Antarctican/Syntax

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.

sáeynátqlóey	waesõwdlan	ameraeychu
sɛiˤnaˤtʼɬɘiˤ	wɛsɔudɮaɴ	ʔameʁɛicu
general.ABS	TPCPOSS-soldier-ERG	hunt.VFCS

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

sáeynátqlóey	suesõwdlan	ameraeychu
sɛiˤnaˤtʼɬɘiˤ	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	ˤkouˤʁɜʱmɨʱ	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
ˤkouˤʁɜʱmɨʱ	sɔudɮa	wɨʱʁuʱgiɴ	ʱʱɲɨʱ	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	ˤkouˤʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ	wɨʱʁuʱgiɴ	ʱɲɨʱ	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	ʱɲɨʱ	sɔudɮa	ˤkouˤʁɜʱmɨʱsɘʱ	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	ʱɲɨʱ
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	nõ	ameraykùe	wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ	nɔ	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	nõ	ameraeychu	wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ	nɔ	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.

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

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

sõwdlan	ameraykùe	nõ	wùerù
sɔudɮaɴ	ʔameʁaikɨʱ	nɔ	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:

nõ	sõwdla	ameraykùe	wùerù
nɔ	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	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
frog.ABS	die.VFCS	red.VFCS

The frog, which died, was red.

wùerù	kiveli-ewn	nay	`ròedla
wɨʱʁuʱ	kiɥeliʔeuɴ	nai	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
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	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
soldier-ERG	hunt.NFCS	frog.ABS	red.VFCS

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.

sõwdlan	ameraykùe	wùerù	`ròedla	nay
sɔudɮaɴ	ʔameʁaikɨʱ	wɨʱʁuʱ	ʱʁɘʱdɮa	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	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
frog.ABS	die.VFCS	red.VFCS

The frog, which died, was red.

wùerù	kiveli-ewn	ka	`ròedla
wɨʱʁuʱ	kiɥeliʔeuɴ	ka	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
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	ʱ ʱʁɘʱdɮa
soldier-ERG	hunt.NFCS	frog.ABS	red.VFCS

Soldiers are hunting red frogs.

sowdlan	ameraykùe	wùerù	`ròedla	ka
sɔudɮaɴ	ʔameʁaikɨʱ	wɨʱʁuʱ	ʱʁɘʱdɮa	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	ʱʁɘʱdɮa
frog.ABS	die.VFCS	where.SPFC	red.VFCS

The frog that died where was red?

sõwdlan	ameraykùe	wùerù	`ròedla	tovi
sɔudɮaɴ	ʔameʁaikɨʱ	wɨʱʁuʱ	ʱʁɘʱdɮa	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	ʱwuʱ
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	ʱwuʱ
<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	ʱwuʱ
<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	ʱwɘʱwuʱ
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	ʱwɘʱwuʱ;
<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	ʱwɨʱwuʱ;
<IMPV.AP>give.NFCS	soldier.ABS	<1PS.INCL.FUT>THEME

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