Guillaume Jacques

Anton Antonov

Direct/inverse systems *

Introduction

The term 'inverse' has been used in the typological literature to designate a considerable variety of phenomena, which have been analyzed in several distinct ameworks. Direct-inverse systems are attested in a number of endangered languages spoken in the Americas (Algonquian, Mapudungun, Sahaptian etc) and the Himalayas (Sino-Tibetan).

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of direct/inverse systems in a perspective as ee as possible om amework-specific assumptions, using the most recent data and adopting both a typological and a historical perspective. It is divided into four sections.

First, we propose a definition of the canonical direct/inverse system, and introduce the concepts of proximate/obviative and referential hierarchies.

Second, we present examples of attested direct/inverse systems in the world' s languages by subdividing them into two main categories: near-canonical and highly non-canonical, and additionally discussing systems with hierarchical agreement but without direction (direct/inverse) marking.

Third, we evaluate to what extent direct/inverse systems are correlated with other typological features.

Fourth, we apply a panchronic perspective on direct/inverse systems, studying their attested origin and their evolution, and how the diachronic pathways can help understand the present data.

Basic definition

Before defining the canonical direct/inverse system, we need to introduce some of the terminology used by typologists to describe systems which index two arguments.¹ It is customary to represent these systems using semantic maps in tabular format as in Table 1, where rows indicate agent and columns patient. The different transitive configurations are symbolically represented by using an arrow, with the agent on its le and the patient on its right, both abbreviated as 1, 2, 3 for first, * We would like to thank Sonia Cristofaro, Lynn Drapeau, Ives Goddard, Katharina Haude, Enrique Palancar, Géraldine Walther and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier versions of this article. We are responsible for any remaining errors. This research was funded by the HimalCo project (ANR-12-CORP-0006) and is related to the research strand LR-⒋11 'Automatic paradigm generation and language description' of the Labex EFL (funded by the ANR/CGI).

¹Indexation systems involving three arguments exist, but are rarer and will not be considered in this section.

1 second and third person respectively. The first and second persons are called speech act participants (SAP). In the case of third person arguments 3 indicates proximate and 3' obviative referents (⒉2). In intransitive forms, by contrast, the abbreviation refers to the sole argument of the verb.

They are systematically included for reference.

The cells corresponding to the 1→1 and 2→2 configurations are semantically reflexive and are thus filled in grey, since in most languages they tend to be expressed by an intransitive construction².

The 3→3 cell, on the other hand, is not since the corresponding configuration is not necessarily reflexive.

Table 1: The three domains of the transitive paradigm

1 2 3 1 1→2 1→3 2 2→1 2→3 3 3→1 3→2 3→3 intr 1 2 3
This table does not represent number, clusivity and obviation, but more complex paradigms including these features will be studied below.

As will become clear in the course of this article, it is convenient to separate the transitive paradigm into three domains (Zúñiga 2006, 47-54), represented in Table 1 by different colours.

First, the local domain (in blue) comprises the forms 1→2 and 2→1, where both arguments are SAPs. Second, the non-local domain (in red) refers to the cases where both arguments are third person. Third, the mixed domain (in green) includes all the forms with a SAP argument and a third person (1→3, 2→3, 3→1, 3→2).

The canonical direct/inverse system

Given the diversity of direct/inverse systems in the world' s languages, canonical typology (Corbett, 2007) seems to be a useful tool for accurately describing them by accounting for their deviation om the canon. The canonical direct/inverse system could then be defined as a type of transitive person marking system presenting three essential characteristics.

First, in such a system all person-number markers are neutral with regard to syntactic roles (S, A and O).³ Second, the ambiguity which this entails (especially in mixed scenarios) is resolved by way of obligatory (and mutually exclusive) markers, called direct (in the case of 1→2, SAP→3, 3→3') and inverse (in the case of 2→1, 3→SAP and 3'→3), respectively. These markers do not appear on intransitive verbs. This property is generally described in terms of referential hierarchies (see section ⒉3).

²The same applies, in languages with clusivity (a distinction between first person inclusive vs exclusive) to the combination of first inclusive and second person.

³See Haspelmath (2011) for a discussion of the terms S (only argument of an intransitive verb), A (more agent-like argument of a transitive verb) and O (more patient-like argument of a transitive verb) . In terms of Bickel et al. (in press,9)'s approach, all persons trigger agreement in all three syntactic roles.

2

Third, inverse verb forms unlike verb forms in a passive construction, do not undergo valency changes (the verb does not become intransitive when an inverse marker is added), and the arguments keep the same syntactic properties (such as case marking and pivot accessibility) as in the direct construction.

Table 2 illustrates the canonical system, for which we have taken 1 > 2 > 3 > 3' as the canonical person hierarchy. We can observe the perfectly symmetrical distribution of direct and inverse forms, along an axis running om the upper le side to the bottom right side of the table. Direct forms appear in orange and inverse ones in green.

1 2 3 3' 1 1→2 1→3 2 2→1 2→3 3 3→1 3→2 3→3' 3' 3'→3 intr 1 2 3
No language exactly attests the pattern in Table 2, although Rgyalrong languages (Sino-Tibetan, Sichuan, China) are among the closest to it.⁴

The status of the local and non-local domains varies considerably across languages, but in most languages with near-canonical systems inverse and/or direct markers can also be found in these domains.

In the local domain, all possibilities but one appear to be attested: 2→1 receives the inverse marker (as in Situ Rgyalrong), both 2→1 and 1→2 receive the inverse marker (as in Mapudungun, a language isolate of Chile), or else 1→2 and 2→1 are expressed by special forms unrelated to either the direct or the inverse ones (as in Algonquian). Another possibility is that the use of direct/inverse markers in the local domain can depend on the particular person-number combination involved (as in Kiranti languages). The one possibility not attested to the best of our knowledge is one where 1→2 would receive inverse marking whereas 2→1 would be marked as direct.

In the non-local domain, some languages with a direct/inverse system present a further contrast between proximate and obviative referents (see ⒉2 for more details). In such cases, the inverse marker appears in the 3'→3 and the direct marker in the 3→3' configuration and the same direction markers are shared between the mixed and non-local domains.

Proximate / obviative

Algonquian languages have grammaticalized a distinction between two types of third person referents. These are generally designated as proximate ⑶ and obviative (3'). This distinction is redundantly marked on both nouns and all verb forms, including transitive and intransitive ones (see ⒊⒈2). In addition, the proximate / obviative status of the arguments determines the presence of direct or inverse marking on transitive verbs: in non-local scenarios, when the A is proximate and ⁴Direct/inverse systems are oen illustrated with data om Algonquian languages, but they generally lack direct/inverse marking in the local domain, and are thus farther removed om the canon than Rgyalrong languages.

the O is obviative, the direct form is used, whereas in the case when the A is obviative and the O is proximate, the inverse form is required. In example 1, the verb is in the direct form, as the A is proximate and hence unmarked while the O is obviative (marked with the -a suffix), whereas in example 2, the converse is true. The dog scares the man. (Wolfart, 1973, 25) In the mixed domain, the proximate / obviative status of the third person referent is also indicated on the verb (see Table 4).

No language outside of Algonquian displays a system in which the proximate / obviative distinction is marked on nouns, on intransitive verbs and in the mixed domain. As is the case in Japhug, in languages with direct-inverse contrast in the non-local domain, the choice of proximate or obviative status for a particular referent (and thus the use of an inverse or a direct form) is guided by both semantics (relative animacy of the agent and patient) and pragmatics (the relative topicality or saliency of the two referents).

Referential hierarchies

Some authors have proposed to apply the (pre-existing) concept of referential hierarchies in order to provide a unified account of the use of direct/inverse markers in all three domains, including the question of how the proximate or obviative status of the referents is determined.

Since DeLancey (1981a, 644), direct/inverse systems are oen described in terms of the Empathy Hierarchy presented in (4):⁵ ⁵For an overview of referential or prominence hierarchies, see Lockwood and Macauley (2012). These hierarchies, ⑷ SAP > third person pronoun > human > animate > natural forces > inanimate

The distribution of direct and inverse markers can then be captured by the following rule: ⑸ If the patient is higher on the hierarchy than the agent, the verb receives inverse marking; conversely, if the agent is higher on the hierarchy than the patient (or if both are equal), the verb receives direct marking.

In DeLancey's view, the Empathy Hierarchy in ( 4) is motivated by several factors.

First, the ranking SAP → 3 is due to an 'inherent natural attention flow', whereby discourse participants (first or second person) are the 'natural starting point' of most utterances. Second, the ranking within the third persons is explained by the concept of empathy, hence the name of the proposed hierarchy: 'speakers, being animate and humans, are more likely to empathize with (i.e.

take the viewpoint of ) human beings than animals, and of animals than inanimates.

The hierarchy in ( 4) is a general model which has to be adapted to each language to correctly predict the attested forms, and some variation can be observed even between closely related languages.

A detailed investigation of hierarchies in direct/inverse systems is beyond the scope of this paper (see Zúñiga 2006 for more detail). Overall, the two rankings SAP > 3 and animate > inanimate appear to be relatively robust, and can even be considered definitional of direct/inverse systems within a theoretical amework using referential hierarchies.⁶ Additionally, direct/inverse systems are considered by some authors as a special case of hierarchical alignment (Nichols 1992), a type distinct om accusative, ergative, active or tripartite alignment.

Following Siewierska (1998, 10), hierarchical alignment can be defined as an alignment type where "the treatment of the A and O is dependent on their relative ranking on the referential and/or ontological hierarchies".

Attested systems

This section will present three types of hierarchical systems: near-canonical direct/inverse systems, highly non-canonical direct/inverse systems and hierarchical systems without direction (direct/inverse) markers.

Near-canonical direct/inverse systems

Rgyalrong languages

The direct/inverse systems of Rgyalrong languages have been described in several studies (DeLancey 1981b on Situ, Sun and Shidanluo 2002 on Tshobdun, Jacques 2010 on Japhug and ? on Zbu).

initially proposed in order to account for particular splits in case patterns (see Silverstein 1976), have also been used to explain a variety of other phenomena, including the distribution of direct and inverse markers and slot accessibility. However, it is not always possible to account for all phenomena within a given language by positing a single hierarchy, as Zúñiga 2006 has shown. In Cree for instance, no less than four distinct hierarchies are needed to explain direct/inverse marking and the allocation of person markers to the correct slot. ⁶Hierarchies involving 3 > SAP may govern slot accessibility, as in the case of slots 5-7 in Cree which follow the hierarchy 1pl > 1incl/2pl > 3 animate > SAP.sg > 3 inanimate, Zúñiga 2006, 8⒍ This type of hierarchy has however never been described for direct/inverse morphemes.

These languages index not only the person but also the number of the two arguments in the verbal morphology, and the resulting paradigm is more complex than the pattern shown in Table 2.

In 6, the verb has a direct form, and the inverse is blocked, as the A is SAP while the O is third person. On the other hand, 7 illustrates the compulsory use of the inverse marker when the agent is third person and the patient SAP. The presence or absence of the inverse prefix in 3→3 forms (in other words, the 3'→3 vs 3→3' contrast) can be predicted by the following rules [START_REF] Sun | 200⒉ Caodeng Jiarongyu yu rentong dengdi xiangguan de yufa xianxiang 草登嘉戎語與「認同等第」相關的語法現象 (Empathy Hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar)[END_REF]Shidanluo 2002, Jacques 2010):

⒈ When the agent is animate and the patient inanimate, the inverse is blocked.

⒉ When the agent is inanimate and the patient animate, the inverse is required.

There is a strong, though not absolute, tendency for the inverse to appear when the agent is non-human animate and the patient human. When both arguments are human, there is no absolute constraint blocking or requiring the use of the inverse. 3'→3 forms with inverse marking are relatively rare in comparison with direct 3→3' ones, and are used when the patient is markedly more topical than the agent. and could thus be considered as a non-canonical direct marker.

1sg 1du 1pl 2sg 2du 2pl 3sg 3du 3pl 3' 1sg Σ 3 -ŋ Σ 3 -ŋ-ndʑə Σ 3 -ŋ-ɲə 1du tɐ-Σ 1 tɐ-Σ 1 -ndʑə tɐ-Σ 1 -ɲə Σ 1 -tɕə 1pl Σ 1 -jə 2sg tə-wə-Σ 1 -ŋ tə-Σ 3 2du tə-wə-Σ 1 -ŋ-ndʑə tə-wə-Σ 1 -tɕə tə-wə-Σ 1 -jə tə-Σ 1 -ndʑə 2pl tə-wə-Σ 1 -ŋ-ɲə tə-Σ 1 -ɲə 3sg wə-Σ 1 -ŋ Σ 3 3du
1→2 forms are distinct om all the rest, with a synchronically opaque portmanteau tɐ-1→2 prefix (if the system was perfectly symmetrical, 1→2 forms such as *tə-Σ 1 -ŋ would be expected).

To account for the Zbu Rgyalrong data presented above, the following hierarchy has to be posited: ⑻ 1 > 2 > 3 animate proximate > 3 animate obviative > 3 inanimate Applying rule 5 to the hierarchy in (8) predicts the occurrence of the inverse in 2→1, 3→SAP and 3'→3 forms, and its absence in 1→2, SAP→3 and 3→3'. Here proximate/obviative (or topical/nontopical) is more relevant than human/non-human as listed in the original formulation of the hierarchy in (4).

Describing Japhug Rgyalrong data in this amework would require a different hierarchy (Jacques 2012b):

⑼ SAP > 3 animate proximate > 3 animate obviative > 3 inanimate > generic human In Japhug, there is no inverse in 2→1 forms, while it appears with a generic human agent (disregarding the animacy of the patient).

Zbu Rgyalrong also allows us to illustrate the ways in which inverse marking can be shown to differ om passive marking. Indeed, the Zbu prefix wəcannot be analyzed as a passive marker for several reasons. First, it is obvious that the verb still remains transitive even in inverse forms, since especially in 2/3 →1sg the number markers -ndʑə (dual) or -ɲə (plural) are suffixed to the first person -ŋ and since in all 2→1 forms both the second person təprefix and the first person -ŋ, -tɕə or -jə suffixes are present. Given the fact that both the agent and the patient are indexed, one can deduce that the inverse wəhas no intransitivizing effect.

Second, the addition of the inverse prefix has no effect on case marking: third person agents still receive ergative case, as illustrated by example (10) om ?.

⑽ tʂɐɕıB krashis

skutse ́ʔ stone kə erg tə-wə-xsəv aor-inv-hit ki non.visual 'A stone hit bKrashis.' (The stone falls om the mountain, for example) Third, the inverse prefix wəis not a derivation contrary to the passive construction in this language: the semantics of inverse forms are always predictable om that of the base forms, unlike derivation prefixes in Rgyalrong languages (including passive, anticausative, antipassive etc, see Jacques 2012b) which present many irregularities.

Few direct/inverse systems are as symmetrical as the one attested in Zbu Rgyalrong, and in fact these systems present tremendous diversity across languages. Partially opaque inverse systems will be studied in more detail in ⒊2.

Algonquian languages

Algonquian languages differ om Rgyalrong and all other languages with direct/inverse (apart om Kutenai) in that the proximate/obviative distinction is largely independent of direction marking on the verb.

In Algonquian languages, all animate nouns are marked for proximate and obviative and all animate third person referents have a clear status as proximate or obviative in a given sentence. No such distinction is found in the case of SAP (SAPs are never obviative) nor in the case of inanimate nouns in most of these languages. Furthermore, the singular/plural distinction is neutralized in obviative forms (except in some Central Algonquian languages such as Fox and Miami-Illinois) or else there is no contrast between proximate and obviative in the plural (as in Blackfoot). In a single sentence, at most one argument can be proximate, but it is also possible to find sentences with only obviative arguments.

Table 4 (adapted om Wolfart, 1973) illustrates an example of a transitive animate paradigm (the verb wâpam-"see") and an intransitive animate one with pimipahtâ-"run". The direct markers are -â-or -ê-and the inverse marker is -ik(o). Please note that the proximate/obviative distinction is also marked on intransitive verbs. rabbit-obv 'His sister had killed but one rabbit.' (Wolfart, 1996, p. 401) Such a form illustrates the fact that a given sentence can have any number of obviative arguments.

Thus, a configuration with two obviative arguments does not imply reflexivization.

The morphosyntactic marking of the proximate/obviative distinction presents some noteworthy differences with other languages with direct/inverse such as Rgyalrong.

First, in Algonquian, we observe a tripartite distinction between proximate animate, obviative animate and inanimate referents. Indeed, the empathy hierarchy for Cree would be the following:⁷ ⑿ SAP > animate proximate > animate obviative > inanimate ⁷It is generally considered that the second person outranks the first person (2 > 1) in Algonquian languages, but this refers to a distinct hierarchy related to the slot accessibility of person prefixes, not the distribution of direct and inverse forms. Concerning obviative inanimates, see a recent study by Muehlbauer (2012).

Second, the proximate/obviative distinction in Rgyalrong is only present in 3→3' and 3'→3 verb forms, while in Algonquian it is also redundantly marked on nouns, intransitive verbs and transitive mixed forms.

Third, in Algonquian languages, the possessee of a SAP possessor can be either proximate or obviative, but the possessee of a third person proximate referent must be obviative. Thus, in example 13, where the possessee ('John's dog') is the agent and the possessor ('John') is the patient, the inverse suffix -ik is required, since the former ('John's dog') is automatically obviative.

⒀ Cân

John o-têm-a 3sg.poss-dog-obv kî-mâkwam-ik pst-bite-inv John prox 's dog obv bit him prox . (Wolfart 1973, 25) Although a similar constraint has been described in other language families such as Mayan (see Aissen 1997), no such phenomenon is attested in other languages with direct/inverse in nonlocal forms, such as Rgyalrong languages, for instance (see Jacques 2010, 141-2), and is thus not a universal property of proximate/obviative marking.

This comparison of Rgyalrong and Algonquian shows that while the proximate/obviative distinction may appear to be a subset of the direct/inverse in non-local forms, the two phenomena are fundamentally different and only intersect in the 3→3' and 3'→3 configurations. Nearly all languages whose direct/inverse system includes the non-local domain behave like Rgyalrong languages.

The only exceptions we are aware of are Algonquian and Kutenai, but even the latter has a much simpler system than Algonquian. This also confirms the fact that the Algonquian direct/inverse system, while undeniably the first to have been properly described, is by no means representative.

Highly non-canonical direct/inverse systems

Highly non-canonical inverse systems comprise two main types: systems with the direct/inverse contrast present in the local or non-local domains but not in the mixed domain, or systems where the direct or inverse markers are polyfunctional. For lack of space, we will only illustrate the second case, using data om Khaling, a Kiranti language of Nepal (Jacques et al. 2012).⁸

As can be seen in Table 5, Khaling has a prefix ʔiwhich appears in the second person forms of intransitive verbs as well as in the following transitive configurations: 2→1, 3→1, 3→2 and 2→⒊

Additionally, it appears in 1du/pl→2 forms which are not shown in that table. Khaling has no contrast between 3 and 3'.

1 2 3 1 Σ-nɛ Σ-u 2 ʔi-Σ-ŋʌ ʔi-Σ-ʉ 3 ʔi-Σ-ŋʌ ʔi-Σ Σ-ʉ intr Σ-ŋʌ ʔi-Σ Σ
⁸The first case is represented by languages with proximate/obviative marking only in the non-local domain (Kutenai, Navajo) and languages with inverse only in local forms such as Nez Percé.

The prefix ʔican be described as appearing in all forms involving the second person (except 1sg→2) and in all inverse forms. It is thus a conflation of a second person marker and an inverse marker, which has little synchronic functional motivation and cannot be described in terms of a hierarchy, even though a historical explanation seems possible (see section ⒌2). We could gloss the Khaling prefix as 2/inv, but it would be misleading to refer to it as an inverse marker.

Prefixes with a distribution nearly identical to that of Khaling ʔiare found in related languages such as Dumi, Trung and Rawang (van Driem 1993).

Hierarchical agreement without direction marking

Hierarchical systems without direct/inverse marking can be illustrated with data om Icari Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian, Sumbatova and Mutalov 2003).

This language illustrates the fact that the access to inflectional slots may be described in terms of an indexability hierarchy. There are two clitics (=di '2s' and =da '1, 2p') which mark person in several TAM forms, such as the preterite. Second person arguments are always indexed on the verb irrespective of their grammatical role (S, A, or O). On the other hand, 1st person arguments are indexed only if there is no 2nd person involved (see 14 vs 15)

⒁ du-l 1sg-erg u 2sg(abs) uc-ib=di catch.m.pfv-pret=2sg 1>2 I caught you. ⒂ du-l 1sg-erg Murad M. uc-ib=da catch.m.pfv-pret=1sg 1>3 I caught Murad.
Finally, when there are no SAP arguments, none of these clitics is used. In other words, person indexability is only determined by the hierarchy 2 > 1 > 3, not by grammatical roles (see Table 6 with the verb uc-"to catch" in the preterit form -ib).

2 uc-ib=di uc-ib=di 3 uc-ib=da uc-ib=di uc-ib
The paradigm in Table 6 is the prime example of a hierarchical system without a direction marker.

However, this simple picture looks different when TAM categories derived om the thematic stem are taken into account (Sumbatova and Mutalov, 2003, 81-82, 99).

The choice of the thematic vowel follows the hierarchy SAP > non-SAP. Thus, -ishows that the Agent is higher on the hierarchy than the Patient, -uthat this is not the case, i.e. -iis used if the Agent is SAP and the patient isn't, and -uin all other cases (including intransitive forms, except with 3 person subjects where -ar-/-anis used instead). Person markers in the thematic TAM categories cross-reference only SAP: we have -d '1st person (sg/pl)' and -t ̄/-t ̄a '2nd person (sg/pl)', the 3rd person being unmarked (cf. Table 7).

H H H H H H A P 1 2s 2p 3 1 urc-u-t ̄urc-u-t ̄-a urc-i-d 2s urc-u-t ̄urc-i-t 2p urc-u-t ̄-a urc-i-t ̄-a 3 urc-u-d urc-u-t ̄urc-u-t ̄-a urc-u
Although pure hierarchical systems without any direct or inverse marker are well attested,⁹ it is possible that many languages with hierarchical alignment appearing to lack direction markers may reveal restricted direct or inverse marking in some areas of their grammar, like Icari Dargwa.

In particular, Tangut (Sino-Tibetan; extinct) is generally presented as having a verbal agreement system very close to that of Dargi in Table 6 (the only significant difference being that in Tangut in local forms the verb agrees with the patient, thus 2→1 receives the first person marker instead of the second person marker as in Dargi, cf Kepping 1981). However, it has more recently been shown

that Tangut consistently distinguishes SAP.sg→3 and 3→SAP.sg by stem alternation in the direct forms (Jacques 2009).

Typological perspectives

An important question concerning direct/inverse systems is to what extent this typological feature is correlated with other features. Klaiman (1992Klaiman ( , 1991, 165-169) , 165-169) has proposed a correlation with head-markedness and configurationality, which was indeed observed in most of the languages in her sample.

More than twenty years aer Klaiman's work, it seems unlikely that direct/inverse could be correlated with any other feature (or set of features) in particular. Table 8 presents data om Zbu (?), Cree (Wolfart 1973), Sahaptin (Rude 1997, Zúñiga 2006), Navajo [START_REF] Willie | The Inverse Voice and Possessive yi/bi[END_REF], Dargwa (Sumbatova and Mutalov 2003), Movima (Haude 2009) and Mapudungun (Zúñiga 2006).

This table indicates whether the inverse in these languages appears in the local, non-local or mixed domains, as well as the presence or absence of other typologically relevant features such as head-markedness, discontinuous constituents, case marking, polypersonal marking on the verb, incorporation, and strong noun-verb distinction.

These data show that languages with direct/inverse systems, though mainly head-marking and polysynthetic (i.e. having noun incorporation and polypersonal marking), need not be so. It is important to note that non-configurationality, if understood as allowing discontinuous constituents, is likewise rare among such languages.

⁹The Tupi-Guarani family provides many examples of such systems (see for instance Rose 2009). Given the limited number of languages with direct/inverse systems, it may prove difficult to ascertain whether the presence of such a system in a given language could be correlated with the presence or absence of other features. Indeed, even if we surveyed all such languages, the resulting sample would still be too limited to provide any statistically significant results, especially if all languages of a particular subgroup (Algonquian or Rgyalrong, for instance) are counted as one token.

Extension of the concept of direct/inverse

As defined in section 2 and even taking into account highly non-canonical inverse systems, direct/inverse systems represent a very restricted phenomenon only attested in a minority of languages. Givón (1994) has proposed to extend this term to a broader set of phenomena. Givón (1994, 9) defines the inverse as a type of de-transitive voice where 'the patient is more topical than the agent but the agent retains considerable topicality', unlike the passive where the agent is extremely non-topical (demoted or suppressed). He strictly distinguishes between pragmatic inverse (the optional use of the inverse to indicate that the agent is more topical than the patient)

and semantic inverse (the obligatory use of the inverse conditioned by the relative ranking of the agent and patient on a particular referential hierarchy).

Under this view, inverse constructions are not limited to hierarchical systems, but the concept can be extended to describe topic onting, a phenomenon he designates as word-order inverse. This extension of the concept of direct/inverse, while it has some merits in terms of cross-linguistic comparison, may run into difficulties when analysing the syntax of languages with a near-canonical direct/inverse system, as those languages also have topic onting and right extraposition, and topic onting of the patient is not always correlated with the use of the inverse.

Regardless of terminological preferences, Givonian text counts (in particular of referential distance and topic persistence, Givón 1994, 10) have provided an easily reproductible and insightful basis on which to build a cross-linguistic study of direct/inverse systems. It has been successfully applied to various languages with direct/inverse, such as Kutenai (Dryer 1994) and Japhug Rgyalrong (Jacques 2010).

Diachronic perspective

Recent work such as Cristofaro (2013) has called into question the functional validity of referential hierarchies as an explanatory tool to account for the existence of direct/inverse systems. Instead, it suggests that the structure of direct/inverse systems might be better explained by taking into account the diachronic origin of these markers.

In this section, we provide a panchronic overview of direct and inverse markers: their origins om and their development into other markers. Still, this type of research is aught with difficulties for two main reasons. First, most languages with direct/inverse marking (such as Movima, Kutenai, Mapudungun) are isolates and thus cannot be easily studied in a diachronic perspective. Second, since there are no languages with a near-canonical inverse with a written tradition predating the seventeenth century (when Wampanoag was first put to writing by John Eliot), the data presented here are reconstructions obtained by using the comparative method, and may be subject to revision in the future.

Origins of inverse marking

The best attested origin of inverse markers is om an earlier cislocative. Two additional sources (an earlier passive or a third person marker) have been identified, but examples are fewer and more difficult to interpret.

Cislocative

The term 'cislocative' is used to refer to markers expressing a motion towards the speaker, both directional ('verb hither') and associated motion ('come to verb') ones.¹⁰

The inverse marker in Nez Percé (Sahaptian) used in local scenarios with second person acting on first person has grammaticalized om an earlier cislocative marker, reconstructed for Proto-Sahaptian as *-im (Rude, 1997, 122).

⒃ héexn-e see-pst I saw you.

⒄ hexn-ím-e see-cis-pst You saw me.

Interestingly, this marker has also grammaticalized into the ergative case suffix which appears on the non-SAP agent in mixed scenarios in cases where one would expect inverse marking on the verb (Rude, 1997, 121-2).

⒅ (Stern 1984, 48, cited in DeLancey 2013, 13) Even if we are not dealing with a fully grammaticalized direct/inverse system, the process towards its shaping is well under way.

Similar developments which have not (as yet) reached the same target, are also attested in the unrelated languages Shasta (Shastan, extinct), the Northern Iroquoian languages Cayuga, Tuscarora and Mohawk (Mithun, 1996), but also in Modern Japanese (Shibatani, 2003(Shibatani, , 2006;;Koga and Ohori, 2008) and Kabardian (Kumakhov and Vamling, 2006, 68ff ). In all of these languages a cislocative has evolved, or is currently evolving, into a first person patient or a portmanteau 2 → 1 marker.

As for the grammaticalization path involved, it need not have been the same in all of the languages concerned. Based on data om Japanese (Japonic) and Circassian (NW Caucasian) and the following tentative grammaticalization pathway could be proposed:

(21) come → cislocative associated motion directional → ('sudden action')? → inverse Indeed, apart om their incipient use as a marker of grammatical relations in mixed scenarios, cislocative markers in these two languages have independently developed a secondary meaning of 'sudden action', a semantic extension not attested in the other languages of the sample. Therefore, the pathway proposed in (21) may not be applicable to other languages where the inverse originated om an earlier cislocative marker and so further research is needed.

Passive

A second grammaticalization pathway om passive to inverse has been proposed by several authors, the most prominent of whom is Givón (1994).

This pathway could perhaps be attested in the case of Algonquian. At present, there is no consensus on the origin of the inverse marker (used in the independent order) which has been reconstructed for Proto-Algonquian as *-ekw (Bloomfield, 1946, 98, Goddard, 1979, 89). Goddard (1974) pointed out a possible Wiyot cognate, but the data is too agmentary to draw any firm conclusions. Yurok, the only other relative of Algonquian, has a passive suffix -oy (Robins 1958, 56-8) which presents affinities with inverse marking: it is required in some 3→SAP forms and blocked in SAP→⒊ However, this passive suffix is not relatable to Algonquian *-ekw by known phonetic laws (A. Garrett, p.c.).

Still, McLean (2001) has proposed that the Algonquian inverse suffix *-ekw originated om a passive marker whose function was similar to the suffix -oy in Yurok. There is some evidence for this in modern languages such as Cree and Ojibwe which still have a passive construction distinct om the inverse one but sharing with it the *-ekw element. In Ojibwe (Valentine 2001, 689), for instance, the passive SAP form is marked by -igoo, a compound suffix which could be tentatively analyzed as resulting om the fusion of the inverse -igw with the intransitive animate verb derivational suffix -aa.

Third person

In still other languages, we observe a formal similarity between some inverse or direct markers and various types of third person markers including agent, patient or possessive affixes.

The clearest case is the inverse prefix found in Sino-Tibetan (Rgyalrongic and Kiranti) languages. As first noticed by DeLancey (1981b), the Situ Rgyalrong third person possessive prefix wəis formally identical to the inverse marker. This is also true of other Rgyalrong languages and of some Kiranti languages that have an inverse marker, such as Bantawa (see Table 9, data om ?

and Doornenbal 2009).

Rgyalrong Tshobdun

o- o- Zbu wə- wə- Kiranti Bantawa ɨ-< *u- ɨ-< *u-
The similarity between the two sets of prefixes is striking, and suggests a grammaticalization om a third person marker into an inverse marker. While the exact pathway remains unclear and thus requires further investigation, it is possible that non-finite verb forms carrying a third person possessive prefix were reanalyzed as finite ones. In the case of Sino-Tibetan languages, this scenario probably occurred in the ancestor of both Rgyalrongic and Kiranti languages (see Jacques 2012a and DeLancey 2011).

Stability of direct/inverse systems

Direct/inverse marking appears to be quite stable in at least one family: Algonquian. The system can be reconstructed back to Proto-Algonquian (Goddard 1979, 89) and has been preserved with little modification in all daughter languages.

However, in Sino-Tibetan, the only other large family where direct/inverse systems are attested, near-canonical direct/inverse systems are only present in the Rgyalrong languages described in section ⒉1. Other Sino-Tibetan languages show highly non-canonical or even completely opaque inverse systems (cf. Kiranti languages described in section ⒊2).

In this connection, Lavrung (Huang 2007, 69-70, Lai 2013) shows an interesting evolution which might help us understand how such opaque systems develop. A comparison of the data in Table 10 with the Zbu Rgyalrong paradigm in 3 shows that the əprefix neatly corresponds to the inverse wəin Zbu and indeed the system we have in Lavrung, though slightly less canonical than that of Zbu, is still what we would call a near-canonical inverse system. Lavrung appears to differ om Zbu mainly in having lost direct inverse contrast in non-local forms (3→3' and 3'→3) to the benefit of the inverse form. This evolution appears somewhat contrary to a priori expectation, given that inverse could be construed as being the marked form, and the direct the unmarked form. Lavrung thus represents a first step in the direction of an opaque (direct/inverse) system. The prefix əcannot be analyzed synchronically as a third person agent marker, since it occurs in 2→1 forms, but it is not a canonical inverse marker anymore either, since it also occurs in all 3→3 forms.

There is no consensus as to how exactly the opaque systems observed in Kiranti came into existence, but a possibility is that they originated om a direct/inverse system similar to that observed in Rgyalrong languages, and then underwent a series of changes which thorougly reshaped the system starting with a generalization of the inverse marker in non-local scenarios as in the case of Lavrung.

This in turn increased morphological opacity up to a point where many individual morphemes (like Khaling ʔi-) ceased to have a synchronically straightforward morphosyntactic function.

Conclusion

Direct/inverse systems in the narrow sense are a rare type of agreement system, observed mainly in languages of the Americas and the greater Himalayan region. Nevertheless, their theoretical importance cannot be overestimated. Indeed, they have served as one of the models for the development of the concept of referential hierarchies and the idea of setting hierarchical alignment as a category distinct om accusative, ergative, active or tripartite alignment.

Direct/inverse systems are attested in extremely endangered languages, and much work is still needed for a detailed and meticulous description of such systems. In particular the precise conditions for the use of direct and inverse forms in the non-local domain is a topic of research which cannot be based on elicitation, but requires extensive work on authentic oral corpora. A finer-grained approach to morphosyntactic diversity is necessary, and recent research on Rgyalrongic languages for instance has revealed subtle but important differences in the use of the inverse across closely related language varieties.

  he hit you once yesterday.

Table 2 :

 2 The canonical direct/inverse system

Table 3

 3

presents the non-past paradigm of a dialect of Zbu Rgyalrong. The symbols Σ 1 and Σ 3 represent different stem forms (stem 1 and stem 3, respectively). Stem 3 only occurs in a subset of direct forms, i. e. those where the patient is third person and the agent is singular

([123]

sg→3('))

Table 3 :

 3 Zbu

Rgyalrong transitive paradigm (data adapted om ?)

Table 4 :

 4 Plains Cree present paradigms. TA wâpam-"see" and IA pimipahtâ-"run"(Wolfart, 1973)

	H H H H H H A P 1sg		1pi	1pe	2sg	2pl	3sg	3pl	3'
	1sg 1pi 1pe 2sg 2pl 3sg 3pl 3'	kiwâpamin kiwâpaminâwâw niwâpamik niwâpamikwak niwâpamikoyiwa kiwâpamikonawa kiwâpamikonaw kiwâpamikonawak	kiwâpaminân niwâpamikonân niwâpamikonânak niwâpamikonâna	kiwâpamitin kiwâpamitinân kiwâpamitinâwâw kiwâpamik kiwâpamikowâw kiwâpamikwak kiwâpamikowâwak kiwâpamikoyiwa kiwâpamikowâwa	niwâpamâw kiwâpamânaw kiwâpamânawak niwâpamâwak niwâpamânân niwâpamânânak kiwâpamâw kiwâpamâwak kiwâpamâwâw kiwâpamâwâwak wâpamik wâpamikwak	niwâpamimâwa kiwâpamimânawa niwâpamimânâna kiwâpamimâwa kiwâpamimâwâwa wâpam(im)êw wâpam(im)êwak wâpamêyiwa wâpamikoyiwa
	intr	nipimipahtân	kipimipahtâ(nâ)naw nipimipahtânân	kipimipahtân	kipimipahtânâwâw pimipahtâw	pimipahtâwak	pimipahtâyiwa
	⑾ pêyak	piko	nipah-êyiwa	o-mis-a		wâposw-a
		one	just	kill-3'→3'	3poss-older s ister-obv

On transitive verbs, the proximate/obviative appears in the mixed domain: there are different forms for SAP ↔ 3 prox and SAP ↔ 3 obv. In the non-local domain, three configurations with direct and inverse marking are observed: 3→3', 3'→3 and 3'→3'. While the first two are attested in other languages with direct/inverse systems, the third one is only found in Algonquian. Here, 3'→3' (as in the form wâpam-êyiwa 'he obv sees him obv ') is the so-called further obviative form, which is oen abbreviated as 3' → 3". Example 11 illustrates this form with the verb nipah-'to kill'.

Table 5 :

 5 Khaling verbal system (singular forms only)

Table 6 :

 6 Icari Dargwa person markers in the preterite

	1	2	3
	1	uc-ib=di uc-ib=da

Table 7 :

 7 Icari Dargwa Potential Present verb paradigm

Table 8 :

 8 Direct/inverse and other typological features

	Family	Language	Head-	Discontinous Non-local Mixed Local Case	Noun / Verb	Incorporation Polypersonal
			marking constituents							marking on the verb
	Rgyalrongic (ST)	Zbu	x		x	x	x	ergative	strong	x	x
	Algonquian (Algic) Cree	x	x		x	x	obviative strong	x	x
	Sahaptian	Sahaptin	x	x	x		x	tripartite strong
	Athabaskan	Navajo	x		x				strong		x
	Nakh-Daghestanian Dargwa			x	x	x	ergative	strong
	Isolate	Movima			x	x	x		omnipredicative x
	Isolate	Mapudungun x		x	x	x		strong	x	x

Table 9 :

 9 Comparison of inverse and third person prefixes in Rgyalrong and Kiranti

	language	inverse marker third person possessive
	Situ	wə-	wə-

Table 10 :

 10 Lavrung verbal paradigm (singular and plural forms)

wə-Σ 1 -ŋ-ndʑə wə-Σ 1 -tɕə wə-Σ 1 -jə tə-wə-Σ 1 tə-wə-Σ 1 -ndʑə tə-wə-Σ 1 -ɲə Σ 1 -ndʑə 3pl wə-Σ 1 -ŋ-ɲə Σ 1 -ɲə 3' wə-Σ 1 wə-Σ 1 -ndʑə wə-Σ 1 -ɲə intr Σ 1 -ŋ Σ 1 -tɕə Σ 1 -jə tə-Σ 1 tə-Σ 1 -ndʑə tə-Σ 1 -ɲə Σ 1 Σ 1 -ndʑə Σ 1 -ɲəIn this paradigm, considering only the mixed and non-local forms and leaving aside stem alternations (Σ 1 vs Σ 3 ), there is perfect symmetry between direct and inverse forms, which are distinguished only by the presence or absence of the inverse prefix wə-. Mixed and non-local direct forms are identical to the corresponding intransitive forms except for the stem alternations. Only


Guillaume Jacques

Anton Antonov

e direction(s) of analogical change in direct/inverse systems *

Keywords: Analogy, Direct/Inverse, Hierarchical Agreement, Algonquian, Arapaho, Cree, Ojibwe, conjunct order

In this paper, we extract general principles of language change from the study of the evolution of the conjunct order in various Algonquian languages, and propose four generalizations concerning the directionality of the spread of analogy in these systems. ese generalizations are expected to bring insights on the analysis of data from other language families with direct/inverse marking but insufficient philological record, such as for instance Sino-Tibetan.

 Introduction

In families without recorded history the comparative method, combined with internal reconstruction, is the only way to reconstruct unaested stages. Still, when applying the comparative method it is important to understand the directionality of analogical levelling. Indeed, morphological systems are affected not only by regular sound changes, but are also subject to analogical changes which make them more regular, either by undoing the effects of sound change or by removing opaque morphemes.

Algonquian is the only family with direct/inverse morphology whose verbal proto-system can be reconstructed without sparking controversy. is is due to the combination of three factors. First, the sound laws of Algonquian languages are perfectly understood (except for Blackfoot). Second, some languages, in particular Fox and Miami-Illinois, are very conservative, and preserve the proto-system in an almost pristine way. ird, records dating back to the seventeenth century for some languages provide information on the intermediate stages between the proto-language and the modern forms. * We would like to thank Denis Creissels, Sonia Cristofaro, Sco DeLancey, Ives Goddard, Will Oxford, Fernando Zúñiga and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. We are responsible for any remaining errors. is research was funded by the HimalCo project (ANR--CORP-) and is related to the research strand LR-. 'Automatic paradigm generation and language description' of the Labex EFL (funded by the ANR/CGI).We follow the Leipzig glossing rules, to which the following are added:  conjunct,  initial change,  inverse,  animate noun,  inanimate noun, PA Proto-Alqonguian, VII Intransitive inanimate verb, VAI Intransitive animate verb, VTA Transitive animate verb, VTI Transitive inanimate verb.



For other families with direct/inverse systems, no such diachronic information is available, due to the absence of ancient aestations and/or the fact that many of these languages are either isolates or else belong to very small language families. Hence, it is easier at the present stage to observe the aested history of Algonquian languages and deduce from it a series of principles, which can then be tentatively applied to languages with direct/inverse systems for which such detailed information is not available.

In this paper, we will limit ourselves to formulating four generalizations concerning the directionality of analogical change in direct/inverse systems based on data from Algonquian by way of several case studies on Cree, Ojibwe, Mi'gmaq and Arapaho.

 Some terminological preliminaries

Algonquian languages present multiple challenges to the unprepared some of which (especially those pertaining to the verbal domain which is the main topic of this paper) we will try to explain in this short introduction (partly based on the more detailed discussion in Jacques & Antonov, ).

. Verb classes and animacy

Algonquian verbs are traditionally classified into four big classes, according to the animacy of the S/P argument. ere is thus a major distinction between animate () and inanimate () nouns. It is important to note that the criteria used to ascribe animate or inanimate gender to a given referent do not always coincide with those familiar from European languages: 'sock(s)' and 'rock(s)', for instance, are animate in Cree. e four classes are the following: VII (intransitive verbs with an inanimate actor), VAI (intransitive verbs with an animate actor), VTI (transitive verbs with an inanimate patient) and VTA (transitive verbs with an animate patient). e last two classes also have an animate actor. In fact, there are also several subclasses of 'deponent' VAI and VTI verbs whose syntactic behaviour does not match their morphological makeup (cf. Table ). ese are usually either not specifically signalled or else termed VAI-T and VTI-I. Here we will call them VAI  and VTI  , respectively.

. Direct/inverse and obviation

It is important to observe that in spite of the existence of syntactically transitive deponent verbs, the only verbs that index both of their participants as long as they are not third person are the VTA (transitive animate) ones. e resulting complex forms reference their participants using S, A, P-neutral affixes. is, in turn, calls for the use of a special 'direction' marker (traditionally called a 'theme sign') in order to indicate the 'direct' vs 'inverse' direction of the action. e use of one or the other reflects the position of the agent on the following hierarchy (valid for Plains Cree):

() SAP > animate proximate > animate obviative > inanimate 

-older_sister-

wâposw-a rabbit- 'His sister had killed but one rabbit. ' (Wolfart, , p. ) Example  also illustrates the so-called further obviative form, which is oen abbreviated as '→" (cf. section .), with the verb nipah-'to kill'.

. Independent vs. Conjunct order

e inflectional paradigms of the Algonquian verb classes have further been organized in five sets (called 'orders') in Proto-Algonquian, of which most modern languages preserve only ¹It is generally considered that the second person outranks the first person ( > ) in Algonquian languages, but this refers to a distinct hierarchy related to the slot accessibility of person prefixes, not the distribution of direct and inverse forms. Concerning obviative inanimates, see a recent study by Muehlbauer ().  three, ie. the Independent, the Conjunct and the Imperative, having discarded the other two, ie. the Interrogative and the Prohibitive. While the imperative order is self-explanatory (and won't be dealt with in this paper), the independent (which will be discussed only in passim) and the conjunct roughly correspond to verb forms used in main and subordinate clauses, respectively (for the actual forms cf. Tables  and). Put differently, conjunct order forms are non-finite, whereas independent order ones are finite. It is important to stress that wh-clauses, those with focalized constituents or under the scope of (clausal) negation require the use of the conjunct order, since these 'de-subordinated' clauses are underlyingly (or rather, historically) non-finite.

. Visualizing complex participant configurations

It is customary to represent systems indexing more than one argument (usually two) such as those found in Algonquian languages in tabular format as in Table , where rows indicate agent and columns patient. e different transitive configurations are symbolically represented by using an arrow, with the agent on its le and the patient on its right, both abbreviated as , ,  for first, second and third person respectively. In the case of third person arguments  indicates proximate and ' obviative referents. In intransitive forms, by contrast, the abbreviation refers to the sole argument of the verb. ey are systematically included for reference. e cells corresponding to the → and → configurations are semantically reflexive and are thus filled in grey, since in most languages they tend to be expressed by an intransitive construction². e → cell, on the other hand, is not since the corresponding configuration is not necessarily reflexive.

. Plains Cree paradigms

We can now give the full paradigms for the main four classes using some of the verbs from  diachronic evolution will be at the centre of subsequent discussion.

 ê-wâpahtamahk  ê-wâpaht-am-âhk  ê-wâpaht-am-an  ê-wâpaht-am-êk  ê-wâpaht-ah-k  ê-wâpaht-ahk-ik ' ê-wâpaht-am-iyi-t VAI ê-wâpiskisi-yân ê-wâpiskisi-yahk ê-wâpiskisi-yâhk ê-wâpiskisi-yan ê-wâpiskisi-yêk ê-wâpiskisi-t ê-wâpiskisi-c-ik ê-wâpiskisi-yi-t ê-pimipahtâ-yân ê-pimipahtâ-yahk ê-pimipahtâ-yâhk ê-pimipahtâ-yan ê-pimipahtâ-yêk ê-pimipahtâ-t ê-pimipahtâ-c-ik ê-pimipahtâ-yi-t VII ê-wâpiskâ-k ê-wâpiskâ-k-i ê-wâpiskâ-yi-k ê-wâpiskâ-yi-k-i ê-miywâsih-k ê-miywâsih-k-i ê-miywâsin-iyi-k ê-miywâsin-iyi-k-i ê-wâpah-k ê-wâpan-iyi-k
e following example from Plains Cree will serve as an illustration of the actual use of these verb classes and the two main orders. Verb forms () and () illustrate the use of the conjunct order while verb form () illustrates the use of the independent order of the TI verb tâhkôt-'discuss sth, discourse upon sth', respectively. e verb stands in the conjunct order in () because it acts as a (nominalized) relative clause modifying êwak ôma 'that one' and is thus non-finite: 'that one (ie. subject) which I am going to discourse upon'; in () it is in a complement clause with a deontic meaning: '(it is expected of me) that I should discuss it'. In () we see the TA verb itâcimostaw-'tell s.o. thus about it' used in the conjunct order since it appears in a wh-clause headed by tânis 'how'. e verb form is furthermore inverse since the narrator was told about it by his father, and so we have a case where the patient (or semantically speaking, the addressee in this case) is higher than the agent on the hierarchy in . In () we see another example of kâ-() used this time as a headless relative clause built from the transitive (sic!) AI verb oyôhtâwî-'have s.o. as one's father' which as such appears in the conjunct order: '(li.) the one I had as (my) father'. ()

is an example of a TA verb pakosêyim-'expect sth from s.o. ' with the unspecified actor suffix -ikawi-() used in the conjunct because it modifies ita 'there (where)': '(li.) there where it is expected of me'. In () we have the conjunct order form of the II verb isiyîhkâtê-'be called thus' used as a relative clause modifying êwak ôma 'that one' (referring to oskiciy- 'pipestem'):

'(li.) that one which is called thus'. In () we find another TA verb wîhtamaw-'tell s.o. about sth/s.o. ' appearing in the inverse since once again the narrator () has been told about the pipestem by his uncle (). And finally, () kanawêyiht-'keep it' and () ohtaskat-'leave it (suddenly)' are both TI verbs appearing in the conjunct order, both of them having oskiciy- 'pipestem' as their object and modifying once again ita 'there (where)'. Observe that () shows obviative morphology as well since it has to agree with its subject omosôma 'his grandfather'  which as explained earlier must bear obviative marking (-a) as its possessor is third person.

 e reshaping of the conjunct order in Algonquian

Algonquian languages share complex verbal paradigms that are mostly inherited from their common ancestor. Even languages, such as Arapaho and Cheyenne, which have undergone some drastic sound changes largely preserve the Proto-Algonquian paradigms albeit with some interesting reshaping.

e present section focuses on two particular paradigms: the conjunct order indicative intransitive animate (VAI) and transitive animate (VTA) conjugations.

is choice is determined by the fact that the Algonquian conjunct order paradigms constitute the only case in the languages of the world where the creation of a direct/inverse system from a non-hierarchical system can be observed. While the Proto-Algonquian conjunct order paradigm was partly accusative and partly tripartite, some languages, in particular Plains Cree, varieties of Nishnaabemwin, Mi'gmaq and Arapaho have reshaped it towards a direct/inverse system. In the case of Cree and Ojibwe, historical documents even aest intermediate stages showing how the morphological reshapings came about.

In this section, we first describe the Proto-Algonquian conjunct order conjugation, then present Plains Cree, Nishnaabemwin, Mi'gmaq and Arapaho data, and finally propose a series of generalizations based on these observations.

. Proto-Algonquian

e reconstruction of the conjunct order paradigm of Proto-Algonquian is uncontroversial.

Table  (based on Bloomfield  and Goddard ) presents the indicative mode forms of that order, which are directly aested as such in Fox (Kickapoo) and Miami (Costa ).

e final *-i in the singular direct and inverse forms is the indicative mode suffix. In the subjunctive and participle forms the suffix is *-e and *-a, respectively.³ Note that the indicative mode suffix palatalizes an earlier **-t-in *-c-contrary to the subjunctive and participle forms which preserve the non-palatalized **-t-. us, the → participle form is *-ata while the indicative one is *-aci. As we will see, most of the languages in which the final vowel of the verb form is lost have generalized the non-palatalized forms in the indicative mode of the conjunct order by analogy with the subjunctive and participle forms.

³e participle also presents a different set of endings for the plural forms, which will not be discussed here.



 -i-c-i -eθ-ankw-e -iy-amenc-i -eθ-k-i -eθ-âkw-e -â-c-i  -i-wâ-c-i -eθ-k-wâw-i -â-wâ-c-i ' -i-ri-c-i -em-eθ-k-i -ekw-ec-i -eko-wâ-c-i  -ân-i -ankw-e -ânk-e -an-i -êkw-e -c-i / -k-i -wâ-c-i -ri-c-i e proto-

Table ).

Table : e alignment of PA indicative personal verb suffixes S A P  e following sections show how such a non-hierarchical system was independently reshaped as a (partial) direct/inverse system in several Algonquian languages by ousting the opaque forms and replacing them with (more) transparent ones.

. Plains Cree

H H H H H H A P        '  -it-ân -it-ako-k -ak -ak-ik -im-ak  -â-yahk -â-yahko-k -im-â-yahk  -it-âhk -â-yâhk -â-yâhk-ik -im-â-yâhk  -i-yan -at -ac-ik -im-at  -i-yêk -i-yâhk -â-yêk -â-yêko-k -im-â-yêk  -i-t -iko-yahk -iko-yâhk -isk -iko-yêk -(im)-â-t  -i-c-ik -iko-yahko-k -iko-yâhk-ik -isk-ik -iko-yêko-k -(im)-â-c-ik ' -â-yi-t -i-yi-t -ikow-â-yahk -ikow-â-yâhk -iy-isk -ikow-â-yêk -iko-t -iko-c-ik -iko-yi-t  -yân -yahk -yâhk -yan -yêk -t -c-ik -yi-t
Comparing Table 

H H H H H H A P        '  -it-ân -it-ako-k -ak -ak-ik -im-ak  -ahk -ahko-k -im-â-yahk  -it-âhk -ak-iht -ak-ihc-ik -im-â-yâhk  -i-yan -at -ac-ik -im-at  -i-yêk -i-yâhk -êk -êko-k -im-â-yêk  -i-t -it-ahk -i-yam-iht -isk -it-êk -(im)-â-t  -i-c-ik -it-ahko-k -i-yam-ihc-ik -isk-ik -it-êko-k -(im)-â-c-ik ' -â-yi-t -i-yi-t -ikow-â-yahk -ikow-â-yâhk -iy-isk -ikow-â-yêk -iko-t -iko-c-ik -iko-yi-t  -yân -yahk -yâhk -yan -yêk -t -c-ik -yi-t
According to Dahlstrom (), the change proceeded in two steps. First, as shown in table  , the relevant inverse forms were innovated,⁴ based upon the generalized use of the inverse marker in the independent order and by analogy with the inanimate actor forms which had the inverse marker already in both orders as a result of an earlier and non-documented similar analogical process. is change was completed by the end of the th century.

→ -iko-yâhk -iko-yâhk *-iy-amenki -iy-amiht *-iy-amencǐ → -iko-yâhk-ik -iy-amihc-ik → -iko-yahk -iko-yahk *-eθ-ankwe -it-ahk *-eθ-ankwe → -iko-yahko-k -it-ahko-k → -iko-yêk -iko-yêk *-eθ-âkwe -it-êk *-eθ-âkwe → -iko-yêko-k -it-êko-k
en, possibly in an effort to rationalize the system and make it more coherent, the direct forms followed suit, and the modern system is aested as such at the very beginning of the th century (cf. Table ). ese archaic forms are used alongside the innovative forms (-â-yâ and -ikow-â, respectively), and in the case of the inverse scenario the above cited example is only one of two aested in more than  pages of transcribed oral corpus comprising spontaneous narratives from dozens of speakers. is and the fact that the innovative forms are the only ones aested in the direct /→ (-â-ya/-â-yîk) and the corresponding inverse →/ (-ikow-a/-ikowîk) scenarios, show that a similar analogical process is under way in the Woods Cree dialect as well, and we think it can be expected to reach the same levelling result.

. Ojibwe

Some Nishnaabemwin (Ojibwe) dialects present innovations similar to those observed in Plains

Cree, but limited to the inverse forms. As in Cree, Nishnaabemwin has generalized the non-palatalized allomorphs of second and third person conjunct order suffixes: We thus find →-ad corresponding to proto-Algonquian *-acǐ < **-ati in the indicative conjunct order instead of expected *-aj. is is because the subjunctive and participle forms, which were *-ate and *-ata, respectively, were not palatalized, and were continued by the non-patalized form -ad, which was then generalized to the indicative mode of the conjunct order aer the loss of final vowels. is development is not shared by all Ojibwe dialects: e Algonquin Ojibwe dialect described by Cuoq (), for instance, has instead generalized the palatalized form (see Bloomfield , ).

 -Iyeg -Iyaang -eg -egwaa  -Id -inang -Iyangid -ik -ineg -aad  -Iwaad -inangwaa -Iyangidwaa -ikwaa -inegwaa -aawaad ' -igod -igowaad  -yaan -yang -yaang -yan -yeg -d / -g -waad -nid
→ -igo-yaan -id -itʃ *-icǐ → -igo-yang -inang -inang *-eθankwe → -igo-yaang -iyangid -iyamintʃ *-iyamencǐ → -igo-yan -ik -ik *-eθki → -igo-yeg -ineg -inaak *-eθâkwe '→ -igod -igod -igotʃ *-ekwecǐ '→ -igodwaa -igodwaa -igowaatʃ
*-ekowaacǐ is dialect of Nishnaabemwin goes further than Plains Cree as far as inverse forms are concerned, since the analogy has affected not only plural forms, but also singular ones. It is noteworthy that direct forms, on the other hand, have remained unchanged.

. Mi'gmaq

e Listuguj (or Restigouche) dialect of Mi'kmaq (or Mi'gmaq in Listuguj orthography), an

Eastern Algonquian language spoken in ebec, shows a number of interesting innovations in its verbal system. e discussion here is based on inn ().

One such innovation concerns the transitive animate paradigm. While it has replaced, along with all Mi'gmaq dialects, the PA independent order forms by the conjunct order ones (cf. and the reflexive one (-si-< PA *-esi-). is hypothesis is subject to debate (Will Oxford, p.c.).





-ugg -uggwig

 -i'lin -(V)'t -(V)'jig  -i'lioq -i'lieg -(V)oq -(V)oqig  -i'lit -ugsieg -ugsi'gw -(V)'sg -ugsioq -a-t'l  -i'lijig -ugsi'gwig -(V)'sgig ' -t'l
 nemi'-n nemi'-eg nemi'-t nemi'-jig  nemi'-oq nemi'-oq nemi'-oq  nemi'-t nemi'-namə-t nemi'-l-g nemi'-sg nemi'-l-oq nemi'-a-jl nemi'-a-ji  nemi'-jig nemi'-namə-jig nemi'-l-gw-jig nemi'sg-jig nemi'-a-ti-jl nemi'-a-ti-ji ' nemi'-a-li-jl nemi'-a-li-ji ' nemi'-a-ti-li-jl nemi'-a-ti-li-ji
 is development is comparable though only partially cognate to the development in the local scenario in Parry Island Nishnaabemwin (cf. section .), but is also (partially) aested in Wampanoag (Goddard & Bragdon, , ).

→ -ugsi-eg -i-nam't *-iyamencǐ → -ugsi-gw -ul-gw *-eθankwe → -ugsi-oq -ul-oq *-eθâkwe
Listuguj Mi'gmaq also shows an innovative reshaping of the sequence of a TA stem ending in final -i and a following  patient theme sign -i as -i'li-. e origin of this extra -lis unclear but according to inn () we may be dealing with either the VTA abstract final -l (with no particular semantic import), or else the -lmay have come about due to some sort of paradigmatic analogy with the  patient suffix -ul. e regular (inherited) endings were then added aer a replication of the  patient suffix -i. We think that it is possible to suggest one more solution to this problem: the -lielement may be related to the obviative suffix appearing in inverse non-local scenarios '→ in other dialects which goes back to PA *-ri-.

→ -i'-li-n -i'-n *-i-yana →/ -i'-li-eg -i'-eg *-i-yêkwa (p→s) → -i'-li-t -i'-t *-i-ta → -i'-li-jig -i'jig *-i-ciki

. Arapaho

e paradigm reshaping that has occurred in Cree, Nishnaabemwin and Mi'gmaq is not isolated. Among Algonquian languages, Arapaho provides an example of a language which has reshaped the conjunct order even further. Before discussing the Arapaho VTA paradigm, we provide some information on the VAI paradigm, which is necessary for understanding the changes in the VTA. We must warn the reader that the drastic sound changes in Arapaho (see Goddard ) have rendered the cognate forms barely recognizable. We cannot provide here a detailed account of Arapaho historical phonology, and defer the reader to Goddard's works for an in-depth presentation of this topic. Arapaho data used in this section is taken from Salzmann () and Cowell & Moss ().

e Arapaho VAI conjunct order paradigm, as shown by Goddard (, -), regularly  derives from the proto-Algonquian conjunct order participle (for the SAP forms, it could also originate from the corresponding indicative forms). Had it originated from the indicative conjunct order forms, the third person forms would have been different: the third singular suffix, in particular, would have been **-θ < *-cǐ.

Table  shows the main allomorphs for the conjunct order suffixes in Arapaho and their Proto-Algonquian origins. e first plural exclusive -' originates from the indefinite third person form *-nki (Goddard ), replacing the inherited  ending, which would have been homophonous with that of the first singular.⁵

*-yân-  -ni' / -' **-noo *-yânk-  -no' *-yankw-  -n *-yan-  -nee *-yêkw-  -t / -' *-ta / -ka ' -ni ́θ *-ricǐri  -θi' *-cǐki ' -ni ́θi

*-ricǐhi

In comparison with the VAI paradigm, which is almost entirely inherited from proto-Algonquian, the VTA paradigm presents considerable reshaping. e account proposed here as well as the Proto-Algonquian reconstructions are largely based on Goddard (, -) (in combination with Goddard  for some details of the Proto-Algonquian paradigms). Table  presents



*-âcǐki

By contrast with the direct paradigm, the inverse VTA paradigm is almost entirely remade, as in Parry Island Nishnaabemwin: only the third person forms are inherited, as can be seen in Table . As in the direct paradigm, the third person ending -eí ́t was reanalyzed as -ei-+ the  VAI ending -t and all other forms were rebuilt on that model, replacing the inherited forms.⁶ All inverse forms follow this paern, except the → suffix, where *-eí' would have been been obtained if -ei had been combined with tha VAI  ending -'. e aested → form -eí-'-eét combines the expected form *-eí' with the direct ending -éét.

e → suffix -iθi' / -uθi' is the only suffix in the inverse configurations involving a SAP which was not renewed. It is all the more remarkable that the corresponding → form is remade.

*-ekocǐki

Just as the inverse paradigm, the local paradigm has also undergone considerable analogical reshaping with only the → and → being inherited.



Aer that, even in forms where the -t was not a third person marker, in particular → -eét and → -eí'eét, it became reanalyzed as such and the forms → -eéń and → -eí'eéń were built by changing the final -t to -n on the model of the VAI and VTA inverse forms (see Table ).

'→ -eí ́-t → -eí ́-n → -eé-t → -eé-n → -eí'eé-t → -eí'eé-n
From there, the → -eθen (instead of expected *eθoo) is likely to have originated from the independent order → ending -eθ < *-eθe to which the second person suffix -n from the VAI paradigm was added.

e second plural forms → -eθeńee, → -eenee and →-eí'eenee were built from the corresponding second singular forms by replacing the  -n marker with the  one -nee, as shown in Table .

→ -i ́-n → -i ́-nee
→ -eθe-n → -eθe-nee → -ee-n → -ee-nee → -eí'ee-n → -eí'ee-nee e restructuring that took place in the Arapaho conjunct order goes one step further than that observed in the Cree paradigms: While the extent of reshaping in the (mixed) direct paradigm is comparable, all inverse and local forms, except →, have been remade. e direct -ooand inverse -eí ́theme signs, which originally were restricted to non-local forms, were generalized to nearly direct and all inverse forms in the mixed scenarios (only the →, → and → endings remained unaffected by analogy), and the inverse one was even extended to the local → forms.

Arapaho thus proves that a language can develop a near-canonical direct/inverse system from a partly accusative, partly tripartite one by generalizing the direct and inverse markers of the non-local forms to the mixed and local ones.



. e VTA conjunct order and its relationship to other paradigms

In the sections above, we have studied the effects of analogy in the VAI and VTA conjunct order paradigms largely in isolation from other paradigms. However, it is likely that some analogical paerns, in particular the innovative direct and inverse forms built by combining the direct or inverse theme signs with the VAI endings, are structurally modelled aer forms from other more transparent paradigms. Indeed, the (perceived) identity of final -t in →' *-ât-and '→ *-ekwet-forms with the VAI third person -t could have prompted the reanalysis of the preceding segment *-â-and *-ekwe-as a direction marker which was then productively combined with the corresponding VAI endings in order to obtain the direct and inverse forms in the rest of the paradigm.

Another potential model, in the case of inverse configurations especially, is the unspecified actor paradigm of the conjunct order. While in PA this paradigm had a special set of endings, (Goddard , , Oxford , -), in Ojibwe and Cree, even in the most conservative dialects (and in nearly all Algonquian languages except Kickapoo, Maliseet and Miami), the forms are built by combining the theme sign -igoowith the VAI person markers, except in the third person, where the inherited suffix -ind (Ojibwe)/-iht (Cree) < *-enta is still preserved (cf. It is thus possible that such constructions, rather than the VTA independent order, provided the model on which to shape the innovative inverse scenario forms by combining the inverse theme sign with the VAI endings as in Plains Cree and Parry island Ojibwe. First, analogy operates from '→ to all inverse forms and from →' to all direct forms. is is a particular case of Watkins's law (Watkins ): Analogy starts out from the third person and extends to the other forms through a reanalysis of the third person ending as part of the verb stem.

Table ).

-ikawi-yân -igoo-yaan *-i<n>ki X→ -ikawi-yâhk -igoo-yaang *-i<n>amenki X→ -ikawi-yahk -igoo-yang *-eθ<en>ankwi X→ -ikawi
Second, analogy can apply from direct forms to inverse and local ones (as shown by the reshaping of → and → in Nishnaabemwin).  ird, analogy first applies to plural SAP forms before influencing singular SAP forms, both in the case of direct and inverse paradigms. ere is no evidence of a hierarchy between third singular and third plural, as we saw that the → resisted analogy in Arapaho while its singular counterpart → was remade.

Fourth, analogy first applies to inverse forms before affecting direct forms. ere appears to be no hierarchy between inverse and local forms as to their sensitivity to analogy.

Whether these four generalizations have a validity in language families other than Algonquian remains to be demonstrated, but we believe that they may be used as a heuristic principle for diachronic studies on languages whose history is less well documented.

 Conclusion

On the basis of the aested evolutions of the conjunct order paradigms in Algonquian languages, we have proposed several generalizations on the directionality of analogical levelling in polypersonal systems with proximate/obviative contrast in non-local scenarios. Analogy spreads from '→ to mixed and local inverse forms, from →' to direct forms, and from direct forms to inverse and local ones. Moreover, it first applies to plural SAP forms before applying to singular ones, and to inverse forms before affecting direct ones.

As stated above, the generalizations proposed in this paper must be thought of as heuristic principles, to be tested against data from other language families with direct/inverse systems.

Future studies on language families such as Sino-Tibetan, in particular on Rgyalrong and Kiranti languages which have fully functional direct/inverse systems but no historical aestations (DeLancey, ; Jacques, ; Sun & Shidanluo,  and Gong, ), should make it possible to evaluate whether they remain valid when tested on a larger body of data.

(

  -kî-isi-tâhkôt-ên 2 ---thus-discuss(VTI)-: tânis how ê-kî-itâcimostaw-it 3 --tell_about(VTA)-→: kâ-kî-oyôhtâwî-yân 4 , --have_as_father(VAI [])-: ôm : îta here kâ-pakosêyim-ikawi-yân 5 -expect(VTA)--: ka-kî-tâhkôt-am-ân 6 , --discuss(VTI)--:

  Algonquian system is clearly not a direct/inverse one, except for the non-local scenarios(→' and '→) where what will later become the direct (-â-) and inverse (-ekw-) markers can be seen. As for the rest, some parts of the system are tripartite, in particular the first and second singular and the first person plural exclusive forms. For instance, intransitive *-ânk-e and transitive → *-akenc-i, →*-iy-amenc-i are all marked by unrelated morphemes (S = A = P ).Other forms present accusative alignment; for instance, the second plural has -êkw-e in both intransitive and direct forms, but *-âkw-e in inverse ones (S = A = P ). In all inverse and local forms, there are specific markers for first person (*-i(y)-) and second person (*-eθ-) patients. e first person inclusive, which represents the association of the speaker(s), ie. a first person, with the hearer, i.e. a second person, also shows the second person patient marker (*-eθ-) on top of its corresponding direct marker (*-ankw-) in inverse forms. Incidentally, this is one of two suffixes neutral as to the syntactic roles in the system, alongside third person *-c-i/k-i (cf.

  Following are some of the examples Dahlstrom  gives to illustrate the change. ey come from the  translation of the Gospel according to St. John and the First Epistle General of John compared to a  edition of the New Testament. We can see that the older forms still in use in the former two have been replaced by the innovative ones in the laer.In ex. a we see an example of the direct vs inverse mixed scenario archaic forms → (-aht) and → (-itahk), respectively, which are replaced by the innovative ones, viz. -âyahk and -iko-yahk in ex. b. -sâkih-itahk. --love(VTA)-→: ⁴Here and aerward innovative forms are shown in grey.  '…not that we loved God, but that he loved us, …' (First Epistle General John -sâkih-iko-yahk. --love(VTA)--→: '…not that we loved God, but that he loved us, …' (First Epistle General, John . (), Dahlstrom , p. ) Examples like this where both the direct and the inverse forms show the archaic suffixes in the  translation are less common than those where only the direct forms are archaic. Indeed, the change was already well under way in the inverse configurations, as only one third of the inverse forms documented in this translation show the relevant archaic suffixes, while the remaining two thirds had already been inovated (Dahlstrom , p. ). Compare ex. a and b with an example of the shi from an archaic to an innovative form in the case of a direct scenario (ie. →) and ex. a and b in the case of the corresponding inverse scenario (ie. →) where the innovative form is already in use in the older version. () a. kita for nipah-akiht kill(VTA)-→: '…for us to kill him.. ' (John . (), Dahlstrom , p. ) b. kita for nipah-â-yâhk kill(VTA)-- '…for us to kill him.. ' (John . (), Dahlstrom , p. ) () a. kâ-kîh-is-itisahw-iko-yâhk-ik --thus-send(VTA)--- '…them that sent us…' (John . (), Dahlstrom , p. ) b. kâ-kî-pê-itisahw-iko-yâhk-ik --thus-send(VTA)--- '…them that sent us…' (John . (), Dahlstrom , p. ) is reshaping of the system has thus taken place some time between the ᵗʰ and the beginning of the ᵗʰ centuries. It is particularly noteworthy that it has affected only mixed scenarios with plural speech act participants and has been completed only in the Plains Cree dialect. Indeed, other dialects such as Woods Cree, for instance, still use the archaic forms, at least those of the direct set. Ex.  shows an archaic direct → form (-akiht), while ex.  illustrates the corresponding inverse configuration with → and the archaic -iyamiht. s how we were taught to look aer an elder, you know. ' (Westfall & Castel, , -isi-pimâcih-iyamiht. --thus-bring_up(VTA)-→: '…and that's how he (=my father) brought us up. ' (Westfall & Castel, , p. )

  the regular endings of the VTA paradigm in Arapaho, taken from Cowell & Moss (, -) and Cowell & Moss (, ). e further obviative '→' direct and inverse forms are not included. ⁵e following sound laws apply here: *-y-→ -n-, *a → o, *k → ∅, *nk → ', *c → θ, *r → n; final vowels are always lost. In some cases, two final syllables can be lost, if they follow the paern *-(V)C(y,w)V, where C is any of *n, *m, *r, *y, *w and V is a short vowel.

  Ojibwe texts, we find numerous examples where the unspecified actor forms is used alongside a →SAP form in the same sentence, with the unspecified actor corresponding to the same referent as the definite third person agent of the →SAP verb (see examples  and  for Cree and ex.  for Ojibwe). is this?" my husband said to him; "Oh this, " the other replied to him, "this is three times stronger than beer, " we were told, he then said to us. ' -ntawihikawiyân.--cure(VTA)-- 'And long ago, when you saw a tree anywhere, the elders took it and used it to cure [us]. Even myself, in my lifetime, they cured me. ' (Westfall & Castel, , p. ) () Miish then gaa-izhi-i-goo-yaan :IC-thus-say(VTA)-X-: ingoji approximately naawakwe-g, be.noon(VII)-.: n-ookomis -grandmother gaa-izhi-anoozh-id. :IC-thus-commission.to.do(VTA)-→: Around noon, I was told, I was told by my grandmother to get something. (Kegg & Nichols , )

  X→ -iko-yâhk -igo-yaang *-iy-amenk-i X→ -iko-yahk -igo-yang *-eθ-ankw-iX→ -iko-yan -igo-yan *-eθ-k-i X→ -iko-yêk -igo-yeg *-eθ-âkw-i X→ -iko-t -igo-d *-ekw-ec-i e directionality of analogy in polypersonal systemse five cases studied above allow us to propose four generalizations concerning the directionality of analogy in polypersonal systems with a proximate/obviative distinction in the non-local forms.

Table  :

  e four verb classes in Algonquian exemplified by Plains Cree

	Verb class S, A, P [±]	Cree	meaning
	VII VAI VAI  VTI VTI  VTA	S= S= A=+P=± mêki-wâpiskâ-miywâsi-wâpa-wâpiskisi-miywâsisi-'be good' 'be white' 'be good' 'be dawn' 'be white' pimipahtâ-'run' 'give (out) s.o. or sth' A=+P= âpacihtâ-'use sth' A=+ P= wâpaht-'see sth' S= mâham 'canoe downriver' A=+ P= wâpam-'see s.o. '

If it is higher than the patient the verb shows direct marking, but if it is lower then the verb receives inverse marking.¹ us, we observe a tripartite distinction between proximate animate, obviative animate and inanimate referents.

Obviation is an ubiquitous feature in Algonquian which is reflected both in verbal and nominal morphology. Its basic function is to distinguish two or more third-person participants within a given sentence or stretch of discourse. us, in oral narratives, the obviative (, -(w)a in Cree) is used to introduce a hitherto unknown participant by contrast with the unmarked form which is called the proximate (). ere can be at most one proximate participant within a given clause. Later on, the interplay between the two helps the listener to keep track of who does what to whom. Except if s/he is a persistent topic, no participant is inherently tied to a proximate or obviative status solely by virtue of their inherent semantic features. e obviative must also be used on the possessee, and on the verb whose argument the possessee is, whenever the possessor is third-person (cf. ex.  below and ex.  in section .). () pêyak one piko just nipah-êyiwa kill-'→' o-mis-a

Table  :

  e three domains of the transitive paradigm

				
			→ →
		→		→
		→ → →
	 		
	It is convenient to separate the transitive paradigm into three  (Zúñiga , -
	), represented in Table  by different colours. First, the  domain (in blue) comprises
	the forms → and →, where both arguments are SAPs. Second, the  domain (in
	red) refers to the cases where both arguments are third person. ird, the  domain (in
	green) includes all the forms with a SAP argument and a third person (→, →, →, →).

Table  .

  Table  presents the independent order while Table  shows the conjunct order, whose

	²e same applies, in languages with clusivity (a distinction between first person inclusive [] vs exclusive
	[]), such as the Algonquian languages, to the combination of first inclusive and second person.

Table  :

  Plains Cree Independent Order paradigms of VTA wâpam-"see s.o. ", VTI wâpaht-"see sth", VAI wâpiskisi-"be white (+)", pimipahtâ-"run", VII wâpiskâ-"be white ()", miywâsin "be good", wâpan "be dawn" (based onWolfart, )

		H H H H H H A P								'	'
	VTA	       ' H H H H H H A P	ki-wâpam-in ki-wâpam-in-âwâw ni-wâpam-ik ni-wâpam-ikw-ak ni-wâpam-iko-yi-wa 	ki-wâpam-inân ni-wâpam-iko-nân ki-wâpam-iko-n-aw-ak ni-wâpam-iko-nân-ak ki-wâpam-iko-n-aw ki-wâpam-iko-nawa ni-wâpam-iko-nâna  	ki-wâpam-iti-n kiwâpamitinân ki-wâpam-iti-nâw-âw ki-wâpam-ik ki-wâpam-iko-wâw ki-wâpam-ikw-ak ki-wâpam-iko-wâw-ak ki-wâpam-iko-yi-wa ki-wâpam-iko-wâwa  	ni-wâpam-â-w ki-wâpam-â-naw ki-wâpam-â-na-w-ak ni-wâpam-â-w-ak ni-wâpam-â-nân ni-wâpam-â-nân-ak ki-wâpam-âw ki-wâpam-â-wak ki-wâpam-â-wâw ki-wâpam-â-wâw-ak wâpamik wâpam-ikw-ak  	ni-wâpam-im-â-w-a ki-wâpam-im-â-na-w-a ni-wâpam-im-â-nân-a ki-wâpam-im-â-wa ki-wâpam-im-â-wâw-a wâpam-(im)-ê-w wâpam-(im)-ê-wak wâpam-ê-yi-wa wâpam-iko-yi-wa ' '
	VTI	       '							n-iwâpaht-ê-n ki-wâpaht-ê-(n-â)n-aw ki-wâpaht-ê-n-ân ki-wâpaht-ê-n ki-wâpaht-ê-n-âwâw wâpaht-am wâpaht-am-w-ak wâpaht-am-iyi-w-a
	VAI		ni-wâpiskisi-n ni-pimipahtâ-n	ki-wâpiskisi-(nâ)naw ki-pimipahtâ-(nâ)naw	ni-wâpiskisi-nân ni-pimipahtâ-nân	ki-wâpiskisi-n ki-pimipahtâ-n	ki-wâpiskisi-nâwâw ki-pimipahtâ-nâwâw	wâpiskisi-w pimipahtâ-w	wâpiskisi-wak pimipahtâ-wak	wâpiskisi-yi-wa pimipahtâ-yi-wa
	VII							wâpiskâ-w miywâsin wâpan	wâpiskâ-w-a miywâsin-w-a	wâpiskâ-yi-w miywâsin-iyi-w miywâsin-iyi-w-a wâpiskâ-yi-w-a wâpan-iyi-w

Table  :

  Plains Cree Conjunct Order paradigms of VTA wâpam-"see s.o. ", VTI wâpaht-"see sth", VAI wâpiskisi-"be white (+)", pimipahtâ-"run", VII wâpiskâ-"be white ()", miywâsin "be good", wâpan "be dawn" (based onWolfart, )

		H H H H H H A P								'	'
	VTA	       ' H H H H H H A P	ê-wâpam-i-yan ê-wâpam-i-yêk ê-wâpam-i-t ê-wâpam-i-c-ik ê-wâpam-i-yi-t 	ê-wâpam-i-yâhk ê-wâpam-iko-yâhk ê-wâpam-iko-yâhk-ik ê-wâpam-iko-wâ-yahk ê-wâpam-iko-wâ-yâhk ê-wâpam-iko-yahk ê-wâpam-iko-yahko-k  	ê-wâpam-it-ân ê-wâpam-it-âhk ê-wâpam-it-ako-k ê-wâpam-isk ê-wâpam-iko-yêk ê-wâpam-isk-ik ê-wâpam-iko-yêko-k ê-wâpam-iy-isk ê-wâpam-iko-wâ-yêk  	ê-wâpam-ak ê-wâpam-â-yahk ê-wâpam-â-yahko-k ê-wâpam-ak-ik ê-wâpam-â-yâhk ê-wâpam-â-yâhk-ik ê-wâpam-at ê-wâpam-ac-ik ê-wâpam-â-yêk ê-wâpam-â-yêko-k ê-wâpam-iko-t ê-wâpam-iko-c-ik  	ê-wâpam-im-ak ê-wâpam-im-â-yahk ê-wâpam-im-â-yâhk ê-wâpam-im-at ê-wâpam-im-â-yêk ê-wâpam-(im)-â-t ê-wâpam-(im)-â-c-ik ê-wâpam-â-yi-t ê-wâpam-iko-yi-t ' '
		
	VTI

ê-wâpaht-am-ân

Table  :

  Proto-Algonquian conjunct order indicative paradigm, VAI and VTA

	H H H H H H A P 							'
	    	-iy-an-i -iy-êkw-e		-iy-ânk-e	-eθ-ân-i	-eθ-akokw-e -ak-i -ankw-e -eθ-ânk-e -akenc-i -ac-i -êkw-e	-ak-wâw-i -at-wâw-i	-em-ak-i -em-ankw-e -em-akenc-i -em-ac-i -em-êkw-e

  Table  presents the conjunct order paradigm of Modern Plains Cree while Table  presents the earliest aested stage in the conjunct order paradigm of Plains Cree.

Table  :

  Plains Cree Conjunct Order indicative paradigms.(Wolfart, )

Table  :

  ᵗʰ century Plains Cree Conjunct Order indicative paradigms (based on Dahlstrom, )

Table  :

  Innovative inverse forms in the Plains Cree conjunct order VTA paradigm

	Innovative	Inanimate actor PA paradigm	Conservative VTA	PA paradigm
	VTA paradigm forms	(inanimate actor) paradigm (th century) (VTA)

Table  :

  e Plains Cree VTA paradigm innovative conjunct order direct forms

Table  (

  see Valentine , -) shows that some dialects of Nishnaabemwin, such as Parry Island, have developed innovative forms combining -igowith the VAI endings as optional variants of the conservative suffixes. e conservative forms themselves have been reshaped in comparison with the paradigm recorded in the th century. is includes the introduction of the  suffix -eg in the inverse → form from the direct → form together with the doubling of the second person theme sign -in (from *-eθ-), and the replacement of the → -iyamintʃ by an analysable form created by combining the direct -angid and the first object theme sign -i. For the sake of comparison, Table  also shows the th century

	Algonquin forms from Cuoq (, ), which are directly inherited from proto-Algonquian.
	

Table  :

  e conservative Ojibwe VTA and VAi paradigms

	H H H H H H A P 							'
	   	-Iyan			-inaan -inagog -inaang	-ag -ang -angid -angidwaa -agwaa -ang-waa -ad -adwaa

Table  :

  e Ojibwe VTA paradigm inverse forms and their PA origins Innovative Conservative th century Nipissing Ojibwe Proto-Algonquian paradigm paradigm

  Table ), Listuguj has departed from the other dialects' more direct PA reflexes based on local person 'theme signs', still present at earlier aested stages of the dialect (cf. Table ) by innovating the TA morphology for the mixed →/ scenario (cf. Table). According to inn (), the innovation consists in a combination of the inverse suffix (-ug-< PA *-ekw-)

Table  :

  Mi'gmaq independent order (< PA conjunct order participle) indicative paradigm

	H H H H H H A P 							' 
	 			-ul	-ulnoq -ulneg	-(V)'g -(Ve)g't -(Ve)g'jig -(V)'gig

Table  :

  Early th century Mi'gmaq VTA indicative independent order paradigm of nemi-'to see' (based onHewson & Francis, )

	H H H H H H A P 							'	'
	  			nemi'l	nemi'-l-oq nemi'-g nemi'-l-eg nemi'-gət nemi'-gw	nemi'-g-jig nemi'-gə-jig nemi'-gw-jig

Table  :

  e Mi'gmaq VTA paradigm innovative inverse forms

	Innovative	Conservative	Proto-Algonquian
	paradigm (Listuguj) paradigm (other dialects)

Table  :

  e Mi'gmaq VTA paradigm innovative  patient forms

	Innovative	Conservative	Proto-Algonquian
	paradigm (Listuguj) paradigm (other dialects)

Table  :

  e Arapaho VAI paradigms and its proto-Algonquian origin

	Person Arapaho Expected Arapaho Proto-Algonquian
		-noo

Table  :

  e Arapaho VTA paradigm Given the complexity of the paradigm in Table, we shall split the discussion in three parts, analyzing the direct, inverse and local forms separately. e SAP→ and →SAP are only discussed in the case of the suffix → -iθi'), since they otherwise follow the same paerns of refection as the corresponding SAP→ and →SAP forms. e direct forms of the VTA paradigm are compared with the corresponding reconstructed Proto-Algonquian forms in Table, in which the Arapaho forms that do not continue Proto-Algonquian ones are indicated in grey. is table shows that as in Plains Cree, while the singular direct forms are inherited, the SAP plural ones are reshaped by reanalyzing the third person ending -oot as -oo-+ the VAI ending -t and generalizing this structure to the first and second person plural: -oó-no'  and -oó-nee  are built by combining the direct marker -oowith the regular VAI endings. e  -eét probably does not originate from inherited *-akenta. is form should have yielded either *-ooot or *-eeet. While it is not entirely impossible that vowel shortening would have happened, it is more satisfying to derive -eét from the unspecified form of the conjunct participle *-enta (Goddard , , see the X- form of the TA direct paradigm).

	  -i ́n / -uń     -eí'een  -eí ́noo  -iθi' / -uθi' '	 -eí ́no' -eí'eét  -i ́nee / -uńee -eí'eéńee -eí'eéθi ́'	 -eθen -een -eí ́n -ei ́nońi(i)	 -eθeńee -o'  -oóńo' -eenee -eét -ot -oóńee -eí ́nee -eí ́t	 -oú'u -eéθi' -oti(i) -eí ́θi'	' -oot -oóθi'

Table  :

  e Arapaho VTA paradigm direct forms and their PA origins

	Form	Arapaho Expected Arapaho Proto-Algonquian
	→ -o' → -eét → -oó-no'	**-eeet **-o'	*-aka *-akenta *-ankwa
	→ -ot → -oó-nee	**-ee	*-ata *-êkwa
	→' →'	-oot -oóθi'		*-âta

Table  :

  e Arapaho VTA paradigm inverse forms and their PA origins

	Person	Arapaho	Expected Arapaho PA Conjunct
	→ -eí ́-noo → -eí-'-eét → -eí ́-no'	**-it **-inobeet **-eθo'	*-ita *-iyamenta *-eθankwa
	→ -iθi' / -uθi'		*-icǐki
	→ -eí ́-n → -eí ́-nee	**-es **-eθoo	*-eθki *-eθâkwa
	'→ '→	-eí ́t -eí ́θi'		*-ekweta

Table  :

  e Arapaho VTA paradigm local forms and their PA origins

	Person	Arapaho	Expected Arapaho PA Conjunct
	→ -eθen → -eθeńee → -één → -eenee	**-eθoo **-eθou **-eθoo **-eθoo	*-eθâni *-eθakokwe *-eθânke *-eθânke
	→ -uń / -i ́n → -eí'één → -uńee / -i ́nee → -eí'eenee	**-inoo **-inoo	*-iyani *-iyânkwe *-iyêkwe *-iyânkwe
	Goddard (, ) explains the forms →-één and →-eí-'-eéń by proportional
	analogy, aer the reshaping of the inverse paradigm had taken place: As direct and inverse forms were rebuilt by adding VAI endings to the first part of the third person endings -oo-and -ei-reanalyzed as direction markers, the final consonants -t and -n became respectively  and  markers not only for S, but also for P.
	⁶Arapaho -ei-regularly derives from *-ekwe-; *k → ∅ and *we → *o → i.

Table  :

  Proportional analogy in the Arapaho local forms

	Person Form	Person	Form
	VAI  -t	VAI 	-n

Table  :

  Proportional analogy in the Arapaho local forms -second plural

	Person	Form	Person	Form
	VAI  →	-n -eí ́-n	VAI  →	-nee -eí ́-nee

Table  :

  e conjunct order of the unspecified actor paradigm in Cree and Ojibwe

	Person Cree	Ojibwe	Proto-Algonquian
	X→

Table  :

  e conjunct order of the inanimate actor paradigm in Cree and Ojibwe

-akokw-e (→) *-ak-i (→)  *-ankw-e *-eθ-ankw-e  *-ânk-e (→) *-iy-ânk-e (→) *-akenc-i (→) *-iy-amenc-i (→)  *-an-i (→) *-eθ *-ac-i (→)  *-êkw-e *-eθ-akokw-e (→) *-eθ-âkw-e (→)  *-c-i/*-k-i (→, , '