Page:IJAL vol 1.djvu/94

 86

��INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

��VOL. I

��in America, as indicated in the following table:

�� �Obj. tr.

�Subj. inlr. Inactive. Active.

�Subj. ir.

�Example.

�I.

�A

�A

�B

�Chinook

�3.

�A

�A B

�B

�Dakota

�3-

�A

�B

�C

�Takelma

�4-

�A

�B

�B

�Paiute

�S-

�A (sometimes

�A

�A

�Yana

� �subj. of

� � � � �passive)

� � � ��Identity of letter symbolizes identity of pronominal form. Type 4 is probably either simplified from type 3 or else represents an earlier stage of it; both developments may well have taken place. Type 5 is no doubt a specialized simplification of type 4. What the historical relations between types I and 2 and between each of these and types 3-5 are, it is impossible to tell at present, though there is at least some evidence to show that type 4 tends to develop from type 2. The interpretation of the nature of the verb in each of these types is not always easy. The passive interpretation of the transitive may apply in certain cases of types I and 5.

E. SAPIR

UHLENBECK, C. C., Het Identificeerend Karakter der Possessieve Flexie in Talen van Noord-Amerika ("The Identifying Character of the Possessive Inflection in Languages of North America"). Reprinted from "Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, 5" Reeks, Deel II," 345-371. Amsterdam, 1916.

Uhlenbeck calls renewed attention in this paper to the well-known fact that in many American languages the possessive pronouns, generally affixed to the noun, occur in two more or less morphologically distinct series, one for nouns possession of which is of an inseparable nature, the other for nouns

��denoting separable possession. The former category includes chiefly terms of relationship and nouns denoting parts of the body. A careful survey of the evidence presented by Uhlenbeck shows, that, though body-part nouns and terms of relationship are not infrequently classed together in contrast to separable nouns, there are sometimes special morphological features that distinguish the two types of inseparable nouns; further, that in certain languages only the terms of rela- tionship constitute a special class as regards possessive affixes. Languages distinguishing separable and inseparable possession as such are Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Chimariko, Muskhogean, and Siouan. As a rule, how- ever, the two pronominal series are not funda- mentally distinct, but are morphologically related; in Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Siouan, the separability of the noun is indicated by an affixed element, while only in Chimariko are the possessive elements of the two series radically distinct. Moreover, in both Haida and Siouan the terms of relationship are not treated in quite the same manner as the body- part nouns. In Algonkin, of which he treats Blackfoot in particularly great detail, Uhlen- beck finds that, while there is no rigid classification of possessed nouns into sepa- rable and inseparable, a suffixed -m- is used with great frequency to indicate the separa- bility of the noun.

The relative independence of terms of relationship as a class, suggested by Haida and Siouan, is still further emphasized by Takelma, in which such nouns have a peculiar set of possessive affixes as distinct from all other nouns, including such as refer to parts of the body; further by Yuki and Pomo, in which only terms of relationship have posses- sive pronominal affixes. In Mutsun (Costa- noan), moreover, where there is, properly speaking, no possessive inflection, terms of relationship have different endings, according to the person of the possessor. Such examples strongly suggest that alongside of, or inter-

�� �