This article or section should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(April 2019)
The grammar of the Massachusett language shares similarities with the grammars of related Algonquian languages. Nouns have gender based on animacy, based on the Massachusett world-view of what has spirit versus what does not. A body would be animate, but the parts of the body are inanimate. Nouns are also marked for obviation, with nouns subject to the topic marked apart from nouns less relevant to the discourse. Personal pronouns distinguish three persons, two numbers (singular and plural), inclusive and exclusive first-person plural, and proximate/obviative third-persons. Nouns are also marked as absentative, especially when referring to lost items or deceased persons.
Sentence structures are typically SVO or SOV, but deviation from strict word order does not alter the meaning due to the synthetic structure.[1] Verbs are quite complex, and can be broken into four classes of verbs: animate-intransitive (AI), inanimate-intransitive (II), animate-transitive (AT), and inanimate-transitive (IT). Verbs are also prefixed and suffixed with various inflections, particles, and conjugations, so complex things can easily be described just by a verb.[2][3]
Person
Animate
Inanimate
Proximate
Singular
Plural
Singular
Plural
1, 'I,' 'me'
1p, 'we' (exclusive)
0, 'it'
0p, 'they'
12, 'we' (inclusive)
2, 'thou/you'
2p, 'you'
3, 'he/she/it'
3p, 'they'
X, 'someone/somebody'
Obviate
3", 'he/she/it'
3", 'they'
Prox. of obv.
3, 'he/she/it'
3p, 'they'
Massachusett recognizes first, second and third person in singular and plural form. However, like other Algonquian languages, Massachusett makes a distinction between the first person plural exclusive, 'we, excluding you' and the first person plural inclusive, 'we, including you.' In general, the exclusive is more common when referring to oneself and one's family and network or when the audience is unknown, but the inclusive is used when the audience is definitely being referenced.
The obviate, a form of 'second third person' that disambiguates the activities of another third person in a sentence, may possess another noun which although technically a 'third third person,' has no forms that distinguish it from the unmarked proximate bare form of a noun, as opposed to more conservative languages like Ojibwe which have a separate form for nouns in this rare position. Similarly, there are no attested forms for obviate inanimate nouns, as exist in Ojibwe.[4]
Persons exist on an importance scale, which is often more important in establishing word order regarding synthetic placement of prefixes, suffixes and markers. For example, most words exist which generally follow a hierarchy of 2 > 1 > X > 3 > 3'.[5]
Nouns
Person
Prefix
Stem
Central
Infix
Peripheral
Plural
or
Absentative
Locative
Obviative
Diminutive
Animate
or
Inanimate
Singular
Plural
1
(nu-)
(-ees)
(-amees)
(-ak)
(-ash)
(-ay)
(-uk)
(-ut)
(-uk)
(-ah)
2
(ku-)
3
(wu-)
(u-)
1p
(nu-)
(-un)
(-ôn-)
12
(ku-)
2p
(-uw)
(-ôw-)
3p
(wu-)
(u-)
X
(mu-)
(wu-) before /k/, /m/, /p/ or /w/ alters to (u-) /ə/.
Nouns can only have an animate/inanimate plural or absentative animate/inanimate singular or plural terminations on a given word. In general, the locative is the same in the singular and plural and replaces the animate/inanimate plural if any. All nouns can have a diminutive, locative and obviative ending, although it would be rare for a word to exist with all possible forms, the order is usually diminutive, absentative/animate-inanimate plural (if any), locative, obviative. For example, *wekeesiutoh *(weekeesayutah), literally 'his-house-diminutive-absentative-locative-obviate' which would signify 'at the other man's/woman's small house—that is no more? that was destroyed?'
Number
Algonquian languages recognize two numbers, singular and plural. Although it is rare for a word to not have both a singular and plural form, a small number of nouns, as in English, are either uncountable or inherently plural or singular. This is clearest in loan words from English such as monêash (moneyash), from English 'moneys,' which always appears in the plural and saut (salt), from English 'salt' which only appears in the singular.[6]
Nouns are unmarked in the singular, but can take one of two forms dependent on the noun's gender, which can be either animate and refer to something considered living, moving, divine or said to have spirit and inanimate including natural objects, tools and small plants.[7] Words that are animate have -ack/-og/-ak (-ak) /-ak/ and those that are inanimate have -ash/-osh (-ash) /-aʃ/ appended to the end, respectively. Although unmarked in the singular, words must have either an animate or inanimate plural, with only a few rare exceptions to this rule.[8]
Nouns in the singular often exist in a truncated form, but when any endings such as the plural are appended, many nouns will have consonants or syllables appear where unexpected, but were probably the original form of the word from its development from Proto-Algonquian. For instance, the words 'dog,' 'man' and 'chair' appear in Massachusett as annum (anum) /anəm/, wosketomp (waskeetôp) /waskiːtãp/ and appuonk (apuwôk) /apuːwãk/ in the singular but anumwog (anumwak) /anəmwak/, wosketompauog (waskeetôpâak) /waskiːtãpaːak/ and appuonkanash (apuwôkanash) /apuːwãkanaʃ/ as 'dogs' and 'chairs,' respectively.[9][8] In the case of 'dog,' Massachusett annum (anum) developed from Proto-Algonquian *aθemwa[10] with the final *-wa only re-appearing in the non-truncated forms of the plural, i.e., Proto-Algonquian *aθemwaki and Massachusett annumwak (anumwak). As they are based on etymology, words with these non-truncated finals must be learned individually.[8]
Gender and plural formation
As seen in the plural formations, all nouns have a grammatical gender based on animacy, thus nouns are either animate or inanimate. Animate objects include human beings and their bodies, animals, trees and bushes, planetary bodies—essentially things considered to be alive, possess spirit or are mobile—whereas inanimate nouns cover most objects, body parts, natural land forms, abstract things—essentially objects that do not move, do not possess spirit and generally unable to move.[7][8]
Numerous exceptions to this general rule exist. The body parts -ohpee (-apee), 'hip,' -úhkus (-uhkas), 'finger nail' and woskequah (wushkeeqâh) /wəʃkiːkʷaːh/, 'whale bone'; the English loan words conner (corner) and Testament (Testament) and the kitchen object kunnommaog (kunumuwôk) /kənəməwãk/, 'ladle' or 'spoon' are all animate. The sun and moon, despite being planetary bodies, are inanimate. Although standing trees are animate, names of trees and species are always inanimate, thus the plural form of kꝏwa (k8wa) /kuːwa/, 'pine tree,' is not *kꝏwak (*k8wak) but instead kꝏwash (k8wash).[7]
Only a handful of words can appear with both genders, with subtle differences in meaning. For instance, the word for 'tree' is mehtog (muhtuq), but can also mean 'wood.' As gender is not overtly marked in the singular, this can be seen in the plural forms where mehtogquog (muhtuqak), 'trees' (that are still in the ground and living) and mehtogquosh (muhtuqash), 'trees' (that have been felled) but better translates as 'wood,' i.e., the product of a tree that is no longer living.[11] Another rare form is to refer to land forms, structures or locales said to have a spiritual presence, or were considered the meeting place with or dwelling of tutelary spirits were discussed in the animate gender, in essence 'personifying' or linguistically 'animating' them. For example, wadchuash (wachuwash), 'mountains,' is the inanimate plural, but when it appears as *wadchuog (wachuwak) in the animate plural, it signifies 'mountains' but specifically the 'spirit(s) of the mountains.' This latter feature only appears in religious and ceremonial usage and is only known from a few examples, but was likely more common prior to the introduction of Christianity and the English missionary influences.[7]
Case
Obviation
Massachusett, just as in other Algonquian languages, marks second third persons with an obviative marker -oh (-ah) /ah/. The proximate, usually the primary subject or more important topic is left unmarked. In English, for example, 'He gives the book to me, then I give the money to him,' it is ambiguous if the man receiving the money is the same as the giver of the book or a different man present, but in Massachusett, the person giving the book would be proximate and thus unmarked and the recipient of the money would be marked for obviation and removing the ambiguity.
The noun marked for obviation tends to be the possessed, not the possessor, and also tends to be the less animate or the recipient of a particular action. For example, mosq nâau ahtuckoh (masq nâwâw ahtuhqah) /masknaːwaːwahtəhkʷah/, 'The bear sees the deer.'[12] Like the word 'deer' in English, which may refer to the animal in the singular and collectively, the obviative forms are identical in the singular and the plural and have to be differentiated by context. Nouns which are truncated are restored, as with the plural endings, so anum (anum), 'dog' and plural anumwog (anumwak) and appuonk (apuwônk) and plural appuonkanash (apuwônkanash), 'chairs' become annumwoh (anumwah) /anəmwah/ and appuonkanah (apuwônkanah) /apuːãnkanah/, respectively, when marked for obviation. This can occur in verbs as well:[13]
Proximate
Nꝏwoman
(Nuwâmôn
I-love-her.AN
kuh
kah
and
nꝏwamanug.
nuwâmônuq.)
me-love-she
Nꝏwoman kuh nꝏwamanug.
(Nuwâmôn kah nuwâmônuq.)
I-love-her.AN and me-love-she
'I love her and she loves me.'
nunnechanunnonog.
(nuneechônunônak.)
my-child-PL.EXCL-[r]en
nunnechanunnonog.
(nuneechônunônak.)
my-child-PL.EXCL-[r]en
'Our (exclusive) children'
Obviate
Nꝏwoman
(Nuwamôn
I-love-her.AN
kuh
kah
and
nꝏwamanugoh.
nuwamônuqah.)
me-love-she-OBV
Nꝏwoman kuh nꝏwamanugoh.
(Nuwamôn kah nuwamônuqah.)
I-love-her.AN and me-love-she-OBV
'I love her and she loves me.' (obviative 'other she', suggesting a love triangle)
Nunnechanunnonog
(Nuneechanunônak
our.EXCL-child[r]-en
wunnechannooah
wuneechanuwôwah)
their-child[r]-en-OBV
Nunnechanunnonog wunnechannooah
(Nuneechanunônak wuneechanuwôwah)
our.EXCL-child[r]-en their-child[r]-en-OBV
'Our (exclusive) children's children.' (obviative 'children of other they' distinct from 'our children')'
'Our (exclusive) children's children's children.' (children of our children's children) (obviative 'children of other they' distinct from 'our children' but proximate 'their-children')
Nꝏsh
(N8sh
my-father
ꝏshoh
8shah
his-father-OBV
umisses.
umuhsees.)
his-sister
Nꝏsh ꝏshoh umisses.
(N8sh 8shah umuhsees.)
my-father his-father-OBV his-sister
'my father's father's sister.' (referring to paternal great aunt) (obviative 'his-father' but proximate 'his-sister')
Absentation
Algonquian languages mark those objects that were, i.e., people or living things that are deceased and objects that are lost, stolen or destroyed, or 'absent,' as opposed to those that currently exist. For people and animate objects, it generally refers to something alive that has passed away. Items that are destroyed, beyond repair or lost forever tend to be inanimate objects.[14] All nouns, whether animate or inanimate, are marked with the suffixes -i or -y (-ay) /aj/ in the singular and -uk or -ug (-uk) /-ək/ in the plural. With the same forms, a noun's animacy must be known or determined from context. Truncated noun stems are also restored before absentative endings, so woskétomp (waskeetôp) /waskiːtãp/ is restored before becoming woskétompáay (waskeetôpâay) /waskiːtãpaːaj/, 'man' (that is passed away).[15]
Animate
kꝏshi (k8shay) /kuːʃaj/, 'your (singular) late father'
uméquonnai (umeequnay) /əmiːkʷənaj/, 'his feather' (that was lost? that was destroyed?)
wuttuhquaunnick (wutuhqônuk) /wətəhkʷãnək/ 'her hooks' (that were lost? that were destroyed?)
Diminution
Nouns can be marked with one of two diminutive endings, -ees (-ees) /iːs/ or -emes (-âmees) /aːmiːs/, with the latter form chosen for more extreme examples or euphony. These endings indicate that the noun is smaller, littler or younger. For example, nonkomp (nôkôp) /nãkãp/, 'boy,' nonkompees (nôkôpees) /nãkãpiːs/, 'young boy' and nonkompamees (nôkôpâmees) /nãkãpaːmiːs/, a 'very young boy.' Although rare in the written language, which may have thus protected against its complete intrusion in the spoken language, late-stage speakers along the western and northern transitional dialects permitted syncope and the diminutive ending is often truncated, as seen in the surname of Crispus Attucks, Attuck[ee]s (Ahtuq[ee]s), 'Little Deer,' and wachu[ee]s (wachu[w][ee]s), 'small mountain' or 'hill' as in the example of Mount Wachusett, a Native toponym from the closely related Nipmuc-speaking peoples where syncope was generally permitted.
The use of the diminutive, as in extant Algonquian languages, may have had some semantic functions that varied between dialects. Although it is the general rule to use diminutive endings on small, young and little things, examples from other Algonquian languages such as Ojibwe indicate that it can be used as a term of endearment, such as n'nechanemes (nuneechanâmees) /nəniːtʃanaːmiːs/, 'my little child,' but can also be used, in certain contexts, to mark something as inferior or degrading, such as keen wosketompees (keeen waskeetôpees) /kiːnwaskiːtãpiːs/, 'you little man' but could have nuanced implied meanings of being weak, small in stature, inferior or unworthy dependent on context.
Location
Nouns are suffixed with a locative suffix -et (also -ett, -it, etc.) (-ut) to indicate 'in/on/at' (physically). It can be used to mark areas near certain geographical features, and survives in the name Massachusett (Mâsach8sut) /maːsatʃuːsət/ as well as most geographical place names and landmarks of Massachusett-language derivation. The locative is often, though not always, identical in singular and the plural and number has to be determined from context.[16][17]
The choice of locative seems to have some dialectal variation, where the older form -uck/-og/-uk (-uk) was generally more common in the speech of Nantucket and areas inhabited by the Nauset, and seems to have occurred with equal frequency in the related L-dialect Nipmuc language and areas inhabited by the Pawtucket. Areas inhabited by the Coweset, Massachusett and the closely related Y-dialect Narragansett seem to have been strongholds of the /-ət/ termination, although documents in Natick seem to have also used the /-ək/ variant, perhaps due to the influence of Nipmuc. As the written language of Eliot seems to have favored /-ət/, most place names in the region in Massachusetts were 'standardized' under the influence of the literate Indians and the English missionaries.[17]
There is a rare secondary locative -ehtu (-eehtyuw) /iːhtʲᵊəw/ or -uhkontu (-uhkôhtyuw) that only appears in a handful of attestations in the Native documents.[17] It seems to have been somewhat more common in Eliot's translation of the Bible, where it seems to serve the purpose of a plural locative. For example, ayeuwogut, 'in/on/at the place,' and nuppeeit, 'in/on/at the water' and ayeuonganehtu (ayuwôkaneehtyuw), 'in/on/at the places,' and nippekontu (nupeehkôhtyuw) /nəpiːhkãtjəw/, 'in/on/at the waters.[18][19][17]
The locative can be used for abstract phrases, such as 'in his posterity' and 'on this day' and these phrases can be literally translated from English. The locative, however, is also mandatory for certain transitive verbs that do not have an English parallel.
The prefixes, suffixes and infixes on nouns shown in the table under nouns determine ownership are used as genitive constructions, equivalent to 'my,' 'our,' 'ours,' 'his,' 'her,' 'hers,' 'its', 'their,' 'theirs' used in English. As previously states, the third-person form wu- (wu-) is truncated to u- (u-) or, with sufficient context, sometimes dropped altogether in certain situations, so meequon (meeqôn) is umeequon (umeeqôn) and never *wumeequon (*wumeeqôn). Both of the first-person plural forms have an ending (-un), which are otherwise distinguished by (nu-), equivalent to 'I'.[20]
Plural persons are formed with suffixes. For example, 'our' can be formed with nu-[stem]-un, 'I-[stem]-first-person plural' in the exclusive form or ku-[stem]-un, 'you-[stem]-[1st pl.] in the inclusive form. The inclusive form actually shares ku-, the second-person prefix, as the construction 'you-[stem]-[1st pl.],' somewhat suggesting 'you + us' as it would naturally include the audience or person being addressed in a description of a group action including the speaker. The second-person plural and third-person plural are formed with (ku-) and (wu-) or its variant (u-)—used before /m/, /p/, /k/ or /w/, but not /kʷ/—respectively. They also share use of the second/third-person plural suffix (-uw).[20]
Plural personhood in the dependency markers requires an infix, which wedges itself between the suffix appended to the stem and the peripheral markers, such as those that indicate the animate or inanimate plural, depending on the word's gender or absentative, locative or obviative forms. The first-person exclusive and first-person inclusive plurals share (-ôn-) whilst the second- and third-person plurals share (-ôw-). This prevents the previous stem from truncation or elimination, according to the complicated sound rules for joining morphemes and the influence of surrounding vowels. Thus, 'our (exclusive) feet' is (nuseetunônash) and not (*nuseetunash) and 'your (plural) feet' is (kuseetuwôwash) and not (*kuseetuwash).[20][21]
Dependent and Independent nouns
Nouns are declined by person somewhat differently depending on whether or not the noun in question is dependent or independent. For example, a 'foot' always belongs to someone and therefore, in Algonquian languages, it can only exist in a genitive construction such as 'my foot,' 'your feet,' 'his foot,' etc., and is therefore 'dependent.' When the exact owner is unknown, (mu-) is attached and indicates 'someone's' or 'somebody's' foot. Dependency is a common feature of kinship terms such as 'mother' or 'father,' almost all body parts, including the body itself. Most other nouns are independent and can exist by themselves, although they can also be declined in genitive constructions, such as a 'tree' can be owned as 'my tree' or 'his tree' that do exist without implied ownership.
Intrusive 't'
As a grammatical rule, a /t/ is inserted before the prefix that implies the person and an independent noun stem that begins with a vowel. For example, nutohkeem (nutahkeem), 'my land' where ohke (ahkee), 'earth' or 'land' is independent. This is in contrast to nꝏsh (n8sh), 'my father,' which does not require the 'intrusive t' as it is a dependent noun, i.e., not *nutꝏsh (*nut8sh) which are incorrect.
The example of 'my father' also shows that vowel-initial dependent noun roots assimilate the vowel of the person prefix, nꝏsh (n8sh) not *nuꝏsh (*nu8sh). When a dependent noun has ownership that is not implied or unknown, the Algonquian X person, it is prefixed with mu- which indicates that it is 'someone's' or 'somebody's,' for instance, musseett (museet) /məsiːt/, 'someone's foot' or 'somebody's foot.' Dependent nouns that begin with a consonant do not assimilate the preceding vowel, e.g., kunnutcheg (kunucheek) /kənətʃiːk/, 'your (singular) hand.' Dependent nouns have to be learned separately.
M-class
A small 'm-class' of independent nouns also exist. This small subset of words takes a final (-m) in words that end in a vowel or (-um) for words that end in a consonant, but only when the word is declined for person. This terminal is dropped when the noun exists in its, non-pronominally declined independent form. This was likely a retention of an archaic trait in the language that began to fade from the language around the time literacy was adopted, as the Indian documents show that many writers applied it inconsistently and seem to have been unsure, although it is just as likely that it may have varied by dialect or age of speaker. Where it was retained, the /m/ helps preserve noun stems from mutation or assimilation of vowels of various noun suffixes.[22]
The Algonquian languages are pro-drop languages which means that independent pronouns are usually unnecessary in conversation. Nouns can be inflected for possession and verbs often encode the subject, and sometimes, even the object information, rendering the use of pronouns mostly redundant. There are several instances where pronouns cannot be omitted. For instance, Massachusett lacks a copula which is found in English as the various conjugations of the verb 'to be' that link the subject and predicate. Thus, a pronoun would be mandatory in sentences such as kén nétop (keen neetôp) /kiːnniːtãp/, 'you are my friend,' but literally 'you my-friend. The pronouns are also mandatory as the direct answers to questions involving figuring out who was doing what or what was done to whom.
In a sentence such as nuwoman (nuwâmôn), the transitive animate verb woman (wâmôn) is marked with the first-person prefix (nu-) marks the subject. The third-person recipient, 'her' or 'him' is assumed because it is an animate verb. Even though, nen nuwoman nagum or neen nagum nuwoman are possible, literally 'I I-love-[her/him] her/him' and 'I he/she I-love-[her/him],' respectively, enough information exists in the verb alone to warrant the exclusion of the pronouns.
Although the exact roles that the pronouns filled are not fully understood, in related Algonquian languages, pronouns seem to help clear ambiguity, such as the similarity of certain verb forms and noun stems, some of which may differ by only a short syllable at the end, such as (kuseet) 'your (singular) foot,' (kuseetun) 'our (inclusive) foot' and (kuseetuw), which in rapid conversation, may require the independent pronouns (keen) 'you (singular)', (keenawun) 'we (inclusive)' and (keenaw) 'you (plural)' to disambiguate. In other cases, the insertion of pronouns were probably used for emphasis, such as a topical marker, or to mark deference as is done in other Algonquian languages.[25][26]
Emphasis The pronoun helps mark the topic and the emphasis of the statement. More important in the following example is not the canoe itself but the ownership of the canoe by the owner.
Numishꝏn.
(Numuhsh8n.
My-canoe.
Numishꝏn
Numuhsh8n
My-canoe
neen.
neen.)
I.
Numishꝏn. Numishꝏn neen.
(Numuhsh8n. Numuhsh8n neen.)
My-canoe. My-canoe I.
'My canoe. My canoe is mine'
Deference Possibly used to mark the noun (sôtyum), 'chief' or 'leader,' as someone worthy of respect or importance.
'Our sachem (inclusive) sees the river. He, our (inclusive) sachem, sees the river.'
Disambiguation Although the difference between 'your father' and 'our (inclusive) fathers' (obviative) is slight,
Kꝏsh
(K8sh
Your-father
matta
mata
not
kꝏshunocke.
k8shunak.
our-father-s.
Keen
Keen
You
kꝏsh
k8sh
your-father
matta
mata
not
kꝏshunog.
keenawun
our-father-INCL-s-OBV
k8shunakah.)
Kꝏsh matta kꝏshunocke. Keen kꝏsh matta kꝏshunog.
(K8sh mata k8shunak. Keen k8sh mata keenawun k8shunakah.)
Your-father not our-father-s. You your-father not our-father-INCL-s-OBV
'Your father not our (inclusive) fathers. You, your father, not our (inclusive) fathers.' (not all of our (inclusive) fathers, only yours alone) Mismatch in the number of words between lines: 7 word(s) in line 1, 8 word(s) in line 2, 7 word(s) in line 3 (help);
Reflexive pronouns
Person
English
Colonial
Modern
Pronunciation
1
'myself'
nohhog
(nuhak)
/nəhak/
2
'yourself'
kohhog
(kuhak)
/kəhak/
3
'himself', 'herself' 'itself'
wohhog
(wuhak)
/wəhak/
12
'ourselves' (exclusive)
*nohhoggan
*(nuhakun)
*/nəhakən/
1p
'ourselves' (inclusive)
*kohhoggan
*(kuhakun)
*/kəhakən/
2p
'yourselves'
*kohhoggu
*(kuhakuw)
*/kəhakəw/
3p
'themselves'
*wohhoggu
*(wuhakuw)
*/wəhakəw/
Only singular forms are attested in the Massachusett-language documents, but evidence from related languages suggest they may have occurred in the language, but this is uncertain.[27]
Reflexive pronouns are relatively uncommon. Their only use appears with certain transitive animate verbs where the subject is also the recipient of the action. This is in stark contrast to languages such as Spanish or French, where reflexive verbs, and their accompanying reflexive pronoun markers, are quite common, often imbued with slightly different shades of meaning from their original non-reflexive counterparts.[24]
In Massachusett, reflexive pronouns are only known in singular form, but plural forms are attested in closely related language. For instance, in the Loup language of Nipmuc refugees in New France, nahakanon, 'ourselves' (first person exclusive plural reflexive) appears in Mathevet's word lists recorded in the mid-eighteenth century.[27] if it existed in Massachusett would probably appear as *nuhhoggan (*nuhakun) /*nəhakən/ as Massachusett usually dropped the infix -on unless further suffixation as required but retained in Nipmuc which corresponds to Massachusett (-ôn), e.g., (nuseetun), 'our (exclusive) foot' and (nuseetunônash), 'our (exclusive) feet.'[27]
Wussusséquin
(Wususeequn
/wəsəsiːkʷən
he-anoints
wuhhog
wuhak)
wəhak/
his-self
Wussusséquin wuhhog
(Wususeequn wuhak)
/wəsəsiːkʷən wəhak/
he-anoints his-self
'He anoints himself.'
Nꝏwoman
(Nuwâmôn
/nəwaːmãn
I-love
nuhhog
nuhak)
nəhak/
my-self
Nꝏwoman nuhhog
(Nuwâmôn nuhak)
/nəwaːmãn nəhak/
I-love my-self
'I love myself.'
Demonstrative pronouns
Animate
Inanimate
Singular
Plural
Singular
Plural
Near deictic
yeuoh (y8uh)
/juːəh/
this
yeug (y8k)
/juːk/
these
yeu (y8)
/juː/
this
yeush (y8sh)
/juːʃ/
these
Further deictic
(nah)
/nah/
that
(neek)
/niːk/
those
(nee)
/niː/
that
(neesh)
/niːʃ/
those
Anaphoric
unne (uneeh) or neh (neeh)
/əniːh/, /niːh/
this, that
(ukanah)
/əkanah/
these, those
(y8nuh)
/juːnəh/
this, that
(shanuh)
/ʃanəh/
these, those
Interrogative
howan (hawân)
/hawaːn/
who, whom
howan (hawanak)
/hawaːnak/
who, whom (plural)
teague (tyaqa)
/tjakʷa/
what
teaguesh (tyaqash)
/tjakʷaʃ/
what (plural)
The deictic pronouns are used to express both specific objects and their physical distance in relation to the speaker, with the nearer deictic pronouns corresponding to English 'this' and plural 'these.' Objects that are too far for a speaker to use nearer deictic forms, such as objects 'over there' or 'yonder,' the farther deictic forms 'that' and 'those.'
The anaphoric pronouns were unknown to most dialects and is peculiar to the speech of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, but has been adopted as integral pronouns in the revived language. Their usage on the islands had two main uses. In some cases, they seem to represent 'furthest deictic,' roughly 'that'/'those' (over there) akin to the Spanish distinction between ese, 'that' and aquel, 'that yonder.' It also served in its anaphoric usage to reference 'this' or 'that' when the context was known and discussed earlier in conversation or in a written document. The anaphoric forms have obviate markings. As inanimate obviate marking is not used in Massachusett, the inanimate anaphoric forms (y8nuh) and (shanuh) perhaps have them by analogy to their animate counterparts.
The interrogative pronouns function as question words, such as 'who?', 'whom?' and 'what?' The interreogative pronouns in statements take different meanings, for instance teague (tyaqa) generally means 'what?' or 'what thing?' but also functions as 'something' as in howan (hawân) can, in non-interrogative functions, as 'somebody' or 'someone.'
Nominalization of verbs
As verbs are the basic and most important part of Massachusett word construction, nouns are often formed from verbs or can exist in verbal form, for example 'I am the chief' can be rendered with only nouns, and in an archaic style befitting a leader, sachem neen (sôtyum neen), literally sachem I,' or only with a verb as in nusontimauw (nusôtyumâw), literally 'I-chief-[animate intransitive verb]' or 'I-chief-be.' Although use of nominal versus verbal constructions were used interchangeably, they undoubtedly had distinct nuances in use that are unknown.
Conversion of nouns from verbal stems can occur in one of three ways. Nouns tend to be either the bare form of a verb, identical to the verbal form or modified with a nominalizing suffix.
Bare verb stem
mꝏs
(m8s)
'moose' or 'Eurasian elk'
<
mꝏsua-
(m8swa-)
'to shear' or 'to trim smooth'
mꝏs < mꝏsua-
(m8s) {} (m8swa-)
{'moose' or 'Eurasian elk'} {} {'to shear' or 'to trim smooth'}
Verbs are very complex and form the basis of a typical word. Like nouns, verbs are divided into animate and inanimate forms which are distinct in meaning and usage. For example, chog- (chahk-), 'spot,' has different conjugations based on the animacy of the subject. An inanimate object, such as a body part, rock, leaf, man-made products, annual plants, etc., would be described as chogi (chahkây), 'it is spotted' (i.e., 'it has spots') whereas when referring to people, animals, large trees, planetary bodies, etc., it would be described as chogusu (chahkusuw), 'he/she/it is blemished' (literally, 'he/she is spotted'). As different verb endings are used to distinguish animacy, the subject or equivalent pronoun can be dropped in conversation and writing if there is sufficient context.
Transitivity is another important division. Verbs are marked differently if they take an object or not. For example, the root mꝏs- (m8hs-) implies 'envy' or 'jealousy' but and can be found as intransitive, not requiring an object, mꝏsumꝏau (m8hsumuwâw), 'he/she is jealous' (i.e., 'he/she/it is a jealous person) or transitive, requiring an object, mꝏsumꝏ (m8hsumuw), 'he/she is jealous of' and requires an object, e.g., mꝏsumꝏ sontimoh (m8hsumuw sôtyumah), 'he/she is jealous of the chief.'
Transitive and intransitive verbs differ when the object in question is animate or inanimate. For example, the root onch- (ôch-), signifies 'mend,' 'fix' or 'repair,' and appears as transitive with animate object onchheew (ôchuheew), 'he/she repairs [something]' and transitive with inanimate object onchuteaw (ôchuhteaw), 'he/she fixes (someone).' Similarly, quin- (qun-), 'long' or 'tall,' appears in the intransitive, no object, with animate subject qunôsu (qunôhsuw), 'he/she is tall,' and inanimate subject, no object, quinni (qunây), 'it is long' or 'it is tall'. Thus, verbs generally fall into one of four categories: animate subject, no object or animate intransitive (AI), animate object or transitive animate (TA), inanimate with no object or inanimate intransitive (II) and inanimate object or transitive inanimate (TI).
Related Research Articles
In linguistics, a noun class is a particular category of nouns. A noun may belong to a given class because of the characteristic features of its referent, such as gender, animacy, shape, but such designations are often clearly conventional. Some authors use the term "grammatical gender" as a synonym of "noun class", but others consider these different concepts. Noun classes should not be confused with noun classifiers.
The Algonquian languages are a subfamily of the Indigenous languages of the Americas and most of the languages in the Algic language family are included in the group. The name of the Algonquian language family is distinguished from the orthographically similar Algonquin dialect of the Indigenous Ojibwe language (Chippewa), which is a senior member of the Algonquian language family. The term Algonquin has been suggested to derive from the Maliseet word elakómkwik, "they are our relatives/allies".
The Cheyenne language, is the Native American language spoken by the Cheyenne people, predominantly in present-day Montana and Oklahoma, in the United States. It is part of the Algonquian language family. Like all other Algonquian languages, it has complex agglutinative polysynthetic morphology. This language is considered endangered, at different levels, in both states.
Menominee, also spelled Menomini is an endangered Algonquian language spoken by the historic Menominee people of what is now northern Wisconsin in the United States. The federally recognized tribe has been working to encourage revival of use of the language by intensive classes locally and partnerships with universities. Most of the fluent speakers are elderly. Many of the people use English as their first language.
Miami-Illinois, also known as Irenwa or Irenwe, is an indigenous Algonquian language spoken in the United States, primarily in Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, western Ohio and adjacent areas along the Mississippi River by the Miami and Wea as well as the tribes of the Illinois Confederation, including the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Tamaroa, and possibly Mitchigamea. The Myaamia (Miami) Nation of Indiana still practice and use their native heritage to teach young and old so they can keep their traditional language alive.
Much of Tamil grammar is extensively described in the oldest available grammar book for Tamil, the Tolkāppiyam. Modern Tamil writing is largely based on the 13th century grammar Naṉṉūl, which restated and clarified the rules of the Tolkāppiyam with some modifications.
The Arapaho (Arapahoe) language is one of the Plains Algonquian languages, closely related to Gros Ventre and other Arapahoan languages. It is spoken by the Arapaho of Wyoming and Oklahoma. Speakers of Arapaho primarily live on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, though some have affiliation with the Cheyenne living in western Oklahoma.
Swampy Cree is a variety of the Algonquian language, Cree. It is spoken in a series of Swampy Cree communities in northern Manitoba, central northeast of Saskatchewan along the Saskatchewan River and along the Hudson Bay coast and adjacent inland areas to the south and west, and Ontario along the coast of Hudson Bay and James Bay. Within the group of dialects called "West Cree", it is referred to as an "n-dialect", as the variable phoneme common to all Cree dialects appears as "n" in this dialect.
Plains Cree is a dialect of the Algonquian language, Cree, which is the most populous Canadian indigenous language. Plains Cree is considered a dialect of the Cree-Montagnais language or a dialect of the Cree language that is distinct from the Montagnais language. Plains Cree is one of five main dialects of Cree in this second sense, along with Woods Cree, Swampy Cree, Moose Cree, and Atikamekw. Although no single dialect of Cree is favored over another, Plains Cree is the one that is the most widely used. Out of the 116,500 speakers of the Cree language, the Plains Cree dialect is spoken by about 34,000 people primarily in Saskatchewan and Alberta but also in Manitoba and Montana.
The Shawnee language is a Central Algonquian language spoken in parts of central and northeastern Oklahoma by the Shawnee people. It was originally spoken by these people in a broad territory throughout the Eastern United States, mostly north of the Ohio River. They occupied territory in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania.
Proto-Algonquian is the proto-language from which the various Algonquian languages are descended. It is generally estimated to have been spoken around 2,500 to 3,000 years ago, but there is less agreement on where it was spoken. The Algonquian family, which is a branch of the larger Algic language family, is usually divided into three subgroups: Eastern Algonquian, which is a genetic subgroup, and Central Algonquian and Plains Algonquian, both of which are areal groupings. In the historical linguistics of North America, Proto-Algonquian is one of the best studied, most thoroughly reconstructed proto-languages. It is descended from Proto-Algic.
The Ojibwe language is an Algonquian American Indian language spoken throughout the Great Lakes region and westward onto the northern plains. It is one of the largest American Indian languages north of Mexico in terms of number of speakers, and exhibits a large number of divergent dialects. For the most part, this article describes the Minnesota variety of the Southwestern dialect. The orthography used is the Fiero Double-Vowel System.
East Cree, also known as James Bay (Eastern) Cree, and East Main Cree, is a group of Cree dialects spoken in Quebec, Canada on the east coast of lower Hudson Bay and James Bay, and inland southeastward from James Bay. Cree is one of the most spoken non-official aboriginal languages of Canada. Four dialects have been tentatively identified including the Southern Inland dialect (Iyiniw-Ayamiwin) spoken in Mistissini, Oujé-Bougoumou, Waswanipi, and Nemaska; the Southern Coastal dialect (Iyiyiw-Ayamiwin) spoken in Nemaska, Waskaganish, and Eastmain; the Northern Coastal Dialects (Iyiyiw-Ayimiwin), one spoken in Wemindji and Chisasibi and the other spoken in Whapmagoostui. The dialects are mutually intelligible, though difficulty arises as the distance between communities increases.
Chippewa is an Algonquian language spoken from upper Michigan westward to North Dakota in the United States. It represents the southern component of the Ojibwe language.
Western Ojibwa is a dialect of the Ojibwe language, a member of the Algonquian language family. It is spoken by the Saulteaux, a subnation of the Ojibwe people, in southern Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan, Canada, west of Lake Winnipeg. Saulteaux is generally used by its speakers, and Nakawēmowin is the general term in the language itself.
Maliseet-Passamaquoddy is an endangered Algonquian language spoken by the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples along both sides of the border between Maine in the United States and New Brunswick, Canada. The language consists of two major dialects: Maliseet, which is mainly spoken in the Saint John River Valley in New Brunswick; and Passamaquoddy, spoken mostly in the St. Croix River Valley of eastern Maine. However, the two dialects differ only slightly, mainly in their phonology. The indigenous people widely spoke Maliseet-Passamaquoddy in these areas until around the post-World War II era when changes in the education system and increased marriage outside of the speech community caused a large decrease in the number of children who learned or regularly used the language. As a result, in both Canada and the U.S. today, there are only 600 speakers of both dialects, and most speakers are older adults. Although the majority of younger people cannot speak the language, there is growing interest in teaching the language in community classes and in some schools.
Mohegan-Pequot is an Algonquian language formerly spoken by indigenous peoples in southern present-day New England and eastern Long Island.
Munsee is an endangered language of the Eastern Algonquian subgroup of the Algonquian language family, itself a branch of the Algic language family.
Teiwa is a Papuan language spoken on the Pantar island in eastern Indonesia. The island is the second largest in the Alor archipelago, lying just west of the largest island Alor.
Pidgin Delaware was a pidgin language that developed between speakers of Unami Delaware and Dutch traders and settlers on the Delaware River in the 1620s. The fur trade in the Middle Atlantic region led Europeans to interact with local native groups, and hence provided an impetus for the development of Pidgin Delaware. The Dutch were active in the fur trade beginning early in the seventeenth century, establishing trading posts in New Netherland, the name for the Dutch territory of the Middle Atlantic and exchanging trade goods for furs.
References
↑ Fermino, J. L. D. (2000). Introduction to the Wampanoag grammar. (Master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). pp. 10–63.
↑ Pentland, David H. (2006). "Algonquian and Ritwan Languages", in Keith Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics (2nd ed.), pp. 161–6. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
↑ Waasaagoneshkang (2001). 'Theft of Fire.' Recorded in 1974 by William Jones, translated by Rand Valentine. p. 13.
↑ Macaulay, M. (2005). 'On the 2 > 1 Prominence Hierarchy of Algonquian' in LSO Working Papers in Linguistics 5: Proceedings of WIGL, 2005, 1–24.
↑ Rees-Miller, J. (1996). Morphological Adaptation of English Loanwords in Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics, 62(2), 196–202. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
1 2 3 4 Goddard, I. & Bragdon, K. (1988). pp. 486–497.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
