Antarctican/Syntax: Difference between revisions

From Linguifex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added section on indirect verbs)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 185: Line 185:
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || wabiraza
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || 'wáetow || kan-guchu || wabiraza
|-
|-
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴgucu || wabiʁaza
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || ˤwɛˤtou || kaɴgucu || wabiʁaza
|-
|-
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || TPCPOSS-brother.ABS  
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || TPCPOSS-brother.ABS  
Line 199: Line 199:
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || 'wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza
|-
|-
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴgucu || sibiʁaza
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || ˤwɛˤtou || kaɴgucu || sibiʁaza
|-
|-
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || 3POSS-brother.ABS  
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || 3POSS-brother.ABS  
Line 219: Line 219:
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
| today || byaenkan || damaehlu || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza
| today || byaenkan || damaehlu || sõwdla || 'wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza
|-
|-
| todai || bʲɛɴkaɴ || damɛɬu || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴgucu || sibiʁaza
| todai || bʲɛɴkaɴ || damɛɬu || sɔudɮa || ˤwɛˤtou || kaɴgucu || sibiʁaza
|-
|-
| today.ABS || banker-ERG || swindle.INDIR || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || 3POSS-brother.ABS  
| today.ABS || banker-ERG || swindle.INDIR || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner.INDIR || 3POSS-brother.ABS  
Line 229: Line 229:


Using the topic possessive prefix wa- to say "today byaenkan damaehlu sõwdla wáetow kan-gukùe wabiraza" would not make sense, since "today" cannot have a brother.
Using the topic possessive prefix wa- to say "today byaenkan damaehlu sõwdla wáetow kan-gukùe wabiraza" would not make sense, since "today" cannot have a brother.


===Serial Verbs===
===Serial Verbs===
Line 417: Line 416:
| wɨkiʁɜʱmɨʱ || wɨʱʁuʱ || kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
| wɨkiʁɜʱmɨʱ || wɨʱʁuʱ || kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
|-
|-
| 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite || frog.ABS || 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die
| 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite || frog.ABS || die
|}
|}
We (including you) will bite a frog and it will die.
We (including you) will bite a frog and it will die.
Line 423: Line 422:


Note that, if a transitive verb takes a subject pronominal affix, then it can never take antipassive voice.
Note that, if a transitive verb takes a subject pronominal affix, then it can never take antipassive voice.


===Relative Clauses===
===Relative Clauses===
Line 985: Line 983:
|}
|}
A soldier will be giving us (to something / someone).
A soldier will be giving us (to something / someone).
<!-- Categories -->
[[Category:Antarctican]]

Latest revision as of 05:15, 22 August 2013

The Antarctican language is syntactically ergative and topic prominent. Some flexibility is allowed in word order, however phrases are always head-initial, possessors must follow the nouns they possess, and transitive verbs must be placed immediately after their subjects.


Basic Word Order

The basic word order is (Topic) (Ergative Noun) Verb (Absolutive Noun). So in intransitive sentences the word order is either V-S or S-V (if the subject is topicalised) e.g.


sõwdla kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS die

The soldier died.


kùevòelùun sõwdla
kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ sɔudɮa
die soldier.ABS

A soldier died.


In transitive sentences, the possible word orders are S-V-O and O-S-V e.g.

sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

A soldier is hunting frogs.


If we topicalise the object, the sentence becomes:


wùerù sõwdlan ameraykùe
wɨʱʁuʱ sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ
frog.ABS soldier-ERG hunt

The frogs are being hunted by a soldier.


In SVO sentences, it is also possible to topicalise the subject. This does not create any "visible" effect in the word order, however it does mean that the subject takes the absolutive case e.g.


sõwdla ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt frog.ABS

The soldier is hunting frogs.


Note that sentence can only have one topic, so if the object of a transitive sentence is topicalised, then the subject cannot be (and must therefore stay in the ergative case). Hence utterances like "wùeru sowdla ameraykùe" are ungrammatical.


Indirect Verbs

When the topic is neither the subject nor object of a verb, it must be placed in the indirect form e.g.


today sõwdlan ameraeychu wùerù
todai sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu wɨʱʁuʱ
today.ABS soldier-ERG hunt.INDIR frog.ABS

Today a soldier is hunting frogs.


Since the topic "today", is neither the subject nor object of the verb meaning "to hunt", the verb must be placed in the indirect form. Sentences such as "today sõwdlan ameraeykùe wùerù" are ungrammatical.


Also, since sentences can only contain one topic, neither the word for "soldier" nor "frog" can be topicalised (the slot is already occupied by the word for "today"). Hence both "today sõwdla ameraeychu wùerù" and "today wùerù sõwdlan ameraeychu" are ungrammatical.


Topicalisation and Possession

Antarctican has two 3rd person possessive prefixes that nouns can take, wa- and si-. They are not interchangable. When the possessor is the noun that has been taken up as the topic, wa- is used. If not, si- is used instead. Compare the following two sentences:


sõwdla ameraykùe wawùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wawɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt TPCPOSS-frog.ABS

The soldier is hunting his frogs (i.e. the ones that the soldier owns).


sõwdla ameraykùe siwùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ siwɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt 3POSS-frog.ABS

The soldier is hunting his / her frogs (that someone else other than the soldier owns).


In both cases above, the soldier has been taken up as the topic, indicated by putting it immediately before a transitive verb (indicating that it is the subject of that verb), while keeping it in the absolutive case. Hence, whenever wa- is used, it indicates something belonging to the topic (i.e. the soldier). However, when si- is used, it indicates something belonging to someone or something other than the topic.


Now look at sentences where the soldier has not been topicalised (indicated by keeping it in the ergative case):


sõwdlan ameraykùe wawùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wawɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt TPCPOSS-frog.ABS

A soldier is hunting his / her frogs (not belonging to the soldier, but to whoever / whatever has been taken up as a topic previously).


sõwdlan ameraykùe siwùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ siwɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt 3POSS-frog.ABS

A soldier is hunting his / her frogs (This sentence is ambiguous, but most likely the frogs belong to the soldier, and definitely not to whoever / whatever has been taken up as a topic previously).


Similar differences in meaning apply in OVS sentences (i.e. where the object of a transitive verb has been topicalised) e.g.


sáeynátqlóey waesõwdlan ameraykùe
sɛiˤnaˤtʼɬɘiˤ wɛsɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ
general.ABS TPCPOSS-soldier-ERG hunt

The general is being hunted by his (own) soldiers.


sáeynátqlóey suesõwdlan ameraykùe
sɛiˤnaˤtʼɬɘiˤ sɨsɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ
general.ABS 3POSS-soldier-ERG hunt

The general is being hunted by his / her soldiers (not his own).


Implicit Topicalisation

Whenever a noun is the object of a transitive verb or the subject of an intransitive verb, it is, by default, taken up as the topic for any verbs following it e.g.


byaenka damasùe sõwdla 'wáetow kan-guchu wabiraza
bʲɛɴka damasɨʱ sɔudɮa ˤwɛˤtou kaɴgucu wabiʁaza
banker.ABS swindle soldier.ABS occur during be a prisoner.INDIR TPCPOSS-brother.ABS

The banker swindled the soldier while his brother was in prison (the soldier's brother).


While the phrase "his brother" in English translation is ambiguous (since both the banker and the soldier can be male), in Antarctican is not. It can only mean "the soldier's brother" because, by being the object of a transitive verb, the soldier has been implicitly taken up as the topic for the next utterance, which uses the topic possessive prefix wa-. However, if we replace wa- with si- the non-topicalised possessive prefix, then the meaning changes:


byaenka damasùe sõwdla 'wáetow kan-guchu sibiraza
bʲɛɴka damasɨʱ sɔudɮa ˤwɛˤtou kaɴgucu sibiʁaza
banker.ABS swindle soldier.ABS occur during be a prisoner.INDIR 3POSS-brother.ABS

The banker swindled the soldier while his brother was in prison.


In this case, it is not the soldier's brother that is in prison (most likely the banker's brother).


Indirect Verbs

However, when an indirect verb is used (because the topic is neither its subject nor object), this implicit topicalisation does not happen. So the following sentence could have multiple meanings:


today byaenkan damaehlu sõwdla 'wáetow kan-guchu sibiraza
todai bʲɛɴkaɴ damɛɬu sɔudɮa ˤwɛˤtou kaɴgucu sibiʁaza
today.ABS banker-ERG swindle.INDIR soldier.ABS occur during be a prisoner.INDIR 3POSS-brother.ABS

Today, a banker swindled the soldier while his brother was in prison (his brother could be anyone's brother).


Using the topic possessive prefix wa- to say "today byaenkan damaehlu sõwdla wáetow kan-gukùe wabiraza" would not make sense, since "today" cannot have a brother.

Serial Verbs

Antarctican often uses serial verb constructions.

Intransitive Verbs

If a verb is intransitive, it is simple to serialise it by placing another verb after it e.g.

sõwdla byowkùe kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa bʲoukɨʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS sick die

The soldier got sick and died.


The subject comes either immediately before the first verb (as above), or immediately after it e.g.


byowkùe sõwdla kùevòelùun
bʲoukɨʱ sɔudɮa kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
sick soldier.ABS die

The soldier got sick and died.


Of course, it is perfectly possible to string together three or more verbs e.g.


sõwdla byowkùe sàonkùesòe kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa bʲoukɨʱ sɜʱɴkɨʱsɘʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS sick bleed die

The soldier got sick, bled, and died.

Transitive Verbs

It is also perfectly possible to use transitive verbs in serial verb constructions, subject to the constraint that all of the verbs share the same noun absolutive argument (i.e. object for transitive verbs, subject for intransitive verbs). Take the following sentence:


sõwdlan kiràomùesòe wùerù kùevòelùun
sɔudɮaɴ kiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier-ERG bite frog.ABS die

A soldier bit a frog and it died.


This sentence can only ever mean that it was the frog that died. Topicalising the subject of the transitive verb (by putting it into the absolutive case) makes no difference to the meaning:

sõwdla kiràomùesòe wùerù kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa kiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS bite frog.ABS die

The soldier bit a frog and it died.


Topicalising the object of the verb by putting it at the front of the sentence makes no difference either:


wùerù sõwdlan kiràomùesòe kùevòelùun
wɨʱʁuʱ sɔudɮaɴ kiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
frog.ABS soldier-ERG bite die

The frog was bitten by a soldier and (it) died.


Antipassivisation

To say things like "The soldier bit a frog and died" (as in it was the soldier that died), then the verb meaning "to bite" must be converted into an intransitive verb by putting it in the antipassive voice e.g.

sõwdla kutiràomùesòe kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa kutiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite die

The soldier bit it and died.


Patient Re-introduction

If we want to re-introduce the frog into the sentence, it needs to come after both the antipassivised verb and the subject, take the ergative case, and be followed by the oblique marker nyùe e.g.


kutiràomùesòe sõwdla wùerùgin `nyùe kùevòelùun
kutiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ sɔudɮa wɨʱʁuʱgiɴ ʱʱɲɨʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
<PFV.AP>bite soldier.ABS frog-ERG OBL die

A soldier bit a frog and died.


The (now absolutive) argument of the verb can be topicalised by putting it at the front of the sentence e.g.


sõwdla kutiràomùesòe wùerùgin `nyùe kùevòelùun
sɔudɮa kutiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ wɨʱʁuʱgiɴ ʱɲɨʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite frog-ERG OBL die

The soldier bit a frog and died.


However, the noun that was re-introduced with `nyùe cannot be topicalised, so the following sentence is ungrammatical:


wùerùgin `nyùe sõwdla kutiràomùesòe kùevòelùun
wɨʱʁuʱgiɴ ʱɲɨʱ sɔudɮa kutiʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
frog-ERG OBL soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite die

The soldier bit a frog and died. (ungrammatical)


Subject Pronominal Affixes

Pronouns must be marked by prefixes on every single verb that they are the subject of in a serial verb construction e.g.


wuebyowkùe wikùevòelùun
wɨbʲoukɨʱi wikɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-sick 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die

We (including you) will get sick and die.


With transitive verbs, there is no need for antipassivisation if the subject is a pronoun e.g.


wuekiràomùe wùerù wikùevòelùun
wɨkiʁɜʱmɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ wɨkɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite frog.ABS 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die

We (including you) will bite a frog and die.


Leaving the pronominal prefix off a verb in a serial verb construction means that that pronoun is no longer the subject of that verb. This changes the meaning entirely e.g.


wuekiràomùe wùerù kùevòelùun
wɨkiʁɜʱmɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite frog.ABS die

We (including you) will bite a frog and it will die.


Note that, if a transitive verb takes a subject pronominal affix, then it can never take antipassive voice.

Relative Clauses

These follow the noun they modify. There are no relative pronouns or relativising particles. However, if the verb in the relative clause is transitive, the head noun can only ever be the object of it, never the subject. So the following two sentences are grammatical.


wùerù kùevòelùun
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ
frog.ABS die

The frog, which died.


wùerù sõwdlan ameraykùe
wɨʱʁuʱ sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ
frog.ABS soldier-ERG hunt

The frogs the soldier hunted.


However, to say "the soldier that hunted frogs", the verb must be put into the antipassive voice e.g.


sõwdla utameraykùe wùerù `nyùe
sɔudɮaɴ ʔutameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱɲɨʱ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>hunt frog.ABS OBL

The soldier that hunted frogs.


Once a transitive verb takes the antipassive voice, the oblique argument (i.e. what used to be its object) can be freely left out e.g.


sõwdla utameraykùe
sɔudɮaɴ ʔutameʁaikɨʱ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>hunt

The soldier that hunted.


Indirect Verbs

If the head noun of the relative clause is neither the subject nor the object of the verb in the relative clause, then that verb takes the indirect form e.g.


manyana sõwdlan ameraeychu wùerù
maɲana sɔudɮaɴ utameʁɛicu wɨʱʁuʱ
morning.ABS soldier-ERG hunt.INDIR frog.ABS

The morning the soldier hunted frogs.


Negation

Negation in Antarctican is achieved by using one of two particles, nõ /nɔ/ (known as general negation) and nay /nai/ (known as specific negation).

The Particle nõ /nɔ/ (General Negation)

The normal way to negate a sentence is to put this immediately before the verb e.g.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

Soldiers are hunting frogs.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG NEG.GEN hunt frog.ABS

Soldiers aren't hunting frogs.


The default position for the particle is immediately before the verb, however it can be moved to in front of a noun as well. Doing so puts emphasis on negating that noun e.g.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
NEG.GEN soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

Soldiers aren't hunting frogs (but someone else is).


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt NEG.GEN frog.ABS

Soldiers aren't hunting frogs (but they are hunting something else).


Also note that, if a noun is topicalised, then the particle cannot occur before it. So the following sentence is ungrammatical:


sõwdla ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
NEG.GEN soldier.ABS hunt frog.ABS


The Particle nay /nai/ (Specific Negation)

This is always placed after a verb. It is used for negation with emphasis on the verb e.g.


sõwdla ameraykùe nay wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁaikɨʱ nai wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt NEG.SPFC frog.ABS

Soldiers aren't hunting frogs (but they are doing something else to them).


It is also used for negating a verb in a relative clause e.g.


wùerù kùevòelùun `ròedù
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ ʱʁɘʱduʱ
frog.ABS die red

The frog, which died, was red.


wùerù kùevòelùun nay `ròedù
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ nai ʱʁɘʱduʱ
frog.ABS die NEG.SPFC red

The frog, which didn't die, was red.


And since Antarctican makes no distinction between adjectives and verbs, and hence no distinction between an attributive adjective (one describing a noun), and a verb in a relative clause, this particle is also used to negate adjectives when they are describing nouns e.g.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS red

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedù nay
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ nai
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS red NEG.SPFC

Soldiers aren't hunting red frogs (maybe they're hunting another colour).

Polar Questions

A Yes/No question is formed by using either the particle du /du/, or /ka/ /ka/. These are known as the general and specific interrogatives respectively, and the usage of them very closely parallels the /no/ and /nai/ negative particles.


The Particle du (General Interrogative)

The normal way to ask a polar question is to put this immediately before the verb e.g.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

Soldiers are hunting frogs.


sõwdlan du ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ du ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG INT.GEN hunt frog.ABS

Are soldiers hunting frogs?


The default position for the particle is immediately before the verb, however it can be moved to in front of a noun as well. Doing so puts emphasis on questioning that noun;s involvement in the event being described, rather than whether or not the event actually happened e.g.


du sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
du sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
INT.GEN soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

Are soldiers hunting frogs (or is it someone else)?


sõwdlan ameraykùe du wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ du wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt INT.GEN frog.ABS

Are soldiers hunting frogs (or something else)?


Also note that, if a noun is topicalised, then the particle cannot occur before it. So the following sentence is ungrammatical:


du sõwdla ameraykùe wùerù
du sɔudɮa ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
INT.GEN soldier.ABS hunt frog.ABS


The Particle ka (Specific Interrogative)

This is always placed after a verb. It is used when the noun's involvement in the event is not in question, rather the question is about what the action was e.g.


sõwdla ameraykùe ka wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁaikɨʱ ka wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt INT.SPFC frog.ABS

Are soldiers hunting frogs (or doing something else to them)?


It is also used for questioning a verb in a relative clause e.g.


wùerù kùevòelùun `ròedù
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ ʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ
frog.ABS die red

The frog, which died, was red.


wùerù kùevòelùun ka `ròedù
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ ka ʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ
frog.ABS die INT.SPFC red

Was it the frog that died that was red?


And since Antarctican makes no distinction between adjectives and verbs, and hence no distinction between an attributive adjective (one describing a noun), and a verb in a relative clause, this particle is also used to question adjectives when they are describing nouns e.g.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS red

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.


sowdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedù ka
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ ka
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS red INT.SPFC

Are soldiers hunting red frogs (or another colour)?


Other Questions

There are a whole host of other question particles in Antarctican, all of which have general and specific forms which follow the same syntactic rules as above.


Interrogative General Specific
Where / Which duku tovi
When tòwnká taensi
How (asking for a description) donna chowan
How much / How many / To what extent kùey chetnay
Why tówta tanmay


Below are some example questions using the words for "where":

sõwdlan duku ameraykùe wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ duku ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG where.GEN hunt frog.ABS

Where are soldiers are hunting frogs?


duku sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù
duku sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ
where.GEN soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS

Soldiers from where are hunting frogs?


sõwdlan ameraykùe duku wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ duku wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier-ERG hunt where.GEN frog.ABS

Soldiers are hunting frogs from where?


As a specific interrogative particle, tovi puts emphasis on a particular part of the question e.g.


sõwdla ameraykùe tovi wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁaikɨʱ tuɥi wɨʱʁuʱ
soldier.ABS hunt where.SPFC frog.ABS

Where are the soldiers hunting frogs (not doing anything else to them)?


wùerù kùevòelùun tovi `ròedù
wɨʱʁuʱ kɨʱɥɘʱluːʱɴ tuɥi ʱʁɘʱduʱ
frog.ABS die where.SPFC red

The frog that died where was red?


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedù tovi
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨʱ wɨʱʁuʱ ʱʁɘʱduʱ tuɥi
soldier-ERG hunt frog.ABS red where.SPFC

Where are soldiers hunting red frogs (as opposed to some other colour)?


Ditransitives

Antarctican differs from English in that it has secundative alignment (Secundative_language[*]). Take, for example, the following sentence:


sõwdlan àoy yini
sɔudɮaɴ ʔɜiʱ jini
soldier-ERG give dog.ABS

A soldier is giving (something to) a dog.


This can only ever mean that the soldier is giving something to a dog, never that the soldier is giving the dog to someone.


A similar situation is found when an object pronominal infix (which makes a verb intransitive for the purposes of case marking on and positioning of the subject) is used on the verb e.g.


asàoy sõwdla
ʔasɜiʱ sɔudɮ
<1PS.INC.OBJ>give soldier.ABS

A soldier is giving (something to) us (including you).


If we want to introduce the Theme (whatever is being given), the default construction places it in the ergative case, followed by `wù /wuʱ/ and after the recipient e.g.


sõwdlan àoy yini aaehaan-ga `wù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔɜiʱ jini ʔɛːχaːɴga ʱwuʱ
soldier-ERG give dog.ABS food-ERG THEME

A soldier is giving food to a dog.


asàoy sõwdla aaehaan-ga `wù
ʔasɜiʱ sɔudɮ ʔɛːχaːɴga ʱwuʱ
<1PS.INC.OBJ>give soldier.ABS food-ERG THEME

A soldier is giving us food.


If we want to remove the Recipient from the sentence, then the verb must take the antipassive voice e.g.


àomàoy sõwdla aaehaan-ga `wù
ʔɜmɜiʱ sɔudɮ ʔɛːχaːɴga ʱwuʱ
<IMPV.AP>give soldier.ABS food-ERG THEME

A soldier is giving food.


Pronominal Themes

If the Theme is a pronoun, then instead of `wu taking a noun before it, it is prefixed with the same prefixes that mark subject on verbs (with breathy voice spread onto them) e.g.


sõwdlan àoy yini `wòewù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔɜiʱ jini ʱwɘʱwuʱ
soldier-ERG give dog.ABS <1PS.INCL.PRES>THEME

A soldier is giving us (including you) to a dog.


If the Recipient is omitted, then the verb takes the antipassive voice as before e.g.


àomàoy sõwdla `wòewù
ʔɜmɜiʱ sɔudɮa ʱwɘʱwuʱ;
<IMPV.AP>give soldier.ABS <1PS.INCL.PRES>THEME

A soldier is giving us (to something / someone).


Like the prefixes on verbs, these prefixes inflect for tense e.g.


àomàoy sõwdla chùewù
ʔɜmɜiʱ sɔudɮa cɨʱwuʱ;
<IMPV.AP>give soldier.ABS <1PS.INCL.PAST>THEME

A soldier was giving us (to something / someone).


àomàoy sõwdla `wùewù
ʔɜmɜiʱ sɔudɮa ʱwɨʱwuʱ;
<IMPV.AP>give soldier.ABS <1PS.INCL.FUT>THEME

A soldier will be giving us (to something / someone).