NO. 2
��TYPES OF REDUPLICATION IN THE SALISH DIALECTS
��173
��While the general principles that underlie the formation of the plural and of the diminu- tive are practically the same for all the dia- lects, we find an entirely different state of affairs in the case of the formation of plural- diminutives. Almost each dialect follows a distinctive method of deriving these forms. Different psychological concepts obviously underlie this heterogeneity. Thus, in contra- distinction to other dialects the Comox forms, as Dr. Sapir has pointed out, are, properly speaking, diminutized-plurals. The hetero- geneity is all the more surprising when it is taken into consideration that in all of the dialects the plural-diminutives are, built up on the common principles of plural and of diminutive formation.
In Lillooet we find examples of plural- diminutives in which the first reduplicating syllable expresses plurality and is a repetition of the stem of the simplex, while the second syllable expresses the diminutive idea (see skwumkokome v t, CHILDREN). This is the type of formation of plural-diminutives that is so typical of Thompson and Shuswap. It shows a high degree of relationship between these three dialects as far as the process of redupli- cating is concerned. In Kalispelm they are apparently never formed by double redupli- cation, but are always derived from the dimin- utive of the simplex by means of an extension of the reduplicating vowel (see sheushu'tem). In this the Kalispelm method is identical in principle with that obtaining in Clallam and Lkungen. In these dialects the forms in ques- tion are derived from the diminutive by means of extending the reduplicating vowel by a y (Clallam) or an I (Lkungen) glide (see p!a'ya'p!a'uwi', SMALL FLOUNDERS; skala'kala, INFANTS). The plural-diminutives of Sno- homish are formed by double reduplication (with the exception of the words for MAN and WOMAN), and are derived from the diminutive. The idea of plurality is expressed by repeating the reduplicating syllable of the diminutive (see for example: spl'piptco, SMALL BASKETS.)
��This feature distinguishes the Snohomish forms from the double reduplications of Lillooet on the one hand and of Comox on the other. Our material from Lower Fraser and Seshelt is very meager. The few exam- ples from the latter show double reduplica- tion, while the Lower Fraser form qaka'lami from q'ami, MAID, represents a new type in which the plural-diminutive is derived from the extended, non-reduplicated plural (see p. 169). Finally, the Comox derivatives are formed by a process of double reduplication, in which the first reduplication is of the dimin- utive type, while the second is of the plural type.
The enormous diversity in the formation of plural-diminutives shows that they have been developed by a high degree of local differen- tiation. This contrasts strikingly with the comparatively great uniformity of the prin- ciples common to the plural and the diminu- tive reduplications of the whole Salish area. This situation suggests clearly that the plural- diminutives are genetically secondary to the latter. Another outstanding difference is that in one and the samg dialect the plural-diminu- tives show great consistency in the regularity with which they are formed. In each dialect they are all derived, almost without excep- tion, according to one principle. In contra- distinction to this the plurals and diminutives of a given dialect are formed according to sev- eral principles and contain a number of irregu- lar forms. This again is significant for the genetic priority of the plurals and of the diminutives as compared with the plural- diminutives.
From the point of view of the classification of the Salish dialects the plurals and the diminutives on the one hand and the plural- diminutives on the other, offer criteria of heterogeneous value for the degree of affilia- tion between the various dialects. The Salish plural-diminutives clearly presuppose the plural as well as the diminutive forms. They are, therefore, phenomena of a higher degree
�� �
