which the progressive marker can occur before a vowel. A loanword, àṣúò
“assure”, which is realized as a verb in the language, is one of such
examples. Even with such an example, our claim that the progressive
marker does not have an allomorph, l, still holds. For example, whereas in place of ní, the locative marker in (1i), the allomorph l can be used as in (1ii), the use of 1 in place of the progressive marker ń is not possible as shown in (1iii) and (1iv).
1 (i) Mo rí Olú ní àná
(ii) Mo rí Olú lánàá
I saw Olú in yesterday
“I saw Olú yesterday”
(iii) Mo ń àṣúọ̀ rẹ̀
(iv) *Mo làsúọ̀ rẹ̀
I PROG assure him
“I am giving him some assurance”
This shows that, even if there is a possibility of vowel initialed verbal item in the language, the use of the allomorph l for the progressive marker will still not be possible.
3. Sources of Yoruba Syllabic Nasal: Oyelaran’s (1983) Proposal
As stated above, in Welmers’ (1973: 314) opinion, the progressive marker, ń, must have resulted from the deletion of the vowel in the locative marker ní.
According to him, a possible relationship of the language in use does
not support a locative derivational source for the progressive marker.
Oyelaran’s (1983) work on the sources of the syllabic nasal also
provides a solid base for arguing against the claim made by Welmers.
Oyelaran (1983) asserts that all the underlined syllabic nasals in A are
derived from the vowels underlined in B.
A B
(2) (i) ìgbà ń mo yẹ̀gọ̀ ìgbà tí mo yẹ̀gọ̀
Time which I lift mask
“When I carry the mask” (p. 6)
(ii) Ilé ń kọ́ Ilé sí kọ́
Home be
“How is home?” (p. 8)
(iii) Bí òǹpa ò pa Bí òpípa ò pa
What (FOC) harrower will harrow?
If the plower NEG plow
“If the plower fails to plow” (p. 7)
(iv) Kí ni òǹkọ ó kọ? Kí ni òkìkọ ó kọ?
What (FOC) harrower will harrow?
“What will the harrower harrow?”
(v) Àjíǹde Àjídìde
“Resurrection”
For instance, the syllabic nasal, ń, in ń mo yẹ̀gò in (2Ai) is derived from tí mo yẹ̀gọ̀ by the following process. The item tí
deletes its initial consonant, “particularly, when, preceded in the
utterance by another item with a major syntactic function, the consonant
finds itself in an intervocalic position” (Oyelaran: 1983: 18). After
the deletion, the front high vowel which then “constitute the syllable
by itself” is replaced by a homorganic syllabic nasal. The derivation of
the other items in (2) can be summarized as follows:
(3) (i) ń mo í mo tí mo
(ii) ń kọ́ í kọ́ sí kọ́
(iii) òǹpa òìpa òpìpa
(iv) òǹkọ òìkọ òkìkọ
(v) ǹ̀de ìde dìde
4. The Source of the Progressive Marker
The importance of a “systematic
comparison between…dialects” for reconstructing earlier diachronic
stages of a language in Africa, where early records are hardly available
has been emphasized by Heine and Reh (1984: 80). Following their
suggestion, we note that an examination of some Yorùbá dialects could
throw some lights on the possible source of the Yorùbá progressive
marker. From Oyelaran’s (1983) proposal, one can deduce that the
progressive marker, ń, could be said to have derived from the vowel of mí,
the item which is still being used as the progressive marker in Ifẹ̀
and Ìjẹ̀bú dialects. Following Oyelaran (1983), it could be postulated
that the progressive marker in these two dialects deletes its initial
consonant as described above and the front high vowel is then replaced
by a syllabic nasal i.e. mí à í à ń . The process could be described as follows. What we start with is:
(4) (i) Mọ mí lọ
I PROG go
“I am going”
(ii) Mọ mí bọ̀
I PROG come
“I am coming (I am on my way)”
From (4), after the deletion of the intervocalic consonant, we have (5) where the high front vowel becomes stranded:
(5) (i) Mọ í lọ
I PROG go
“I am going”
(ii) Mọ í bọ̀
I PROG come
“I am coming”
An homorganic nasal then replaces the stranded high nasal vowel to give (6):
(6) (i) Mọ ń lọ
I PROG GO
“ I am going”
(ii) Mọ ń bọ̀
I PROG come
“I am coming (I am on my way)”
Ifẹ̀ has vowel harmony between the
pronoun and the verb which standard Yorùbá does not have; hence,
standard Yorùbá will have (7).
(7) (i) Mo ń lọ
I PROG go
“I am going”
(ii) Mo ń bọ̀
I PROG come
“I am coming (I am on my way)”
That the above suggestion adequately
captures the source of the progressive marker in standard Yorùbá is
supported by the fact that in the Èkìtì dialect of Yorùbá, the vowel in
(5) is not replaced by a homorganic nasal. In such dialects, instead of
the replacement that takes place in (6), what we have is the
assimilation of the nasal vowel as shown in (10):
(8) (i) Mẹ̀ ẹ lọ
I PROG go
“I am going”
(i) Mẹ̀ ẹ bọ̣̀
I PROG come
“I am coming (I am on my way)”
It could be argued here that if mí is actually the origin of ń,
why are the two items still coexisting in the language i.e. the former
in some of the language’s dialects and the latter in the standard
variety. That this is not a strong point against the item mí being the source of the progressive marker, ń, is supported by the existence of some other derived and source items in the language. For instance, while some dialects use àjídìde “resurrection”, it is àjíǹde “resurrection” (see (2v)) derived from it that is used in the standard variety. The same applies to ilé sí kọ́? “how is home?” used in the Ifẹ̀ dialect in place of ilé ń kọ́? “how is home?” (see (2ii)) used in the standard variety.
From the above examples, one can conclude
that the apparent homophonous forms of both the locative and the
progressive markers should not confuse one into arguing that the latter
derives from the former. For such derivation, what is often suggested is
a deletion of the vowel in the locative marker. But as Oyelaran’s
(1983) proposal has shown, mere deletion of vowels cannot explain the
derivations taking place in (2). So, while a link between the
progressive markers in Ifẹ̀, Èkìtì, Ìjẹ̀bú and the standard Yorùbá is
very easy to prove with Oyelaran’s (1983) account, there is no non-ad
hoc means by which one can establish a link between these markers and
the locative marker. Such ad hoc rules will, most likely, postulate a
vowel deletion for the standard Yorùbá progressive marker i.e. “ń”/
“ní”, a consonant deletion and an assimilation for the Èkìtì i.e. “í”/
“ní”. With such rules, the generalization that is noted in Oyelaran’s
(1983) account will be lost. Apart from this, such rules will still need
to go further to account for the individual items in (2), (4), (5) and
(6).
Comrie (1975: 90) rejects Anderson’s
proposal of an absolute identity for the locative and the progressive
markers in Welsh on the ground that both do not respond to mutation and
elision in the same way. From the above example, we conclude that a
formal relationship parallel to the semantic identity established for
the locative and the progressive cannot be justified in Yorùbá. First,
they do not share the same allomorph as is often claimed. Second, anyone
who attempts to link the progressive marker, ń, with the locative marker, ní,
will still need to account for the progressive markers in Ifẹ̀, Ìjẹ̀bú
and Èkìtì (which have a great deal in common with their Standard Yorùbá
counterpart). Third, one would also have to account for other items in
the language and some other languages which are derived through the same
process.
5. Conclusion
Yorùbá progressive marker, therefore,
does not derive from a locative marker. It has also been suggested
recently that the progressive markers could be derived from the
following:
(9) (a) copulas
(b) motional or postural verbs
(c) proverbs like “do” and
(d) progressive auxiliary verbs whose full lexical origin is unknown
(Heine and Reh 1984: 122)
Yoruba progressive markers should belong to (11) (d).
References
Bamgboṣe, A. (1967), A Short Yoruba Grammar. Ibadan, Nigeria: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Comrie, B. (1976), Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B. and M. Reh (1984), Grammaticallization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buska
Oyelaran, O.O. (1983), “Sources and
Status of the Syllabic Nasal in Yorùbá”, Paper Presented at the
Department of African Languages and Literatures, Ọbafemi Awolọwọ
University, Ilé-Ifẹ̀, Nigeria on 16th May, 1983.
Oyelaran, O.O. (1987a) “Theoretical Implications of the Sources of the Syllabic Nasal in Yorùbá”, Mimeo
Oyelaran, O.O. (1987b) “The Language of Àrọ̀”. Mimeo.
Warner Lewis, Maureen (1983), “The Yorùbá Language in Trinidad.”, PhD Dissertation University of West Indies.
Comments
Post a Comment