Missing alternative form for `V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg`

[aaronfay]

I believe there may be an incorrect form within the FSTs, or possibly a missing "alternative" (like V+AI+Ind+Prs+12Pl), for the FUTURE DEFINITIVE TENSE. In the 3rd person these words will be prefixed with ka- by the FSTs, however we observe locally (ôta amiskiwâciy wâskahikanihk) that in the non-SAP forms the words will be prefixed with ta-, for instance:

❯ echo itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg | hfst-optimized-lookup --silent crk-normative-generator.hfstol
itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg  ka-itwêw

❯ echo kimiwan+V+II+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg | hfst-optimized-lookup --silent crk-normative-generator.hfstol
kimiwan+V+II+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg    ka-kimiwan

I believe these examples should be ta-itwêw and ta-kimiwan respectively. Could this just be a local variation, or is there possibly a mistake here?

[eddieantonio]

From what I gather, ta- is correct, and even taught in Cree 100. Perhaps the generator should produce both...? @atticusha: any comments?

This is what I get with the latest morphological boundary preserving generator:

❯ echo itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg | hfst-optimized-lookup --silent crk-normative-generator-with-morpheme-boundaries.hfstol
itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Sg  ka-<itwê>w

src❯ echo itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Pl | hfst-optimized-lookup --silent crk-normative-generator-with-morpheme-boundaries.hfstol
itwêw+V+AI+Ind+Fut+Def+3Pl  ka-<itwê>wak

[atticusha]

ta- should absolutely be generated here. There really no question. The question is whether we want to include ka- as a 3rd person form in addition. There's a quote from Wolvengrey (2006) that says

The marker of definite future generally has two variant forms, ta- and ka-. Their exact distribution varies somewhat across Cree dialects, but primarily ka- occurs with first- and second-person markers, while ta- co-occurs with third-person reference. Though ka- has usually been cited as its primary form, it was pointed out to me by one reviewer that the majority of my examples include ta-, so for consistency I cite this as the primary form here, with ka- as a variant (~)

Despite this, in our corpus we have seen both used, with ka- being more common in third person, but we haven't yet stratified by speaker so the nature of the variation is not clear. Further, Jean Okimasis' text book instructs on using ta- in 3rd person forms, but has a few examples of ka- in such places. The University of Alberta's introductory Cree text book doesn't mention ta- as a form at all.

An easy explanation is that maybe in Alberta we have completely switched to ka-, but you mention consultation with people in Edmonton who use ta- for third persons. Out of curiosity, were they born and raised around here?

In any case, it is we should be producing ta- forms in 3rd person future definite forms. I believe this is a bug as I remember this being implemented at one point. The question remains as to what should be the default (or if both forms should be the default).

References Arok Wolvengrey. (2006). Prospective Aspect in the Western Dialects of Cree1. International Journal of American Linguistics, 72(3), 397.

[aaronfay]

Out of curiosity, were they born and raised around here?

Great question, I've heard speakers from both Goodfish Lake and Saddle Lake use this style (with both VII and VAI). I have just asked someone from maskwacîs which way they prefer, and I will try and check with someone from maskêkosihk this week and let you know.

[aaronfay]

I confirmed with Wayne Jackson, in Goodfish Lake they use ta-, however my contact at maskwacîs says he's heard ka- more commonly used.

Hope that's helpful.

[atticusha]

tapwê! I almost contacted Wayne myself. thanks for this info. We'll look into this.

[eddieantonio]

Hey @aarppe, @atticusha! I'm still not getting ta- for these forms in the updated FSTs. Will this be addressed?