Download Why Tlingit is not an Athabaskan language: An introduction to Tlingit

Why Tlingit is not an Athabaskan language:
An introduction to Tlingit for Athabaskanists
James A. Crippen
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
[email protected]
 April 
C
.
I
In this paper I will present some comparisons and contrasts between Tlingit (Eng.
/ˈklɪŋˌkɪt/, not */t(ə)lɪŋgɪt/) and the Athabaskan languages. is is not meant to be
a comprehensive study, but merely a shallow survey of some of the more interesting features which can be compared between the languages.
It is well established that Tlingit and the Athabaskan languages are part of
the greater Na-Dene family which also includes Eyak (leer:). A current historical hypothesis calls for a larger family of Dene-Yeniseic which subsumes NaDene and the Yeniseic family of languages in central Siberia (vajda:), but I
will not address this issue here. Due to its ancestral connection, Tlingit has a
large number of features in common with the Athabaskan languages, but there
are some significant differences between them which may come as surprising
to the typical Athabaskan specialist. e relatively obscure documentation on
Tlingit has contributed to Athabaskanists having limited knowledge of the language, despite its importance in the reconstruction of the family and as a source of
comparative insights. For an Athabaskanist, looking at Tlingit is like viewing an
Athabaskan language through a distorting funhouse mirror, where reflections are
seen in strange, convoluted forms, but the overall structure is still recognizably
familiar, as will be seen throughout this paper.

.
D
Tlingit is sometimes considered to be a well documented language, and in some
respects this is true. e first serious aempt at describing the language was due
to Ivan veniaminov: a Russian Orthodox missionary who was later canonized as St. Innocent. krause: offered a small lexical inventory, but his ear
was far worse than Veniaminov’s. kelly: wrote a lile known work for the
US government that is fairly accurate in its transcription, but the grammatical description is naïve. swanton: is oen mentioned and is relatively well known
because of inclusion in the Handbook of American Indian languages, but Swanton’s time with Tlingit speakers was limited, his transcriptions are marginal, and
his grammatical description is not very useful. Swanton’s work was superseded
by the much beer but lesser known work of boas: whose collaboration with
native speaker Louis shotridge: is all too oen overlooked. Description of
the language languished while the Na-Dene controversy began, and very lile
was work was done up through the s (miller:; velten:; velten:).
In the s Constance M. Naish and Gillian L. Story, two young women
from the Summer Institute of Linguistics, visited Angoon and did extensive work
on the language. ey produced a noun dictionary (naish:; naish:),
two master’s theses (naish:; story:), a translation of the Gospel of John
(anon:), and a verb dictionary (story:). e master’s theses and the verb
dictionary are probably their most important contributions, although the theses
are somewhat inaccessible due to their extensive use of tagmemics. e verb dictionary is a treasure trove of example sentences, and contains an extraordinarily
extensive listing of verb themes, but is hampered by lacking some of the less obvious features of themes including the thematic conjugation prefixes and stem
variation information.
Jeff Leer has worked on Tlingit since the s, but has published only a small
amount of his work. Particularly important documentary sources are his work
with the last speakers of the Tongass dialect (williams:), his dissertation
(leer:), texts from his favorite consultant Elizabeth Nyman (nyman:),
and the extensive noun dictionary of Interior Tlingit that he assisted with (leer:).
A major problem with his dissertation for those looking for description is that
since the dissertation’s emphasis is on the semantics of the aspectual system
rather than the language as a whole, many descriptive insights which he notes
are are illustrated with only one form, or worse yet have no examples whatsoever. Most of his subsequent work has been in the historical realm, and as such
the descriptive details that he provides are oen overshadowed by comparative

and historical content. Nevertheless, leer: has still been the most prolific
linguist associated with Tlingit, and commands a deep understanding of the language that is unequaled. One issue he raised about the language which should
not be overlooked is the likelihood that modern Tlingit resulted from a merging
of somewhat different but closely related languages (leer:), a claim which
not only has profound diachonic implications but also suggests explanations for
many peculiar synchronic phenomena.
To date there is no published grammar of Tlingit, and this issue is a lacuna
which I hope to fill in the not-too-distant future. Leer’s dissertation serves as a
source of documentation about a variety of issues in the language, but as previously noted it is problematic in a number of ways. Story’s master’s thesis is also
useful as a descriptive adjunct, but the heavy emphasis on tagmemics in Naish’s
master’s thesis makes it less accessible. Boas’s work is useful, but he was limited
by the general linguistic sophistication of his time and as such many phenomena are not noted or are misunderstood. In contrast with grammatical descriptions, text collections are abundant, particularly with the excellent work of the
Dauenhauers who provide records of a variety of oratorical and narrative forms
(dauenhauer:; dauenhauer:; dauenhauer:)
.
S
e sound system of Tlingit is complex, with between  and  consonants depending on dialect and era. It has received serious phonetic study only recently
(maddieson:). e consonants are given in table ⁇. ere is a three-way
distinction between unaspirated, aspirated, and ejective obstruents, as well as
a two-way distinction between plain and ejective fricatives (except */ʃʼ/). Aspiration is neutralized in the coda, although all orthographies show obstruents
as aspirated, whereas in fact they are released but unaspirated. Labialization is
phonemic in the posterior consonants, but is not reflected in the anterior consonants. e ejective fricatives /xʼ/, /xʼʷ/, /χʼ/, and /χʼʷ/ are unique to Tlingit, having
never been described in any other human language (Maddieson, p.c. ). ere
are no voiced phonemes other than /j/, †/ɰ/, /w/, /n/, and %/m/. e velar approximant †/ɰ/ is extinct among living speakers and it is now realized as either /j/
or /w/ depending on the labialization environment, but was recorded as late as
the s; it is still used in linguistic descriptions (wrien 〈ÿ〉) where it explains
alternation between /j/ and /w/. ere are no labial consonants other than /w/
and %/m/, the laer of which is restricted to two Interior Tlingit communities in
British Columbia and the Yukon where it is a morphophonologically predictable

variant of Coastal Tlingit /w/ that may have developed from Athabaskan contact. e two consonants ?/ʔʷ/ and ?/hʷ/ are marginal, with the former occuring
only occasionally as in Ḵakʼw.weidí /qʰakʼʷʔʷeːtí/ “Basket Bay clan”, and with ?/hʷ/
appearing in certain idiolectal (possibly communilectal) variants of the second
person plural independent pronoun, e.g. yeehwáan /jiːhʷáːn/, a word which has
extensive variability even within a single dialect.
e Tlingit vowel system is quite simple, with four vowels /i/, /e/, /a/, and
/u/. Both length and tone are distinguished in vowels, but the exact system varies
among the dialects. e majority Northern dialect has high and low tones with a
binary length distinction, a system which is represented in table ⁇. e Southern
dialect, also known as Sanya-Henya, is described by leer: as having a tone
register system with upper high/mid and lower mid/low tones, as well as a falling
tone that occurs at register shi boundaries. Unfortunately I lack recordings or
exposure to this dialect, and leer: offers very lile in the way of detail about
this system. leer: (williams:) also describes the Tongass dialect as having a four-way system of vowel qualities, with plain, gloalized, murmured, and
long forms for each vowel. e Tongass system seems to reflect the ancestral
source of the tonal systems, and corresponds closely with vowels reconstructed
in Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak. Nasal vowels do not occur phonemically in Tlingit
except for the two Interior dialects that feature %/m/, where again the nasal vowels are probably due to Athabaskan contact.
Compared to the Athabaskan family as a whole, Tlingit has a somewhat larger
consonant inventory. No Athabaskan languages have ejective fricatives, and
many lack uvular consonants. Although Athabaskan languages tend to have very
few labial consonants, Tlingit essentially lacks them entirely if the labial-velar approximant /w/ is excluded. e total lack of voiced fricatives is also unusual in
comparison to Athabaskan languages. Also interesting is the lack of voiced */l/
in Tlingit, although it is universal in Athabaskan languages. Despite these differences, the consonant system of Tlingit is still familiar. Indeed, Tlingit is much
closer to Proto-Athabaskan than many Athabaskan languages, though it lacks the
retroflex series, has velars rather than palatals, and lacks voiced fricatives.
As for vowels, Tlingit’s lack of nasalization is interesting but not unprecedented among Athabaskan languages. Aside from nasalization its vowel system
is strikingly similar to that of Navajo, although where Navajo has /o/ for a back
round vowel, Tlingit instead has /u/. e tone system of Northern Tlingit parallels the many Athabaskan languages which have marked high tone, and the
Tongass system is reminiscent of the vowels found in Eyak.

unaspirated stop
t
k
aspirated stop
tʰ
kʰ
ejective stop
t’
k’
%
nasal stop
(m) n
fricative
s ʃ
ɬ x
ejective fricative
s’
ɬ’ x’
unasp. affricate
ts tʃ
tɬ
aspirated affricate
tsʰ tʃʰ
tɬʰ
ejective affricate
ts’ tʃ’
tɬ’
†
approximant
j
(ɰ)
kʷ q qʷ ʔ
kʰʷ qʰ qʰʷ
k’ʷ q’ q’ʷ
labial-gloal
gloal
labial-uvular
uvular
velar
labial-velar
posterior
lateral
bilabial
alveolar
postalveolar
palatal
anterior
?
(ʔʷ)
xʷ χ χʷ h ?(hʷ)
x’ʷ χ’ χ’ʷ
w
Table : Tlingit consonants in IPA. % = dialectal; ? = marginal; † = extinct.
íː
éː
á
low
i
e
ba
ú
central
front
í
é
long
ba
high
central
front
short
úː
áː
u
a
iː
eː
uː
aː
Table : Northern Tlingit vowels in IPA.

..
O
Tlingit writing is distinctly different from the relatively homogenous orthographies that are in use among Athabaskan languages. Tlingit suffers from an embarrasment of riches in terms of writing systems: there are several orthographies
in current publication, and no one system is used in all communities. e two
primary orthographies are what I call the Revised Popular orthography and the
Canadian orthography. In addition there are a few publications which use variations on the original Naish-Story orthography, in particular the first noun dictionary (naish:), Dikée Anḵáwoo doo Yéet dàt John- kawshixidee Yoox̱’utúnk:
e gospel of John in the Tlingit language (anon:), and the verb dictionary
(story:).
e Revised Popular orthography uses an underscore diacritic to represent
uvular consonants 〈ḵ〉, 〈x̱〉, 〈g̱〉, high tone is marked with an acute accent 〈á〉,
ejectives are marked with an apostrophe 〈t’〉, 〈s’〉, and gloal stops are represented with a period 〈.〉 which is also used to indicate separation of non-digraphs.
e apostrophe is never used to indicate the gloal stop, unlike in Athabaskan
orthographies. Because there is no voiced lateral articulation in Tlingit, the symbol 〈l〉 is unambiguously used to represent voiceless laterals. e long vowels are represented with English-inspired digraphs, so /eː/ is 〈ei〉, /uː/ is 〈oo〉,
and /iː/ is 〈ee〉, but /aː/ is 〈aa〉; high tone is only marked on the first leer of
a digraphic vowel: 〈óo〉. e Revised Popular orthography is the most common in publications, found in all of the Dauenhauers’ work (dauenhauer:;
dauenhauer:; dauenhauer:), the second noun dictionary (naish:),
and most academic publications in both linguistics and anthropology (cable:a;
cable:; kan:; goldsmidt:; grinev:). Because the uvular underscore diacritic in 〈g̱〉 is inconvenient on computers and is typographically unpleasant, there are a variety of other forms in use such as 〈ǥ〉, 〈ɢ̱〉, and 〈ḡ〉; I use
the laer in this paper.
e Canadian orthography uses digraphs 〈kh〉, 〈xh〉, 〈gh〉 to represent uvulars, extending the use of 〈h〉 from the digraphs 〈ch〉 and 〈sh〉. e voiceless
lateral fricatives are represented with the familiar barred ell 〈ł〉, although in affricate digraphs the unbarred ell is sometimes found instead: 〈tl〉. e ejectives
and gloal stop are represented the same as in the Revised Popular system. Short
low tone vowels are unmarked 〈a〉, a grave accent is used for long low tone vowels 〈à〉, an acute accent for high tone short vowels 〈á〉, and a circumflex accent
for high tone long vowels 〈â〉. e most significant publications which use this

orthography are the Interior Tlingit noun dictionary (leer:) and Gágiwduł.àt:¹
Brought forth to reconfirm (nyman:). At present this system is only used in
Teslin, Carcross, and Whitehorse, with Atlin officials having recently decided to
switch back to the Revised Popular system for their elementary school curricula.
Although not in use for published works, there is another system which I call
the E-mail orthography that uses the uvular digraphs from the Canadian orthography and the vowels from the Revised Popular orthography. is compromise
system developed anonymously in response to restrictions on the coding of electronic text before the widespread adoption of Unicode. It is frequently seen on
ephemeral printed materials, presentation slides, and occasionally even on regalia
like drums and clothing. Proponents of the two major orthographies sometimes
claim that it makes words “too long”, but its lack of official recognition from any
authority makes it a popular alternative in the fractious world of Tlingit language
politics.
.
D
According to leer: there are few dialects in Tlingit despite a large geographic
distribution, with high intelligibility between extant dialects. Based on my experience, it is entirely reasonable to claim that all Tlingit dialects are mutually
intelligible, although speakers are acutely aware of differences from their own.
leer: names the major dialects Northern Tlingit, Transitional Southern Tlingit, Sanya-Henya Tlingit, and Tongass Tlingit. I have renamed these for a few
different reasons. First, I retain the term “Northern”, because the geographic division between the Northern varieties and the non-Northern varieties is roughly
along Sumner Strait, with the varieties in the southeast being markedly different
from those in the northwest. Second, I call the dialect spoken in Wrangell and
Kake “Transitional” rather than “Transitional Southern”, with the reasoning that
this dialect shares features of both the Northern dialect and the non-Northern
dialects.
My “Southern” dialect corresponds to Leerʼs Sanya-Henya, however I have
renamed this because the term “Sanya-Henya” is limiting. e Saanyaa ḵwáan²
and the Heinyaa ḵwáan are definitely speakers of this dialect, but the Kooyu
ḵwáan may have spoken this dialect before being mostly wiped out by smallpox,
and the Tʼaḵjikʼaan ḵwáan may have been speakers of this dialect before their
. gági=-ÿu-du-l-ʔaat into.open=--.-[+, l, −]-go.
. A ḵwáan is a sociogeographic grouping which cuts across clan lines, and is composed of nearby
villages with close ties.

forced merger with the Heinyaa ḵwáan in the late th century. us the term
“Southern” is more inclusive for these other ḵwáan. I retain Leer’s term “Tongass”
because it is appropriate as only the Taantʼa ḵwáan (resident at the village called
Tongass in English) apparently spoke the dialect and the last two speakers selfidentified as Tongass people.
e Tlingit dialects are diagrammed in figure ⁇. Note that I have not fully
enumerated the Southern dialects for space reasons and because they are insufficiently documented. ere are no speakers of Tongass Tlingit alive today, probably less than ten Southern speakers mostly from Klawock,³ and only a small
handful of Transitional speakers of whom most are from Kake. Northern speakers thus form the majority of present Tingit speakers, and hence their speech is
the major focus of all documentation and revitalization efforts today. I focus on
the Northern dialect in this paper. In terms of documentation, there is only a
small amount published about the Tongass Tlingit dialect (williams:), and
vanishingly lile about the Transitional or Southern dialects.
Within each ḵwáan, territory was divided by matrilineal clans which themselves were organized into two moieties. Dialectal substructure, largely in the
form of communilects, seems to have developed because of the regional organization of permanent selements, and communilects are more or less variable today
depending on the intensiveness of exogamy in the last few generations and on
immigration from now abandoned selements. I propose a likely substructure of
the Northern Tlingit dialect in figure ⁇. e distinctiveness of different communilects within each dialect group is greater in the Interior dialects than it is among
the Coastal dialects, and this distinction is found most strongly in certain regular
phonological phenomena as well as borrowings from neighboring Athabaskan
languages. On the other hand, the distinction between different communilects
on the coast is mostly represented by semantic differences in temporal terminology (e.g. names of months and seasons), use of various contractions, and forms
of certain highly variable function words.
.
W 
Free phrase order is uncommon among Athabaskan languages. thompson:
says that Hupa and Koyukon have somewhat free phrase order, but most languages in the family have fixed SOV order outside of dislocation, focus, or subjectobject inversion. Going further afield, Michael Krauss (p.c. ) says that Eyak
. I asked people to conduct a crude community census in early  which turned up eight
speakers, seven of whom were resident in or originally from Klawock.

Tlingit
Tongass
Southern
Transitional
Saanyaa Heinyaa
Northern
Coastal Gulf Interior
Figure : Traditional dialects of Tlingit, from south (le) to north (right).
Northern
Archipelago
Outer
Inner
Gulf
Interior
Dry Bay Yakutat
Atlin Teslin Tagish
Sitka Angoon Juneau Hoonah Chilkat
Figure : Northern subdialects and communilects.

is clearly SOV except for dislocation – characterized by “comma” effects – and
focus phenomena. Gary Holton (p.c. ) confirms this, claiming Eyak is beer
described as V-final because “it is rare to have more than one direct argument
expressed as a full NP or independent pronoun” – just as with Tlingit – and that
other arrangements are used “for particular effect”. We can conclude that Eyak
lacks free phrase order like most of the Athabaskan languages.
In contrast with the Athabaskan languages and Eyak, free phrase order in
Tlingit is possible in a variety of sentences, although it is oen difficult to make
out due to the lack of words other than the verb. In his analysis of covert Ascrambling, cable: offered a paradigm of sentences with all possible phrase
orders. In (⁇) the SOV form is fully glossed, and then in (⁇) I repeat cable:’s
exhaustive variations.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”
wé
shaawátch xóots
awsiteen
wé
shaawát-ch xóots
a-ÿu--si-teen
. woman- brown.bear ---[−, s, +]-see
“the woman saw the bear”
()
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
(cable:)
SOV: wé shaawátch xóots awsiteen
OSV: xóots wé shaawátch wusiteen
SVO: wé shaawátch wusiteen xóots
OVS: xóots awsiteen wé shaawátch
VSO: awsiteen wé shaawátch xóots
VOS: awsiteen xóots wé shaawátch
e SOV and SVO orders are unsurprisingly the most common in Tlingit. Nevertheless, all of the above examples are identical in meaning, although as Cable
notes, “there are of course discourse-pragmatic effects associated with particular
orders”. e astute reader might notice that examples (⁇) and (⁇) have a slightly
different form of the verb. is is due to alternation in the third person object
prefix which is explained in section ⁇.
.
T 
As with the Athabaskan languages, the verb in Tlingit has received the majority
of every researcher’s aention. Nonetheless, the noun deserves its own share of
research, and has some surprises in store for anyone who might care to poke at
it.

..
P  
Tlingit nouns can be divided into two major classes: possessable and unpossessable. Possessable nouns can have possessors, and unpossessable nouns cannot.
Nearly all nouns in the language are possessable, with unpossessable nouns restricted to proper names. e possessable nouns can be further divided into alienable and inalienable subclasses. As with most systems of alienability, many nouns
can be converted from one class into the other through regular morphological
processes. As Ken Regh puts it, alienability “is a property of the relationship between noun and possessor, and is not a property of nouns themselves” (p.c. ).
However, it is relatively clear from morphology that certain nouns have default
membership in one or the other class, and are marked when converted to the
other class.
Inalienable nouns are generally easy to characterize. Nearly all body parts
are represented by inalienable nouns, as are most kinship terms. ere is a large
class of relational nouns which are also inalienable, and which represent spatial,
temporal, or structural relationships between their possessors and other referents. e generic form of an inalienable noun includes a default possessor which
may be any one of the indefinite nonhuman possessive pronoun a, the indefinite
human possessive pronoun ḵaa, or the third person possessive pronoun du. Examples are ḵaa waaḵ “person’s eye(s)”, du jín “his/her hand(s)”, a kú “its (fish)
tail”. Lexicographically, inalienable nouns are usually listed with a default possessor in parentheses, e.g. (a) déin “(its) vicinity”. A few exceptions to the rule
of inalienable body parts are dook “skin”, sʼaaḵ “bone”, and dleey “flesh, meat”,
all of which can be preserved and used aer death (though usually not that of
humans!). Many characteristics of individuals are also represented by inalienable
nouns, and can be profitably lumped together with the body parts.
Alienable nouns comprise two major subclasses, one being the alienated body
parts and the other being the “everything else” category. e “everything else”
category is self-explanatory, but the alienated body parts deserve some discussion. Possession is marked with a possessed suffix -ÿí⁴ on the possessum as well
as with a prenominal possessive pronoun, a system similar to the Athabaskan
model. Alienable nouns are marked with the possessed suffix when they are the
possessum in a possessive construction. In contrast, inalienable nouns require
. e possessed suffix can take any of the forms -yí, -yi, -í, -i, -wú, -wu, -ú, or -u depending
on labialization, tone sandhi, and final consonants. It is an excellent example of why the
underlying velar approximant is still analytically relevant despite not being a real phoneme
among living speakers.

possessive pronouns, but are not marked with the possessed suffix. However,
they can be alienated by the addition of a possessed suffix, which changes their
relationship with the possessor. e resultant relationship is generally one of
separation from the possessor, although this can vary in subtle ways. Probably
the best way to understand this phenomenon is through examples.
()
a. du shá
. head:
“his/her head”
b. xóots
shá
brown.bear head:
“brown bear’s head”
sháyi
c. xóots
xóots
shá-ÿí
brown.bear head-
“brown bear head”
In examples (⁇) and (⁇) the noun (a) shá “(its) head” is inalienable, and is in
a normal relationship in that it is connected via the neck to the body. In contrast,
in example (⁇) the addition of possessive marking has changed the relationship
between head and body; it is implied that the head is separated from the body
and is an independent object. English can approximate this distinction between
the two relationships using the exact opposite possessive marking, as can be seen
in the translations.
..
N, ,  
Tlingit has two numeral systems, an older quinquevigesimal system and a newer
quinquedecimal system. Both systems have numbers from six to ten constructed
from the numbers from one to five. us tléixʼ “one”, déix̱ “two”, násʼk “three”,
dax.oon “four”, and keijín “five” have echoes in tleidooshú “six”, dax̱adooshú “seven”, nasʼgadooshú “eight”, gooshúḵ “nine”, and jinkaat “ten”. Both systems construct the teens in the same way, namely as jinkaat ḵa tléixʼ “ten and one”. e
difference arises at twenty, which is deix̱ jinkaat “two ten” in the quinquedecimal system and tleiḵáa “one.man” in the quinquevigesimal system. One hundred
hándit and one thousand taawsan are both loanwords from either English or Chinook Jargon or both.
ere are special numerals for counting certain things and indicating distributives, all of which are formed from the basic numerals. For example, one person

is tléináx̱, two people is dáx̱(i)náx̱, three people is násʼgináx̱, and so forth. Distributives are similar, with tlékʼḡaa “one by one”, dáx̱ḡaa “two by two”, násʼgiḡaa
“three by three”, etc. Distributive numerals for people combine the two suffixal
elements tlékʼḡaanáx̱ “one person at a time”, dáx̱ḡaanáx̱ “two people at a time”,
etc. Numbers of repetions are counted with a different sort of suffix: tleidahéen
“once”, dax̱dahéen “twice”, nasʼgidahéen “thrice”. Collectives of people or things
can be counted with a different suffix, e.g. tleiyeeká “one group”, dax̱yeeká “two
groups”, nasʼgiyeeká “three groups”.
Diminutives are marked with a special suffix -kʼ, which has an allomorph -kʼw
following labialized consonants and rounded vowels. It precedes the possessed
suffix, causing the laer to be realized as a vowel. It has the usual meaning of
diminutives, but sometimes may become somewhat lexicalized.
() ax̱
hítkʼi
káxʼ
x̱waanoogú
yé
ax̱
hít-kʼ-ÿí
ká-xʼ
ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-nook-ÿí
yé
. house-- - -.-[−, , +]-sit- thus
“I sit here in my lile house”
(F. DeWi)
A periphrastic diminutive can be formed with the adjective yádi which is
derived from the alienable noun yát “child” plus the possessive suffix -ÿí, thus
literally meaning “child o” something. An example of its use is shanaxwáayi
yádi “hatchet” which literally means “child of an axe”.
Plurality is a particularly interesting nominal phenomenon, with several different methods of marking but none which are obligatory or even very common.
As will be seen in section ⁇, plurality is marked in the verb using plural pronominals, plural verb roots, a generic plural marker, and two distributives. On nouns
it is perhaps most commonly marked with a suffix -xʼ (also -xʼw in labialized environments) which is homophonous with the primary form of the locative suffix.
Like the diminutive, the plural suffix occurs before the possessed suffix. I have not
encountered the diminutive and plural together, although I have not aempted
to elicit it.
() du yátxʼi
du yát-xʼ-ÿí
. child--
“his children”
ere are three other morphemes which mark collectives in various situations, generally used only with terms referring to humans. e collective sáni

is found with terms for relatives and requires a plural suffix, for example du
yádxʼi sáni “her babies” (naish:). e collective yán is uncommon, but appears in a set phrase ax̱ káani yán “my brothers-in-law” which is used frequently
in ceremonial oratory. e collective hás is found in postnominal position which
disambiguates it from the third person plural hás.
()
..
a. hasdu káak
hás jeeyáx̱
hasdu káak
hás jín-yáx̱
. mat.uncle  hand-
“like their maternal uncles’ hands”
b. hás, a yáx̱ áwé,
yéi has awsinei
hás a yáx̱ áwé
yéi=has-a-ÿu--si-nei
 it  . thus=----[−, s, +]-do
“they, like that, they did it so”
(F. DeWi)
(F. DeWi)
C  
Tlingit has a relatively large inventory of case suffixes and relational postpositions. e ergative - marks noun phrases which are subjects of transitive verbs.
It also does double duty as an instrumental marker in some sentences, but the exact situations in which it arises are not described. Finally it also seems to serve
a special function where it answers the question “why”. As is fairly common
among languages with ergative marking, Tlingit lacks an absolutive marker.
ere are eight oblique cases in Tlingit, namely the locative -xʼ “at, in, by, on”,
the allative -déi “to, toward, until, in the manner o”, perlative -náx̱ “along, by,
via, during”, ablative -dáx̱ “from, out o”, adessive -ḡaa “around, about, by, for”,
punctual -t “at a point, to a point, about a point”, pertingent -x̱ “at, against, in
the form of, concerning”, and instrumental -teen “along with, using, as soon as”.
e oblique cases are distinguished from postpositions by their phonological behavior. Four cases consist solely of consonants, and must be considered suffixes.
ere are three cases which are syllabic but undergo tone sandhi, and since tone
sandhi does not occur across word boundaries they must be suffixes. Finally the
last one is considered to be a suffix purely by custom, and it is uncertain whether
it may in fact be an independent postposition.
e locative case and the instrumental case show significant allomorphy. e
locative has four forms, -xʼ, -ː, -i, and -, with the variants occuring in phrases that
are bound to the verb. e vowel lengthening allomorph occurs aer open syllables with high tone, thus simply lengthening the final vowel. It also occurs

uniquely with the first person singular independent pronoun x̱át where the combination x̱át-ː is x̱áa. e other allomorphs have similar phonological restrictions.
e instrumental case varies primarily between -teen and -(ee)n, with the laer
occuring in conditions which are similar to those of the locative. One consultant
has suggested to me that the two forms of the instrumental are spliing, with
the -(ee)n form being used more with humans and hence more comitative and
the -teen form being more frequent with inanimates; this is a problem that needs
corpus research.
e relational postpositions are described by leer: as being “opaque combinations of relational noun plus postposition”. Whatever their internal structure,
they are phonologically independent words which indicate specific relationships
with their host nouns. e class comprises the similative yáx̱ “like, as, similar
to, equivalent with”, abessive ḡóot “without, lacking”, elative náḵ “away from”,
benefactive yís “for, benefiting”, superlative yáanáx̱ ~ yáanax̱ “more than”, and
the sublative ḵín “less than”. e similative and benefactive seem to be undergoing a change towards becoming more like a case suffix, as there are a number of
basic words where phonological changes make the postposition part of the word.
is phenomenon may be more common in the non-Northern dialects, but there
is only sparse evidence as of yet.
.
T 
As a cousin of the Athabaskan languages, Tlingit is traditionally described using
a slot-and-filler template for the verb. I follow this tradition here although the
template should not be taken as theoretically justified.⁵ e most recent published description of the verb template is from cable:a e template used
here is extended from his description, and is given in table ⁇. A nearly complete
enumeration of the affixes can be seen in table ⁇.
e Tlingit verb is of roughly the same complexity as the Athabaskan verb in
terms of number of slots, long distance dependencies, and distribution of functions. As with all Athabaskan languages, the lexical entry is a theme which includes not only the root but also the classifier and various other affixes. Tlingit
does not have a clearly defined division between disjunct and conjunct zones, but
there are some phonological indications that the lemost prefix slots are more
independent than those closer to the root. For example, some preverbs and incorporates have lexical high tone whereas the prefixes close to the verb never
. For more on the template morphology controversy in Athabaskan languages, see rice:b
and mcdonough:b among others.

disjunct
conjunct
Cable & Crippen
Leer (1991)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
preverbs
reciprocal & distributive
plural number
object
areal
alienable incorporated nouns
inalienable incorporated nouns
+
proclitic adjunct phrases
+ b number prefixes
a
”
+ b incorporated obj. pronominals
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

vertical surface yahorizontal surface kaself-benefactive
outer aspect/conjugation
irrealis
inner aspect/conjugation
perfective
inner distributive
subject
classifier
root
b
”
a
”
+ e schetic prefixes
d
”
c
”
b
”
a
”
+
distributive prefix
+
subject pronominals
+
classifier


− derivation
−
− a
b
−
−
−
suffix
− duration
−
−
−
−
a incorporated alienable nouns
+ c incorporated inalienable nouns
stem variation
modes
modes
postverbal auxiliaries
derivational suffixes
inner durative suffixes
outer durative suffixes
inner mode suffixes
outer mode suffixes
epimode & clause type suffixes
Table : Tlingit verb template. Prefixes are positive, suffixes are negative. Suffix
classifications for the Cable & Crippen column are tentative. e disjunct and
conjunct zones are for organizational purposes and are not necessarily justified.

Position
Affixes
+ () ḡunayéi ~ ḡunéi=, áa=, shóo=, héeni=, gági=, éeḡi=, daaḡi=
() ḵut=, yux̱=, yaax̱=, héenx̱=, ux̱=, ḵwáaḵx̱=, yedx̱=, ÿaanax̱ ~ ÿaʻnax̱T =
() yan*=, neil*=, haa*=, yóo*=, ḵux̱*=, kux*=
() kei=, yei=, yeeḵ ~ yeiḵ ~ iʻḵT =, daaḵ=, daak=
() yéi ~ yeʻT =
() yaa=
() yaa=, yoo=
+ dax̱-, woosh+ has ~ s+ x̱at ~ ax̱-, haa-, i-, yee-, ash-, a ~ -, ḵu ~ ḵaa-, at-, aa-, sh ~ + ḵu+ yaan-, shakux-, yata-, x̱ʼasakw-, ḡax̱-, xee ~ xei-, ḵee ~ ḵei-, yee ~ yei-,
kanik-, yaḵa-, saa-, aan-, naa-, sha.ax̱w-, yakw-, hin+ ji-, x̱ʼa ~ ḵʼa-, tu-, sha-, shu-, lu-, se ~ sa-, x̱a-, gu-, ta-, daa-, x̱oo-, x̱an-,
x̱ʼaa-, tʼéi-, t’aa-, yik-, yee-, ḵi-, gin-, x̱i-, sʼaan-, lidíx̱ʼ-, waḵ-, sʼaḵ-, x̱ʼus-,
sʼee-, duk-, laka-, tlʼaḵ-, keey-, tóoxʼ-, x̱ʼatu-, tuḵx̱ʼe ~ tuḵʼe-, daa.it-, tax̱ʼ+ ÿa+ ka+ ga+ ga-, ḡa+ u+ -, na-, ḡa+ ÿu+ daḡa ~ dax̱+ x̱a-, tu-, ee-, yi-, -, du-, du+ [d, s, i ]: d ∈ {+, −}; s ∈ {, s, l, sh}; i ∈ {+, −}
 root
− -án, -shán, -ch, -áḵw, -aa, -x̱aa, -ÿí, -ee, -k(w), -(chʼ)álʼ, -ḵ,
-nas, -násʼ, -kátʼ
− () -ʻ, -k, -x̱, -ch
() -t, -xʼ, -tʼ, -sʼ, -lʼ
− -ː, -ʻ, -ʼ, -ÿ, -n
− -ch, -nee ~ ee, -ín ~ ún
− -ee, -een, -(ee)ḵ, -ÿi
− =nooch ~ neechI ~ nukchY , =noojeen ~ ?neejeenS , =nóok(w) ~ néekwS ,
=núgwni ~ nígwniS , =ḡanú gun ~ ḡanígúnI ~ ḡaníkwS
Table : Tlingit verb affixes. E preverbs can take certain locative suffixes. Subscripts mark dialect-specific forms (T: Tongass, S: Southern, I: Interior, Y: Yakutat).

have tone. A loose boundary might be posited between the incorporated nouns
and the vertical surface ÿa- and horizontal surface ka- prefixes, since the laer
two may lose vowels but the incorporates in most cases do not. For organizational reasons I will adopt this division here, but it must be stressed that this is
essentially stipulative and not firmly established. Indeed, the boundary could justifiably be placed between the self-benefactive and the horizontal surface prefix,
or even between the incorporates and the objects.
One interesting thing about the Tlingit verb is that close examination reveals that Tlingit has a split between intransitive types. is phenomenon is
termed “fixed-S” by dixon: “active/agentive” by mithun: and “active” by
ogrady: Among all verb themes there is a fixed division between those that
are unergative [+S, −O] and those that are unaccusative [−S, +O]. is is indicated
in the themes by presence of only an object slot or only a subject slot.
..
C
e classifier is a portmanteau morpheme [±, , ±]→(d)C(V)- composed of
three functional elements, the D component, the S component, and the I component. It is distinctly more complex than the classifier in the Athabaskan family.
e various forms of the classifier are given in table ⁇. Phonologically the D
component represents the presence or absence of the consonant d, the S (“series”)
component represents one of the consonants s, sh, l, or the lack of a consonant
as , and the I component represents the vowel i if positive or a if negative.
Functionally the D component represents middle voice,⁶ the S component represents valency and/or noun class,⁷ and the I component disagrees with the irrealis
prefix. e S component is lexically specified in the majority of verb themes although there is some regular alternation. For example sh generally represents
unpleasant or deprecatory forms of  or s themes, and pairs of  statives and s
causatives are common. e D component appears as + in nearly all semantically middle voice verbs even if this is not otherwise indicated with pronominals;
it is also lexically specified in some themes, e.g. O-S-[+, ]-naa “S drink O”, Osha-ka-[+, l]-kooʼ “O have curly hair”, O-S-[+, s]-ḡaax̱ “S ask for O with
no intention of returning it”.
When compared to the Athabaskan classifier, the Tlingit classifier is more
. e D component is + in reflexives, reciprocals, self-benefactives, revertive motion with
ḵux̱=, locomotives (“move while doing”), dissimulatives (“pretend to do”), lusives (“play at
doing”), and thematically. See naish: krauss: and leer:
. is noun classification function is the source of the term “classifier”. Although this function
is largely absent within the Athabaskan family, see leer:

−D
+D
S↓
−I
+I
−I
+I

s
l
sh
ÿa- da- disasis- dzilalil- dlisha- shi- sh- ji-
Table : e Tlingit classifier (+).
complex and perhaps more productive. e Athabaskan D component maps directly to the Tlingit, a feature reconstructed in Proto-Na-Dene (leer:). e S
component in Tlingit is similar to the ł component of the Athabaskan classifier,
but instead of being a binary opposition of - vs. ł-, it is a quaternary system
{, s, l, sh}. Finally, the I component of the Tlingit classifier appears to be unique,
since the Athabaskan classifier is not described as having any vowel alternation
paerns, nor does it seem to indicate any realis/irrealis distinctions. Overall,
however, the functions of the classifier are quite similar on both sides, with the
primary function being voice and valency indication, and with a variety of idiosyncratic and lexically specified uses.
..
C 
As noted earlier there is no solid definition of conjunct versus disjunct in Tlingit, but I have stipulated for the purposes of this paper that this division exists
between the incorporated nouns and the vertical surface ÿa- and horizontal surface ka- prefixes. e functions of the so-called conjunct prefixes in Tlingit are
clearly similar to those in the Athabaskan conjunct zone. In particular the aspect/conjugation prefixes are strongly reminiscent of the Athabaskan ones, although they are not necessarily identical historically.
e innermost prefixes of the conjunct zone are the subject pronominal prefixes. Tlingit marks first and second person singular (x̱a-, ee-) and plural (tu-,
yi-), as well as third person (-), third person obviate (du-), and indefinite human
(du-). is is in marked contrast with the Atahbaskan family, where third person
subjects appear near the object pronominals, and only the first and second person subjects are found next to the classifier. e distributive prefix daḡa- ~ dax̱is immediately le of the subjects, and in some ways can be considered part of
the subject pronominals. It has an allomorph dax̱- which appears in the disjunct
zone just rightward of the preverbs, in the same slot as the reciprocal woosh-.

e Tlingit aspect/conjugation prefixes ga-, -, na-, ḡa-, and ÿu- are reminiscent of the situation and viewpoint aspect prefixes of the Athabaskan verb, but
their functions are noticeably different. e perfective ÿu- is the sole form of perfective marking in Tlingit, in contrast to the lexically specified four way system
{, n, s, ɣ} of perfectives in Proto-Athabaskan; the same is true for the imperfectives. Due to this lack of variation, the perfective is only an aspectual prefix, and
has no conjugational function. is can be seen in the following examples, where
arbitrary verbs all show the same perfective marking.
()
a. O-ÿa-ka-S-[−, ]-dlaakw “S scratch face of O”
dóosh ash yakaawadlákw
dóosh ash-ÿa-ka-ÿu--ÿa-dlaakw
cat
.-----[−, , −]-scratch
“the cat scratched up his face”
(story:)
b. a-S-[+, l]-seen “S hide self out of sight”
awdlisín
nadáakw tayeexʼ
nadáakw ta-yee-xʼ
a-ÿu--dli-seen
table
underside-beneath- ---[+, l, −]-hide
“he hid beneath the table”
(story:)
In contrast with the tendency in Athabaskan to have only one aspect/conjugation prefix in a verb, in Tlingit the combination of aspect/conjugation prefixes
is relatively common. e most common example is ga-u-ḡa-, a string which
indicates the future, with the two aspect/conjugation prefixes ga- and ḡa- as well
as the irrealis u-. In this string the meaning of the two aspect/conjugation prefixes
is essentially opaque. I oen gloss the sequence in combination with the subject
prefix as a single portmanteau morpheme for future tense to simplify analysis, as
in the following examples.
()
a. O-sha-S-[−, l]-dzoo “S hit O on head with missile”
gánch
ashagux̱ladzóo
gán-ch
a-sha-gux̱-la-dzóo
firewood- -head-.-[−, l, −]-hit.with.missile
“he will hit it on the head with firewood”
b. O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”
yéi ikḵwasateen
yéi=i-kḵwa-sa-teen
thus=.-..-[−, s, −]-see
“I will see you”

(story:)
e conjugational use of the aspect/conjugation prefixes appears for example
in the imperative, where one of the the non-perfective prefixes is lexically specified for a given theme, as shown in the following examples. (Note that the verb
root nook is irregular in losing its final consonant, and that . is null in the
imperative.)
()
a. S-[−, sh]-taa “S sleep (angry speaker)”
nashtá!
na--sh-taa
-.-[−, sh, −]-sleep
“go to sleep, dammit!”
b. S-[−, ]-nook “sg. S sit down”
ḡanú!
ḡa---nook
̱-.-[−, , −]-sit.
“sit down!”
c. O-S-[−, ]-x̱aa “S eat O”
x̱á!
---x̱aa
-.-[−, , −]-eat
“eat!”
e self-benefactive prefix ga- is a rare, lile used prefix in the conjunct zone.
It requires + in the classifier, and indicates an action done for one’s own benefit.
It also apparently occurs in the comparative according to leer: but he does
not provide any examples of this.
() O-S-[−, s]-ʔee “S cook O”
a. x̱wasi.ée
-ÿu-x̱a-si-ʔee
--.-[−, s, +]-cook
“I cooked it”
b. gax̱wdzi.ée
-ga-ÿu-x̱a-dzi-ʔee-?
---.-[+, s, +]-cook
“I cooked it for mysel”

(story:)
..
D 
e prefixes in Tlingit which might be considered analogous to the disjunct prefixes in Athabaskan are roughly those leward of the horizontal surface ka- and
vertical surface ÿa-. is includes the incorporates, the areal, the objects, the
plural, the reciprocal, the distributive, and the preverbs. e division between
conjunct and disjunct is somewhat arbitrary, but it is not insignificant that the
rightmost prefixes which can bear lexical tone are among the inalienable incorporated nouns.
e incorporates are split into two slots, although (leer:) does not give
any examples where prefixes from both groups occur and I have yet to encounter
any such forms. A possible distinction is that the inalienables can take object
prefixes as possessors, but the alienable incorporates do not. e division between the two is instead functional, with the inner slot composed of nearly all
inalienable nouns and the outer slot composed of alienable nouns. e only noninalienable nouns which appear amongst the inalienables are sʼaḵ- from sʼaaḵ
“bone” (cf. a sʼaaḡí “its bone”) and duk- from dook “skin” (cf. a doogú “its skin”).
ere are fewer alienable incorporates, and they generally derive from abstract
concepts like yaan- “hunger”, kanik- “news”, and ḵee ~ ḵei- “dawn”, although there
are a few concrete examples like yakw- “canoe” and hin- “fresh water”. e inalienable incorporates are more common than the alienable incorporates, and can
be found in a number of very common verbs. A couple of examples of various
incorporates are given below.
()
a. P-eet yaan=[−, ]-haa “P be hungry”
du éet
yaan uwaháa
du-ʔée-t
yaan=ÿu-ÿa-haa
.-- hunger=-[−, , +]-fit
“he is hungry”
(story:)
b. O-x̱ʼa-ÿa-[−, l]-sʼeilʼ “O tear loose from hook in mouth”
daak ax̱ʼayawlisʼélʼ
daak=a-x̱ʼa-ÿa-ÿu-li-sʼeilʼ
seaward=-mouth---[−, l, +]-tear
“it (salmon) tore loose from the hook”
(story:)
Unlike some Athabaskan languages (rice:), there are no incorporates which
can be clearly distinguished as activity incorporates. e alienable ḡax̱- derived
from ḡaax̱ “crying, weeping” might be construed as one, but it is not used for “do
X while crying” but instead functions more like “do X which involves crying”,

implying that the activity denoted by the verb is crying and thus crying is not a
cooccuring activity. e following example shows ḡax̱- in use.
() ḡax̱=S[]-[−, s]-tee “pl. S cry”
kei ḡax̱ gax̱yisatée
kei=ḡax̱-gax̱yi-sa-tee
up=cry-..-[−, s, −]-be
“you (pl.) will cry”
(story:)
Leward of the incorporates are the objects, which are more numerous than
the subjects and have distinctly different forms. ey are first person singular
x̱at ~ ax̱-, first person plural haa-, second person singular i-, second person plural
yee-, third person proximate ash-, third person a ~ -, indefinite human ḵu ~ ḵaa, indefinite nonhuman at-, partitive aa-, and reflexive sh ~ -. e third person
object prefix varies between a- and - in a way that is vaguely reminiscent but
not the same as the yi- vs. bi- alternation in Athabaskan languages. In Tlingit the
alternation is purely morphological, with - being the usual unmarked form and
a- appearing only when the subject is third person - or is not present, except
when a noun phrase marked with the ergative suffix - immediately precedes
the third person object – requiring that no other prefixes le of the object are
present – in which case the prefix switches back to -.
() O-S-[−, ]-x̱aa “S eat O”
a. x̱waax̱aa
-ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-x̱aa
--.-[−, , +]-eat
“I ate it”
b. aawax̱aa
a-ÿu--ÿa-x̱aa
---[−, , +]-eat
“he ate it”
e following examples illustrate the effect of ergative-marked noun phrases
which cause the third person object prefix to switch back to - even when there
is a third person object.
() O-S-[−, s]-teen “S see O”

a. wé
shaawátch xóots
awsiteen
wé
shaawát-ch xóots
a-ÿu--si-teen
. woman- brown.bear ---[−, s, +]-see
“the woman saw the bear”
(cable:)
b. xóots
wé
shaawátch wusiteen
xóots
wé
shaawát-ch -ÿu--si-teen
brown.bear . woman- ---[−, s, +]-see
“the woman saw the bear”
(cable:)
Beyond the objects are what leer: terms the number prefixes, one slot
containing the plural number s ~ has- and the next containing the reciprocal wooshand the distributive dax̱-. e plural prefix is somewhat common, indicating
number of either the subject or object third person arguments, and can appear
even when plurality is unambiguous from other sources like verb roots and plural nouns. It is clearly related to and perhaps derived from the plural particle
hás and the plural prefix has- found in the independent third person plural possessive pronoun hasdu. Some speakers use s- very frequently, which seems to
be a characteristic of Southern and Transitional dialects, however other speakers
tend to use has- more oen instead, which seems to be characteristic of Northern
dialects.
() yándei yaa s nakwán
yán-dei=yaa=s-na---kwán
shore-=along=---[−, , −]-swim.
“they are swimming ashore”
(story:)
e most leward morphemes in the verb are the preverbs, which in function
should be immediately familiar for Athabaskanists, though the forms are mostly
quite different. (leer:) divided the preverbs (his “proclitic adjunct phrases”)
into six or seven subgroups which I have retained. e majority of Tlingit preverbs refer to direction although there are a few manner preverbs as well. e
most abstract preverb is yéi= “thus”, the others have more obvious meanings. A
number of preverbs can take certain locative case suffixes: punctual -t, pertingent
-x̱, and allative -déi.
..
S
Tlingit has a much more elaborate suffix system than what is found among the
Athabaskan languages. e aspectual suffixes described for Athabaskan have a
parallel described by leer: in what he calls the “inner mode suffixes”, and

which I call simply “stem variation”. Most of these are notional suffixes which
represent the regular apophonic changes of the vowel in the verb root, although
the -n suffix does surface as a separate segment along with its associated vowel
change which can be seen in the following example.
() O-S-[−, ]-x̱aa “S eat O”
a. at guḡax̱áa
at-ga-u-ḡa---x̱aa-ʼ
.---̱--[−, , −]-eat-
“he will eat (something)”
b. yándei yaa anax̱éin
yán-dei=yaa=a-na---x̱aa-n
-=along=---[−, , −]-eat-
“he’s almost finished eating”
(story:)
Because I do not fully understand the stem variation process, and because the
extant verb documentation provides only a few notes on what kinds of paerns
exist in the lexicon, I generally avoid glossing stem variation and instead simply
treat the apophony as an opaque process as one might for example with Koyukon.
story: offers more examples with an analysis based strictly on the Northern
dialect, but does not describe the process in terms of a suffix.
e derivational suffixes are infrequent, and of varying productivity. ey attach to certain roots and derive a new verb with a related meaning. e original
root undergoes apophony when aached with a derivational suffix and its resulting form is fixed, i.e. root+derivational forms do not have stem variation. e
resulting verbs are generally paradigmatically restricted, with only certain conjugations available. e most frequent and semantically transparent derivational
suffix is the amissive -x̱aa which indicates missing a target. It can only combine
with verbs whose meaning includes aiming at targets, and story: give seven
verbs which include the suffix. e example below compares the ordinary verb
for “shoot” with its amissive derivation “shoot and miss”.
()
a. O-S-[−, s]-ʔoon “S shoot O”
dzískw x̱waa.ún
dzískw -ÿu-x̱a-ÿa-ʔoon
moose --.-[−, , +]-shoot
“I shot a moose”

(story:)
b. O-ya-S-[−, s]-ʔún-x̱aa “S shoot and miss O”
ayawsi.únx̱aa
a-ya-ÿu--si-ʔún-x̱aa
----[−, s, +]-shoot-
“he shot and missed it”
(story:)
Other derivational suffixes include the restorative -án, simulative -aa, intensive -(sh ~ ʼ)án, deprivative -( ~ y ~ ʼ)áḵw, denominal -ÿí, liabilitive -ee, coplural -ḵ, and several with unknown meanings: -k(w), -(ʼ)álʼ, -ʼ, -nas, -násʼ, and
-kátʼ.
e durational suffixes indicate the duration of an event that is described by
the verb. Only some of these suffixes are fully productive, others are apparently
restricted to certain verbs. e most common and fully productive are the frequentive -, repetitive -k(w), and habitual -x̱(w). e plural object suffix -xʼ is
infrequent but seems to be somewhat productive, the other plural object suffix -tʼ
is rare and unproductive. e serial -sʼ indicates actions repeatedly in a sequence.
ere are also the suffixes -t and -lʼ which are extremely rare with unknown functions. Examples of a few of the durational suffixes are given below.
()
a. S-[+, ]-tees “S shuffle”
nadatísch
át
á-t
na--da-tees-ch
it- --[+, , −]-shuffle-
“they shuffle around noisily on it”
b. O-ya-S-[−, s]-ḵaa “S say O”
yéi yoo ayasiḵéik
yéi=yoo=a-ya---si-ḵaa-k
thus==----[−, s, +]-say-
“he says it (so) again and again”
c. O-S-[+, s]-xʼaa “S twist O”
sʼú áwé
dusxʼéix̱
sʼú áwé
--du-s-xʼaa-x̱
root . --.-[+, s, −]-twist-
“they always twist roots”
d. awlixʼéisʼ
a-ÿu--li-xʼaa-sʼ
---[−, l, +]-
“he twisted it over and over”

(story:)
(naish:)
(story:)
(story:)
e. O-ka-S-[−, l]-xaakw “S grind O”
aklaxákwlʼ
a-ka---la-xaakw-lʼ
----[−, l, −]-grind-
“he’s grinding it”
(naish:)
e mode suffixes cover the contingent -(i/u)n, conditional -ni, decessive -een,
optative -(ee)ḵ, aributive -ÿi, and subordinative -ÿí. ey are relatively frequent
and are fully productive paradigmatically. e examples below illustrate a few
of these suffixes.
()
a. O-ka-S-[−, ]-heix̱ “S plant O”
akahéix̱een
a-ka---heix̱-een
---[−, , −]-plant-
“he used to plant”
b. S-[−, ]-goot “sg. S go”
gwál haax̱ ugoodeeḵ
gwál haa-x̱=u---goot-eeḵ
 hither-=--[−, , −]-go.-
“I wish he’d come here”
c. haat ḡagúdin
haat=ḡa---goot-in
hither=̱--[−, , −]-go.-
“whenever he comes here”
d. át
igútni
á-t
i--goot-ni
it- .-[−, , −]-go.-
“if/when you get there”
(naish:)
(naish:)
(naish:)
(naish:)
e enclitic auxiliaries are meaningless hosts for several of the verb suffixes.
eir use is somewhat idiosyncratic: some speakers almost never use them, some
speakers use them extensively, and most are somewhere in the middle. ey
arise when suffixes and root shape produce a complex consonant cluster that is
phonotactically undesirable, in which case suffixes are shied to the auxiliary.
eir shapes are conventionalized but vary between the dialects in parallel with
variation in other specific verb roots. ere are auxiliaries for the frequentative, frequentative decessive, repetitive, conditional, and contingent. Use of an

auxiliary precludes stem variation, although the reason for this is not clear. e
origin of the auxiliary host is obscure, but it appears to be from a verb which
might have been O-S-[−, ]-neekw meaning loosely “S feel O”, or perhaps P-t
S-[−, ]-neekw “S feel like doing P” (leer:).
()
a. sh kanx̱alneekch
sh-ka-na-x̱a-l-neek-ch
.---.-[−, l, −]-tell-
“I always tell the story”
b. sh kanx̱alneek nooch
sh-ka-na-x̱a-l-neek=nooch
.---.-[−, l, −]-tell=.
.
R
.
A
, , 







+

+










person
allative, “to, toward”
alternative, “back and forth”
areal, “space, environment, weather, extent”
aributive
auxiliary
meaningless base for pronominal aachment
classifier: voice, valency, realis, noun class
middle voice or thematic
{, s, l, sh}: valency, noun class, or thematic
realis
conditional, “if, when”
contingent, “if ever, whenever”
decessive
demonstrative
diminuitive
distal, far from speaker and listener
distributive
ergative case, subject of transitive verb
focus
frequentative

(leer:)


̱



































future tense
ga-conjugation/aspect
ḡa-conjugation/aspect
habitual
horizontal surface, “top, flat, surface”
inalienable noun
indefinite human, “somebody”
indefinite nonhuman, “something”
instrumental case, “using, with”
irrealis
locative, “at, in, by, on”
mesiodistal, nearer to listener
mesioproximal, nearer to speaker
na-conjugation/aspect
negative
object
obviate discourse argument
optative
perfective
perlative case, “through, along, across”
pertingent case, “at, in contact with, form of, member o”
plural
punctual case, “at/to a point”
progressive
proximal, closest to speaker
proximate discourse argument
possessive pronoun or possessed suffix
reciprocal
repetitive
reversive, “back, backwards”
reflexive
subject
self-benefactive
serial
simulative, “like, as, similar to, equivalent with”
singular
unspecified suffix
terminative, “cease, end, coming to a point”




stem variation
vertical surface, “side, face, flat”
-conjugation/aspect
