Honorifics
Tsi has three 'honorifics' originally derived from classifiers, as mentioned previously. These honorifics are syntactically versatile: they can attach to nouns and pronouns, stand alone as anaphora, and appear within the verbal complex.
(o)q!ʰạ (ultra-elevated)
(o)hạ (respectful)
(o)hąą (derogatory/animal)
In addition, the absence of any classifier (which we'll call 'unmarked') expresses (rarely) equality or lower social standing.
The etymology of (o)q!ʰạ (originally a classifier for large geographical features and by extension their personified forms as deities) and (o)hąą (originally a classifier for animals) is fairly straightforward. (o)hạ, which derives from a classifier used originally for round objects and tools, is perhaps less transparent. Its usage is rooted in the Tsi equivalence of the concept of 'imperial slave' and 'citizen' (ngkòd) - that is, the elevated social class carrying the greatest amount of prestige are conceptualised simultaneously as property of the God-Emperor. The 'tool' classifier was extended metaphorically to refer to these individuals - a use attested in the oldest Tsi - before being (de?-)grammaticalised and extended by association to all social superiors.
Syntax of honorifics
With nouns and pronouns
The most simplistic use of honorifics is in conjunction with nouns. In this case they typically appear directly after the noun. The initial vowel o- of the ending is dropped after a vowel, and can optionally be dropped after a consonant as well (the complexity of the resulting consonant cluster may play a role in determining this):
srob-(o)hạ 'tent' (of someone respectable)
ka-hąą 'man' (derogatory)
tša-q!ʰạ 'left foot' (of the Emperor)
The plural ending typically follows the honorific. Although the border between independent particle, clitic and affix is particularly vague in Tsi, this is evidence for considering it in the latter group:
srob-(o)hạ-otʰ 'tents' (of someone respectable)
ka-hąą 'men' (derogatory)
Note that incorporated nouns cannot take honorifics.
Anaphoric usage
The anaphoric usage of honorifics is a fairly clear extension of the nominal usage, albeit without a noun attached. As with the 'unmarked' pronouns, the use of anaphoric classifiers is fairly limited to cases of disambiguation. The full form is always used:
(1) ohąą mdòt k!a-k!a-hąą tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
HON wood chop ANIM quarter in
he (the menial servant) is chopping wood in the quarter
Where social superiors are being addressed, these forms are often used considerably more than is normal for pronouns in other contexts.
With verbs
The most complicated position that honorifics can appear is as part of a verbal complex. Here they follow the main verb directly. As with nouns, the o- is dropped after vowels and optionally after consonants:
(2) ktọb-ohạ-rų šo-k|ʰòò-hạ bà qǂeχ-ohạ ho?
water=HON=DEM down=pour-HON IN.PRF please-HON INT?
Should I pour sir some of this water [if I poured this water, would it please you?]?
(3) pʰò qa-mdòt k!a hąą bà jòò?
NEG apart=wood chop HNR take why?
Why didn't you chop the wood?! (from a master to a menial slave)
Usage
Tsi honorifics mark the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee (second person) and the referent (third person) of their conversation. Their usage varies to some extent dialectally, and misuse or underuse of honorifics is a stereotypical feature of rural speech. But for urban speakers in the central areas of the Tsi Empire at least they are fairly standardised.
Determining status
It is fairly unusual for two Tsi to occupy an identical position on the social ladder. Family, profession, gender (male > female) and age (older > younger) are all determinants of relative status. Within most social interactions, the difference is understood but not seriously marked: use of the unmarked (zero-honorific) forms and the respectful ((o)hạ) forms does not necessarily express a significant gulf, and in fact in most Tsi interactions is accompanied by use of familial forms of address expressing a kind of respectful affection.
Consider the following examples:
(4a) Dzo-hạ mdòt k!a-k!a-hạ tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo=HON wood chop=HON ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
(4b) Dzo mdòt k!a-k!a tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo wood chop ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
Both sentences express the same content, but reflect different relative positions between Dzo and the speaker. In a) Dzo has a higher social standing than the speaker, in b) a lower social standing. The social difference need not be that significant: in 4a the speaker could be his older sister and in 4b his older brother, for example.
4b could also be a long-term friend of the same gender and similar age - one of the few contexts in which it is possible to express near equality in status. In a relationship of this kind, both speakers using the unmarked form to address one another is normal. However, even in this kind of relationship, outside familiar situations a more conventional age differentiation or mutual use of the respectful form is likely to take the place of the unmarked form in the third person (i.e. when discussing the other party with someone else).
However, in interactions with or discussing the highest (imperial, deific) and lowest (menial slave, outlaw) levels of Tsi society, speakers have recourse to the ultra-elevated ((o)q!ʰạ) and derogatory ((o)hąą) forms. Consider (4c):
(4c) Dzo-hąą mdòt k!a-k!a-hąą tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo=HON wood chop=HON ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
In this case, Dzo is assumed to occupy one of the lowest rungs of Tsi society. He is likely a slave or an outlaw - or if not, the speaker is deliberately adopting a highly insulting and derogatory form. Note that although this form derives from a classifier used for animals generally, its use with animals is variable (presumably since there is little need to express social difference between an animal and a human). It is almost universal with certain kinds of animals considered to be dirty or contemptible, however, particularly in contexts where the speaker is keen to emphasise the vast difference between the animal and an addressee or referent or themselves:
(5) k!oo-hąą ŋááχ-ohąą bà
dog=HON bite=HON IN.PRF
The dog bit it
The ultra-elevated form, meanwhile, is used when referring to the imperial person, the royal family, and high-ranking levels of the bureaucracy as well as deities (the exact rank after which (o)q!ʰạ has to be used is not entirely clear, and depends to some extent on the status of the speaker as well).
(6) ŋ|ʰu-q!ʰạ xo-q!òp-oq!ʰạ bà shạạq
prince=HON DST-throw_out=HON IN.PRF stained_with_menstrual_blood
his majesty the prince threw out the bloodstained clothes
Inanimate nouns associated with animate nouns often take honorifics through association:
(7) rlàŋŋạ to-llà-q!ʰạ bà srob-oq!ʰạ
squadron up-raise-HON INAN tent-HON
the group of soldiers raised [the Emperor's] tent
Verbal honorific
The underlying principle determining the use of verbal honorifics is essentially subjecthood. In an intransitive sentence, or a transitive sentence involving an inanimate object, the animate subject (or experiencer etc in some cases) determines the honorific to be used. For second and third person subjects, the honorific is straightforward: most commonly either respectful (for a higher-status person) or unmarked (for a lower-status person), with more unusual cases taking the highly elevated or derogatory form:
(8a) pʰò ktọb su-hạ bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (the person with higher status than me)
(8b) pʰò ktọb su bà
NEG water drink IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (the person with lower status than me)
(8c) pʰò ktọb su-q!ʰạ bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (person with extremely high status)
(8d) pʰò ktọb su-hąą bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (person with extremely low status)
For first-person subjects the default choice for people outside the lowest and highest status brackets is the unmarked form:
(9a) ktọb su bà
water drink IN.PRF
I drank the water
In interactions with social inferiors, however, those entitled to highly-elevated honorifics also use them to refer to themselves:
(9b) ktọb su-q!ʰạ bà
water drink=HON IN.PRF
I (e.g. the Emperor) drank the water
Likewise in interactions with social superiors (though not necessarily among themselves) those on the lowest levels of society are expected to use the derogatory forms with first person referents. A slave might speak to an innkeeper in this style. Even those who would otherwise normally be outside the scope of the derogatory form, however, can sometimes make use of it when addressing very elevated social superiors - the same innkeeper, when brought before the court as a supplicant, might use the same form:
(9c) ktọb su-hąą bà
water drink=HON IN.PRF
I (e.g. a chattel slave) drank the water
However, when more than one constituent of the verb has social status (i.e. is animate), the constituent with the highest social status takes priority, forcing the verb into that honorific form.
(10) bàq-bàq ŋááχ-ohạ
terror_bird bite-HON
The terror bird bit him (someone who is my social superior)
In some cases the superior may not even be a direct constituent syntactically. Consider sentence (2) again:
(11) ktọb-ohạ-rų šo-k|ʰòò-hạ bà qǂeχ-ohạ ho?
water=HON=DEM down=pour-HON IN.PRF please-HON INT?
Should I pour sir some of this water [if I poured this water, would it please you?]?
In this case the subject of šo-k|ʰòò 'pour' is clearly the speaker, but more importantly, the addressee is not an explicitly stated constituent or direct object. Nonetheless, as an implied beneficiary, the addressee still demands an honorific form.
(o)q!ʰạ (ultra-elevated)
(o)hạ (respectful)
(o)hąą (derogatory/animal)
In addition, the absence of any classifier (which we'll call 'unmarked') expresses (rarely) equality or lower social standing.
The etymology of (o)q!ʰạ (originally a classifier for large geographical features and by extension their personified forms as deities) and (o)hąą (originally a classifier for animals) is fairly straightforward. (o)hạ, which derives from a classifier used originally for round objects and tools, is perhaps less transparent. Its usage is rooted in the Tsi equivalence of the concept of 'imperial slave' and 'citizen' (ngkòd) - that is, the elevated social class carrying the greatest amount of prestige are conceptualised simultaneously as property of the God-Emperor. The 'tool' classifier was extended metaphorically to refer to these individuals - a use attested in the oldest Tsi - before being (de?-)grammaticalised and extended by association to all social superiors.
Syntax of honorifics
With nouns and pronouns
The most simplistic use of honorifics is in conjunction with nouns. In this case they typically appear directly after the noun. The initial vowel o- of the ending is dropped after a vowel, and can optionally be dropped after a consonant as well (the complexity of the resulting consonant cluster may play a role in determining this):
srob-(o)hạ 'tent' (of someone respectable)
ka-hąą 'man' (derogatory)
tša-q!ʰạ 'left foot' (of the Emperor)
The plural ending typically follows the honorific. Although the border between independent particle, clitic and affix is particularly vague in Tsi, this is evidence for considering it in the latter group:
srob-(o)hạ-otʰ 'tents' (of someone respectable)
ka-hąą 'men' (derogatory)
Note that incorporated nouns cannot take honorifics.
Anaphoric usage
The anaphoric usage of honorifics is a fairly clear extension of the nominal usage, albeit without a noun attached. As with the 'unmarked' pronouns, the use of anaphoric classifiers is fairly limited to cases of disambiguation. The full form is always used:
(1) ohąą mdòt k!a-k!a-hąą tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
HON wood chop ANIM quarter in
he (the menial servant) is chopping wood in the quarter
Where social superiors are being addressed, these forms are often used considerably more than is normal for pronouns in other contexts.
With verbs
The most complicated position that honorifics can appear is as part of a verbal complex. Here they follow the main verb directly. As with nouns, the o- is dropped after vowels and optionally after consonants:
(2) ktọb-ohạ-rų šo-k|ʰòò-hạ bà qǂeχ-ohạ ho?
water=HON=DEM down=pour-HON IN.PRF please-HON INT?
Should I pour sir some of this water [if I poured this water, would it please you?]?
(3) pʰò qa-mdòt k!a hąą bà jòò?
NEG apart=wood chop HNR take why?
Why didn't you chop the wood?! (from a master to a menial slave)
Usage
Tsi honorifics mark the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee (second person) and the referent (third person) of their conversation. Their usage varies to some extent dialectally, and misuse or underuse of honorifics is a stereotypical feature of rural speech. But for urban speakers in the central areas of the Tsi Empire at least they are fairly standardised.
Determining status
It is fairly unusual for two Tsi to occupy an identical position on the social ladder. Family, profession, gender (male > female) and age (older > younger) are all determinants of relative status. Within most social interactions, the difference is understood but not seriously marked: use of the unmarked (zero-honorific) forms and the respectful ((o)hạ) forms does not necessarily express a significant gulf, and in fact in most Tsi interactions is accompanied by use of familial forms of address expressing a kind of respectful affection.
Consider the following examples:
(4a) Dzo-hạ mdòt k!a-k!a-hạ tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo=HON wood chop=HON ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
(4b) Dzo mdòt k!a-k!a tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo wood chop ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
Both sentences express the same content, but reflect different relative positions between Dzo and the speaker. In a) Dzo has a higher social standing than the speaker, in b) a lower social standing. The social difference need not be that significant: in 4a the speaker could be his older sister and in 4b his older brother, for example.
4b could also be a long-term friend of the same gender and similar age - one of the few contexts in which it is possible to express near equality in status. In a relationship of this kind, both speakers using the unmarked form to address one another is normal. However, even in this kind of relationship, outside familiar situations a more conventional age differentiation or mutual use of the respectful form is likely to take the place of the unmarked form in the third person (i.e. when discussing the other party with someone else).
However, in interactions with or discussing the highest (imperial, deific) and lowest (menial slave, outlaw) levels of Tsi society, speakers have recourse to the ultra-elevated ((o)q!ʰạ) and derogatory ((o)hąą) forms. Consider (4c):
(4c) Dzo-hąą mdòt k!a-k!a-hąą tsą k!ǫǫ aŋŋo
Dzo=HON wood chop=HON ANIM quarter in
Dzo is chopping wood in the quarter
In this case, Dzo is assumed to occupy one of the lowest rungs of Tsi society. He is likely a slave or an outlaw - or if not, the speaker is deliberately adopting a highly insulting and derogatory form. Note that although this form derives from a classifier used for animals generally, its use with animals is variable (presumably since there is little need to express social difference between an animal and a human). It is almost universal with certain kinds of animals considered to be dirty or contemptible, however, particularly in contexts where the speaker is keen to emphasise the vast difference between the animal and an addressee or referent or themselves:
(5) k!oo-hąą ŋááχ-ohąą bà
dog=HON bite=HON IN.PRF
The dog bit it
The ultra-elevated form, meanwhile, is used when referring to the imperial person, the royal family, and high-ranking levels of the bureaucracy as well as deities (the exact rank after which (o)q!ʰạ has to be used is not entirely clear, and depends to some extent on the status of the speaker as well).
(6) ŋ|ʰu-q!ʰạ xo-q!òp-oq!ʰạ bà shạạq
prince=HON DST-throw_out=HON IN.PRF stained_with_menstrual_blood
his majesty the prince threw out the bloodstained clothes
Inanimate nouns associated with animate nouns often take honorifics through association:
(7) rlàŋŋạ to-llà-q!ʰạ bà srob-oq!ʰạ
squadron up-raise-HON INAN tent-HON
the group of soldiers raised [the Emperor's] tent
Verbal honorific
The underlying principle determining the use of verbal honorifics is essentially subjecthood. In an intransitive sentence, or a transitive sentence involving an inanimate object, the animate subject (or experiencer etc in some cases) determines the honorific to be used. For second and third person subjects, the honorific is straightforward: most commonly either respectful (for a higher-status person) or unmarked (for a lower-status person), with more unusual cases taking the highly elevated or derogatory form:
(8a) pʰò ktọb su-hạ bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (the person with higher status than me)
(8b) pʰò ktọb su bà
NEG water drink IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (the person with lower status than me)
(8c) pʰò ktọb su-q!ʰạ bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (person with extremely high status)
(8d) pʰò ktọb su-hąą bà
NEG water drink=HON IN.PRF
he (you) didn't drink the water (person with extremely low status)
For first-person subjects the default choice for people outside the lowest and highest status brackets is the unmarked form:
(9a) ktọb su bà
water drink IN.PRF
I drank the water
In interactions with social inferiors, however, those entitled to highly-elevated honorifics also use them to refer to themselves:
(9b) ktọb su-q!ʰạ bà
water drink=HON IN.PRF
I (e.g. the Emperor) drank the water
Likewise in interactions with social superiors (though not necessarily among themselves) those on the lowest levels of society are expected to use the derogatory forms with first person referents. A slave might speak to an innkeeper in this style. Even those who would otherwise normally be outside the scope of the derogatory form, however, can sometimes make use of it when addressing very elevated social superiors - the same innkeeper, when brought before the court as a supplicant, might use the same form:
(9c) ktọb su-hąą bà
water drink=HON IN.PRF
I (e.g. a chattel slave) drank the water
However, when more than one constituent of the verb has social status (i.e. is animate), the constituent with the highest social status takes priority, forcing the verb into that honorific form.
(10) bàq-bàq ŋááχ-ohạ
terror_bird bite-HON
The terror bird bit him (someone who is my social superior)
In some cases the superior may not even be a direct constituent syntactically. Consider sentence (2) again:
(11) ktọb-ohạ-rų šo-k|ʰòò-hạ bà qǂeχ-ohạ ho?
water=HON=DEM down=pour-HON IN.PRF please-HON INT?
Should I pour sir some of this water [if I poured this water, would it please you?]?
In this case the subject of šo-k|ʰòò 'pour' is clearly the speaker, but more importantly, the addressee is not an explicitly stated constituent or direct object. Nonetheless, as an implied beneficiary, the addressee still demands an honorific form.