Based on the syntactic evidence mentioned in the previous section, it is justified to analyze tu as an accusative case with a locative feature. In various Indo-European case languages the accusative expresses destination as well as direct (and sometimes indirect) object. In Latin, for example, one can say Mîsî legâtôs Rômam (sent. I legates.ACC Rome.ACC) where legâtôs is the direct object and Rômam a complement expressing destination (Blake 2001:172). Therefore, it is not uncommon to find the accusative being used to encode the Theme or the Recipient in trivalent clauses; this is exactly what we found in our Kavalan texts, as in (29)-(34):
(29) (Kav, 040519_abas, 41)
t<um>ungaw=iku tu beRas ci-abas-an <AF>deliver=1SG.NOM TU rice NCM-PN-LOC
“I delivered rice to Abas.”
(30) (Kav, 040519_abas, 42)
t<um>ungaw=iku tu beRas timaizipana <AF>deliver=1SG.NOM TU rice 3SG.OBL
“I delivered rice to him.”
(31) (Kav, 040519_abas, 43)
tungaw-an-ku tu beRas ci-abas deliver-LF-1SG.GEN TU rice NCM-PN
“I delivered rice to Abas.”
(32) (Kav, 040519_abas, 44)
tungaw-an-ku tu beRas aizipna deliver-LF-1SG.GEN TU rice 3SG.NOM
“I delivered rice to him.”
(33) (Kav, 040519_abas, 6)
bura-an-ku=pa tu ‘laq ya taqoq (zau) give-LF-1SG.GEN=FUT TU other NOM chicken (this)
“I will give this chicken to others.”
(34) (Kav, 040519_abas, 11)
bura-an-ku tu taqoq ya ‘laq ‘nay give-LF-1SG.GEN TU chicken NOM other that “I gave (a) chicken(s) to others.”
From the above examples, we can see that either an accusative or a locative personal pronominal can be substituted for the tu marked Recipient or Theme; also, the personal name is also marked with the locative suffix –an. Such syntactic evidence leads us to hypothesize that Kavalan tu is an accusative-locative marker.
Though we lack historical data, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize a local case split into ta and tu in Kavalan:
ta (Locative Case: Location) LOCAL CASE
tu (Accusative: Patient-Location)
This may explain the syntactic behavior of the tu-marked location. While Liao (2002; 2004) identifies that tu can mark a location (both common nouns and proper names), she does not give any explanations, nor does she distinguish the tu-marked location from the ta-marked location. As our Kavalan texts reveal, the tu-marked location is usually the goal of a motion verb, or the inanimate ‘Patient’ acted upon through the activity denoted by the verb, as in (35)-(38) and (42)-(45):
(35) (Kav, Frog_imui)
90…(2.8) m-zaqis
tu,\
AF-climb tu
91…’nay siRmuq ‘nay sunis ‘nay./
t<m>uzus=ti ya kubaran ta-lamu-an-na
<AF>reach=PFV NOM kavalan LOC-hometown-LOC-3SG.GEN
“Kavalan reached their hometown.”
Nevertheless, when it refers to the indigenous Location, e.g., the place where some activity takes place (say, swimming or sleeping), the selection of the marker tu may result in ungrammaticality, as in (39) and (41):
(39) (Kav, 040606_imui, 27)
m-Risiu=iku
ta-paRin-an
AF-fell-1SG.NOM LOC-tree-
LOC“I fell trees.”
(44) (Kav, 040604_imui, 4)
qlawqlaway ti-abas
ta-zna-an
AF.work NCM-PN LOC-field-
LOC“Abas works in the field.”
(45) (Kav, 040604_imui, 17) qlawqlaway=iku tu zna AF.work=1SG.NOM TU
field
“I work in the field.”When someone fells trees, trees are the ‘Patient” as well as the ‘Location’ where the activity takes place; the same is also applicable to the activity of ‘working in the field; doing the farming’. As pointed out by Blake (2001:172), in all of these examples of local forms extending their range to cover syntactic relations, “the redundancy that arises from lexical choices plays a part”.
In our texts, we also found several cases where the marker tu marks temporal argument, as in (46). Such a usage won’t surprise us too much shall we treat tu as an Accusative with Locative feature, since as pointed out by Blake (2001:180), it is quite easy for a local case to extend its usage to cover temporal domain.
(46) (Kav, Frog_imui2)
6…(0.8) nani tita-an na .. qanyawu tu…
taRbabi,/
DM see-LF GEN 3PL.NOM TU
morning
“Then they saw in the morning.”7…tita-an na sunis ‘nay
tu taRbabi,/
see-LF GEN child that TU
morning
“That child saw in the morning.”Last, from our texts, we have identified the marker tu being used as a complementizer, as in (47)-(49), and as a discourse marker, as in (50):
(47) (Kav, Frog_imui2)
53…(1.0) Rayngu-an-na tu==… ’nay== …iza sayza u ‘nay=… ruqanaw not.know-LF-3SG.GEN TU that something maybe or that tiger
Rana ‘nay siRemuq…’nay=\
FS that deer that
54…(1.2) ni-imet-an-na=ay nani,/
NI-hold-LF.NMZ-3SG.GEN=REL DM
“He didn’t know what he touched was (something or) a deer.”
(48) (Kav, Frog_imui2)
57…Rayngu-an-na tu==..siRemuq sayza paRin zin-na,/
not.know-LF-3SG.GEN TU deer maybe tree say-3SG.GEN “He didn’t know it was a deer and thought it may be a piece of wood.”
(49) (Kav, Frog_imui2)
2…(1.6) biat ‘nay tu .. ni-qulu-an-na ta- ... peRasku-an ... nani,_
frog that TU NI-breed-LF.NMZ-3SG.GEN LOC-bottle-LOC DM
“There is a child seeing the frog raised in the bottle. Then,”
(50) (Kav, Frog_imui2)
11…wasu a yau.. ta-peRasku-an.. ‘nay quRu-na.. tu.\
dog LNK that LOC-bottle-LOC that head-3SG.GEN DM
“The dog stuffed his head into the bottle.”
…
37…(0.8) tu==.. yau=ti sunis ‘nay .. t<em>uqaz pasazi ta=.\
DM
EXIST-PFV child that <AF>go.up toward.here FS
38…(1.2) ta-bunguR-an na na== paRin ‘nay.\
LOC-root-LOC FS GEN tree that “That child climbed the tree from the roots.”
In her study on the clausal complements in Paiwan, Tang (1997:8) also reports that Paiwan tu may be said to mark a tensed clausal complement as Accusative. As stated in Noonan (1985), complementizers are found to be derived historically from pronouns, conjunctions, adpositions or case markers; therefore, Tang contends that,
“[t]aking into consideration all the Paiwan data with tu discussed so far, we claim that
tu with the object noun phrase acts as Accusative marker, while that with the finite
clausal complement serves as complementizer” (1997:18).It is generally agreed that semantic cases, especially local cases, can expand their territory and come to cover syntactic relations such as direct object, thereby becoming grammatical cases; e.g., the Latin preposition ad ‘to’ is reflected in Spanish as a, as
shown in (51) to (53):
(51) (data from Blake 2001:17-1)
Juan vuelve
a
so hotel Juan return.3SGto
his hotel “Juan returns to his hotel.”(52) Le expliqué el caso a mi hermano 3SG.IO explain.PAST.3SG the case to my brother “He explained the matter to my brother.”
(53) Vi a mi hermano saw.1SG. A my brother “I saw my brother.”
In sum, we may use the following diagram to illustrate the interrelationship among the various functions of the marker tu:
LOCAL CASE Grammatical Cases Grammatical Marker Discourse Marker
ta (Locative Case: Location)
LOCAL CASE
tu (Accusative: Patient-Location) complementizer pause filler & particle Theme Recipient Goal