Datapoint for feature 39 and language wals_code_nez

Discuss WALS Datapoint for feature 39 and language wals_code_nez.

3 Responses to “Datapoint for feature 39 and language wals_code_nez”

  1. Amy Rose Deal Says:

    Nez Perce has inclusive 1PL kiye, by contrast to neutral 1PL nuun. When the two occur in the same clause, the meaning is inclusive. When nuun occurs alone, it is exclusive. The references are Aoki 1994 232 (kiye) and 495 (kiye). (Nez Perce Dictionary)

  2. Michael Cysouw Says:

    Thank you for the reference. Aoki (1994: 232) is indeed quite definitive about the inclusive analysis of kiye. I checked the source that I originally used (Rude 1985), and there the pronoun kiye is indeed noted to exist (Rude 1985: 126), but there is no indication that it should be analyzed as inclusive.

    Note that Aoki’s analysis makes the pronoun paradigm of Nez Perce extremely unusual, because it also has a single pronoun for 2nd plural and 3rd plural combined. This alone is not uncommon, but the combination with an inclusive/exclusive opposition in the same paradigm is extremely rare. Interestingly, the only other case known to me to show such a rare structure in independent pronouns is Northern Paiute (see Cysouw 2003: 159), which is geographically not too far away from Nez Perce. However, there does not seem to be any pointer towards contact between the two, yet (cf. Mithun 1999: 320)

  3. Amy Rose Deal Says:


    It might be productive to distinguish two sets of free pronominals in Nez Perce. The kiye 1PL.INCL form is one of three forms that don’t show any case distinctions; the other two are ‘ee 2SG and ‘eetx 2PL. These are the most common forms of 2nd person pronominals, in elicitation and in texts. They combine with declinable forms from the other paradigm, which you can find in Rude 1985: 123.

    ‘iim ‘ee hanii-ya
    you you make-PERF
    You made (something)

    It’s in the paradigm of declinable pronouns that the 2nd/3rd plural form is found, versus the undeclinable paradigm for the inclusive form. Should this make a difference typologically?


Leave a Reply