# language(s) with the most person affixes on verbs



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

According to this study, in active sentences, in most languages (51%, 193 out of 378) the verb agrees with both the agent and the patient, then in 73 languages (19%) the verb agrees only with the agent and in 82 languages (21%) the verb doesn't agree in number and person.

Anyway in many languages the maximum number of personal affixes is two. For example in Swahili, in verbs with three arguments (subject, direct and indirect object or agent, patient and recipient), only the indirect object affix can be used (there is only one slot for objects and animate objects like persons prevail on inanimate objects).

Swahili:
*u*-ili-*m*-pa *daktari* pesa zangu
*you*-past-*him*-give *doctor* money mine
you gave the doctor my money

If there is an applicative (prepositional affix), only the prepositional object affix is used.

Swahili:
*babangu a*-li-*ni*-nul-ia baisikeli
*my father he*-past-*me*-buy-for bicycle
my father bought a bicycle for me

Anyway in some languages three person affixes can be used for subject, direct and indirect object.

Basque:
*Da*-kar-ki-*o*-*t*
*it*-bring-to-*him*-*I*
I bring it to him

Abkhaz:
r-ɑb  s-ɑn  ɑ-’pɑrɑ   *Ø-’l**ə**-j-*tɑ-Ø-jt’
their-father my-mother the-money *it-her-he*-give-past-fin(=aor)
Their father gave the money to my mother

Basque doesn't have applicatives but Abkhaz does, so in Abkhaz up to four person affixes can be used, for subject, direct, indirect and prepositional object (agent, patient, recipient and beneficiary).

Abkhaz:
*jə**-**ħɑ*-z-*’rə**-j*-tɑ-Ø-jt’
*it**-us*-for-*them-he*-give-past-fin(=aor)
‘He gave them it (e.g., greeting(s)) on behalf of us’,

In Abaza it happens with causatives (in Abkhaz, a dialect of Abaza, perifrastic constructions are used in causative sentences):
y-gˠ-y-z-d-m-l-r-ə́txd
it-not-he-could-them-not-her-make-give
he couldn't make them give her it back

Do you know any other language where three or four person affixes can be used?

Sources: 

Swahili learners' reference grammar, Thompson and Schleicher: for Swahili
Peter Bakker (1984) "the order of the affixes in the Basque synthetic verb": for Basque
Dixon, Where have All the Adjectives Gone?: And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax, p. 16: for Abaza
Cases, arguments, verbs in Abkhaz, Georgian and Mingrelian, George Hewitt: for Abkhaz


----------



## Drink

In Arabic, the verb inflects for subject and can take an object suffix. In Quranic Arabic, there are sometimes two object suffixes (representing a direct and an indirext object). I don't have any specific examples.


----------



## rayloom

Drink said:


> In Arabic, the verb inflects for subject and can take an object suffix. In Quranic Arabic, there are sometimes two object suffixes (representing a direct and an indirext object). I don't have any specific examples.



أسقيناكموه ʔasqaynākumūhu is an example from the Quran. It means we made you drink it.
The verb is the causative ʔasqā (from the root sqy) --> which becomes ʔasqay- before enclitic subject pronouns, which in this case is -nā "we" (1st person plural subject pronoun) followed by -kumu "you" (2nd person masculine plural enclitic -indirect- object pronoun) then -hu "it" (3rd person masculine singular enclitic -direct- object pronoun).
This is applicable to all verbs which take two objects:
أعطيتكه
علّمتكه etc

Although another formation is quite commonly used in which an accusative independent pronoun is used for the direct object:  إيا ʔiyyā + the respective enclitic pronoun.
أعطيتك إياه
علّمتك إياه

The latter formation is still used in Colloquial Arabic.


----------



## ahvalj

Spanish _decídmelo_ "tell [Pl. 2] me that". One may say these two latter affixes are enclitics, but in most agglutinating languages this is also often the matter of orthography.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Similar constructions in Sardinian have often an extra element than the Spanish or Italian counterparts : the use of "che" (Latin "hicce") or "inde"

example : 

essimichélu or essimindélu = the meaning, not literal is :  "remove it from my view" : 

_essi_ = singular imperative of "essire" = to exit
_mi _= to me
_che / inde_ = here, from here
_lu _= it


----------



## Ben Jamin

Or Polish *damcito* (normally written as three words, but pronounced as one).
*Da*-m-ci-to
*Give *future-I-to you-it
I'll give it to you.


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> Or Polish *damcito* (normally written as three words, but pronounced as one).
> *Da*-m-ci-to
> *Give *future-I-to you-it
> I'll give it to you.


I think it is useful to distinguish compounds, where the elements can't change their place and are therefore the matter of morphology, from appositions, where the order is flexible and thus refers them to the syntax. In this case _decídmelo_ will remain a single word, since you can't reorder these elements, whereas _dam ci to_ can be said in any order.


----------



## Hulalessar

Are we talking about marking the verb to show it has a subject, object and direct object, or about how pronouns may be enclitics?


----------



## ahvalj

Hulalessar said:


> Are we talking about marking the verb to show it has a subject, object and direct object, or about how pronouns may be enclitics?


Actually, these markings almost always arise as enclitics, so the boundary is vague. Romance verbs are on halfway to marking the direct and indirect objects within the verbal form itself.


----------



## Hulalessar

ahvalj said:


> Actually, these markings almost always arise as enclitics, so the boundary is vague. Romance verbs are on halfway to marking the direct and indirect objects within the verbal form itself.



To be more precise what I meant was are we talking about how pronouns pile up around the verb or the compulsory marking of a verb to show it has a subject, object and direct object? Suppose you have a language where you have to add to the verb _ti_ if it has a subject, _pa_ if it has a direct object and _no_ if it has an indirect object. If the word for "give" is "dona" then in "The man gives the book to the boy" "gives" will be "donatipano". None of _ti_, _pa _or _no _are pronouns. In "He gives it to him" the verb is still "donatipano" but the pronouns are separate different words.


----------



## ahvalj

Hulalessar said:


> To be more precise what I meant was are we talking about how pronouns pile up around the verb or the compulsory marking of a verb to show it has a subject, object and direct object? Suppose you have a language where you have to add to the verb _ti_ if it has a subject, _pa_ if it has a direct object and _no_ if it has an indirect object. If the word for "give" is "dona" then in "The man gives the book to the boy" "gives" will be "donatipano". None of _ti_, _pa _or _no _are pronouns. In "He gives it to him" the verb is still "donatipano" but the pronouns are separate different words.


Yes, that's valid. On the other hand, intermediate stages can be found for your example as well: in the French _moi je pense_ the actual pronoun is _moi,_ whereas _je_ is rather the personal prefix (and occasionally a postfix, _pensé-je_) in the modern language.


----------



## Hulalessar

It is possible that "redundant" pronouns are a step towards marking verbs.

In French, _moi je pense_ is not of course a mandatory form. _Je_ is a bit of an oddity. It is not permitted in some cases where English allows_ I_ and Spanish _yo_. In particular, it cannot exist in isolation and that leads to the assertion by some that it is an affix and by others that it is a clitic. Of the two, I am inclined to think it is a clitic. Clitics may of course end up as affixes.

Whilst useful, the concept of the clitic is not entirely satisfactory, especially for French and English. I cannot help feeling that the idea is motivated by the belief that a syllable can never be more than one word. In English "I've" _ve _(the verb) is the clitic, whilst in French "j'ai" _j_ (the pronoun) is the clitic. Why don't we just say that both are contractions and leave it at that? If you do not, then if you insist that "j'ai" is clitic plus word you are more or less obliged to say that "je suis" is clitic plus word, otherwise "I have" is one word whilst "I am" is two. If _ne_ is a clitic because it becomes _n'_ before a vowel and _pas _must be a clitic because _ne _is a clitic, is "je n'ai pas" one word with three clitics?


----------



## Nino83

Thank you everyone.


Hulalessar said:


> Are we talking about marking the verb to show it has a subject, object and direct object, or about how pronouns may be enclitics?


Good question. I'd like to ask you all:
1) when these clitics/affixes are required
2) if their order is always the same


ahvalj said:


> Spanish _decídmelo_ "tell [Pl. 2] me that".


1) In Italian, Spanish and Portuguese these pronouns are used with nouns only in left and right dislocations. In the other cases they are used only to replace nouns.
_H*o* dato *il libro a Francesco*. _=> unmarked sentence
_*Gli*e*l*'h*o* dato *il libro a Francesco*. _=> dislocation, marked sentence (used, for example, to reply to the question "hai dato il libro a Francesco?")
_*Gli*e*l*'h*o* dato. _=> when there are no nouns there are pronouns (also to reply to the same question, pronouns replace nouns)
2) In Italian, Spanish and Portuguese the order is always the same (indirect + direct object clitic) while in French it changes.
_Elle me le donne. Donne-le-moi_. In the imperative the stressed pronoun _moi_ is used instead of _me_.
In Italian, Spanish and Portuguese the order is always the same.
_Me lo da. Dammelo. 
Me lo da. Dámelo. 
Da-mo. Dá-mo._


----------



## jmx

ahvalj said:


> Spanish _decídmelo_ "tell [Pl. 2] me that". One may say these two latter affixes are enclitics, but in most agglutinating languages this is also often the matter of orthography.


A third enclitic is possible, for example in "cómetemelo" (come-te-me-lo), roughly meaning "eat it for me".

Anyway, in a search for verbs with lots of affixes,  polysynthetic languages  seem the main suspects.


----------



## Drink

In Quranic Arabic, the order is based on person, rather than directness. I.e. a first-person suffix pronoun would precede a second-person suffix pronoun, which would precede a third-person suffix pronoun, regardless of which one refers to which verbal argument.


----------



## Hulalessar

I have never been able see why Spanish writes _me lo da_ but _damelo. _


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Hulalessar said:


> I have never been able see why Spanish writes _me lo da_ but _damelo. _



similar to Sardinian, except the stress position that in Sardinian falls on the 2nd syllable

_mi lu dat -> damìlu (da mihi illum)_
_mi lu dàdes_ (courtesy form, 2nd plural person) -> _dadenò(s)lu _(date nos illum); the S of Nos in this case is not pronounced, while normally it is


----------



## rayloom

Drink said:


> In Quranic Arabic, the order is based on person, rather than directness. I.e. a first-person suffix pronoun would precede a second-person suffix pronoun, which would precede a third-person suffix pronoun, regardless of which one refers to which verbal argument.



I think it has a 
Subject + indirect object + direct object order in dative verbs like أعطى or أسقى.
For example أعطيتنيه
You gave me it
2a36ay-ta-nī-hu
Verb +2nd person (subject) + 1st person (indirect obj) + 3rd person (direct obj)
Similarly in أعطيتهماه 
In which 2 3rd person pronouns refer to the IObj and DObj. The IObj precedes the DObj here as well.


----------



## Drink

rayloom said:


> I think it has a
> Subject + indirect object + direct object order in dative verbs like أعطى or أسقى.
> For example أعطيتنيه
> You gave me it
> 2a36ay-ta-nī-hu
> Verb +2nd person (subject) + 1st person (indirect obj) + 3rd person (direct obj)
> Similarly in أعطيتهماه
> In which 2 3rd person pronouns refer to the IObj and DObj. The IObj precedes the DObj here as well.



Are you talking theoretically, or do you know of concrete examples? I don't see any examples of أعطى with two object suffixes in the Quran. And for أسقى, there is only the one example you gave above. I don't know how to search for cases of multiple object suffixes in that corpus, but the ordering rule I gave is one that I read in a grammar, but I have not seen enough examples of it myself. Incidentally, all the examples you've given conform to both the rule I gave and to the rule you gave.


----------



## rayloom

Drink said:


> Are you talking theoretically, or do you know of concrete examples? I don't see any examples of أعطى with two object suffixes in the Quran. And for أسقى, there is only the one example you gave above. I don't know how to search for cases of multiple object suffixes in that corpus, but the ordering rule I gave is one that I read in a grammar, but I have not seen enough examples of it myself. Incidentally, all the examples you've given conform to both the rule I gave and to the rule you gave.



I can't remember at the moment other examples in the Quran. But in Classical Arabic literature and grammar books there are plenty of examples.
The example I gave of أعطيتنيه occurs in several Hadiths for example.
Otherwise, unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, in grammar, subject pronouns are part of the conjugation of the verb, thus they always follow (in the perfective aspect) the verb, following them is the object.
For example, قتلوني or قتلتني you can see that the subject enclitic follows the verb afterwhich you have the object enclitic, regardless of person.
قتلتني qatalatnī is the verb + -at (3rd person feminine singular ) + nī (1st person singular).
As for verbs that take two objects, you can find a Hadith with both أرانيهم and أراهمني (he showed me them), so they seem interchangeable, even though أرانيهم would be the most prevalent form (with IObj preceding the DObj).


----------



## Drink

rayloom said:


> Otherwise, unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, in grammar, subject pronouns are part of the conjugation of the verb, thus they always follow (in the perfective aspect) the verb, following them is the object.



I was only talking about object pronouns. Subject "pronouns" are really just part of the verb conjugation and I wouldn't really call them enclitics (even though historically they were at some point, probably all the way back in Proto-Semitic), because that is inconsistent with the 3rd person forms (and because the "perfective" and "imperfective" ones are totally different).


----------



## rayloom

Drink said:


> I was only talking about object pronouns. Subject "pronouns" are really just part of the verb conjugation and I wouldn't really call them enclitics (even though historically they were at some point, probably all the way back in Proto-Semitic), because that is inconsistent with the 3rd person forms (and because the "perfective" and "imperfective" ones are totally different).



True.


----------



## Nino83

jmx said:


> Anyway, in a search for verbs with lots of affixes,  polysynthetic languages  seem the main suspects.


It seems that in many polysynthetic languages verbs can agree with only two argumens and that the goal (indirect object) supplants the theme (direct object).

Mohawk:
wa-*híy*-u-'
FACT-*1sA/MsO*-give-PUNC
*I* give it to *him*

wa-*háy*-u-'
FACT-*MsA/1sO*-give-PUNC
*He* gives it to *me*

The same happens in other languages, like in Gunwinjguan languages and Ainu. In Wichita and Nahuatl there is full agreement with the agent and the goal, while the verb shows only if a third person theme is singular or plural. In Southern Tiwa there is full agreement with the agent and the goal, while the verb shows only the class (gender and number) of a third person theme.
In other words, there is no full agreement for the theme and sentences like "I gave you to him", with three agreement affixes are impossible.

source: Mark Baker the polysynthesis parameter agreement and clause structure, par. 5.2 case and the number of agreement morphemes,  pp. 193-195

Central Alaskan Yupik:
nav-tuli-nek           qantar-kit-*aa*
break-VN-ABM.pl.    dish-give-IND.*3sg.3sg.*
*she* gave *him* unbreakable dishes

iinru-mek              cikir-*aang*
medicine-ABL.sg.   give-IND.*3sg.1sg.*
*she* gave *me* medicine

source: Osahito Miyaoka A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY) pp. 1022, non-relational verbalizations (NV)

Central Alaskan Yupik:
cikir-ai                 arna-m                akuta-mek              angute-t
give-IND.*3sg.3pl* *woman-REL.sg*    ice.cream-ABM.sg    *man-ABS.pl* 
*the woman* gave ice scream to *the men*

source: Lars Hellan, Andrej Malchukov, Michela Cennamo, Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency p. 188

So, it seems that in many polysynthetic language families (in America: Iroquoian, Tanoan, Caddoan, Uto-Atzecan, in Australia: Gunwinjguan, in East Asia: Ainu, in North Asia and America: Eskimo-Aleut) verbs agree with two arguments, agent and theme in monotransitive verbs and agent and goal in ditransitive verbs.
The same thing happens in Bantu languages (like Swahili), spoken in Central and South Africa.

So the feature of Basque, allowing three person affixes, or Abaza and Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian languages), allowing four person affixes, are not so common.


----------



## Nino83

Also in Georgian (Kartvelian language) there are the same restrictions. The direct object cannot be a 1 or 2 person pronoun in ditransitive verbs.

**levan-ma* *me* *šen* ga-*g*-a-cn-*o*. 
*Levan-ERG* *1SG.NOM* *2SG.DAT* PV-*O2*-PRV-introduce-*S3SG*
Levan introduced me to you

*levan-ma* *čem-i tav-i* *šen* ga-*g*-a-cn-*o*. 
*Levan-ERG* *my-AGR head-NOM* *2SG.DAT* PV-*O2*-PRV-introduce-*S3SG*
Levan introduced me to you

Instead of the first perons pronoun (direct object) "me" (me) you have to use a noun, i.e a third singular direct object, "čem-i tav-i" (lit. my head). 
In these cases, the verb agrees with only the agent and the goal, i.e the subject and the indirect object.  

source: 
Yasuhiro Kojima,  Version and Object Marking in Georgian Verbs 

It would be interesting to know if there are other languages (other than Basque, Abkhaz and Abaza) that allow three or four peron affixes on verbs.


----------



## Penyafort

Regarding the clitic combinations mentioned for the Romance languages, they are certainly one of the nightmares for students of *Catalan*, as the possible binary combinations -counting the different spellings and proclitic/enclitic positions- are almost 200, three-clitic combinations are not rare and even four-clitic combinations are possible.

I'd say that most 3-clitic/4-clitic examples must have either _hi_ (< IBI) or _en_ < ENDE):

_Aquest vi m'agrada moltíssim. Poseu-*me*-*n*'*hi *més._
I like this wine very much. Please put more *to me*-*of it*-*in here*.
_
Si vols tenir els rebuts a la bústia electrònica, *te*'*ls* *hi* enviaré aviat._
If you want to have the bills in the email inbox, I will send *you*-*them*-*there* soon.

_Hem tingut aquest quadre al museu durant un segle però demà *se*'*ns* *l*'enduran._
We've had this painting in the museum for a century but tomorrow they'll take *it*-*away*-*from us*​
This is a 4-clitic one. I'd say that all 4-clitic ones must have a 'subjective dative' that is usually untranslatable into English.

_Les meves germanes van plantar roses al nou jardí i totes ja llueixen ufanoses. Quatre roses vaig plantar jo, i *se* *me* *n*'*hi* van morir les quatre._​
My sisters planted roses in the new garden and all of them look lush already. Four roses planted I, and  *them*-*to me*-*of the roses*-*there  *died the four.​


----------



## CyrusSH

This word is a sentence in Persian:
_Nadidamesh_
Not-saw-I-him/her
I did not see him/her.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> This word is a sentence in Persian:
> _Nadidamesh_
> Not-saw-I-him/her
> I did not see him/her.


Hope you don't mind CyrusSH:
*ندیدمش*
*ن *دید م *ش* (joined-up doesn't work in colour)
_*Nadid*am*esh*_
*Not*-*saw*-I-*him/her*


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Hulalessar said:


> I have never been able see why Spanish writes _me lo da_ but _damelo. _



Short answer: because.
Somewhat longer answer: for historical reasons.

Rather interesting question, but one should do some research in order to be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question.


----------



## Nino83

@Angelo di fuoco
Until now I've found that only Basque and the Northwest Caucasian (also called Abkhazo-Adyghean) languages allow more than two person/agreement affixes.
I've also found that if there is an indirect object, it displaces the direct object and the verb agrees with the subject and the indirect object, in the other languages that allow only two person/agreement affixes. 

So until now, the list is: 
Basque (isolate) 
Kabardian (Northwest Caucasian) 
Adyghe (Northwest Caucasian)
Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian)
Abaza (Northwest Caucasian)


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Interesting. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in any of the languages in your list.


----------



## Drink

Nino83 said:


> @Angelo di fuoco
> Until now I've found that only Basque and the Northwest Caucasian (also called Abkhazo-Adyghean) languages allow more than two person/agreement affixes.
> I've also found that if there is an indirect object, it displaces the direct object and the verb agrees with the subject and the indirect object, in the other languages that allow only two person/agreement affixes.
> 
> So until now, the list is:
> Basque (isolate)
> Kabardian (Northwest Caucasian)
> Adyghe (Northwest Caucasian)
> Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian)
> Abaza (Northwest Caucasian)



Why are you excluding Arabic?


----------



## Nino83

Drink said:


> Why are you excluding Arabic?


I exclude Arabic, Persian and Romance languages because in these languages these clitics are used as "pronouns", i.e they are used when the nouns are absent from the sentence, while in Basque and Northwest Caucasian languages (and in polysynthetic languages) they are agreement affixes, i.e they're used also when the nouns are present in the sentence.

In Persian and Arabic, like in Romance languages, pronouns are used when the nouns are present only in left or right dislocations:


> Colloquial Persian:
> sib-o xord-am-*esh*
> apple-OM ate-1s-*3s*
> as for the apple, I ate *it*
> 
> As (30) shows, the dependent object pronouns are in complementary distribution with full prnouns. This means that the former are not agreement markers yet.
> (30) **to*-ra didam-*et*
> *2s*-OM saw-1s-*2s*
> I saw you


The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty, page 96 (Elly van Gelderen)

The same in Arabic:


> In Egyptian Arabic, the object pronoun and an argument nominal are in complementary distribution.
> 
> šuft-*uh*
> saw.1s-him
> I saw him
> 
> šuft il-walad
> saw.1s the boy
> I saw the boy
> 
> but dislocated:
> il-walad, šhuft-*uh*
> the-boy, I.saw-him
> 
> and only with first and second object pronouns:
> šhuft-*ik* ʔinti
> I.saw-you you
> 
> like in Spanish the mandatory doubling with personal pronouns:
> *lo* vi a *él
> *
> but not with full nouns.
> 
> In River Plate Spanish (Argentina, Uruguay), doubling occurs with specific nominals:
> Pedro *lo* vió *a Juan*


The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty, page 101 (Elly van Gelderen)

So, it seems that River Plate Spanish is one step ahead in transforming clitic pronouns in personal affixes but until now it is not the case because with unspecific nouns there is no doubling in normal (non-dislocated) sentences: 
Pedro vió (a) una persona

They cannot be considered, at the time, agreement affixes.


----------



## Drink

Nino83 said:


> I exclude Arabic, Persian and Romance languages because in these languages these clitics are used as "pronouns", i.e they are used when the nouns are absent from the sentence



I see. Incidentally, in Aramaic, these pronouns became part of the inflection, i.e. used even when the object is an explicit noun (but only when it is semantically definite: קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא = he.got.up Rabbah he.slaughtered-him to-Rabbi Zira = "Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zira" from the Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 7b). However, I don't think Aramaic allows two of these (former) pronouns, except in dialects where one of the objects replaces the subject, leaving the count still at two. So close, but no cigar for the Semitic languages.


----------



## Nino83

Drink said:


> Incidentally, in Aramaic, these pronouns became part of the inflection, i.e. used even when the object is an explicit noun (but only when it is definite). However, I don't think Aramaic allows two of these (former) pronouns, except in dialects where one of the objects replaces the subject, leaving the count still at two.


Thank you very much for the info!


----------



## Drink

Nino83 said:


> Thank you very much for the info!



Note I updated my previous post with an example.


----------



## momai

Drink said:


> קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא = he.got.up Rabbah he.slaughtered-him to-Rabbi Zira = "Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zira"


This is very interesting because this exactly how a Syrian would say it: قام ربا شخطو/دبحو لربيزيرا


----------



## Drink

momai said:


> This is very interesting because this exactly how a Syrian would say it: قام ربا شخطو/دبحو لربيزيرا



Wow that's amazing! Did you mean that they would actually use the word شخط?


----------



## momai

Drink said:


> Wow that's amazing! Did you mean that they would actually use the word شخط?


Yes, but it specifically means to slit the throat while daba7 is more general.


----------



## Drink

momai said:


> Yes, but it specifically means to slit the throat while daba7 is more general.



That's even more intereting, because according to CAL, this verb (which means to slit the throat; I said slaughter to keep it shorter) occurs in Aramaic only in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and is a loan from Hebrew. So where could Christians in Syria have gotten it from?


----------



## PersoLatin

I think this is an external quote, it is from post #32 by Nino83:


> Colloquial Persian:
> sib-o xord-am-*esh*
> apple-OM ate-1s-*3s*
> as for the apple, I ate *it*
> 
> As (30) shows, the dependent object pronouns are in complementary distribution with full prnouns. This means that the former are not agreement markers yet.
> (30) **to*-ra didam-*et*
> *2s*-OM saw-1s-*2s*
> I saw you



In colloquial Persian "sib-o xord-am-esh" is not written as one word, which I think is implied above, maybe not. Anyway, the correct forms are: sibo xordam/سیبو خوردم or xordameŝ/خوردمش and not سیبو خوردمش as object is referred to twice, even in colloquial that doesn't sound right.
*
اونو ندیدم *
_uno nadidam
un-o na-did-am
un-OM not-saw-1s
him/her not-saw-I_
or:
*ندیدمش*
_nadidameŝ
na-did-am-eŝ
na-did-1s-3s_
not-saw-I-him/her


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, PersoLatin. So these short clitics are full pronouns. 


PersoLatin said:


> "sib-o xord-am-esh" is not written as one word, which I think is implied above


There's a space between _sibo_ and _xordamesh_ in the book, so two words.


----------



## PersoLatin

Nino83 said:


> There's a space between _sibo_ and _xordamesh_ in the book, so two words.


Sure, I noticed it but just wanted to make sure


----------



## Nino83

Imbabura Quechua:
*nyuka taya-kuna* ku-na-*wa*-xu-rka-*Ø* *nyula awla-man* 
*my father-PL* give-DIST-*1.OBJ*-PAST-*3* *my grandmother-DAT* 
my parents gave me to my grandmother 

*kan-pa tayta* *kan-Ø* nyuka-man ku-*wa*-rka-*Ø* 
*you-POSS father* *me-DAT* gave-*1.OBJ*-PAST-*3* 
your father gave you to me 

The first person singular is the only object affix that has not been lostin Imbabura Quechua and the indirect object supplants the direct object.
Source: Clara Cohen, Hierarchies, Subjects, and the Lack Thereof in Imbabura Quichua Subordinate Clauses

Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua:
*pay** noqa-ta* maqa-*ma*-ra-*n*
*he** me-ACC* hit-*1*-past-*3*
he hit me

*pay** qam-ta* qu-*ma*-ra-*n*
*he** you-ACC* give-*1*-past-*3*
he gave you to me

Also in Huallaga Quechua the direct object is superseded by the indirect object.
Source: David John Weber, A Grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quuechua, page 180

So also in Quechua languages (spoken by 10 million people in South America, the language of the Inca Empire) the indirect object takes the place of the direct object and the verb agrees only with tthe subject and the indirect object in ditransitive verbs, with a maximum of two person/agreement affixes.


----------



## Nino83

Concluding with the most spoken South American languages:

In Aymara, like in Quechua, the verb agrees only with the subject and the indirect object.

Aymara:
*naya-x* *aymar*   yati.č-t’a-raki-*:ma
I-TOP **Aymara*-Z teach-M-AD-*1S.2O.F *
*I* shall also teach *you* *Aymara*

Cambridge, The Languages of the Andes, p. 291 

In Guaraní only one affix is allowed and the verbs agrees with the argument higer in hierarchy, 1 > 2 > 3 person, if there are two 3 persons the hierarchy is agent > patient. In this case, seeing that the first person is the direct object, the verb agrees with the direct object.

Guaraní:
*nde* *che*-me'ẽ  *Páblo-pe*
*pron.AG.2sg **B1sg*-give *Pablo-TO*
*you* gave *me* *to Pablo* 

Bruno Estigarribia and Justin Pinta, Guarani Linguistics in the 21st Century, pp. 197-203

So, also in South America there are no more than two person/agreement affixes.


----------



## Nino83

I've found that three agreement affixes are possible in Navajo and other Athabaskan, Na-Dené languages. The arguments are subject, direct and prepositional object.

Navajo
*b*-í-na-*bi*-ni-*sh*-tin
*3O*-against-around.about-*3O*-qualifier-*1S*-stem
*I* handle *him* against *it* (lit.) => I show it to him

Keren Rice, Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athabaskan, par. 6.3.3 theme/goal arguments, p. 94

Another example of four agreement affixes in Northwest Caucasian languages is Kabardian:
sa  wa  āb-xa-m   *sə-ra-w-z*-ġa-t-ā-ś
I you he-pl.-ERG   *1sg.-3pl.-2sg-1sg.*-caus.-give-pret.-af.
*I* made *you* give *me* to *them 
*
Ranko Matasović, A SHORT GRAMMAR OF EAST CIRCASSIAN (KABARDIAN), p. 48

So we have:
Basque (isolate): 3 agreement affixes
Athabaskan (Na-Dené) languages: 3 agreement affixes
Northwest Caucasian languages: 4 agreement affixes


----------

