Chlouvānem/Syntax: Difference between revisions

Multiple anaphora in Chlouvānem is mainly handled by a combination of the use of pronouns and of voice triggers, with the lack of distinct third person pronouns meaning that the pragmatic meaning of the sentence is driven by context nearly as much as by the semantic content.

{{Gloss

}}

In this example, the pronoun "it" is not stated as context adds it to the pragmatic meaning, as the given thing is the book; a redundant "that" (''nanau'', in accusative case, here) may be added as an explanation but would sound odd to native speakers. Both verbs refer to a single direct case argument, which is the agent in the first clause and the dative argument (receiver) in the second one.

{{Gloss

}}

A sentence where the agent is a third person is semantically ambiguous as the last clause is limited to a single verb (here "he was given"). Again, the direct argument of that clause is the same as that of the first one, with the same roles as in the sentence above, while it is context which makes clear what the given thing (patient argument) is. A sentence like this one does, however, give no clue about the identity of the latter clause's agent, apart from the actual semantic meaning of the verb "to give" implying there must be an agent, but, anyway, neither does the pronoun in English. This Chlouvānem example sentence therefore would need an explicit agent only when it needs to be specified (see first sentence below) or introduced (see the second one below). Otherwise, it is either clear by the general context (see third example below), or, as in the example given above, it is not an important information included in the pragmatic meaning given by the speaker.

{{Gloss

}}

{{Gloss

}}

{{Gloss

}}