On (non-)finiteness in Inuktitut*
Alana Johns & Carolyn Smallwood
University of Toronto
In this paper we examine the appropriateness of the term ‘nonfinite’ for a construction in Inuktitut containing the mood
morpheme -llu- (which has been variously labeled participial,
appositional, etc.). We find that the label non-finite is
conventionally used when a minimal (but not fixed) set of
properties is found. We conclude that -llu- does not meet this
minimal requirement and is therefore not non-finite.
The –llu- construction in Inuktitut has been the subject of a great deal of interest in
recent generative literature. An example of this –llu- construction is provided in (1).1
1.2
nigi-llu-nga te-tu-nia-kKunga
eat-llu-1s
tea-consume-near.fut-1s.intr.indic
‘While I’m eating, I’ll drink tea.’
(L)
A variety of terms have been used to label this mood morpheme. Some of
these are listed below. Among the labels are semantic descriptions, such as
contemporative and concomitant, and grammatical labels such as gerundial and
infinitive.
2.
*
-llu verbs in Inuit languages
Participial
Conjunctive
Gerundial
Concomitant
Contemporative
Appositional
Infinitive
“Non-finite”
Harper (1974), Manga (1996)
Lowe (1985)
Bok-Bennema (1991)
Mennecier (1995)
Smith (1977), Campana (1992)
Dorais (1988)
Bittner (1994), Manning (1996)
Murasugi (1992), Bobaljik (1993)
This paper is a small part of a larger project which accounts for the distribution and
form of –llu- clauses in Inuktitut. For comments and suggestions on this work, we wish
to thank Jonathan Bobaljik, Elizabeth Cowper, members of the syntax project at the
University of Toronto, and the audience at the 1998 meeting of the Canadian Linguistic
Association. We would particularly like to thank the class in Nain 1998, especially
Benigna Semigak, and SSHRC grant 410-94-570.
1
Examples from Labrador Inuttut are marked with L.
2
Abbreviations used in this paper: intr. = intransitive; trans = transitive; indic =
indicative mood; interrog = interrogative mood; part = participial (mood); 1s = first
person singular, etc.; / = person and number of agent followed by person and number of
patient; p = plural; d= dual; 3sR = anaphoric third person agreement; fut = future; rec =
recent; rem = remote; real = realis; abs= absolutive; erg = ergative; poss = possessive; ms
= masculine; pred = predicative; inf = infinitive; imperf = imperfective
160
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
We will follow Lowe in adopting the term conjunctive, since we observe that
this mood is homophonous and likely cognate with the regular conjunction in the
language.3
3.
uvanga-lu
‘and me’, ‘me too’
(L)
The principal goal of this paper is to sort out some of the issues surrounding
the labels used for this mood. In particular, the label infinitive for the -llu- mood
might lead readers to presuppose certain properties of these verb forms which may
not always hold.
The second goal of this paper is to characterize the observed morphological and
syntactic properties of verbs marked with the -llu- . In doing so, we will situate this
set of properties within a discussion of non-finiteness cross-linguistically. We will
show that non-finiteness is not uniform across languages, but is conventionally
associated with a subset of morphological and distributional properties.
The organization of this paper is as follows. First we review the evidence
which leads some linguists to label these constructions as non-finite. Following
that, we present data which contradicts the properties generally assumed to be
associated with this label. In the third section, we discuss the use of the label “nonfinite” cross-linguistically, showing that there is no unique set of properties
associated with the use of “non-finite”. We consider this paper to be a starting point
for research into the properties associated with the conjunctive in Inuktitut,
unaffected by terminological prejudice.
1. Infinitive and non-finite
Most of the discussion on the conjunctive in the recent generative literature has
either argued or assumed that these clauses are non-finite (Bittner 1994; Bobaljik
1992 and 1993; Murasugi 1992; with the noted exception of Wharram 1996). The
central concern of these researchers was to use the assumed non-finite properties of
these clauses as a tool to further explore the structure of the language.
We first review the evidence towards a non-finite analysis. Non-finite is
generally associated with impoverished tense and agreement morphology, subject
coreference, as well as the distributional property of appearing only in non-matrix
clauses. For example, Trask (1997) defines non-finite as “a label applied to any verbform which does not carry full marking for tense and agreement and which therefore
cannot possibly be the only verb form in a sentence.” The remainder of this section
examines properties of the conjunctive which might lead one to conclude that it is
non-finite. In the section following, we show that the empirical basis of these
properties is not as unambiguous as one might hope. Consequently, the nonfiniteness of the construction is brought into question.
3
Assuming that the two morphemes share properties in common adheres to the principle
advocated by Johns (1992), and Cowper (1995), and others — the Same Form/Same
Meaning priniciple whereby similar forms share similar properties. Nevertheless, the
two forms are probably not identical since the mood form is arguably a grammaticalized
form of the more lexical conjunctive.
ALANA J OHNS & C AR OLYN S M ALLWOOD
161
1.1 Tense Morphology
As mentioned above, lack of tense morphology is typically associated with nonfinite verbs. We find that the conjunctive -llu- forms do indeed appear to lack tense
morphology. Consider the examples in (4).
4. a. ili-lau-kKise
learn-d.past-intr.interrog.2p
‘Did you (pl) learn?’
b. pisu-__-tlu-tik kata-kKau-jâtik
walk-__llu-2d
drop-r.past-trans.part.2d/3s
‘When you two were walking, you dropped it.’
(L)
(L)
The example in (4a) shows that the regular position of the temporal morpheme
in a verb occurs to the left of the mood morpheme (in this case the interrogative
mood). In contrast, in (4b), we see that while the main clause verb has a past tense
morpheme preceding the participial mood, there is no tense morpheme to the left of
the -llu- mood.
In comparison to other mood-marked clauses, the -llu- forms seem to have a
missing slot for tense.
1.2 Lack of ergative agreement on the -llu- verb
A second property associated with non-finiteness is lack of agreement morphology.
The Inuit language is an ergative language, so that ergative case and agreement mark
only agents of transitive verbs; while absolutive case and agreement mark both
intransitive subjects and patients of transitive verbs. As a consequence, we would
expect that minimally either the ergative or the absolutive agreement would be
lacking if the conjunctive is a non-finite verb. Lack of ergative agreement has lead
linguists to conclude that the –llu- forms are non-finite. In (5a), while the main
clause verb agrees with both the ergative and absolutive arguments (both ergative 1s
and absolutive 3s), the -llu- clause agrees only with the absolutive argument (3s) and
not with the first person singular agent or experiencer.
5. a. taku-tlu-gu tusâ-laut-taga
see-llu-3s
hear-d.past-intr.part.1s/3s
‘While I saw it, I heard it.’
b. Kuunuk [ilaga-lu-git]
aallar-puq
K.-abs
accompany-llu-3p leave-intr.indic.3s
‘Kuunuk left accompanying them.’
c. taku-gu-pku apir-niaq-tara
see-if-1s/3s ask-n.fut.trans.part.1s/3s
‘If I see him, I will ask him.’
(L)
(WG)
(Fortescue 1984)
(K)
(Lowe 1985)
A similar example can be seen in (5b) from West Greenlandic. Here the main
verb is intransitive, with an absolutive subject (Kuunuk). The -llu- verb, while
transitive in meaning, is only marked with patient agreement, as can be seen by the
third plural marking. In other words, the –llu- verb is lacking the 3s marking
expected for a transitive verb. The final example in (5c) shows that not all dependent
162
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
clauses lack agreement with ergative subjects. The “if” mood clause agrees with both
the first singular ergative and the third singular absolutive arguments. Thus the
missing ergative agreement is a specific property of -llu- verbs in particular and not
just of dependent clauses in general.
1.3 Binding of the -llu- argument
A third property of conjunctive constructions is that it appears that one of the
arguments of the –llu- verb must be bound by an argument of the main verb. Thus
the subject of the verb meaning ‘trailing’ shown in (6) must be referentially identical
to an argument of the matrix clause 'the big man'.
6.
anguti-ruju-ssuaq …
aavir-suaq
uniar-lu-gu tiki-lir-suq
(WG)
man-very-big
…
walrus-big trail-llu-3s come-begin-part.3s
'...the big man ...who began to come trailing the big walrus....'
(modified slightly from Bergsland 1955:58)
To summarize, based on missing tense, reduced agreement and obligatory
argument coreference, a number of linguists have labeled these clauses as non-finite
or infinitive (see (2) above). In the next section, however, we address the empirical
problems faced by the non-finiteness analysis.
2. Finite
In this section we present empirical evidence which casts doubt on the conclusion
that the conjunctive is a non-finite form.
2.1 Ergative and absolutive case
The first piece of evidence which suggests that conjunctive verbs are not non-finite
is that both ergative and absolutive arguments can cooccur in these constructions. In
4
other words, structural case is assigned in these clauses and overt subjects are found.
This fact has been noted by Wharram (1996), Bok Bennema (1991:206-207) and
Manning (1996:128).
Notice in (7a), both ujagak ‘rock’ and Alana-up are overt lexical arguments of
the conjunctive verb meaning ‘carry’. Alana-up cannot be an argument of the main
clause because it has ergative case and the main verb is intransitive; an intransitive
verb can only have a subject with absolutive case. At the same time, ujagak ‘rock’
is not the argument of the matrix verb ‘go out,’ since semantically, the rock is not
the one going out.
7. a. Alana-up ujagak
atja-tlu-gu
ani-vuk
A.-erg
rock-abs
carry-llu-3s. go.out-intr.indic.3s
‘While Alana was carrying the rock, she went out.’
4
Note that we leave aside the question of which argument is the subject.
(L)
ALANA J OHNS & C AR OLYN S M ALLWOOD
163
b. arna-p
atisassat irrur-lu-git irinarsur-puq
(WG)
woman-erg clothes
wash-llu-3p sing-intr.indic.3s
‘While woman washed the clothes, she sang.’
(Bittner 1994, p. 18)
A similar example from West Greenlandic is shown in (7b), where both arguments
of ‘wash’ are lexically overt and receive case.
Thus, both the ergative and the absolutive arguments of the -llu- verb can be
found in the conjunctive construction. Therefore there must be a means by which
both types of case are assigned. If the verb were really non-finite, we would expect
that one argument would not be able to receive case under the assumption that –T is
associated with lack of case (see section 3.2).
While Bittner (1994) gives examples with ergative subjects of -llu- clauses, she
nevertheless analyzes them as infinitival clauses. This is because of the lack of
ergative agreement as mentioned in section 1.2.5 In the next section we re-address
this property of conjunctive clauses.
2.2 Ergative agreement
Ergative agreement is also possible in conjunctive constructions in some dialects,
although in a restricted form. This fact has been noted by Campana (1992), and
Wharram (1996), who cite Fortescue (1984) as mentioning that in West Greenlandic,
there are -llu- forms which agree with first or second person agent and third person
object. Dialects differ in the person combinations which are allowed, and 1/2 agent
with 3 patient is not possible in Labrador Inuttut. Inuttut does, however, allow third
person reflexive agent to cooccur with a full range of persons as patients6, as you
can see from an example shown in (8).
8.
atja-tlu-ni-nga
kata-vânga
carry-llu-3sR-1s drop-trans.indic.3s/1s
‘While he was carrying me, he dropped me.’
(L)
Here the conjunctive verb form meaning ‘carry’ is marked with both third person
reflexive ergative agreement, as well as first person absolutive agreement. Thus, the
non-finiteness of this construction is once again brought into question.
2.3 Independent status
The next piece of evidence against the non-finite status of the conjunctive verb form
is that fact that it can occur in sentences where it is the only verb mood; i.e. it
appears to be a main clause verb.
5
Bittner (1994) also examines control structures in Greenlandic. We ignore these
constructions in this paper.
6
We will not explore further the dialect divisions or why the ergative marking is
sometimes optional when it occurs. We assume that the fact only third reflexive ergative
marking is found in Labrador Inutitut is significant. An explanation is beyond the scope
of this paper.
164
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
In (9) we see an excerpt from a Labrador Inuttut story. It is clear within the
context of the story that the three conjunctive verbs form part of an independent
utterance from that of the proceeding sentence, although they continue the narrative
of the story. Further, (9) shows that multiple -llu- clauses can appear in succession.
9.
Taimai-tlu-nga akKa-ttau-nia-tlu-nga
hotsi-mit
(L)
thus-llu-1s
lower-passive-then-llu-1s horse-from
akKa-ttau-guma-tlu-nga.
lower-passive-want-llu-1s
‘So then I was brought down from the horse, when I wanted to be brought
down’ [said after direct discourse of narrator crying out in English for help in
getting down from a horse]
M. Brown, Nain (translated by S. Tuglavina)
Lowe (1985,181) describes the function of -llu- verbs in the Kangiryuarmiut
dialect. Lowe states that -llu- forms allow actions to be linked within a narrative,
i.e., is used as a stylistic effect. The narrative function of -llu- function of -llu- verbs
show that -llu- verbs can be main verbs within a discourse domain.
[A] use of the conjunctive form is often found in narrative to
suggest that several actions have occurred rapidly within a short
span of time. This stylistic means is used to bring close to one
another the different actions, thus leaving the impression...that the
character has been busy doing several things at the same time.
Thus, we conclude that conjunctive verb forms can be found as main clause verbs.
2.4 "Tense" distinctions - Realis/Irrealis
Recall from section 1.1 that the conjunctive forms have a missing slot for tense.
Nevertheless, conjunctive verb forms make a morphological distinction based on the
tense of another verb. Consider (10a), where the main verb of the sentence is marked
7
for past tense. We see that the conjunctive has a special form of –˚u-.
10. a. Sally
ippaksaq aulla-laur-tuq
pisuk-˚u-ni
(NB)
S.-abs
yesterday depart-d.past-int.part.3s walk-llu-3sR
‘Sally left on foot yesterday.’
b. qaukpat
Peter aullar-niar-tuq
pisug-lu-ni
(NB)
tomorrow
P.-abs depart-n.fut-intr.part.3s
walk-llu-3sR
‘Tomorrow, Peter will leave on foot.’
c. nigi-tlu-ni pisu-ttuk
(L)
eat-llu-3sR walk-intr.part.3s
‘While he is eating, he is walking.’
d. nigi-llu-nga te-tu-nia-kKunga
(L)
eat-llu-1s
tea-consume-n.fut-1s.intr.indic.
‘While I’m eating, I’ll drink tea.’
(repeated from (1))
7
Note that throughout this paper we have not glossed this distinction in the examples.
ALANA J OHNS & C AR OLYN S M ALLWOOD
165
In contrast, in (10b), we see that a conjunctive form in a sentence where the
main verb is marked for future tense, does not contain the special form -˚u-; instead
it contains the form -lu-. Similar examples are shown from Labrador Inuttut in
(10c) and (10d). In (10c) the realis form –tlu- surfaces because the main verb is
present (i.e., non-future), while in (10d), we see the non-realis form –llu- surfaces
because the main verb is again future.
We consider the realis form to be a marked form of –llu- (or –llu- with an extra
feature, i.e. more complex). The irrealis form, which is found with the future, is the
unmarked form. The irrealis form is also found after the negative. This is predicted
to be the case, since negatives are often associated with irrealis.
In summary, there is some temporal information borne by the –llu- morpheme.
This is seen in Canadian dialects from Labrador through the Western Arctic.
Although the information is restricted to a realis/irrealis contrast, and not a full tense
spectrum, it is clearly time related and must conform to the tense of the main clause.
In terms of non-finiteness, the tense marking of the conjunctive is ambiguous.
However, given that it cannot initiate independent tense nor express the full range of
tenses, we will conclude that it is non-tensed. Thus, although we find a realis/irrealis
distinction, true tense morphology is absent.
2.5 Summary
In sum, we have seen that the conjunctive verb has only one of the properties
associated with non-finiteness, that is, it lacks tense morphology. Conversely, other
properties of the conjunctive verb, including ergative agreement, overt subjects and
appearance as a main clause verb, are not associated with non-finiteness. Thus we
have cast doubt on the non-finite status of these clauses. In the next section, we
examine more generally the issue of non-finiteness and what criteria linguists use to
classify verbs as non-finite.
3. What is Non-finiteness?
Trask’s definition of non-finite verbs identifies them as possessing two
morphological properties and one distributional property. Specifically, non-finite
verbs do not carry morphological tense or agreement, and cannot occur as the only
verb in a main clause. In this section we will examine these three properties in nonfinite constructions cross-linguistically. We will see that not all of the properties
hold of constructions labeled as non-finite. Instead, we find that a number of
different combinations of these properties is attested, and we find that in fact the
existence of any two of these properties is enough to lead linguists to label a verb as
non-finite. Finally, we return to Inuktitut and show how such a label has
implications for syntactic analyses.
166
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
3.1 Characterizing non-finiteness cross-linguistically
There are 3 properties which characterize non-finiteness, main clausehood (MC),
overt tense or aspect8 morphology (T) and agreement morphology (A). Each of the
properties can be assigned one of two values (+ or -) so that there are 8 possible
combinations of properties. These possibilities are given in the chart below.
Table 1.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
+MC
+MC
+MC
+MC
–MC
–MC
–MC
–MC
+T
+T
–T
–T
+T
+T
–T
–T
+A
–A
+A
–A
+A
–A
+A
–A
Of these eight possibilities, four combinations are associated with the use of
the term non-finite in the literature. These possibilities are given below in Table 2.
Table 2.
D.
+MC
–T
–A
F.
–MC
+T
–A
G.
–MC
–T
+A
H.
–MC
–T
–A
Russian Infinitivals; Middle Welsh
infinitivals
Tamil participles; Lezgian
participles
European Portuguese infinitivals;
Dravidian participles; Welsh
infinitivals; Turkic infinitivals
English infinitivals; Chinese “nonfinite"
Among these four possibilities, only H complies with all the criteria for
defining non-finiteness as given by Trask. Other non-finite forms, such as those in
D, F and G, deviate from the definition in some way, yet are argued to be non-finite
nonetheless. For example, Russian infinitivals and Middle Welsh infinitivals have
been argued to be non-finite (as the label “infinitival” would suggest), despite the
fact that they may appear as the only verb in a main clause, as shown in (11). In
(11a), the infinitive form dyuot appears as the only verb form in the Middle Welsh
sentence. Likewise, in (11b), the infinitive form vstavat may surface as the only
verb in its sentence. 9
8
We consider aspect a defining characteristical only when a language lacks systematic
tense morphology, such as in Chinese.
9
This example is not as clear as we would like it to be, since the verb vstavat does not
take a dative subject, and the verb nado ‘need’ must appear in the past tense in a past tense
example. Since nado may also appear in the clause given in the text, we assume that this
is actually a case of an elided main verb.
ALANA J OHNS & C AR OLYN S M ALLWOOD
167
11. a. a’e
dyuot
ynteu yr
llys
[Middle Welsh]
and-3ms come.inf he
to-the court
‘And he came to the court.’
(Tallerman 1998b, citing Evans 1989)
b. mne zavtra
rano vstavat
(Russian)
to-me tomorrow early get.up.inf
‘I’ve got to get up early tomorrow.’
Additionally, Lezgian participles have been noted to possess a tense marker,
despite their non-finite status. In (12) we see that the participial marker appears on
the verb ja, accompanied by a tense marker, da, indicating future.
12.
a
that
xwanaxwadiz qe
za koncertd-a
friend
today I concert-in
ja-da-j
play-fut-part
daldam xutax-iz
k’an-zawa
drum
take.away-inf want-imperf
‘That friend wants to take away the drum that I will play today at the
concert.’
(Lezgian; Haspelmath 1993: 155)
Finally, it has been noted that European Portuguese and Modern Welsh both
allow non-finite forms which are inflected with agreement. In (13a), the infinitive
form agrees with the subject eles. In (13b), the agreement surfaces as a pre-clitic to
the infinitive verb fod.
13. a. será difícil
[eles aprovar-em
a
proposta]
be.fut difficult they approve.inf.3p the
proposal
‘It will be difficult for them to approve the proposal.’
(European Portuguese, Raposo 1987)
b. dywedais i [ei fod o’n
anhapus]
said.1s I 3ms be he-pred unhappy
‘I said that he was unhappy.’
(Welsh; Tallerman 1998a: 96)
Thus, it seems clear that of the four combinations of properties linguists use to
label non-finite, there is no unique set of properties which is associated with that
use. Instead, surprisingly, any two of the three properties seems sufficient for this
label. As a result, we definite non-finite heuristically, as in (14).
14. The Non-finite Heuristic
for the set A of properties:
a verb is non-finite Y iff:
A = {-T, -A, -MC}
Y ⊆ A & |Y| ≥ 2
The heuristic in (14) stipulates that in order for a verb to be labeled as nonfinite, it must contain at least two of the properties typically associated with nonfiniteness. Thus, English infinitivals can be characterized as non-finite since they are
verb forms lacking tense and agreement morphology and they cannot occur as main
clause verbs. Additionally, the cross-linguistic examples given above are also labeled
168
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
as non-finite according to the heuristic, as they each contain a verb form which
possesses two of the properties of non-finiteness.
What immediately follows from the heuristic proposed above is that the three
properties defining non-finiteness do not always co-occur. As a consequence, no
implicature holds between the three properties. It is not the case that the third
property of non-finiteness follows given any two of the properties for any verb form
in any language, as we have seen in the cross-linguistic data in (11) – (13). Thus,
we must be careful in not assuming that all three properties hold of a verb which
displays any two of them.10
To summarize this section, we have shown that linguists are consistent in their
use of the term non-finite in that they seem to base their use of the term on two or
more of the properties as defined by Trask. However, we have also found that there
is no unique or uniform set of properties which holds of all non-finite forms. What
this means is that a non-finite verb form possessing only two of the properties does
not necessary possess the third. With this in mind, we turn to the next section.
3.2 Implications of non-finiteness
for a syntactic analysis of ergativity
By applying the heuristic given above, there is no reason to classify conjunctive
clauses in Eskimo as non-finite. The conjunctive verb is characterized as –T,
however, we have seen that it may appear as the only verb in a main clause and can
be inflected with ergative agreement. Thus, the conjunctive forms in Inuktitut do not
possess a licit subset of the properties associated with non-finiteness.11 Based on this
comparison with non-finite forms in other languages, we thus conclude that the
conjunctive verb forms should not be labeled as non-finite as has been done in some
of the literature on these verb forms.
The use of the label non-finite for the conjunctive by some linguists is not
inconsequential to syntactic analyses. For example, Bobaljik (1993), uses the set of
facts presented in Section 1 to argue that the ergative argument is the subject of the
clause. His reasoning is that the properties –T are associated with a missing
coindexed argument, and lack of agreement. Thus if the -llu- mood marker is
infinitive, then the fact it entails reduced agreement, no tense, and obligatory
argument coreference is explained by its –T properties. As the missing agreement is
the ergative agreement, he concludes that it is the ergative NP which in SPEC, T. In
other words, he argues that that the ergative NP in a -llu- clause is PRO.
10
It is also worth noting that a single property does not result in constructions being
labelled as non-finite. This is presumably due to the fact that there are 2 mitigating
properties working against the label. Alternatively, it may be necessary to look
systematically at the language to discover if the properties exist contrastively . For
example, a language which lacks agreement altogther cannot be characterized based on
these properties.
11
Recall also that the Inuktitut conjunctive can take an overt subject. Although lack of
overt subject is not a canonical property associated with non-finiteness, the fact that an
ergative subject can appear in Inuktitut conjunctive clauses is significant. If ergative
subjects receive structural case, then they are unexpected in a non-finite analysis of
conjunctive clauses, since there should be no structural case to assign. See the discussion
of Bobaljik (1993) which follows.
ALANA J OHNS & C AR OLYN S M ALLWOOD
169
Accordingly, for Bobaljik, ergative is equivalent to nominative case. That the
ergative is the subject of the clause contrasts with the position taken a number of
other researchers (Johns 1992, Campana 1992; Murasugi 1992; Bittner and Hale
1996, etc.) who have argued that the absolutive NP is the subject of the highest
functional projection, and that absolutive case is equivalent to nominative case.
Thus, the use of the term non-finite, and the assumption of the properties which
follow from such a label, leads directly to the analysis of ergativity proposed in
Bobaljik (1993).
4. Conclusions
In this preliminary discussion of the conjunctive verb form we have sought to place
the Inuit conjunctive within a larger picture of what the label non-finite entails
cross-linguistically. Although we have seen that there is a range of properties nonfinite forms may have across languages, the deviations from the defining set fall
within a particular domain. Specifically, we have seen that linguists have tended to
label forms as non-finite providing that the form has two of the three properties
associated with non-finiteness. Using this as a heuristic, we suggested that the
conjunctive was not a non-finite form. Further, we suggested that defining the
conjunctive as non-finite is not without consequence, since it presupposes that
certain properties of clause structure fall out as a result. It is clear from this
discussion that it is the individual properties and not the labels which are important
to our understanding of these verb forms.
References
Bergsland, K. (1955). A grammatical outline of the Eskimo language of West
Greenland, mimeo. Oslo.
Bittner, M. & K. Hale (1996). Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogenous class.
Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531-604.
Bobaljik, J. (1992). Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative.
Proceedings of WCCFL XI., 44-60.
Bobaljik, J. (1993). On ergativity and ergative unergatives. Papers on Case and
Agreement II. MITWPL 19, 45-88.
Bok-Bennema. R. (1991). Case and agreement in Inuit. New York: Foris
Publications.
Campana, M. (1992). A movement theory of ergativity. Doctoral dissertation,
McGill University.
Comrie, B. (1990). The world’s major languages. Oxford University Press.
Evans, D. S. (1989). A grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin: Dublin Institute for
Advanced Studies.
Haplemath, M. (1993). A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Johns, A. & C. Smallwood (1998). Bound finite clauses in Inuktitut. Paper
presented at the 1998 meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association,
University of Ottawa.
170
TOR ONTO WOR KI NG P AP ER S I N LI NGUI S TI C S
Lowe, R. (1985). Basic Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo grammar. Committee for Original
Peoples Entitlement, Inuvik, Northwest Territories,Canada. [Distributed by the
Association Inuksiutiit Katimajiit Incorporated, Université Laval, Quebec.]
Manning, C. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Murasugi, K. (1992). Crossing and nested paths: NP movement in accusative and
ergative languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Raposo, E. (1987). Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: the inflected infinitive in
European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85-109.
Tallerman, M. (1998a). The uniform Case-licensing of subjects in Welsh. The
Linguistic Review 15 (1): 69-133.
Tallerman, M. (1998b). Understanding syntax. London, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Trask, R. L. (1997). A student's dictionary of language and linguistics. New York:
Arnold.
Wharram, D. (1996). In the event of an event: A minimalist account of subjects.
M.A. thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.