Willem de Reuse
University of North Texas
423
424 international journal of american linguistics
eyes of an eagle, to be eagle-eyed from the noun eye (Navajo), the verb
to be ones mother from the noun mother (Chiricahua Apache), and the
verb to be hairy from the noun hair (Western Apache).
Since the Apachean languages are closely related, one might expect to
nd similarities in the patterning of denominal verbs, particularly since the
morphology for deriving verbs from nouns is not elaborate by Athabascan
standards. However, denominal verb formation is apparently different in
the three languages under consideration; it remains to be seen if the other
Apachean languages have denominal verbs and, if so, how these are formed.
In this paper, I am not going to discuss verb formation by zero-derivation
from nouns. There are cases, described in de Reuse (1995) for Western
Apache and in Young and Morgan (1987:|7|)2 for Navajo, where nouns can
be used predicatively, i.e., without any verbal morphology. I do not consider
cases of zero-derivation to be denominal morphology, because they arguably
have no morphology.
Also, I do not deal here with the somewhat controversial issue of verb
stems derived from noun roots. Apachean languages have about 120 basic
monosyllabic roots which are considered to be nominal, on the basis of their
semantics and their usual morphological behavior. Of these roots, approxi-
mately 50 can be used as verb stems, with verbal morphology. However,
there is no evidence for deciding whether we have a situation where the verb
stems are derived from noun roots, or whether we have a situation where the
noun stems are derived from verb roots, because the morphology involved
in the verbs is not clearly denominal. Sapir (1923) argued that such roots were
underlyingly nominal, whereas Reichard (1951:4647) was of the opinion
that such roots are underlyingly verbal.3 Since there are arguments for either
position, it is preferable to postulate roots unspecied as to lexical category,
from which both noun and verb stems can be derived, as suggested in Rice
(1989:161) for Slave, a Northern Athabascan language.
a verb, body-part terms are a good place to start. Young and Morgan give two
denominal verb patterns for Navajo, both largely limited to body parts. For
the rst pattern, I quote from Young and Morgan (1987:|135|):4
Stem nouns that represent body parts, functioning as the stem in a Neuter
Perfective theme with the shape ay -l-X (in which X = any body part
noun) to have a large body part of the type designated by the stem, as:
-kee, foot/feet: ay shkee, I have big feet, I am big-footed.
-be, breast: ay lbe, she has large breasts, she is big-busted.
-tsii, head: ay nltsii, you have a big head, you are big-headed.
The rst word, ay, is an adverb meaning greatly, remarkably. The prex
sequences involved in the quotation above are sh- for rst-person singu-
lar, nl- for second-person singular, and l- for third-person singular.
These prex complexes contain the appropriate prexes for person and the
Y-perfective mode,5 and the prexes - and l- which are thematic.6 The
resulting construction is syntactically intransitive and semantically adjectival.
A list from the body of Young and Morgans dictionary (1987:2) is given
in table 1.7 The entries are given in the rst-person singular. Table 1 includes
all the entries in Young and Morgan. The fact that Young and Morgan go to
the trouble of listing the resulting forms is evidence that the construction is
not productive.8
What Young and Morgan have to say about the second Navajo construc-
tion with body-part or plant-part nouns is quoted below (1987:|135|):
4
The standard Navajo spelling is used for the Navajo data. Hoijers spelling of Chiricahua
has been converted to the spelling used by the Fort SillChiricahuaWarm Springs Apache
Nation; it is very close to the Navajo spelling, the main difference being that u is used where
Navajo would have o. The spelling system of Western Apache is also similar to the one used
for Navajo, the main difference being that Western Apache mid tones are marked with a macron
on the vowel. A fuller discussion of the Western Apache spelling system is in de Reuse
(2003:98) and de Reuse and Goode (2006:730).
5
The morphophonemic rules of prex combination resulting in the surface forms are complex
and will not be explained here. An introduction to these rules is in Faltz (1998). In Athabascan
languages, certain prexes select certain types of perfectives. In these forms, the Y-perfective
is selected by the prex -. Note that this is a neuter verb, which means that it cannot be inected
for different modes (i.e., aspects in Athabascanist terminology).
6
Thematic prexes, in Athabascanist terminology, are those prexes which do not have a
clearly isolatable grammatical or lexical meaning, but have to occur with certain stems. They
function to distinguish stems, somewhat in the way that the English elements cran- and boysen-
in cranberry and boysenberry distinguish types of berries.
7 The heading of the corresponding paradigm in Young and Morgan (1987:2) is neuter
imperfective. This is a typo for neuter perfective, as conrmed in Young and Morgan
(1992:255, 318, 640).
8
Dr. MaryAnn Willie, a native-speaker linguist, notes (personal communication) that not all
native speakers accept the forms listed in table 1. This is additional evidence that the construc-
tion is not productive.
426 international journal of american linguistics
TABLE 1
Navajo Entries from Young and Morgan (1987:2)
Stem nouns that represent body or plant parts function as the stem in Neuter
Imperfective verb themes with the shape yi-ni-l-X, to have a part that is
shaped like or otherwise resembles a designated object with which it is com-
pared, as:
-n;, eyes: ats yinishn, I have the eyes of an eagle, I am eagle-eyed.
-tsoo, tongue: tliish yiltsoo, he has a tongue like a snake.
-tsii, head: bgashii yinltsii, you have a head like a cow, youre cow-headed.
In this construction, the comparandum precedes the verb and is typically an
animal name, such as ats eagle, tliish snake, and bgashii cow. The
prex sequences involved are yinish- for rst-person singular, yinl- for
second-person singular, and yil- for third-person singular. These prex
sequences contain the prexes for person and a zero imperfective mode, and
the three thematic prexes yi- like, akin to, ni- a formative of neuter im-
perfective adjectivals, and l-. Under the entry referring to the prexes in the
body of the dictionary, Young and Morgan (1987:767) point out that this
construction may occur with virtually any body part noun (including the
parts of plants) and do not list any entries in the dictionary. This is evidence
that this construction is fully productive. Examples of its usage in sentences
are (1)(4) from Young and Morgan (1987:767), (5) and (6) from Young and
Morgan (1992:319, 640), and (7) and (8) from Reichard (1951:253):
(1) d l bgashii yiltsii
this horse cow 3s.Imperf.head9
this horse has a head like a cow, the head of this horse resembles that
of a cow
9
Abbreviations used in analyses, glosses, and paradigms are: - prex boundary; = proclitic
or enclitic boundary; 1d rst-person dual subject; 1p rst-person plural subject; 1s rst-person
singular subject; 2d second-person dual subject; 2p second-person plural subject; 2s second-
person singular subject; 3dp third-person dual or plural subject; 3s third-person singular subject;
3os third-person singular object; 3p third-person plural subject; 3s third-person singular sub-
ject; Imperf imperfective mode; Perf perfective mode; pdr past deferred realization particle (de
Reuse 2003:8288); neg negative proclitic and enclitic (conventionally written separately and
without =); sub subordinating enclitic; top topic particle or enclitic.
denominal verbs in apachean languages 427
As shown in (1)(6), the construction has two arguments, since there is both
subject inection in the verb (the rst argument) and another noun (a second
argument) preceding the verb. However, as in an equational sentence, there
is no transitivity. We know this because third-person subject sentences are
obligatory marked for transitivity (with a third-person object prex) in
Apachean, and there is no such prex in (1)(3) and (5)(7).
10
Example (8) might be unusual since the verb stem refers to an item of clothingchah
hatrather than to a body part. The case of chah is mentioned in Young and Morgan
(1992:98) but not in Young and Morgan (1987).
428 international journal of american linguistics
TABLE 2
Chiricahua Denominal Data from Hoijer (ca. 1930)
Page
Noun Stem Gloss Denominal Verb Gloss No.
-bzh stepfather; fathers O-ni-. . .-bzh to be . . . stepfather 11
brother
-bzhe stepfather, stepchild O-ni-. . .-bzhe to be . . . stepfather, 12
stepchild
-ch mothers mother; O-ni-. . .-ch to be (his) . . . 102
daughters children
(woman speaking)
-dai mothers siblings; sisters O-ni-. . .-dai to be 17
child someones . . .
-la4h sister, man speaking; O-ni-. . .-la4h to be . . . sister, 107
brother, woman brother
speaking
-m mother O-ni-. . .-m to be someones 14
mother
-tsy mothers father; O-ni-. . .-tsy to be . . . mothers 85
daughters children, father, etc.
man speaking
in Hoijer (ca. 1930) and is given in table 2. The forms are uninected
stems.11 Each of the resulting verbs is an imperfective neuter. I gather from
Hoijers practice in this stem lexicon, that O- stands for an object prex such
as shi- me, ni- you, bi- him, her, etc., and that the indication . . . stands
for the place where the subject prexes are inserted. So, using the subject
prex sh- rst person, I assume the existence of inected forms such as
ninishbzh I am your stepfather, binishbzh I am his/her stepfather;
ninishm I am your mother, binishm I am his/her mother, and so on.
We do not know whether the construction can derive verbs from the other
kinship terms of Chiricahua Apache. For example, we do not know if on
the basis of -taa father (Hoijer ca. 1930:22) one can derive a hypothetical
O-ni-. . .-taa to be . . . father, assumed to be inected as ninishtaa I am
your father, binishtaa I am his/her father, and so on.
11
A search through Hoijers Chiricahua text collection (Hoijer 1938) did not uncover any
examples of the pattern. I have not yet checked the pattern described here with speakers.
denominal verbs in apachean languages 429
TABLE 3
Western Apache Denominal Verb
Paradigm Pattern Showing Prexes and Clitics (Imperfective)
12
The Western Apache data are from my eldnotes (1992present) on all dialectal varieties
of Western Apache. The three dialects mentioned in this paperDilz (abbreviation D, formerly
called Tonto [de Reuse 2002]), San Carlos (abbreviation SC), and White Mountain (abbreviation
WM)are representative of the full extent of dialectal variation in Western Apache.
denominal verbs in apachean languages 430
TABLE 4
Western Apache (SC, WM) Paradigm of to be dirty (Imperfective)
TABLE 5
Western Apache (WM) Paradigm of to be bloody (Imperfective)
13
In this form, the sequence n-sh-sh . . . becomes nsh . . . by regular morphophonemic rules.
denominal verbs in apachean languages 431
TABLE 6
Western Apache Attested Examples of the Denominal
Verbal d=noun=zh Construction, in the Third-Person Subject Imperfective
Verb
Noun Gloss d=noun-zh Gloss
bsoh money dbsohzh s/he is full of money (WM)
cha4a4 excrement dcha4a4zh it is full of excrement (WM)
chi 4h dirt dchi 4zh it is dirty, grimy, lthy (D, SC, WM)
dil blood ddilzh it is covered with blood, bloody (WM)
he e s itch dhe e szh it is itchy all over (SC)
his pus dhiszh it is full of pus (WM)
hozh wrinkle dhozhzh it is wrinkled (SC)
ighaa fur, hair dighaazh it is furry, hairy (WM)
shi 4i 4h salt dshi 4i 4hzh it is salty (WM)
itsin bone ditsinzh it is a skeleton, it is all bones (D, SC, WM)
lood sore dloodzh it is covered with sores (WM)
s sand dszh it is sandy (WM)
shg sugar dshgzh it is sugary, s/he is diabetic (WM)
tu water dtuzh it is watery (SC, WM)
zhaali money dzhaalizh s/he is full of money (WM)
Not every noun referring to a substance that can stick to the body can be used
in this way. For example, goshtlish mud cannot be used in this construc-
tion since *dgoshtlishzh it is muddy was rejected.
Furthermore, one would expect all the constructions in table 6 to be inected
following the paradigm in table 3. I have not been successful in eliciting
many of the third-person subject forms for other subject persons. Examples
of rejected forms with rst-person subjects are *dnshighaazh I am
hairy, *dnshshi 4i 4hzh I am salty, *dnszh 14 I am sandy, *dnsh-
tuzh I am watery, and *dnshaalizh I am full of money. Part of the
problem is obviously pragmatic, since it is hard to think of contexts where
some of the above forms would be appropriate. Saying that one is full of
money, for example, is culturally inappropriate and is inviting trouble upon
oneself. Note, however, that to be sugary (10 above) is possible with the
idiomatic meaning to be diabetic. The other part of the problem is that disyl-
labic words such as ighaa fur or shi 4i 4h salt look less like verb stems, since
ighaa contains an indenite possessor prex i-, and shi 4i 4h might at least
diachronically contain a prex as well. Verb stems are not expected to start
with this prex, and there might be a reluctance to inect such obvious
nouns as verbs.15
I did elicit the rst-person subject Dilz dialect form (19), which did not
appear possible for the speakers of San Carlos and White Mountain I con-
sulted. Here, the prex i- or ichin appears to have been reinterpreted as a
thematic prex and to take the place of the thematic n- attested in the other
non-third-person forms. I do not know whether this is a Dilz idiosyncrasy
or whether other dialects can also do this.
(19) s dishchinz (D)16
I only=1s.Imperf.bone=only
I am nothing but bones
I now turn to the question of the morphological status of the elements d=
and =zh . As shown in 5 below, these were originally clitics, i.e., elements
functioning syntactically as separate particles but which are phonologically
part of a following word (if proclitics) or phonologically part of a preceding
word (if enclitics). So, originally d= was a proclitic and =zh was an en-
clitic. One might ask whether in the denominal construction, these elements
are still enclitics or whether the proclitic has become a prex and the enclitic
has become a sufx. Because my denition of a clitic is predicated upon it
14 Inthis form, the sequence n-sh-s . . . would become ns . . . by regular morphophonemic
rules.
15
The speaker who rejected the forms earlier in this paragraph was a very pragmatics-
conscious speaker; it is not impossible that other speakers would have accepted them.
16
The enclitic =zh is often =z in Dilz ; also, an alternate Dilz pronunciation of this
form is distsinz .
denominal verbs in apachean languages 433
tain two elements that are historically clitics. These are the proclitic d=,
translatable as only (cognate with the Navajo particle t and the Chir-
icahua proclitic d=), and the enclitic =zh (cognate with a nonproductive
Navajo element -zh ), also translatable as only. These do not only occur in
the denominal d=. . .=zh construction discussed in 4, they also occur to-
gether to focus on nouns, pronouns, or adverbs, as shown in (26)(30). Such
focusing usages of d= and =zh combinations do not form denominal
verbs.19 It is clear, however, that these elements are cognate with the pho-
nologically identical elements in the denominal d=. . .=zh construction.
(26) dMaryzh
only=(proper name)=(only)
only Mary
(27) dshiizh
only=me=(only)
only me, I am the only one
(28) dnzh
only=that.one.(human)=(only)
s/he only, s/he is the only one
(29) dNdaakehgozh
only=white.person=in.the.way.of=only
only in English
(30) dkazh
only=soon=(only)
almost, about to (in time)
Note that (27) and (28) cannot display any verbal morphology, since what
is framed by the focusing d=. . .=zh construction are pronouns, and not
nouns. Nevertheless, from the gloss, we can see that these constructions can
be interpreted as nonverbal predicates. This situation is similar to the third-
person subject constructions in table 6, which also do not display any non-
zero verbal morphology. If we are not sure these third-person constructions
are inected verbs, we can interpret them instead as nonverbal predicates,
since they are denitely predicative. So it appears that a nonverbal predica-
tive d=. . .=zh construction might have arisen from a nonverbal and non-
predicative focusing construction.
19
Examples also exist where just the proclitic d= or the enclitic =zh occurs. These also
translate as only and these constructions do not appear to vary much in meaning from the con-
structions with both clitics, except that they are perhaps less emphatic or more lexicalized.
436 international journal of american linguistics
REFERENCES
de Reuse, Willem J. 1995. Non-verbal predicates in Western Apache. Paper presented at the
Athabaskan Morphosyntax Workshop (funded by the National Science Foundation), Univer-
sity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, July 5, 1995.
. 2002. Tonto Apache and its position within Apachean. Proceedings of the 2002
Athabaskan Languages Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska, June 1618, 2002, ed. Gary Holton,
pp. 7890. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska.
. 2003. Evidentiality in Western Apache (Athabaskan). Studies in Evidentiality, ed.
Alexandra Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, pp. 79100. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
de Reuse, Willem J., and Phillip Goode. 2006. A Practical Grammar of the San Carlos
Apache Language. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics 51. Munich: Lincom
Europa.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1998. The Navajo Verb: A Grammar for Students and Scholars. Albuquer-
que: University of New Mexico Press.
Hoijer, Harry. ca. 1930. Chiricahua Apache stems. Unpaginated ms. (117-page typescript).
. 1938. Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Potter, Brian C. 1997. Wh/indenites and the structure of the clause in Western Apache.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Reichard, Gladys A. 1951. Navaho Grammar. Publications of the American Ethnological
Society 21. New York: J. J. Augustin.
Rice, Keren. 1989. A Grammar of Slave. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sapir, Edward. 1923. A type of Athabaskan relative. IJAL 2:136 42.
Young, Robert W., and William Morgan, Sr. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and
Colloquial Dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
. 1992. Analytical Lexicon of Navajo. With the assistance of Sally Midgette. Albuquer-
que: University of New Mexico Press.