![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Justin B Rye
1995–2001
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
he/she sang. However, when there are nouns in the sentence they all go before the verb, in an order determined by their role:
(Subject) (Object) (Oblique with postposition) Verb. Thus sumfa kéntha ji·da u fáru
everyone gives horses to the kingis literally
everyone(Subject) horse(Object) king(Oblique) to(ThirdEpicene) give(ThirdEpicene). The order of the nouns is sometimes shuffled around for purposes of emphasis: ji·da u sumfa kéntha fáru throws the spotlight on the king's role in the sentence.
question-wordsinto initial position, and even that isn't compulsory.
reverse orderrelative to the English: kéntha niamo·uk oas·uk moek·ap
I want to try to eat a horse(literally
horse(Object) eat(Infinitive) try(Infinitive) want(FirstExclusive)).
downward he/she walked), but phrases acting as modifiers (e.g. relative clauses – see below) appear in following position, and certain adverbs of degree trail after the word they qualify (see under Intensives, Va).
to a horse. Adjectives precede their nouns – chargi·ra kéntha
white horses. In possessive phrases, owners precede property – ji kéntha
the king's horse. Putting the three above rules together we get phrases like ji chargi·ron kéntha·don u·s
to the king's white horse.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
and, stitch together clauses of equal importance rather than making one clause dependent on another (they are
coordinatingrather than
subordinatingconjunctions). They behave much like their English equivalents as sentence-linkers (in pe ta desen
he walked and he talked) or between items in lists (in barin ta sotanja on·niamo·s
they eat birds and fish). But ta is often thrown in to string adjectives together, too: akin·a ta chargi·ra sotanja
a beautiful white bird. The place of ta in narratives is often taken by tep: pe tep desen
he walked and (then) he talked.
in order thatintroduces purpose clauses: sinche·r lemmo ji·da anuach·ukh
she stood up to greet the king. Subordinating conjunctions are distinguished in the lexicon by the label
Srather than
C.
Iftranslates as duo, often accompanied by either tuker or ankat (
already/
soon) to clarify whether the
decision pointis in the past or future. The subjunctive mood may or may not be used, depending on how
imaginaryit is: duo tuker barin niamo·n, sifulu·an
if you ate the fish, then you will dievs duo tuker barin niamo·n, sifulu·okh·an
if you'd eaten the fish, you'd've died.
Reportclauses (
know that…,
say that…,
believe that…) do not involve any equivalent of English
that– they are simply quoted verbatim: arfai·an, is on·numa·p
you said you could see it(more literally
you said: I see it). More subjective examples frequently involve subjunctives: sajan·ap ∼ jait·a, sifulu·okh·an
I was afraid that you were/might be dead.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
Relative clauses are phrases such as the man who sold you
this is a cheat
, the horse that died collapsed
here
, or show me the house where you
live
– subordinate clauses being used to
describe or more closely specify a noun (the man, horse, or
house). They are introduced by special words: in English,
words like who
and where
, precisely resembling the
question words who?
and where?
, but in this language
by entirely distinct words such as e, nui which
literally mean something
, somewhere
.
To form a relative clause, take the basic sentence containing the noun in question:
the king is strong
and the sentence to be converted into a subclause:
I gave the horse to the king
first reorganising the sentence so that the repeated noun is replaced by a dummy word like e and moved to the start:
I gave the horse to someone
and put the two sentences together like this:
the king to whom I gave the horse is strong
The relative clause e·da …
fáru·ap is inserted immediately after the noun it
describes. Note that relative clauses can be hard to detect
in English – the above might have been disguised as
the king I gave the horse is strong
.
One last complication: if the subject of the subclause and the
subject of the main clause are both the same thing, and if the
clause is only an incidental description (I ate some fish,
which I had caught
) not a defining criterion (I
only ate the fish that I had caught
) then a slightly
different form is often used – the participial phrase
(see following).
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|
If you're wondering Where are the participles? Where are
the descriptive relative clauses?
– well, actually
both of these conventional syntactic categories (and more)
translate into one rather tricky idiom I'm labelling the
participial phrase
, easily recognised since it always starts
with the word en.
the woman sang beautifully– formed from en plus adjective, placed at the end of the sentence after the verb it describes. These really have nothing much to do with the following constructions except appearance.
a singing woman(or
a woman, who sang) – formed from en plus verb, placed after the noun it describes (not before it, as a normal adjective would be). This construction does all the work of English active and passive participles (adjectives like
twinkling,
divided,
burning,
unseen).
linkingverb like re (VIIIc): faro en akin re nena
a woman, who was beautiful, sang. The verb normally comes in the middle of such descriptive sentences, or gets omitted entirely: faro ∼ akin,
the woman was beautiful. Nonetheless, it appears at the end of the en phrase.
the king, who has given me a horse, is strong.
the king who gave me the horse is strong. The relative clause here is presented as a way of identifying which king is being referred to.
Participial relative constructions are seen even by native speakers as somewhat formal and convoluted, so they can probably be safely ignored by students at this introductory level.
| |< | << | >> | >| |
|---|