AMERINDIA 44: 71-107, 2023
Andrey NIKULIN
Núcleo Takinahakỹ de Formación Superior Indígena–Universidad Federal de Goiás
DOI : https://doi.org/10.56551/GQRK3549
Abstract: Thepaper describes the finitenessmorphology and the syntactic subordination strategies of Migueleño Chiquitano. The verbs in that variety are shown to formally distinguish between finite and nonfinite forms. Finite forms take suffixed indices (“finiteness suffixes”) that encode the absolutive participant (–(’)o in the third person, –ka otherwise) or the accusative participant (–ta in the third person singular in the inverse voice). The nonfinite forms receive the nonfinite prefix (h)a– and, under certain conditions, the nonfiniteness suffix –(’)o. I then proceed to examine specific subordinate constructions and show that some of them are nonfinite (deranked), whereas others are finite (balanced). The deranked clauses cannot take aspectual morphology and show extra restrictions regarding the coreference of their subject with that of the main clause.