Pronouns The basic Pirahã personal
pronouns are: • "I, we" • or "you" • "they (sg. or pl), this" These can be serially combined: or to mean "we" (
inclusive and exclusive), and to mean "you (plural)", or combined with 'all', as in "we (all) go". There are several other pronouns reported, such as 'she', 'it' (animal), 'it' (aquatic animal), and 'it' (inanimate), but these may actually be nouns, and they cannot be used independently the way the three basic pronouns can. The fact that different linguists come up with different lists of such pronouns suggests that they are not basic to the grammar. In two recent papers, Everett cites Sheldon as agreeing with his (Everett's) analysis of the pronouns. According to Sheldon, this is the list of pronouns: Pronouns are prefixed to the verb, in the order SUBJECT-INDOBJECT-OBJECT where INDOBJECT includes a preposition "to", "for", etc. They may all be omitted, e.g., "he will send you to me". For possession, a pronoun is used in apposition (
zero-marking): Thomason & Everett note the pronouns are formally close to those of the Tupian languages
Nheengatu and
Tenharim, which the Mura had once used as contact languages: Both the Tupian and Pirahã third-person pronouns can be used as demonstratives, as in Pirahã "I am really smart" ( "This one sees well: me"). Given the restricted set of Pirahã phonemes, the Pirahã pronouns and are what one would expect if the Tupian pronouns were borrowed, and differs only in dropping the .
Verbs Pirahã is
agglutinative, using a large number of affixes to communicate grammatical meaning. Even the 'to be' verbs of existence or equivalence are suffixes in Pirahã. For instance, the Pirahã sentence "there is a
paca there" uses just two words; the
copula is a suffix on "paca": Pirahã also uses suffixes that communicate
evidentiality, a category lacking in English grammar, but present in languages such as Turkish, Georgian, and Japanese. One such suffix, , means that the speaker actually observed the event in question: (The suffix -sai turns a verb into a noun, like English '-ing'.) Other verbal suffixes indicate that an action is deduced from circumstantial evidence, or based on hearsay. Unlike in English, in Pirahã speakers must state their source of information: they cannot be ambiguous. There are also verbal suffixes that indicate desire to perform an action, frustration in completing an action, or frustration in even starting an action. There are also a large number of verbal
aspects:
perfective (completed) vs.
imperfective (uncompleted),
telic (reaching a goal) vs. atelic, continuing,
repeated, and commencing. However, despite this complexity, there appears to be little distinction of
transitivity. For example, the same verb, , can mean either 'look' or 'see', and can mean either 'die' or 'kill'. The verbs are, however,
zero-marked, with no grammatical
agreement with the arguments of the verb. According to Sheldon, the Pirahã verb has eight main suffix-slots, and a few sub-slots: •
Slot A • intensive • Ø •
Slot B • causative/incompletive • causative/completive • inchoative/incompletive • inchoative/completive • future/somewhere • future/elsewhere • past • Ø •
Slot C • negative/optative +
C1 •
Slot C1 • preventive • opinionated • possible Ø • positive/optative • negative/indicative +
C2 • positive/indicative Ø +
C2 •
Slot C2 • declarative • probabilistic/certain • probabilistic/uncertain/beginning • probabilistic/uncertain/execution • probabilistic/uncertain/completion • stative • interrogative1/progressive • interrogative2/progressive • interrogative1 • interrogative2 • Ø •
Slot D • continuative • repetitive • Ø •
Slot E • immediate • intentive • Ø •
Slot F • durative • Ø •
Slot G • desiderative • Ø •
Slot H • causal • conclusive • emphatic/reiterative +
H1 • emphatic +
H1 • reiterative +
H1 • Ø +
H1 •
Slot H1 • present • past • pastImmediate These suffixes undergo some phonetic changes depending on context. For instance, the continuative reduces to after a consonant: Also an
epenthetic vowel gets inserted between two suffixes if necessary to avoid a consonant-cluster; the vowel is either (before or after , , or ) or (other cases): Conversely, when the junction of two morphemes creates a double vowel (ignoring tones), the vowel with the lower tone is suppressed:
Embedding Everett originally claimed that in order to embed one
clause within another, the embedded clause is turned into a noun with the suffix seen above: The examples of embedding were limited to one level of depth, so that to say "He really knows how to talk about making arrows", more than one sentence would be needed. Everett has also concluded that because Pirahã does not have number-words for counting, does not allow recursive
adjective-lists like "the green wealthy hunchbacked able golfer", and does not allow recursive possessives like "The child's friend's mother's house", a Pirahã sentence must have a length limit. This leads to the additional conclusion that the number of different possible sentences in Pirahã with any given vocabulary is finite. Everett has also recently reinterpreted even the limited form of embedding in the example above as
parataxis. He now states that Pirahã does not admit any embedding at all, not even one level deep. He says that words that appear to form a clause in the example are actually a separate unembedded sentence, which, in context, expresses the same thought that would be expressed by a clause in English. He gives evidence for this based on the lack of specialized words for clause-formation, the pattern of coreferring tokens in the purported clause-constructions, and examples where the purported clause is separated from the rest of the sentence by other complete sentences. Everett stated that Pirahã cannot say "John's brother's house" but must say, "John has a brother. This brother has a house." in two separate sentences. According to Everett, the statement that Pirahã is a finite language without embedding and without recursion presents a challenge for proposals by
Noam Chomsky and others concerning
universal grammar—on the grounds that if these proposals are correct, all languages should show evidence of recursive (and similar) grammatical structures. Chomsky has replied that he considers recursion to be an innate cognitive capacity that is available for use in language but that the capacity may or may not manifest itself in any one particular language. However, as Everett points out, the language can have recursion in ideas, with some ideas in a story being less important than others. He also described recursive behaviors in deer as they forage for food. So to him, recursion can be a brain property that humans have developed more than other animals. He points out that the criticism of his conclusions uses his own doctoral thesis to refute his knowledge and conclusions drawn after a subsequent twenty-nine years of research. ==Lexicon==