5 Survey of the grammars of questions in Northeast Asia
5.3.3 Interrogatives in Chukotko-Kamchatkan
Several Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan (PCK) interrogatives have been reconstructed by Fortescue (2005). Table 5.10 lists them with cognates from all five languages, but not all
124
5.3 Chukotko-Kamchatkan variants and only singular forms are shown. Each language has some additional forms, e.g.laʔlsxeʔn‘how much/many’,manke‘whence, how’,manxʔal ‘whither’,əŋqa‘what’, andəŋqan-kit‘what-caus > why’ in Itelmen (Georg & Volodin 1999: 136, passim), maŋ-ki, maja‘where’, maŋ-kət(iŋ) ‘whence’, maŋ-kepəŋ ‘whence, along where’,maŋ-injas
‘how many, how long’, andtaʕər‘how much’ in Alutor (Nagayama 2011: 293f.), andˀemi
‘where’,iˀam‘why’, mik-ə-ne‘whither’,tˀer ‘how much/many’ etc. in Chukchi (Dunn 1999: 66, passim). The most important resonance of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages is m~.
Table 5.10: Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan (PCK) interrogatives and their cog-nates in individual languages according to Fortescue (2005: 56, 173, 175ff., 287) and Dunn (1999; 2000)
Meaning PCK Chukchi Kerek Koryak Alutor Itelmen
what kind *mæŋin meŋin maŋin meŋin maŋin min
who (abs.sg)
*mikæ mik(ə)- maki meki,
maki (Kamen)
miɣɣa k’e
where *miŋ(kə) miŋkə miŋkiil (all)
miŋkə miŋkə maʔ, mank
how *miŋkəði miŋkəri miŋkii miŋkəje ?maŋkət ?mank
what *ðæq- req-/ceq- jaq- jeq- taq-,
teq-(Palana) saq
when *titæ tite sita tite tita it’e
Fortescue (2005: 263, 282) reconstructs, furthermore, Proto-Chukotian (PC) stems that lack a cognate in Itelmen, i.e. PC *ʀæmi ‘where’ (Chukchiʔemi, Kerek Xam, and Ko-ryakhemmi, Alutor-) and PC *tæʀər‘how much’ (Chukchitˀer, Kerektˀaj, Koryakteʀi, and Alutortaʀər). Itelmen likewise exhibits interrogatives without clear equivalents in Chukotian such as one meaning ‘what’ (Easternnkc, Southernnakxej, and Westernăŋqa, Fortescue 2005: 399). Fortescue (2011: 1372) compares PCK *ðæq-‘what’ with Nivkhth a-/řa-(§5.2.3) and tentatively reconstructs PCKA *tʌ(q)-. However, this reconstruction is still too speculative, given that the genetic connection between the two families has not been proven beyond doubt. This stem in Chukotko-Kamchatkan cannot only have nom-inal but also verbal properties.
(45) Alutor ɣəttə 2sg.abs.sg
taq-ətkən?
what-ipfv[2sg.S]
‘What are you doing?’ (Nagayama 2011: 294)
125
5 Survey of the grammars of questions in Northeast Asia (46) Koryak (Kamenskoye)
nɪ-ya’q-iɣi?
hab-what-2sg
‘What are you doing?’ (Bogoras 1922: 730) (47) Koryak
n-re’q-iɣɪt?
hab-what-2sg
‘What are you doing?’ (Bogoras 1922: 730) (48) Chukchi
nə-req-iɣət?
hab-what-2sg
‘What are you doing?’ (Dunn 1999: 368)
Chukchi earlier made a characteristic difference betweenreq-as used by men and ceq-as used by women (Kämpfe & Volodin 1995: 8). But this is just the effect of a more general pattern in which women pronouncedrascthat seems to have been lost by now (Dunn 2000). Another language in Northeast Asia that makes some distinctions between the grammar of questions of women and men is Japanese (§5.6.2). Similar to Ket (§5.13.3), interrogatives can be incorporated into the verb. When incorporated the meaning of req-/raq-~rˀe-/rˀa-changes from ‘what’ to ‘why’.
(49) Chukchi a. raq-etə
what-dat
nə-wetgawe-gˀət?
prs-speak-2sg.S
‘Why do you speak?’
b. nə-raq-ə=wetgawe-gˀət?
prs-what-e=speak-2sg.S
‘Why do you speak?’
c. rˀa-etə what-dat
ŋəta-gˀət?
come-2sg.S
‘Why did you come?’
d. rˀa=ŋəta-gˀət?
what=come-2sg.S
‘Why did you come?’ (Spencer 1995: 457, from Skorik)
As examples (49a) and (49c) illustrate, the meaning ‘why’ is otherwise expressed with the dative form of the interrogative. See §5.8.3 and §5.10.3 for a somewhat similar devel-opment in Khorchin and Manchu.
Interrogatives in Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages have elaborated paradigms (see Nagayama 2011: 293f. on Alutor; Bogoras 1922: 726ff. on Koryak; Georg & Volodin 1999:
126
5.3 Chukotko-Kamchatkan 134-136 on Itelmen). In Chukchi the paradigms correspond to the second [+hum] and first declension [+/-hum] of nouns, respectively (Table 5.11). In order to make clear the distinction found in the second declension into collective suffixes on the one hand and number/case suffixes on the other, the sign Ø indicates which of the markers is absent.
The layering of suffixes follows the order v-coll-num/case. The first declension has no collective suffixes. Locative interrogatives and demonstratives have parallel paradigms (Dunn 1999: 286f.), e.g.ŋut-ku‘dem.prox-loc’,ŋen-ku‘dem.dist-loc’, andmiŋ-ke ‘where-loc’. The ablative (meŋ-qo(rə)) and allative (miŋ-kəri) have the same forms throughout.
Table 5.11: Chukchi interrogative paradigms according to Kämpfe & Volodin (1995: 87)
Glossing who (2nd decl.) what (1st decl.)
stem mik-
req-abs.sg meŋi-Ø-n r”etnyt-Ø
abs.pl miky-Ø-nti r”etnyt-et
loc-erg (-coll) miky-ne-Ø req-e (inst-erg)
loc-erg (+coll) miky-ryk-Ø req-yk (loc)
abl (-coll) mek-Ø-gypy, (meky-na-jpy) r”a-/raq-gypy
abl (+coll) meky-r-gypy
-all (-coll) meky-na-Ø (/-gty) raq-ety
all (+coll) meky-ryk-y
-orient (-coll) miky-Ø-gjit reqy-gjit
orient (+coll) miky-ry-gjit
-desig (+/-coll) miky-Ø-ny req-y
In Alutor, participle forms of the interrogative verb may take case markers as well.
(50) Alutor ənŋin well
taq-ə-lʔ-u
what-e-ptcp-abs.pl qa emph
paninalʔ-u?
ancestor-abs.pl
‘Well, what did (our) ancestors do?’ (Nagayama 2016: 133)
Predicatively used interrogatives can also take person and number markers.
(51) Alutor mik-ine-ɣət who-poss-2sg.pred
ɣəttə 2sg.abs
unjunju-jɣət?
child-2sg.pred
’Whose child are you?’ (Nagayama 2016: 121)
Unlike Chukchi or Itelmen, but similar to Aleut (§5.4.3), Alutor and Koryak not only have plural but also dual forms.
127
5 Survey of the grammars of questions in Northeast Asia
In sum, Chukotko-Kamchatkan interrogatives deviate strongly from other NEA lan-guages. No K-interrogatives are present and only Itelmenk’ehas been tentatively classi-fied as a KIN-interrogative, although it likely derives from what has been reconstructed as PCK *mikæ. Complex paradigms with sandhi effects, ergative marking, dual num-ber (e.g., Koryakma’ki‘abs.sg’,ma’kinti‘abs.du’,maku’wɣi‘abs.pl’, Bogoras 1922), and incorporation set Chukotko-Kamchatkan apart from most other languages in NEA. How-ever, ambivalent interrogative stems meaning ‘(to do) what’ are shared with Tungusic, Eskaleut, and Samoyedic. Especially Itelmen exhibits an opaque interrogative system that resists any synchronic attempt for analysis. An exhaustive diachronic analysis can only be accomplished by experts on the language.