Perfect and Perfective in Hausa
Mahamane L. Abdoulaye
In West African languages that have the relative TAM marking, i.e., a system of syntactically conditioned alternating TAM paradigms, it is generally considered that the paradigms in each alternating pair have necessarily the same meaning. This paper shows that in Hausa, the Completive, which appears in pragmatically neutral clauses, and the Relative Perfective, which appears in pragmatically marked clauses (such as relative clauses), have, respectively, a basic perfect and perfective semantics, and that in some marked cases the alternation is not possible. The paper also shows that the two paradigms have acquired derived uses in a way consistent with the results of typological studies in the domain of tense/aspect.
Es wird gemeinhin angenommen, dass in westafrikanischen mit relativer Markierung von TAM, d.h. einem System syntaktisch konditioniert alternierender TAM Paradigmen, dass die Paradigmen in jedem alternierenden Paar notwendiger Weise dieselbe Bedeutung haben. In diesem Artikel wird aufgezeigt, dass der Completive im Hausa, der in pragmatisch neutralen Sätzen (wie beispielsweise Relativsätzen), sowohl eine zugrundeliegende perfekte und perfektive Bedeutung haben kann, und auch dass in einigen markierten Fällen keine Alternation möglich ist. 
	Introduction
<1>
The tense/aspect and mood (TAM) system in Hausa is characterized by the contrast between regular and so-called “relative” TAMs, a contrast that is also found in numerous West African languages (see among others Schachter 1973, Hyman and Watters 1984, Bearth 1993). Indeed, in Hausa it has been observed that the Completive and the Imperfective found in pragmatically neutral clauses are respectively replaced by the Relative Perfective and the Relative Imperfective in pragmatically marked clauses, such as relative clauses and out-of-focus clauses of focus and wh question constructions (cf. Caron 1991:159f, 170f, Green and Reintges 2003, Jaggar 2001:161ff, Newman 2000: 567ff, Wolff 1993:423f, 427f, etc.; cf. note 2 for the complete paradigms). Let us consider the following sentence using the Completive:
1.	   	Yâara	sun	tàfi	tashàa.	
		children	3PL.CPL	go	station	
		The children went to the station.	
<2>
Example (1a) gives a pragmatically neutral sentence that presents new information using the preverbal Completive marker sun ‘3PL.CPL’. However, one observes that Completive sun cannot normally be used in the following related sentences and must be replaced with the Relative Perfective:
2.	a.	Yâara	nèe	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa.	
		children	COP	3PL-RP	go	station	
		It is the children who went to the station.	

   	b.	yâara-n	dà	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa	
		children-DF	REL	3PL-RP	go	station	
		the children who went to the station	

   	c.	Su wàa-nee	nèe	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa?	
		PL who-PL	COP	3PL-RP	go	station	
		Who (plur.) went to the station?	
<3>
Examples (2a‑c), respectively, illustrate a relative, focus, and wh question version of sentence (1) and all display the Relative Perfective marker su‑kà ‘3PL‑RP’. These clauses are said to be pragmatically marked because they all contain presupposed information that is typically known by the addressee. It is customary to assume that except for the pragmatic contrast, all sentences in (1) and (2a‑c) have the same basic meaning, including the TAM meaning. Indeed, most researchers consider that the sun and the sukà forms are simply in a syntactic complementary distribution. It is also recognized however that this syntactic complementary distribution may not be complete, since the Relative Perfective can appear in clauses whose marked pragmatic status is not obvious, as illustrated in the following:
3.	   	Yâara	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa.	
		Children	3PL-RP	go	station	
		Then the children went to the station.	
<4>
In example (3), there is no relativization, focalization or wh question, yet the Relative Perfective appears. It has been noticed however that such examples typically appear in a narrative storyline (hence the translation with “then”). For this reason, the sukà form in this context has been referred to as the “narrative Relative Perfective”. Many researchers have in fact assimilated, in one way or another, the narrative sequence to the pragmatically marked constructions so that the Relative Perfective appearing in (2) and (3) is taken to be the same TAM (cf. Caron 1991:172, Creissels 1991:337, Jaggar 2001:161f, 2006:107, Tuller 1986:117, Wald 1987:499, 506, 508, etc.; cf. Abdoulaye 2007a for a review).
<5>
The aim of this paper is to show that although the alternation between sun and sukà forms is indeed an established fact, the two TAM markers nonetheless have fundamentally different semantics. The sun form paradigm, a category usually referred to in Hausa literature as “(general) Completive” (or Perfective, Accompli I, etc.) has actually been compared to English Perfect (past, present, or future, cf. Newman 2000:569ff; cf. also Caron 1991:164ff and Schubert 1971/72:220f). The perfect is a TAM category that is generally taken to express anteriority or current relevance, i.e., it refers to the aftermath of an event, usually the present situation (see Bybee and Dahl 1989:55, 67, Bybee et al. 1994, Comrie 1976:52, Dahl 1985, etc.). This paper will show that by contrast, the sukà paradigm in pragmatically marked constructions is a true perfective. According to Comrie (1976:3), the perfective is an aspectual category that presents a situation as a single unanalyzable whole, i.e., without reference to its internal temporal structure. The perfective essentially differs from the perfect (or anterior) in having no relevance to a reference time. Following Abdoulaye (2007a) the paper takes the Relative Perfective in narrative storyline main clauses and other pragmatically non-marked clauses to be a simple past marker that is even more remote from the perfect semantics of the sun form.
<6>
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of the various Hausa TAM markers. Section 3 then contrasts the Completive and the Relative Perfective, showing their distinct values, in particular showing that the Relative Perfective cannot replace the Completive in pragmatically marked constructions if their context must obligatorily be interpreted as perfect/anterior. Following the usual conventions in linguistic literature, TAM categories that are language-specific are written with an initial capital letter.
	Overview of Hausa TAM paradigms
<7>
Formally, Standard Hausa distinguishes ten TAM paradigms, i.e., forms that express aspect, tense and mood on preverbal pronouns (or on the verb for the Imperative). This section reviews the main uses of these paradigms. It should be noted that one finds alternative labels for most of the TAMs, depending on the author (cf. Jungraithmayr 1983:223 for a review of some terminological practices). Also, as will be seen in the illustrations, in the preverbal person/tense/aspect complex, some TAM markers can be isolated, while others are fused with the subject pronoun. In addition, certain TAMs have a distinctive negative form, as will be seen in due course (for more details on Hausa TAMs in general, see Newman 2000, Chap. 70).
<8>
As is probably true with many languages, the value of most Hausa TAM paradigms may change depending on the context. However, to show the usual values of the TAMs, they will in this section be contrasted in the simple frame “children … go to the station”. We have seen in the introductory section that Completive and Relative Perfective taken together map the domain “perfect/anterior – perfective – simple past”, and they will, in some detail, be the subject of Section 3. These TAMs seem to contrast with an imperfective pole that is represented by the general Imperfective, used in pragmatically neutral clauses, and the Relative Imperfective, used in pragmatically marked constructions, as seen next:
4.	a.	General Imperfective:	
		Yâara	su-nàa	tàfiyàa	tashàa.	
		Children	3PL-IPV	going	station	
		The children usually go/ will go/ (?)are going to the station.	

   	b.	Relative Imperfective:	
		Yâara	nèe	su-kèe	tàfiyàa	tashàa.	
		children	COP	3PL-RI	going	station	
		It is the children who usually go/ will go/ are going to the station.	
<9>
The sunàa and sukèe forms in (4a‑b) are typical imperfective paradigms that, depending on context, can have a progressive, continuous, or habitual usage. Like the Completive/Relative Perfective pair, they are normally considered to be in syntactic complementary distribution and hence to have the same aspectual meaning. Temporally, they can have a past, present, or future interpretation. For this reason, besides the default present reading indicated, examples (4a‑b) can also refer to a past or future situation. Both paradigms are marked by auxiliaries (-nàa and –kèe) derived from locative copulas and normally require a nominal form of the verb (hence the verbal noun tàfiyàa ‘going’, in contrast to the verb form tàfi ‘go’ used in other paradigms). It should be noted that certain classes of verbs (cf. discussion below in Section 3) do not express on-going action with the general Imperfective, hence the oddness of the third interpretation in (4a). A paradigm related to the imperfective TAMs is the Habitual, as illustrated in the following:
5.	   	Habitual:	
		Yâara	su-kàn	tàfi	tashàa.	
		children	3PL-HAB	go	station	
		The children usually go to the station.	
<10>
The Habitual in (5) has a past or present habitual usage, although in western dialects, it implies that the action happens from time to time (frequent and regular actions are expressed with the general or relative Imperfective). The next examples illustrate the two futures in Hausa:
6.	a.	Future I:	
		Yâara	zaa sù	tàfi	Tashàa.	
		children	FUT I 3PL	go	station	
		The children will go to the station.	

   	b.	Future II:	
		Yâara	sûu	tàfi	tashàa.	
		children	3PL.FUT II	go	station	
		The children will go to the station.	
<11>
Of the two futures in (6a‑b), Future I is probably the most recent, since it developed from the still extant verb zâa ‘start to go, be going’ and usually implies the idea of intention, preparedness, and relative imminence of action (cf. Abdoulaye 2001 for details). This future can function as a future-in-the-past, as in: an gayàa minì zaa kà zoo yâu ‘I was told you would come today’ (cf. Jaggar 2001:195). Although it is a "future", Future I belongs, along with Relative Perfective and Relative Imperfective, to the restricted group of TAMs that can appear in reduced scene setting clauses, i.e., subordinate causal or consequent clauses that express presupposed and realis events (cf. Abdoulaye 1997:317, 2001:25, 2007b). Despite the fact that it is frequently referred to as the “Potential”, i.e., a kind of uncertain or vague future (cf. Jaggar 2001:201, Newman 2000:587), the Future II, as illustrated in (6b), is a simple future that, by default, firmly predicts an event, but without any implication about the agent’s intention, state of preparedness, or imminence of action (cf. Abdoulaye 1997:324‑326, 2001:28). The seven forms so far reviewed belong to the indicative mood and so contrast with the following three forms, which express irrealis mood, although there is some caveat regarding the Subjunctive. The irrealis TAMs are illustrated in:
7.	a.	Eventual:	
		… koo	yâara	su-kàa	tàfi	tashàa.	
		in.case	children	3PL-EVE	go	station	
		[She locked the door] in case the children might go to the station.	

   	b.	Subjunctive:	
		Yâara	sù	tàfi	tashàa.		
		Children	3PL.SBJ	go	station		
		May the children go/ The children should go to the station.	

   	c.	Imperative:	
		Abdù,	tàfi	tashàa!	
		Abdu	go	station	
		Abdu, go to the station!	
<12>
The sukàa form in (7a) is usually referred to in the literature as the “Rhetorical” (cf. Jaggar 2001:204, Newman 2000:589), due to its use in rhetorical questions such as: waa kà iyàa! (< wàa yakàa iyàa!) ‘who can possibly do [this]!’. In fact however, it has a basic “eventually” sense in regular sentences, as indicated in the gloss. Sometimes, the eventual meaning applies not to the event itself (if it already happened), but to a participant, in which case the TAM has a dubitative meaning (cf. koo Iisaa koo Abdù, wani cikinsù yakàa yi wannàn aikìi ‘either Isa or Abdu, one of them may/must have done this’). For these reasons, the label “Eventual” (originally used in Gouffé 1967-68:45‑47) is preferable. The Subjunctive, as illustrated in (7b), is a rather versatile paradigm, to the point where some authors assume two homophonous but different categories under the same form (cf. Newman 2000:593 and references cited there). It is used in typical irrealis contexts, such as giving orders (as an alternative to the Imperative), expressing whishes, purpose, etc. (cf. Newman 2000:591). It is however also used in sequential clauses as a replacement to the TAM specified in the first clause of the sequence (cf. Tuller 1986:96). The Subjunctive can also be used on its own to express past habitual events (kullum sai sù àuni hatsii sù dakàa 'every day they would measure off millet and pound it'). In contrast to all other TAMs, the Imperative, as illustrated in (7c), has no preverbal subject pronoun and is marked directly on the verb (which, sometimes, changes in tonal pattern; cf. Newman 2000:263). The Imperative is used only in the singular and the Subjunctive must be used with second person plural.
<13>
It may also be noted that Completive and Relative Perfective, as illustrated in (1‑3), share one negation, where a suppletive form of the TAM (or a Ø‑TAM, cf. Newman 2000:574) is marked with the negative particles bà...ba (cf. yâara bà sù tàfi tashàa ba 'the children didn't go to the station'). The paradigms in (4a‑b) also share one negation, where a suppletive form of the TAM is marked with the negative particle baa (cf. yâara baa sàa tàfiyàa tashàa 'the children are not going to the station'). Habitual, Future I, Future II, and Eventual are all negated through simple addition of the negative particles bà...ba (cf. yâara bà zaa sù tàfi tashàa ba 'the children will not go to the station'). The Subjunctive is negated through the addition of the prohibitive particle kadà (cf. kadà yâara sù tàfi tashàa 'the children should not go to the station/ lest the children go to the station'). Negative Subjunctive is also used to issue negative commands, the Imperative having no negative form. Finally, it should be noted that the TAMs so far illustrated are not combinable in one simple clause.
<14>
To summarize, Hausa TAMs can be divided into realis and irrealis TAMs. The realis TAMs in turn groups into a perfective pole, an imperfective pole, and a future pole. The next section discusses the values of the Completive (the sun form used in pragmatically neutral clauses) and the Relative Perfective (the sukà form used in pragmatically marked constructions and in narrative storyline clauses or other simple past contexts).
	The semantic contrast between Completive and Relative Perfective in Hausa
<15>
In the introductory section we saw that the Completive is thought to be automatically replaced by the Relative Perfective in relative clauses and out-of-focus clauses of focus and wh question constructions, with the clause keeping the same general meaning. The aim of this section is to show that Completive and Relative Perfective have different TAM semantics and that in some contexts, the replacement is not possible and the Completive must appear in pragmatically marked clauses. The section also shows that the Completive appears in some special contexts, such as in news headlines, that are associated with the perfect and where the Relative Perfective is not systematically found.

	Pragmatically marked constructions in anterior contexts
<16>
As already mentioned in previous sections, the Completive can express functions typically expressed by perfect paradigms in other languages (cf. Comrie 1976:56‑61, Dahl 1985:129ff for the uses of the perfect). In this respect, Completive contrasts with Relative Perfective (whether it is used in relative and out-of-focus clauses or in narrative and other simple past clauses). Indeed, only Completive allows an anterior reading, as illustrated in the following:
8.	a.	Sun	zoo	ƙarfèe	biyu.	
		3PL.CPL	come	o’clock	two	
		They came at two o’clock.’ OR:	
		By two o’clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.	

   	b.	Ƙarfèe	biyu	sun	zoo.	
		o’clock	two	3PL.CPL	come	
		By two o’clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.	
		NOT: They came at two o’clock.	

   	c.	Sun	zoo.	
		3PL.CPL	come	
		They have arrived.’ OR:	
		They came [and went back].	
<17>
In (8a), the Completive allows an anterior reading (second translation), where the coming event happened before two o’clock, with a past, future, or even a habitual interpretation. One notices that the sentence also allows a perfective interpretation (first translation), where the coming event happened at exactly two o’clock, and which is actually the default interpretation of the sentence. However, this is not a sure indication that the Completive is a real perfective since, as shown in Dahl (1985:137), many languages differ from English in allowing their perfect tense/aspect paradigm to co-occur with definite time adverbs. In fact, when the time adverb is preposed in a topicalized-like construction, then only the anterior reading is possible, as indicated in (8b). Similarly, without a time specification, as illustrated in (8c), the Completive can be interpreted as a perfect of result with a current relevance value. For example, (8c) is the most straightforward way to alert someone to the fact that some people have arrived so that he/she can go and see them. In contrast, the Relative Perfective cannot express the anterior meaning, as illustrated in: 
9.	a.	Ƙarfèe	biyu	(nèe)	su-kà	zoo.	
		o’clock	two	COP	3PL-RP	come	
		It is at two o’clock that they came.	
		NOT: It is by two o’clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.	

   	b.	Suu	(nèe)	su-kà	zoo	ƙarfèe	biyu.	
		3PL	COP	3PL-RP	come	o’clock	two	
		It is them who came at two o’clock.	
		NOT: It is them who had arrived/ will have arrived by two o’clock.	

10.	  	Su-kà	zoo	ƙarfèe	biyu.	
		3PL-RP	come	o’clock	two	
	(Then) they came at two o’clock.	
	NOT: By two o’clock they had arrived/ will have arrived.	
<18>
Sentences (9a‑b) illustrate the Relative Perfective in focus fronting constructions, focusing the temporal adverb and the subject, respectively. In neither case is the anterior reading possible, as indicated. Sentence (10) shows that the Relative Perfective in narrative clauses, too, does not express the anterior sense. To express the meaning ‘it is by two o’clock that they had arrived/will have arrived’, one will have to use alternative constructions, all involving the Completive sun form, as illustrated in:
11.	a.	Ƙarfèe	biyu	nèe	(duk)	sun	zoo.	
		o’clock	two	COP	all	3PL.CPL	come	
		It is by two o’clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.	

     	b.	Ƙarfèe	biyu	nèe	ya-kè	sun	zoo.	
		O’clock	two	COP	it-be	3PL.CPL	come	
		It is by two o’clock that they had arrived/ will have arrived.	
<19>
In both cases, one notes that the Completive must appear somewhere in the sentence. Sentence (11a) in fact directly violates the otherwise consistent rule replacing Completive with Relative Perfective in pragmatically marked clauses.
<20>
Similarly, certain verbs (like tàfi ‘leave, go’) that lexicalize an inchoative phase can have an on-going action reading in the Completive. Indeed, a person walking to the station would typically indicate his/her destination to by-standers by using Completive naa tàfi tashàa ‘I am off/on my way/going to the station’ (the expected general Imperfective, inàa tàfiyàa tashàa, would be fully inadequate in this context; cf. Abdoulaye 2001:7 for more details). Nonetheless, in this context, the station-bound walker cannot use the focused sentence (with Relative Perfective) *nii (nèe) na tàfi tashàa ‘It is me who is off/on my way/going to the station’ to indicate that he, and not a friend walking with him, is going to the station. This naturally applies to sentence (1), which, if appropriate contexts are specified, can have three readings, as illustrated in:
12.	a.	Yâara	sun	tàfi	tashàa,	naa	kuma	rufè	ƙoofàa.	
		Children	3PL.CPL	go	station	1SG.CPL	and	close	door	
		The children left for the station, and I have locked the door.	

     	b.	Yâara	sun	tàfi	tashàa,	gàa	su	can.	
		Children	3PL.CPL	go	station	see	3PL	There	
		[Come see], the children are going to the station, there they are.	

     	c.	Yâara	sun	tàfi	tashàa,	àmmaa	bà sù	îskè	Abdù	ba.	
		children	3PL.CPL	go	station	but	NEG 3PL.CPL	find	Abdu	NEG	
		The children went to the station, but they did not see Abdu.	
<21>
In examples (12), Completive sun tàfi has an inchoative reading in (12a), an on-going action reading in (12b) and a completed (terminal phase) reading in (12c). It happens that only (12a) and (12c) have corresponding focused sentences, as illustrated in:
13.	a.	Yâara	(nèe)	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa,	naa	kuma	rufè	ƙoofàa.	
		children	COP	3PL-RP	go	station	1SG.CPL	and	close	door	
		It is the children who left for the station, and I have locked the door.	

     	b.	Yâara	(nèe)	su-kà	tàfi	tashàa,	àmmaa	bà sù	îskè	Abdù	ba.	
		children	COP	3PL-RP	go	station	but	NEG 3PL.CPL	find	Abdu	NEG	
		It is the children who went to the station, but they did not see Abdu.	
<22>
As seen in these examples, the Relative Perfective can only refer to the initial and final phases of the action (the focused equivalent of (12b) must use the Relative Imperfective). This also applies to the Relative Perfective in narrative storyline or in simple past contexts (i.e., sentence (3) can only mean ‘then the children left for/went to the station’). It is very likely that the on-going action reading seen in (12b) is possible due to the perfect/anterior value of the Completive, i.e., once the children have departed, the resulting situation is that they are on their way. 
<23>
To summarize, although the Relative Perfective in general automatically replaces the Completive in presupposed contexts, the two TAMs are not aspectually identical and, in contexts that must be interpreted as perfect/anterior, the replacement is not possible.
Completive and Relative Perfective in other perfect contexts
<24>
Besides the fact that pragmatically marked constructions in anterior contexts do not allow Relative Perfective, the Completive and Relative Perfective contrast in other environments that are cross-linguistically associated with the perfect.
<25>
Indeed, the Completive contrasts with Relative Perfective in being able to express “hot news” perfect, as can be seen in its ability to appear in chapter titles or in news headlines (cf. Comrie 1976:60 and the reference cited there). For example, the short life-story in Moussa-Aghali (2000) has five chapters that have a finite clause as title, and four of these titles have Completive (the fifth chapter has negative Completive, which uses a suppletive marker and is not discussed in this paper). Three of the Completive titles are given next (adapted from Moussa-Aghali 2000:11, 26, 38):
14.	a.	An	baadàa	ni	ruƙòo	gurin	kàakaa-taa	
		IMP.CPL	give.away	1SG	holding	at	grandmother-of.1SG	
		One sends me away to my grandmother to stay with her	

     	b.	Kàakaa-taa	taa	ràsu	naa	daawoo	gida-n-mù	
		grandmother-of.1SG	3F.SG.CPL	die	1SG.CPL	return	home-of-1PL	
		My grandmother dies and I return to our home	

     	c.	Mun	ƙaura	mun	koomàa	Abalàgh	
		1PL.CPL	move	1PL.CPL	go	Abalak	
		We move and go to Abalak	
<26>
The examples in (14) are the titles of three consecutive chapters and, naturally, they serve to highlight the main events that happen in the chapters. In these titles, it would be inappropriate to substitute the Relative Perfective for the Completive. Similarly, the first page of an issue of the journal “Gaskiya Ta Fi kwabo” (N° 6047, 12 October, 1998) has five titles, all of which are in the Completive. In general, in the rest of the issue, it seems that all past factual stories are titled with clauses in Completive and never in Relative Perfective. The Relative Perfective may be used in titles on the main verb only if some constituent is focalized and the reader already holds some knowledge about the story, as will be the case for a story developing over many journal issues.
<27>
Other types of perfect meanings seem to be possible both with Completive and Relative Perfective, but only for the pragmatically marked constructions. This seems to be case with the ability of the tense/aspect paradigms to appear in the experiential perfect context, as illustrated in:
15.	a.	Sun	taɓàɓ	zuwàa	Gaanà.	
		3PL.CPL	touch	going	Ghana	
		They have once traveled to Ghana.	

     	b.	Suu	(nèe)	su-kà	taɓà	zuwàa	Gaanà.	
		3PL	COP	3PL-RP	touch	going	Ghana	
		It is them who once traveled to Ghana.	

     	c.	*Su-kà	taɓà	zuwàa	Gaanà.	
		3PL-RP	touch	going	Ghana	
		(Then) they once traveled to Ghana.	
<28>
As the data show, Completive and Relative Perfective are compatible with the experiential context, as indicated in (15a‑b) respectively. However, when the experiential context is just past and not linked to a pragmatically marked construction, then the Relative Perfective is ungrammatical, as indicated in (15c). The same pattern obtains with regard to the ability to appear in the context of persistent situations, as seen next:
16.	a.	Taa	san	indà	maagànii	ya-kè.	
		3F.SG.CPL	know	where	medicine	3M.SG-be	
		She knows where the medicine is.	

     	b.	Ita	(cèe)	ta	san	indà	maagànii	ya-kè.	
		3F.SG	COP	3F.SG.RP	know	where	medicine	3M.SG-be	
		It is she who knows where the medicine is.	

     	c.	Ta	san	indà	maagànii	ya-kè.	
		3F.SG.RP	know	where	medicine	3M.SG-be	
		[When he inadvertently opened the drawer] then she knew where the medicine was.	
<29>
In examples (16), the tense/aspect paradigms appear with a cognition verb (‘know’), which by default expresses a persistent situation (cf. Schubert 1971/72:220f). The persistence reading is maintained with Completive and Relative Perfective in pragmatically marked constructions, as indicated in (16a‑b), respectively. Indeed, in these sentences, the referent of the subject pronoun still knows the information at the time of utterance. However, sentence (16c), which refers to a pragmatically neutral past context, only has the inceptive meaning indicated and there is no implication that the subject’s referent still knows the information at the time of utterance (i.e., the sentence will still be fine even if it is known that the medicine has been relocated in an unknown place). It should be noted that in (15) and (16), the experiential and persistent situation meanings depend, respectively, on the verb taɓà ‘touch’ and the cognition verb san ‘know’, rather than on the TAM paradigms per se.
<30>
To summarize, the sun form is a perfect category in Hausa, although it has probably acquired some perfective uses. For this reason, it may be more extensively used in Hausa than the Perfect in English. The Relative Perfective that appears in relative and out-of-focus clauses can be considered as a true perfective, since it does not have key perfect readings, such as the perfect of result. The Relative Perfective in past contexts is even more remote from the perfect semantics, since it cannot express or is not compatible with any of the perfect meanings reviewed in this section. The proposal can be summarized in the following diagram:
Diagram 1: Values of Completive sun and Relative Perfective sukà
	
<31>
Table (17) shows that the Completive sun and Relative Perfective sukà forms map the semantic domain “perfect-perfective-simple past”. The diagram claims that the Completive is fundamentally a perfect paradigm in Hausa. However, as illustrated in the data (8), it has acquired some perfective uses (cf. the dashed part of the arrow). By contrast, the Relative Perfective is fundamentally a perfective paradigm, which however has taken over the simple past domain. As the direction of the arrows suggests, the perfective value of the Completive derives from its perfect value, while the simple past value of the Relative Perfective derives from its perfective value. This is consistent with the body of literature dealing with the development of perfectives and simple past tenses in world languages. For example, Bybee and Dahl (1989:58, 74) show that in a number of languages (including Romance languages, Mandarin, Somali, Palaung, etc.) a perfect has taken over the functions of a perfective or a past tense. Stassen (1997) on the other hand assumes a more general tendency for aspect or aspect-dominated languages to shift over some period towards tense marking (cf. Stassen 1997:492, 563; cf. also Lehmann 1982:31).
	Conclusion
<32>
This paper explored the semantics of Hausa Completive and Relative Perfective forms. These two paradigms are taken in most of the previous literature to be in a near syntactic complementary distribution. Indeed, in pragmatically marked constructions, the Relative Perfective automatically replaces the Completive. The paper shows that this replacement process notwithstanding, the Completive fundamentally marks perfect/anterior while the Relative Perfective is a true perfective that also has simple past uses.
References
Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. 1997
‘Presupposition and realis status in Hausa.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalien Forschung 50,4:308-328
Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. 2001
‘The grammaticalization of Hausa zaa 'be going' to future.’ Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 22,1:1-32
Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. 2007a
Perfectivity and time reference in Hausa. ms., Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey
Abdoulaye, Mahamane L. 2007b
Origin of relative marking in Hausa. ms., Abdou Moumouni University, Niamey
Bearth, Thomas 1993
Satztyp and Situation in einigen Sprachen Westafrikas. In: Möhlig, Wilhelm, Brauner, and Herrmann Jungraithmayr (eds.) Afrikanistentag, pp.91-104. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe
Bybee, Joan L. and Östen Dahl 1989
The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13,1:51-103
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca 1994
The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Caron, Bernard 1991
Le haoussa de l'Ader. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer
Comrie, Bernard 1976
Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Creissels, Denis 1991
Description des langues négro-africaines et théorie syntaxique. Grenoble: Ellug
Dahl, Östen 1985
Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Green, Melanie and Chris Reintges 2003
‘Syntactic anchoring in Hausa and Coptic Wh-construction.’ In: Simpson, Andrew (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp.61-72. Berkeley: University of California
Gouffé, Claude 1967/68
‘Les problèmes de l'aspect en haoussa III: L'inaccompli négatif et l'ingressif.’ Comptes-rendus du Groupe Linguistique d'Etudes Chamito-Sémitiques (GLECS) 12:27-51
Hyman, Larry M. and John R. Watters 1984
‘Auxiliary focus.’ Studies in African Linguistics 15,3:233-273
Jaggar, Philip J. 1998
‘Restrictive vs non-restrictive relative clauses in Hausa: Where morphosyntax and semantics meet.’ Studies in African Linguistics 27,2:199-238
Jaggar, Philip J. 2001
Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jaggar, Philip J. 2006
The hausa perfective tense-aspect used in wh-/focus constructions and historical narratives: A unified account. In: West African linguistics: Descriptive, comparative, and historical studies in honor of Russell G. Schuh. Studies in African Linguistics, pp. 100-133, http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/archive/00000133/ (15.12.2007)
Jungraithmayr, Herrmann 1983
‘Altes und neues Perfekt im Hausa und in anderen Tschadsprachen.’ Afrika und Übersee 66(1): 221-230.
Lehmann, Christian 1982
Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch. Vol. 1. Cologne: University of Cologne
Moussa-Aghali, Fatimane 2000
Yarintata [My childhood]. Niamey: Editions Albasa
Newman, Paul 2000
The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press
Newman, Paul and Russell G. Schuh 1974
The Hausa aspect system. Afro-Asiatic Linguistics 1,1:1-39
Rufa’i, Abba 1983
‘Defining and non-defining relative clauses in Hausa.’ In: Wolff, Ekkehard and Hilke Meyer-Bahlburg (eds.) Studies in Chadic and Afroasiatic linguistics, pp.419-427. Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Schachter, Paul 1973
Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19-46
Schubert, Klaus 1971/72, 1972
‘Zur Bedeutung und Anwendung der Verbalparadigmen im Hausa und Kanuri.’ Afrika und Übersee 55,1‑2:1-49, 208-227, 267-300, and Vol. 56:90-118
Schuh, Russell G. 2007
On the origin of the Hausa “relative” aspects and the “stabilizer”. University of California Hausa home page, http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/ humnet/aflang/ Hausa/ hausa.html (13.05.2005)
Stassen, Leon 1997
Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Tuller, Laurice A. 1986
Bijective relations in Universal Grammar and the syntax of Hausa. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles
Wald, Benji 1987
‘Cross-clause relations and temporal sequence in narrative and beyond.’ In: Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugen, Oregon, June 1984, pp.481-512. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Wolff, H. Ekkehard 1993
Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Müster-Hamburg: LIT