Antarctican/Syntax

From Linguifex
< Antarctican
Revision as of 11:04, 4 March 2013 by Linguist Wannabe (talk | contribs) (Spelling)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS die.VFCS

The soldier died.


kiveli-ewn sõwdla
kiɥeliʔeuɴ sɔudɮa
die.VFCS 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.NFCS 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.NFCS

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.NFCS 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.


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 ameraeychu wawùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu wawɨɦʁuɦ
soldier.ABS hunt.NFCS TPCPOSS-frog.ABS

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


sõwdla ameraeychu siwùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu siwɨɦʁuɦ
soldier.ABS hunt.NFCS 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.NFCS 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.NFCS 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.


sáeynátqóey waesõwdlan ameraeychu
sɛiʔnaʔtʼɘiʔ wɛsɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu
general.ABS TPCPOSS-soldier-ERG hunt.VFCS

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


sáeynátqóey suesõwdlan ameraeychu
sɛiʔnaʔtʼɘiʔ sɨsɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu
general.ABS 3POSS-soldier-ERG hunt.VFCS

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 damaehlu sõwdla wáetow kaen-guchi wabiraza
bʲɛɴka damɛɬu sɔudɮa wɛʔtou kɛɴguci wabiʁaza
banker.ABS swindle.VFCS soldier.ABS occur during.NFCS be a prisoner.VFCS TPCPOSS-brother

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 damaehlu sõwdla wáetow kaen-guchi sibiraza
bʲɛɴka damɛɬu sɔudɮa wɛʔtou kɛɴguci sibiʁaza
banker.ABS swindle.VFCS soldier.ABS occur during.NFCS be a prisoner.VFCS 3POSS-brother

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).


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 byowchi-i kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa bʲouciʔi kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS sick.VFCS die.VFCS

The soldier got sick and died.


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


byowchi-i sõwdla kiveli-ewn
bʲouciʔi sɔudɮa kiɥeliʔeuɴ
sick.VFCS soldier.ABS die.VFCS

The soldier got sick and died.


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


sõwdla byowchi-i sàon-gùe kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa bʲouciʔi sɜɦɴgɨɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS sick.VFCS bleed.VFCS die.VFCS

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 kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮaɴ kiʁɜɦmɨɦsɘɦ wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier-ERG bite.NFCS frog.ABS die.VFCS

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 kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa kiʁɜɦmɨɦsɘɦ wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS bite.NFCS frog.ABS die.VFCS

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 kiveli-ewn
wɨɦʁuɦ sɔudɮaɴ kiʁɜɦmɨɦsɘɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
frog.ABS soldier-ERG bite.NFCS die.VFCS

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 'kówràomùe kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa kouʔʁɜɦmɨɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite.VFCS die.VFCS

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.


'kówràomùe sõwdla wùerùgin `nyùe kiveli-ewn
kouʔʁɜɦmɨɦ sɔudɮa wɨɦʁuɦgiɴ ɲɨɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
<PFV.AP>bite.NFCS soldier.ABS frog-ERG OBL die.VFCS

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 'kówràomùesòe wùerùgin `nyùe kiveli-ewn
sɔudɮa kouʔʁɜɦmɨɦsɘɦ wɨɦʁuɦgiɴ ɲɨɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite.VFCS frog-ERG OBL die.VFCS

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 'kówràomùesòe kiveli-ewn
wɨɦʁuɦgiɴ ɲɨɦ sɔudɮa kouʔʁɜɦmɨɦsɘɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
frog-ERG OBL soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>bite.VFCS die.VFCS

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.


wuebyowchi-i wuekiveli-ewn
wɨbʲouciʔi wɨkiɥeliʔeuɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-sick.VFCS 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die.VFCS

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 wuekiveli-ewn
wɨkiʁɜɦmɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ wɨkiɥeliʔeuɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite.VFCS frog.ABS 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die.VFCS

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 kiveli-ewn
wɨkiʁɜɦmɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT- bite.VFCS frog.ABS 1PS.INC.SUBJ.FUT-die.VFCS

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, the accessibility hierarchy is very important in Antarctican (Relative_clause#Accessibility_hierarchy[*]). Only absolutive arguments (objects of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive verbs) can be relativised. So the following two phrases are grammatical:


wùerù kiveli-ewn
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ
frog.ABS die.VFCS

The frog, which died.


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

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 ɲɨɦ
soldier.ABS <PFV.AP>hunt.NFCS 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.NFCS

The soldier that hunted.


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.NFCS frog.ABS

Soldiers are hunting frogs.


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

Soldiers aren't hunting frogs.


Either the noun-focus form of the verb (as above), or the verb-focus form can be used e.g.


sõwdlan ameraeychu wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁɛicu wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier-ERG NEG.GEN hunt.VFCS 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.NFCS frog.ABS

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


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

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


Note that in both of the above cases, the noun-focus form is used. Using the verb focus form "ameraykùe" here would be ungrammatical.


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.NFCS frog.ABS


The Particle nay /nai/ (Specific Negation)

This is always placed after a verb, which must be in the verb-focus form. It is used for negation with emphasis on the verb e.g.


sõwdla ameraeychu nay wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁɛicu nai wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier.ABS hunt.VFCS 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 kiveli-ewn `ròedla
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ ʁɘɦdɮa
frog.ABS die.VFCS red.VFCS

The frog, which died, was red.


wùerù kiveli-ewn nay `ròedla
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ nai ʁɘɦdɮa
frog.ABS die.VFCS NEG.SPFC red.VFCS

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 `ròedla
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ ʁɘɦdɮa
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS frog.ABS red.VFCS

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedla nay
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ ʁɘɦdɮa nai
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS frog.ABS red.VFCS 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.NFCS frog.ABS

Soldiers are hunting frogs.


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

Are soldiers hunting frogs?


Either the noun-focus form of the verb (as above), or the verb-focus form can be used e.g.


sõwdlan du ameraeychu wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ du ʔameʁɛicu wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier-ERG INT.GEN hunt.VFCS 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.NFCS frog.ABS

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


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

Are soldiers hunting frogs (or something else)?


Note that in both of the above cases, the noun-focus form is used. Using the verb focus form "ameraykùe" here would be ungrammatical.


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.NFCS frog.ABS


The Particle ka (Specific Interrogative)

This is always placed after a verb, which must be in the verb-focus form. 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 ameraeychu ka wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁɛicu ka wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier.ABS hunt.VFCS 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 kiveli-ewn `ròedla
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ ʁɘɦdɮa
frog.ABS die.VFCS red.VFCS

The frog, which died, was red.


wùerù kiveli-ewn ka `ròedla
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ ka ʁɘɦdɮa
frog.ABS die.VFCS INT.SPFC red.VFCS

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 `ròedla
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ ʁɘɦdɮa
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS frog.ABS red.VFCS

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.


sowdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedla ka
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ ʁɘɦdɮa ka
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS frog.ABS red.VFCS 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.NFCS frog.ABS

Where are soldiers are hunting frogs?


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

Soldiers from where are hunting frogs?


sõwdlan ameraykùe duku wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ duku wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS 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 ameraeychu tovi wùerù
sɔudɮa ʔameʁɛicu tuɥi wɨɦʁuɦ
soldier.ABS hunt.VFCS where.SPFC frog.ABS

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


wùerù kiveli-ewn tovi `ròedla
wɨɦʁuɦ kiɥeliʔeuɴ tuɥi ʁɘɦdɮa
frog.ABS die.VFCS where.SPFC red.VFCS

The frog that died where was red?


sõwdlan ameraykùe wùerù `ròedla tovi
sɔudɮaɴ ʔameʁaikɨɦ wɨɦʁuɦ ʁɘɦdɮa tuɥi
soldier-ERG hunt.NFCS frog.ABS red.VFCS 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.NFCS 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.NFCS 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 wuɦ
soldier-ERG give.NFCS dog.ABS food-ERG THEME

A soldier is giving food to a dog.


asàoy sõwdla aaehaan-ga `wù
ʔasɜiɦ sɔudɮ ʔɛːχaːɴga wuɦ
<1PS.INC.OBJ>give.NFCS 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 wuɦ
<IMPV.AP>give.NFCS 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 wɘɦwuɦ
soldier-ERG give.NFCS 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 wɘɦwuɦ;
<IMPV.AP>give.NFCS 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.NFCS soldier.ABS <1PS.INCL.PAST>THEME

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


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

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