Minhast: Difference between revisions

Line 2,393:

Minhast has several other particles which defy classification, and oftentimes, translation. Here are the most common ones:

* The particle ''sukkādi'' has often been classified as an interjection that conveys the speaker's determination to carry out an act, but is always accompanied by a verb marked with either the ''-kilwāš-'' or ''-rawāš-'' Mirative affixes. Since ''-rawāš-'' is itself a Mirative that indicates the speaker's determination, ''sukkādi'' would seem to be an intensifier. However, this interpretation is problematic as the Mirative affix is obligatory; the absence of the Mirative makes the statement ungrammatical. Native speakers who are fluent in foreign languages have difficulty explaining the meaning or role of the particle or come up with contradictory answers. It is interesting that the particle is observed among speakers of high status, so there appears to be a sociolinguistic ~~factor~~ involved in its usage, but the exact nature has yet to be determined.

* The particle ''sukkādi'' has often been classified as an interjection that conveys the speaker's determination to carry out an act, but is always accompanied by a verb marked with either the ''-kilwāš-'' or ''-rawāš-'' Mirative affixes. Since ''-rawāš-'' is itself a Mirative that indicates the speaker's determination, ''sukkādi'' would seem to be an intensifier. However, this interpretation is problematic as the Mirative affix is obligatory; the absence of the Mirative makes the statement ungrammatical. Native speakers who are fluent in foreign languages have difficulty explaining the meaning or role of the particle or come up with contradictory answers. It is interesting that the particle is observed among speakers of high status, so there appears to be sociolinguistic factors involved in its usage, but the exact nature has yet to be determined.

''Sukkādi'' is a true adjunct: it does not require binding by the ''wa='' clitic; in fact ''wa='' - binding is rather 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:

''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:

{{Gloss

Line 2,407:

* 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 ~~aknowledgement~~ that the topic of discussion remains unresolved. This might explain why it is often translated as a conjunction by native speakers:

* ''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:

{{Gloss

@@ Line 2,393: / Line 2,393: @@
 Minhast has several other particles which defy classification, and oftentimes, translation.  Here are the most common ones:
-* The particle ''sukkādi'' has often been classified as an interjection that conveys the speaker's determination to carry out an act, but is always accompanied by a verb marked with either the ''-kilwāš-'' or ''-rawāš-'' Mirative affixes.  Since ''-rawāš-'' is itself a Mirative that indicates the speaker's determination,  ''sukkādi'' would seem to be an intensifier.  However, this interpretation is problematic as the Mirative affix is obligatory; the absence of the Mirative makes the statement ungrammatical.  Native speakers who are fluent in foreign languages have difficulty explaining the meaning or role of the particle or come up with contradictory answers.  It is interesting that the particle is observed among speakers of high status, so there appears to be a sociolinguistic factor involved in its usage, but the exact nature has yet to be determined.
+* The particle ''sukkādi'' has often been classified as an interjection that conveys the speaker's determination to carry out an act, but is always accompanied by a verb marked with either the ''-kilwāš-'' or ''-rawāš-'' Mirative affixes.  Since ''-rawāš-'' is itself a Mirative that indicates the speaker's determination,  ''sukkādi'' would seem to be an intensifier.  However, this interpretation is problematic as the Mirative affix is obligatory; the absence of the Mirative makes the statement ungrammatical.  Native speakers who are fluent in foreign languages have difficulty explaining the meaning or role of the particle or come up with contradictory answers.  It is interesting that the particle is observed among speakers of high status, so there appears to be sociolinguistic factors involved in its usage, but the exact nature has yet to be determined.
-''Sukkādi'' is a true adjunct: it does not require binding by the ''wa='' clitic; in fact ''wa='' - binding is rather 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:
+''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:
 {{Gloss
@@ Line 2,407: / Line 2,407: @@
 * 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 aknowledgement that the topic of discussion remains unresolved.  This might explain why it is often translated as a conjunction by native speakers:
+* ''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:
 {{Gloss