 This talk is, in some way, complementary with La Infance talk of yesterday. La Infance presented something about prefixes, and I'm going to talk about suffixes. How does evidence from languages with conservative morphology in a scientific family, to what extent are these relevant to studying Chinese? Before I start, let me say a few words about methodology. I think that in a scientific family, the two groups, among the 30 uncontroversable subgroups of the family, that have the most complex morphology of gyarungik on the one hand that Infance has been talking about yesterday, and gyarungik on the other hand. There is evidence that I cannot go into too much today that these languages present archaic features that some of these morphologies are, to some extent, ancient and cognate between these two families. And although the number of cognates between gyarungik, gyarungik, and Chinese is very limited, in the Infance presentation he tried to put together all the cognates, and we have less than 200 cognates between gyarungik and Chinese. So these languages are not so useful to reconstruct actual clusters, for instance, or confirm many hypothesis about clusters in all Chinese because common vocabulary is so limited. On the other hand, the rich morphology of these languages can be a guide to at least create hypotheses to interpret the morphology of all Chinese. I believe that when studying a language whose morphology has been eroded, it becomes impossible to really recover the meaning of the lost affixes only on a language internal basis. I think when we look at it in European, for instance, if you study a language like Albanian or Armenian, you can know the entire literature by heart. You will never be able to etymology any word if you don't have knowledge of Sanskrit and Greek. You always need to understand the basic morphological structure of total language and try to recover the traces of it. You can find in languages that have less conservative morphology, even if they are not closely related in Stambas. So I'm going to talk about one topic, the S suffix, because it's the most conspicuous suffix in all Chinese. I think there are several distance suffixes, actually, that correspond to two sum. I hope I can be forgiven not to present the exhaustive references on this topic. For instance, I didn't quote Sun Yubin. I was aware of its existence thanks to Kampungshu, but I will just use Downer's study of the topic. So more than 50 years ago, Downer collected examples of derivation by Tchushan Tung. He found eight different types, with widely distinct semantic properties, as you can see in section two. And his interpretation of this diversity in the meaning of the suffix is that the Tchushan Tung derivation, as he calls it, was not really the trace of a new factual system, but simply a way to create new words, as you can say in the quote taken from his article. And this view has been related by several other authors. I think that this view at the time was perfectly legitimate, that with 50 years later, as you see, of course, to criticize the previous authors, but I think that such a view, if you hold a view like that, then that's it. You can't go any further. And basically you say that any study of trace morphology is pointless. I mean, I think that's a view then, in some way it's nowhere. At least we should try to interpret the remnants of morphology in Chinese using our knowledge of more conservative narratives. And that's what I'm going to try to do. Of course, the comparison I'm going to present in this paper are not... I make no claim that they are all true. I'm just presenting a series of possibilities. And I leave it up to the time specialist to determine to what extent they can be accepted a lot. So, Dana found eight times. I'm not aware of... Since I haven't read in detail someone's book, I don't know if more recent work on this topic has discovered new types of... new meanings for this derivation. But in any case, the types that Dana has proposed are all quite well-attested. Derivation from verb to noun. So it's implicit that there are various types of nouns actually. Like you have to be hard and high, so it's an abstract noun. Be at the place. But in some cases, it's the object of a transitive void may correspond to the only argument of an intransitive. So it seems to be used to derive various types of nouns. It doesn't have a very specific meaning. You can derive a verb from a noun. There are also many examples of it. So the exact opposite of previous one. And the meaning of the verb is also quite varied. Sometimes you use an implement as you have in this period. You have many examples of causative. In the case of by and cell, it's not really causative, but in any case, many languages in the world use causative, more case to derive words like cell or borrow from by. That's a well-known situation. And you have a few examples, like hard and high, to like to be good, which are not really causative. They are more like what I have called using the Arabic tradition, tropeative. So to consider something to be good. And there is evidence, for instance, in general language that causative can also be used in some cases with a tropeative meaning. There are examples of applicative. So applicative, by applicative, I mean you take an intransitive verb and you derive a transitive verb from it. And unlike in the case of a causative. In a causative, you should take an intransitive verb and you causativeize it. The object of the transitive verb, the causie, corresponds to the subject of the transitive verb. So sit, I sit. To make someone sit, the person who sits is the object of the second, of the causative verb. In the case of applicative, the argument that you add with the derivation is the object. It can refer to and the subject of the derived verb corresponds to the subject of the original verb. I will show you more concrete cases using living languages to explain what I mean by applicative for those of you who are not familiar with it. Let's give the example of taking a run in the outrun. Yeah, but you have a few lexicolised applicative like verbs in English, German, you have a few examples of that. It's not productive in any European language, but in some language family it's quite productive. Five, you have this restricted meaning kind of a category which appears to be a casual for various things and I won't attend to discuss it more. You have passive. So passive would be the exact opposite of the causative. And you have quite a few examples. And you also have, German did not use this word because it wasn't invented when he wrote his article, anti-passive. What is anti-passive? Anti-passive is to derive an intransitive verb from a transitive one. But unlike the passive verb, the only argument of the intransitive verb corresponds to the patient of the transitive verb. In the case of an anti-passive, the only argument of the intransitive verb corresponds to the subject. So to put it bluntly, simply like in French, in French you have use of the reflexive in an anti-passive like fashion with some verb like bat. To beat someone. So bat. To fight. Which is intransitive. Which works intransitively. In French, you only have very few examples like that with the reflexive use to create this anti-passive construction. But again, some languages have productive ways of making anti-passive. In European languages, you don't have anti-passive for one reason because nearly all European languages have widespread agent preserving abilities. So basically most transitive verbs, whether in English, French, you can omit the object. And it's interpreted as meaning an unspecified object. So you can say, I eat, I eat an apple, I eat means I have a meal. But in languages that in most languages of the world actually, if you omit the object, it will mean it's with a specified object. And you need to have an anti-passive marker to indicate that you have an unspecified object. So just to, you have a few examples of anti-passive in Chinese. Then you have derivation, very few examples. Just a three or four. And a forming of a compound. So you have in some cases the first or the second element of a compound with an attution added. Okay, so indeed, at first glance, it looks like what Dardan says. It's just a big mess and you'll never be able to solve anything. And let's do something else. I'm just going to try to propose a series of etymologies in other languages. So the previous colleagues have already pointed out some of them. The first of them, following Audrey Gouin, was a discovery of the the tushon comes from an S suffix. It comes from an S. It was a forest and of course there are other scholars have built on that idea. Before I go any further, I will propose I will start by proposing a sound law. Potential sound and you're free to criticize and to comment that. In Tibetan, I first start with a typological example. In Tibetan, it's well known that in the present, whether it's proper or not to call it this way, I want to argue. We have some transitive verbs. Have a conjugation either an S or a final D. And all people who have worked on Tibetan internal reconstruction agree that you have a sound law which tells you that can we have a sound law? Is there something to write on the book there? Oh, can you just have it in there? Yeah. So if you look at these two examples, you have in this, the tap to plant or this is what has many meanings. And so when you have a verb ending with root and with perma girl and very few others, you end up with S. So let's say this was from something like n da d. So you have a verb ending for the maybe whatever. And the verb R changes to A. When you have a verb ending in a vowel, you still get the front ending of R to A, but it remains the same. So you have nid patas to chase. So it comes from n da and it stays in the something like that. So these would be the rough photoforms for the present tense forms that I wrote here. And thus we have some more in Tibetan telling you that pta pta pta nid ta et cetera change to psa ksa msa It's a fact that you don't have clusters in anywhere in Tibetan. The only possible final clusters we have in Tibetan well I won't talk about the ta ta with these consonants are with S. So let's start from a moment that since in Chinese the only final cluster we can reconstruct involves consonant plus S and there are many of them. I mean it's striking that in any reconstruction of Chinese you get S's everywhere. You get also R's everywhere. I think this is a problem I think for all reconstruction of Chinese not specifically Laurent's or Schuessler's or anyone else's the communist opinion of the present reconstructions reconstruct I think too many R's and too many S's. My view is that maybe the present reconstruction don't make enough distinctions and one of the reasons is that consonants different from S and R have merged with original R's and S's and from the present data it's not always possible to distinguish between them. Let's accept for the time being that T could change to S when it occurs as the element of final cluster. At least maybe not after all consonants we have evidence in some languages of the family especially curanty for the existence of cluster like that. So it's not illegitimate to suppose that it may have any case. If we do that then we are entitled to compare the final S in Chinese not only with S suffixes but also with T suffixes in other languages and that's what I'm going to try to do and you will decide for yourself whether you believe it's reliable or not. So let's go one by one I won't discuss all the downers categories, I won't discuss the restricted minimum but most of the other ones. The first most obvious that was discovered is the nominalization issue because it's not productive anymore but we have a big series of nouns derived from S suffixes. I think this is completely un-controversial and there are even a few examples that are probably connected to Chinese. Actually there is a type of middle Chinese of cloth because there is no IJ it's simply I. Oh yeah, I didn't include the old Chinese, it's just out of laziness I should have added it in the eventual version I will add them but I think you can try to figure out for yourself. I use a slightly modified version of middle Chinese of Baxi's middle Chinese. So I won't dwell too much on minimalization S minimalization because I think it's quite un-controversial. I will talk a little more on the causative applicative. Ok, so for the causative applicative there is quite there is good evidence who are the scientific family of T suffixes that derive applicative or causative verbs in various languages. It's mainly in Chinese languages that you have a lot of them but you get a few examples in many unrelated branches including jargon and languages. In Tibetan there are many good examples but so libu is probably the language that has the best cases of because it distinguishes very clearly an S causative and an S applicative. So here taking beta from Boyd Mikhailovsky so these are the root forms it's not the actual way these forms are pronounced because they always occur with suffixes and I won't go into the morphophonology of it, it's 111 to represent a talk. You have an intranstive verb hap to weep you can derive from it causative verb haps with an S suffix to cause to weep and an applicative verb here you see the difference weep mon foe in the case of cause to weep the person who weeps is the patient corresponds to the subject of the intranstive verb in the second case the applicative derivation the person who weeps is the agent corresponding to the subject of the intranstive verb so you see the different relations between causative and applicative derivations in this language. It's difficult to claim that it's productive in any Quiranti languages in the sense that you cannot as far as I know apply to long words but in some way the Quiranti languages you have to understand that in Quiranti verbs are a closed clause but you only have 700 or 800 verbs and you cannot create new ones you barely can borrow verbs so you can borrow few but it's really it's completely different from Guarani where anything can be turned into a verb so the fact that we don't have example for instance Blippali verbs to which these are added is not really does not really indicate that these derivations are died so outside of Quiranti we don't have nice example so I'm going to in order to make you understand the meaning of these suffixes I'm going to show you a few more from Kali so here are example of applicative in Kali so for instance you have Bur to score to be able to add some a root a root double T a root a root a root that's again a root form it's not something else like that it's going to dry if you use it in a suffix and a root actually it may be a cognate with the to bark I don't know whatever the R is so basically these verbs either the recipient of something or the stimulus of a feeling to be frustrated from something so either it's a feeling and you have the experiencer which corresponds to this subject and you add it with these suffixes you add the the stimulus the causative T can also be used in Kali to express causative so you have examples like Bur to run P calm P to dream this one is interesting because you have the only verb with a T applicative in gyarnic from we and it's completely this one so this is the evidence that this derivation has some degree of antiquity now in Chinese the only proposal for a T applicative was by Laurent I won't dwell too much I think I think that one possibility to explain some of the causative applicatives if you accept the sound law I proposed would be the following at some stage you have this sound law ok five minutes of estimating my time sorry but that does not matter so you have this sound law you had quite a lot of pairs between verbs with S suffix expressing applicative and in transitive verbs and then since you also had a causative suffix S the distinction between applicative and causative is already quite tiny even in language data where this derivation is quite productive it became blurred and the S causative was general the meaning the causative applicative meaning of what was extended to a context outside of the application of this sound law and that's why you also have the S suffix expressing applicative or causative with verbs in open syllable for the passive and anti-passive I think now we can propose a different comparison in chiranti languages and also in various languages with relative conservative morphology like Toulon and like Maga we have a C suffix or SHI suffix that expresses reflexive this reflexive has it's the basic meaning but it has many additional meanings it can be used for impersonal subject in some of the cases it's used for anti-passive you have example 7 and 8 l'opée grande and discussed by witches I feel disgusted so here you see that the subject of the reflexive corresponds to the direct of the transitive it also has so so I think that one possibility for the for the use of Cheuchon to express both the passive and anti-passive would be comparison with this with this reflexive suffix for the remainder for the denominal use of S I think that this is somehow of a problem for scientific comparison the art to the extent of my analysis no good example of S suffixes deriving verb from nouns so whatever the explanation must be for Chinese I think that gyaronic or chiranti evidence for the relation of adverbs one possibility is the the use of an S suffix which appears to be all because it's shared by gyaronic and chiranti languages to whose original meaning must have been locative it's used in Tibetan it appears as element in case markers various case markers including the adjective and the additive in gyaronic languages it's used mainly for locative with motion and I think that this can potentially be compared with the use of S suffix of the S suffix in Chinese with the as an as a derivation so yeah for the other ones I don't think I have good comparisons but I hope that the comparison I proposed today I have to stress that there is some degree of speculation here I am not claiming that they are necessarily related to Chinese but at least I think it's better to explore how the meaning of the derivation we observe in Chinese might be linked to living languages rather than speculate from a Chinese internal perspective and I hope that can comment on the proposal I made thank you