Special predicates

This is only an idea, not a certainty, but I've gotten the sense over the past decade of consideration that predicates with initial pronouns may have some special properties that need to be fully described. These predicates fall into two classes unified by the presence of an initial personal pronoun; though formally similar (or even identical), the two types should not be confused.

1) Inalienably possessed nouns: nimama "my mom," semolo "your hand," talae "his voice," etc.

Inalienably possessed nouns are special in that, although semantically the initial pronoun clearly makes them definite, formally they're not used with a particle considered a specifier (e.g. ka, a, ti, po, etc.). This makes them capable of occupying syntactic positions that other definite nouns cannot. For example,

1A. ni-imi se-mama
1SG-self 2SG-mom
"I am your mom"

2A. ni-imi ka cími-ci pe-tia
1SG-self DEF language-ist BEN-this
"I'm the linguist around here"

In the examples above, semama "your mom" is a special predicate and ka címici "the linguist" is an ordinary predicate, but in these structures there is no difference in usage. However, semama is permissible in verbal position where ka címici is not (I know I literally said the exact opposite yesterday about nimama, but things change fast around here). If we remove the dummy predicate imi in 1-2A, the clause with the special predicate remains grammatical (1B) but the one with the ordinary definite predicate does not (2B):

1B. ni-se-mama
1SG-2SG-mom
"I'm your mom"

2B. *ni ka cími-ci pe-tia
1SG DEF language-ist BEN-this
"*I'm the linguist around here"

Similarly, when the pronoun or predicate are focalized, the special predicate is fine (3A, 4A) where the ordinary definite predicate becomes marginal (3B, 4B):

3A. se-mama sa ni
2SG-mom FOC 1SG
"I'm your mom"

3B. ?ka címici sa ni
DEF linguist FOC 1SG
"?I'm the linguist"

4A. ni sa se-mama
1SG FOC 2SG-mom
"I'm your mom"

4B. ?ni sa ka címici
1SG FOC DEF linguist
"?I'm the linguist"

The second special structure is of much greater import, and is therefore also more controversial...

2) Verbs with pronominal subjects: nimama "I'm a mom," selóhani "you love me," tunuku "they're asleep," etc.

Here's the setup. We've known for many years that clauses with a pronominal subject omit the main clause marker i, thus

5. Ø ta-ma-viti po-vihu
MAIN.CL 3SG-CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"she's cooking mushrooms"

6. ni-mama i ma-viti po-vihu
1SG-mom VB.CL CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"my mom is cooking mushrooms"

(Note: Our awareness of the fact that the Ø main clause marker in 5 is actually outside of the verb word is a more complicated story that I'll get into later...)

If 5-6 become dependent clauses, objects of sesano "you said," let's say, the main clause marker i/Ø must change to the dependent clause marker ko. Similarly, if the dependent clause becomes a modifier of another predicate (i.e. a relative clause), the clause marker changes from i/Ø to u.

The difference in usage between the ordinary predicate maviti po vihu "is cooking mushrooms" and the special pronoun-initial predicate tamaviti po vihu "she's cooking mushrooms" is that clauses with pronominal subjects may omit the dependent clause markers ko and u, whereas ordinary clauses may not. This is the same pattern we see with the main clause marker i. Thus

7A. se-sano ko ta-ma-viti po vihu
2SG.say DEP.CL 3SG-CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"you said that she's cooking mushrooms"

7B. se-sano Ø ta-ma-viti po vihu
2SG.say DEP.CL 3SG-CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"you said she's cooking mushrooms"

8A. ka vihu u ta-ma-viti i cuti
DEF mushroom REL.CL 3SG-CONT-cook VB.CL lovely
"the mushrooms that she was cooking were lovely"

8B. ka vihu Ø ta-ma-viti i cuti
DEF mushroom REL.CL 3SG-CONT-cook VB.CL lovely
"the mushrooms she was cooking were lovely"

In 7-8, with special pronoun-initial predicates, the "B" version without a clause marker is a grammatical alternative to the "A" version with the marker. Below in 9-10, however, omitting the clause marker from an ordinary predicate yields an unacceptable result:

9A. se-sano ni-mama ko ma-viti po vihu
2SG-say 1SG-mom DEP.CL CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"you said that my mom is cooking mushrooms"

9B. *se-sano ni-mama Ø ma-viti po vihu
2SG-say 1SG-mom DEP.CL CONT-cook GEN-mushroom
"*you said my mom is cooking mushrooms"

10A. ka vihu ni-mama u ma-viti i cuti
DEF mushroom 1SG-mom REL.CL CONT.cook VB.CL lovely
"the mushrooms that my mom was cooking were lovely"

10B. *ka vihu ni-mama Ø ma-viti i cuti
DEF mushroom 1SG-mom (REL.CL) CONT.cook VB.CL lovely
"*the mushrooms that my mom was cooking were lovely"

Again, I'm still feeling pretty cautious about all of this! I resisted for a long time because I'd never seen a language outside of English and Scandinavian that could do something like this, but recently I discovered with great surprise that Macedonian can as well with object clauses:

се надевам Ø таа ќе дојде
REFL hope.1S (COMP) she FUT come.3S
"I hope she'll come"

At this point I can't think of a strong reason not to allow them. I've been hemming and hawing since the idea first occurred to me in 2012, so we might as well go ahead and codify the phenomenon and try it out in practice. We'll see how it feels in actual usage!

In terms of the difference in feeling between the two alternatives, I'm vacillating between on the one hand imagining it to be perhaps slightly less formal to omit the clause marker (as in English), and on the other hand wondering whether the style is instead more elevated with more compact syntax. Time will tell.