Minhast: Difference between revisions
| Line 2,326: | Line 2,326: | ||
# Standard: The entity that is being compared to, cast as an oblique Dative argument. | # Standard: The entity that is being compared to, cast as an oblique Dative argument. | ||
<!-- | |||
=== Word Order === | === Word Order === | ||
Minhast as a whole tends to package the obligatory elements of clauses and sentences into a cohesive unit. Specifically, core NPs and the verbs they serve as arguments tend to be adjacent to each other. Oblique arguments tend to be placed before the core NPs, so that unmarked word order is XSOV (where X stands for the OBL argument). This observation can be verified statistically by reviewing of the corpus of texts and spoken speech, and this observation holds for almost 60%, close to one standard deviation of all text and recorded speech sampled. XOSV order is the second most common arrangement found, accounting for close to 30% of all observations. Since the Ergative argument in transient clauses are highly salient, the XOSV order defocusses the Ergative (Agent) argument and emphasizes the Absolutive (Patient) argument. SOXV and SXOV orders are regarded as unusual, and OSXV and OXSV orders tend to make native speakers cringe, although they will concede that those arrangements are grammatical. These arrangements account for the remaining 10% of observations. | Minhast as a whole tends to package the obligatory elements of clauses and sentences into a cohesive unit. Specifically, core NPs and the verbs they serve as arguments tend to be adjacent to each other. Oblique arguments tend to be placed before the core NPs, so that unmarked word order is XSOV (where X stands for the OBL argument). This observation can be verified statistically by reviewing of the corpus of texts and spoken speech, and this observation holds for almost 60%, close to one standard deviation of all text and recorded speech sampled. XOSV order is the second most common arrangement found, accounting for close to 30% of all observations. Since the Ergative argument in transient clauses are highly salient, the XOSV order defocusses the Ergative (Agent) argument and emphasizes the Absolutive (Patient) argument. SOXV and SXOV orders are regarded as unusual, and OSXV and OXSV orders tend to make native speakers cringe, although they will concede that those arrangements are grammatical. These arrangements account for the remaining 10% of observations. | ||
| Line 2,332: | Line 2,333: | ||
In simple sentences: the sentence ''Rassibararu Anyarde suharak >> rassibar-ar-u anyar=de suharak'' (reach.for-PAST-TRANS [proper.noun]=ERG book) "Anyar reached for the book" is well-formed, even though the verb occurs in sentence-initial position. Here, the reaching for the book ''rassibar'' is being raised to a high saliency level. When the sentence (always either an independent sentence, or the final clause in a clause chain) is joined to a sentence-final adjunct by a Postposed-Wa Construction. The following sentence, containing a sequential clause followed by the final clause of the sentence is well-formed: ''Sayyumpēran iknitaharammā, kalluttaharaš wabbāk? >> sayyumpē=aran ikn-tah-ar-an=mā, kallut-tah-ar-an=š wa=bāk'' (proper.noun=DAT go-2S.ABS-PAST-INTRANS=SUB eat-2S-PAST-INTRANS=IRREAL CONN=what) "You went to Sayyumpe['s house] and ate what???". When followed by antitopics, often derogatory in nature, or interjections, e.g. ''Ussar tūmantirektaran hāran, kuhakna! >> ussar tūman-tirek=de=aran hā-ra-an'' ([proper.noun] house-3S.NEUT.ABS+1S.ERG=ERG=DAT come-PAST-TRANS, idiot) "Ussar came to my house, the fool!". Again, this can occur only if the clause is an independent sentence or the final clause in a clause chain. | In simple sentences: the sentence ''Rassibararu Anyarde suharak >> rassibar-ar-u anyar=de suharak'' (reach.for-PAST-TRANS [proper.noun]=ERG book) "Anyar reached for the book" is well-formed, even though the verb occurs in sentence-initial position. Here, the reaching for the book ''rassibar'' is being raised to a high saliency level. When the sentence (always either an independent sentence, or the final clause in a clause chain) is joined to a sentence-final adjunct by a Postposed-Wa Construction. The following sentence, containing a sequential clause followed by the final clause of the sentence is well-formed: ''Sayyumpēran iknitaharammā, kalluttaharaš wabbāk? >> sayyumpē=aran ikn-tah-ar-an=mā, kallut-tah-ar-an=š wa=bāk'' (proper.noun=DAT go-2S.ABS-PAST-INTRANS=SUB eat-2S-PAST-INTRANS=IRREAL CONN=what) "You went to Sayyumpe['s house] and ate what???". When followed by antitopics, often derogatory in nature, or interjections, e.g. ''Ussar tūmantirektaran hāran, kuhakna! >> ussar tūman-tirek=de=aran hā-ra-an'' ([proper.noun] house-3S.NEUT.ABS+1S.ERG=ERG=DAT come-PAST-TRANS, idiot) "Ussar came to my house, the fool!". Again, this can occur only if the clause is an independent sentence or the final clause in a clause chain. | ||
--> | |||
=== Clause Types === | === Clause Types === | ||