Nominalization
Nominalization
Introduction to Nominalization
Nominalizations appear to be a rather important element of Igala grammar. As seen in sentences like the following, a nominalized form must follow the particle tʃē (most often used as a copula or focus/emphasis marker).
(1)
Otʃa̋lā | tʃē | é | mâ |
O᷄tʃálā | tʃē | é | mà |
Ochala | do | NMLZ | know |
‘Ochala knew.’ | |||
Nominalizaing ‘é’
Though ‘é’ has thus far been the most common nominalizer, Ejeba’s grammar points out that there are a variety of different nominalizers, all of which are vowels which are prefixed before the verb.
So far, the three nominalizers Yuzhou and David have looked at are ‘é’, ‘á’ and ‘à’
The first nominalizer ‘é’ seems to create a nominalized form resembling something of a verbal noun, or an infinitive in usage. When we have asked our language consultant how to say a verb (in isolation), they often try to include this ‘é’ with it.
(2)
Ɔ́mē | é | bí |
ɔ́mā | é | bí |
child | NMLZ | bear |
To bear children | ||
(3)
E̋ | ka̋ | dūfù |
é | kà | dūfù |
NMLZ | say | out |
To say it out/Saying it out | ||
(4)
E̋ | ma41 |
é | mà |
NMLZ | know |
‘To know’ | |
(5)
O24tʃa̋lā | ɹē | é | mâ |
O᷄tʃálā | ɹō | é | mà |
Ochala | begin | NMLZ | know |
‘Ochala started knowing’ | |||
As in 2) ‘ɔ́mā é bí’, we see that that the object of the verb can be fronted before the nominalizer.
Though the ‘é’ is often dropped in fluent speech due to Igala resistance to hiatus, it can be perceived by the contour tones it leaves on the previous syllable (2), (5).
Nominalizaing ‘á’
The nominalizer ‘á’ is more like Ejeba says an ‘agent’ nominalizer, functioning similarly to the -er suffix in English.
(6)
A̋ | ka̋ | dūfù | lɛ́ |
á | kà | dūfù | lɛ́ |
-er | say | out | DIST |
The announcer | |||
(7)
Á | bí | ɔ́mā |
Á | bí | ɔ́mā |
-er | bear | child |
The bearer of children | ||
(8)
á | mâ |
á | mà |
-er | know |
One who knows | |
(9)
Á | m | ɛ̄ŋʷū |
á | mà | ɛ́ŋʷū |
-er | know | 3SG.dat |
‘Someone who knows for him, someone who is considerate of that person, some who is mindful for them’ | ||
Comparison between 'e' and 'a'
These two nominalizers are phonologically interesting because it appears that they spread their tones forwards to the next TBU of the verb that it nominalizes.
When there is only one TBU (tone bearing unint) as in examples (4) and (8) with the verb ‘mà’ – ‘know’, this creates a contour tone, however if there are more TBUs, the high tone pushes the other tones as in (3), (6) (call out - kà dūfù.) and (9) where (ŋʷú Dat.) becomes a mid tone from tonal sandhi from mà’s underlying low tone
Particularly in the case of the ‘á’ nominalizer it is imperative to recognize this tone spreading phenomenon because it is the only phonological way to distinguish this ‘á’ from the imperfective ‘á’ which does not spread.
Compare
(10)
O24tʃa̋lā | á | mà |
O᷄chálā | á | mà |
Ochala | IPFV | know |
‘Ochala will know’/Ochala is knowing | ||
(11)
i̋mɔ̄tɔ́ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ̋ | li̋ | a̋ | ma̋ | lɛ́ |
ímɔ̄tɔ̄ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ́ | lí | á | mà | lɛ́ |
Child | man | DIST | see | -er | know DET.DIST | |
‘The boy saw the one who knows.’ | ||||||
(here the low tone from ma is pushed on to the distil demonstrative lɛ́ creating a mid tone)
Compare
(12)
O24tʃálā | á | kà | dūfù |
O᷄chálā | á | kà | dūfù |
Ochala | IPFV | say | out |
Ochala is saying/will say it out | |||
(13a)
i̋mɔ̄tɔ́ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ̋ | li̋ | a̋ | ka̋ | dūfù | lɛ́ |
Ímɔ̄tɔ́ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ́ | lí | á | kà | dūfù | lɛ́ |
Child | man | DET | see | -er | say | out | DET |
The boy saw (*sees) the announcer | |||||||
(13b)
i̋mɔ̄tɔ́ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ̋ | mā | ā | kà | dūfù | lɛ́ |
Ímɔ̄tɔ́ | ɔ́nɛ̄kɛ̀lɛ̄ | lɛ́ | mà | á | kà | dūfù | lɛ́ |
Child | man | DET | know | -er | say | out | DET |
The boy knows (*knew) the announcer | |||||||