Minhast: Difference between revisions

''Sukkādi'' is a true adjunct: it does not require binding by the ''wa='' clitic; in fact ''wa='' - binding is rather rare; even in Classical Minhast literature, ''wa='' binding is quite infrequent, if not as rare.  The particle is quite mobile and can be inserted between any of the constituents of a clause.  Its position in a clause appears to be totally independent of scopal considerations:

* The particle ''damikman'' is another enigmatic particle.  In narratives it is often translated as "once upon a time", but its usage is not restricted to the past.  It can refer to present or future time as well.  Its purpose appears to mark definite endpoints in relation to a reference point that is recoverable by all speech participants.  When used for both present and future tenses it sometimes be translated as "soon".  It obligatorily appears at the head of a clause and cannot be preceded by a ''wa=''- Construction, nor can it be followed by a ''wa=''-Construction.  It cannot be considered an adjunct due to its fixed position in a clause.

* ''Wēš'' has the same restrictions governing ''damikman'' regarding the ''wa=''- Construction.  However, it is also a true adjunct and its position is quite free as ''sukkādi'', and it has the same scopal qualities. ''Wēš'' is often translated as "well then", "come on", "therefore", or sometimes "we'll see".  In some cases it appears to be mild hortative particle, but more often it seems to be an acknowledge that the topic of discussion remains unresolved.  This might explain why it is often translated as a conjunction by native speakers: