(no subject)

[moonflower77]

 Verbs starting with j-, i-, e- undergo the following changes when merged with a direct complement (object):

- the subject marker j- is omitted: ni jardʲ ″I am feeding″, ni kan-ardʲ ″I am feeding the dog″, pila-dʲiγr-mоnʲŋаγ-oz-art-hаdʲrа ″(we) often feed the roots of the pilars holding the ceiling beam″, pʰоγlа-oxttʲ ″is treating (his, her) child″ (oxttʲ<joxttʲ ″to cure, heal, treat (for a medical condition)″;

- the initial sound i- alternates with h-: ni jedʲ ″I am cooking″, ni čʰо-hеdʲ ″I am cooking fish″;

- the subject marker (prefix) i- is omitted and the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another: ni irlydʲ ″I pulled, dragged″, ni kʰe-řlydʲ ″I pulled, dragged a net″, ni indydʲ ″I saw/found″, ni täko-nřydʲ ″I saw/found a knife″;

- the subject marker (prefix) i- is omitted and the historical root vowel -u, which used to be present in the past, is restored, whereas the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another: ni iγdʲ ″I killed″, nʲi kan-kʰudʲ ″I killed a dog″; ni ifktʲ ″I harnessed″, ni kan-buktʲ ″I harnessed a dog″, ni irdʲ ″I sharpened″, ni täko-řydʲ ″I sharpened a knife″,

- the subject marker (prefix) i- is omitted and the root vowel -i- is restored, the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another: ni inʲdʲ ″I ate″, ni čʰо-nʲidʲ ″I ate fish″, ni izdʲ ″I flayed″, ni kаn-čʰidʲ ″I flayed a dog″;

- the subject marker (prefix) e- is omitted, the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another: ni eγnadʲ ″I greased, oiled, smeared″, ni ki-xnadʲ ″I greased the footwear″, ni meutü-kʰnadʲ ″I greased the rifle″;

- the subject marker (prefix) e- is omitted, the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another, the root vowel -o- is restored: ni evdʲ ″I held″, ni täko-vоdʲ ″I held a knife″, ni tux-pоdʲ I held an axe″, ni kаn-bоdʲ ″I held a dog″; hymrant ŋаγ-anʲ-doro hyn-daknʲ-bot ixs hiur-kʰеt hiuxyta ″for six years these claws have been held thus, considering (them) an amulet, killing numerous bears″;

- the subject marker (prefix) e- is omitted, the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another, the vowel -o- is restored after the second consonant: ezmudʲ ″to love; to rejoice″, ni čʰо-smоdʲ ″I love fish″, ni tüs-čʰmоdʲ ″I love meat″;

- the subject marker (prefix) e- is omitted, the second consonant after the prefix alternates with another, the root vowel -e- is restored: ni esptʲ ″I jabbed″, ni čʰо-sevdʲ ″I jabbed at the fish″;

- the subject marker (prefix) e- is omitted, the first consonant after the prefix alternates with another, the root vowel -i- alternates with -e-:näγr eγridʲ ″the rat gnawed″, näγr ma-хredʲ ″the rat gnawed at the dried salted fish″, näγr ŋynʲf-kʰredʲ ″the rat gnawed at the bone″.

From the aforementioned examples, it is clear that the subject replaces the generalized marker and merges with the verb, and that the resulting phrase is phonologically distinct from the words in their complete, separate form. The lexicalization of such incorporation-based word complexes is extremely rare. The following words can be cited as examples: kinznřydʲ ″(someone) sick with tuberculosis″, literally ″saw a demon″, joxpodʲ ″the forced kidnapping of a woman by the clan of her in-laws″, tʰanmadʲ ″to complete one’s studies to acquire a professional qualification″. These complex words do not appear to be any different from the lexical complexes formed by means of incorporation, but their first part cannot be replaced without the meaning being completely lost.

The constituents of a compound word do not change and are fixed, while those of an incorporation-based complex are flexible, in that they may be supplemented with other words or morphological markers: ni indydʲ ″I saw″, ni kаn-nřydʲ, ″I saw a dog″, ni kаn-nʲyn-nřydʲ, ″I saw one dog″, ni kаn-nʲyn-bar-nřydʲ ″I only saw one dog″.

Transitive verbs belonging to the other large group do not have a generalized subject marker and begin with a fricative. Their initial fricatives undergo the same alternation as those in verbs whose generalized subject marker has been preserved. For example: Kоdin tivla-čʰах-tatot ″Kodin, having drunk all the cold water″; piula-boskеdʲ ″bought dark fabric″; tüs-tʰаdʲ ″roasts meat″; nʲavr-park-čʰira ″put (sth.) in one place only″; kоtr kyla-tʰulv-nʲаkr pʰryf-pʰir kʰоdʲ ″staying in his home throughout the whole long winter, the bear sleeps″.

To summarize the above, incorporation is a natural manfestation of the entire Nivkh linguistic system. Although the “building blocks” are extremely flexible, with every element having a certain range of variations (phonemes have allophones, morphemes have allomorphs, lexemes have allolexemes), the functioning of the elements, principal and flexible alike, is strictly regulated.

The influence of the philosopher and linguist V. Z. Panfilov has led some scholars to challenge the existence of incorporation in Nivkh. Panfilov stated that "... what is formed by the attributive modifier and the word modified, the direct complement and the predicate in the Nivkh language are not incorporation-based complexes, but phrases comprised of adjacent words." This statement resulted in attempts being made to sever the components of the complexes from each other and to present them as separate words, which, of course, was impossible: non-existent lexical units cannot be “combined” with anything. Their independent use would be alien to the internal laws of the language. However, there was one positive aspect to their isolation: they could now be used in written texts. This has no effect whatsoever on spoken language and is understood by the few literate Nivkh. The proponents of adjacency cannot explain consonant alternation and merely state that it is present. Ultimately, if does not take into account the laws of consonant alternation and the role played by stress, then the entire linguistic system, the organic unity of phonetics, morphology and syntax is distorted.

In their Nivkh-Russian dictionary, V. N. Savelyeva and Ch. M. Taksami managed to find a middle ground between the two positions. The dictionary contains some beautiful examples of compound words constructed according to the rules of incorporation, such as pal-diγr-ta-nivx ″lumberjack″ [pal forest, tiγr ~ ziγr ~ diγr ~ čʰař tree, řadʲ ~ tʰadʲ to chop forewood, nivx man, human being, so that pal-diγr-tа-nivx consists of the following lexical units: pal+tiγr+řadʲ+nivx]. However, at the same time, one can often encounter constructions such as nʲyn kolxoz ty anʲux pudigur čʰo xudʲ “this year our kolkhoz procured more fish”. Phrasal units such as vytʲ zif “railroad, railway (lit. iron road – a verbatim translation from Russian)” have also been constructed in accordance with the Russian model. Such a structure can be regarded as incorrect simply because there are no adjectives in the Nivkh language, while vytʲ "iron", as any other noun, may serve as an attributive modifier while attached to another noun in its unmodified form. There is no separate lexical unit zif, only tif "path, trackway". In Russian the word for “road” represents an abstract concept, and an attribute (adjective) is added in order to make it more specific: “iron road” (railroad), dirt road, tarmac road, pedestrian road etc., or one uses a different noun (trail, highway, etc.). In contrast, in Nivkh there is no abstract notion of “a road” – there are only specific tangible roads, each having its own name, a compound word built according to the laws of the Nivkh language. Therefore, one can argue that the correct form would be vytʲzif.