640
edits
Antarctican/Syntax: Difference between revisions
Added section on indirect verbs
mNo edit summary |
(Added section on indirect verbs) |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
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. | 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. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
| 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. | |||
| Line 163: | Line 185: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan- | | byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || wabiraza | ||
|- | |- | ||
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴ | | bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴgucu || wabiʁaza | ||
|- | |- | ||
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner || TPCPOSS-brother | | 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). | The banker swindled the soldier while his brother was in prison (the soldier's brother). | ||
| Line 177: | Line 199: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan- | | byaenka || damasùe || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza | ||
|- | |- | ||
| bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴ | | bʲɛɴka || damasɨʱ || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || kaɴgucu || sibiʁaza | ||
|- | |- | ||
| banker.ABS || swindle || soldier.ABS || occur during || be a prisoner || 3POSS-brother | | 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. | The banker swindled the soldier while his brother was in prison. | ||
| Line 187: | Line 209: | ||
In this case, it is not the soldier's brother that is in prison (most likely the banker's brother). | 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: | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
| today || byaenkan || damaehlu || sõwdla || wáetow || kan-guchu || sibiraza | |||
|- | |||
| todai || bʲɛɴkaɴ || damɛɬu || sɔudɮa || wɛʔtou || 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. | |||
| Line 385: | Line 427: | ||
===Relative Clauses=== | ===Relative Clauses=== | ||
These follow the noun they modify. There are no relative pronouns or relativising particles. However, the | 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. | ||
| Line 436: | Line 478: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The soldier that hunted. | 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. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
| manyana || sõwdlan || ameraeychu || wùerù | |||
|- | |||
| maɲana || sɔudɮaɴ || utameʁɛicu || wɨʱʁuʱ | |||
|- | |||
| morning.ABS || soldier-ERG|| hunt.INDIR || frog.ABS | |||
|} | |||
The morning the soldier hunted frogs. | |||