Minhast: Difference between revisions

Line 2,530:

==== Relative ====

Minhast relative clauses use an S/O pivot to link a noun with its antecedent, meaning that an antecedent and its noun must be both in the Absolutive case. Moreover, the boundary between the relative clause and the matrix clause is marked by the clitic ''=(n)aft'' In the following example, ''redad'' (man) is the antecedent of ''kua'' (him) in the matrix clause. Both are in the Absolutive case to indicate they are co-referent with each other. In the first clause, the antecedent is the single core argument (S) of the intransitive verb ''iknatūmanaran'', and the Patient (O) in the matrix clause:

{{Gloss

|phrase = Redad iknatūmanaranaft Annūde sararu.

|phrase = Redad iknatūmanaranaft Annūde kua sararu.

|IPA =

| morphemes = Redad ikna-tūman-ar-an=aft Annu=de sar-ar-u

| morphemes = Redad ikna-tūman-ar-an=aft Annu=de sar-Ø-ar-u

| gloss = man.ABS go-home-PST-INTRANS=NMLZ proper.noun=ERG see-PST-TRANS

| gloss = man.ABS go-home-PST-INTRANS=NMLZ proper.noun=ERG 3S.ABS see-PST-3S.ABS+3S.ERG-TRANS

| translation = Annu saw the man who went home. (lit. "The man who went home Annu saw")

| translation = Annu saw the man who went home. (lit. "The man who went home Annu saw him")

}}

If an antecedent's co-referent noun is a semantic Agent in the matrix clause, the verb in the matrix clause must be Antipassivized in order for the co-referent semantic Agent to be demoted to Absolutive status. This process ensures that the antecedent and its co-referent proform agree in case. The next example shows the verb of the matrix clause undergoing Antipassivation to demote the semantic Agent from Ergative to Absolutive status:

{{Gloss

@@ Line 2,530: / Line 2,530: @@
 ==== Relative ====
+Minhast relative clauses use an S/O pivot to link a noun with its antecedent, meaning that an antecedent and its noun must be both in the Absolutive case.  Moreover, the boundary between the relative clause and the matrix clause is marked by the clitic ''=(n)aft''  In the following example, ''redad'' (man) is the antecedent of ''kua'' (him) in the matrix clause.  Both are in the Absolutive case to indicate they are co-referent with each other.  In the first clause, the antecedent is the single core argument (S) of the intransitive verb ''iknatūmanaran'', and the Patient (O) in the matrix clause:
 {{Gloss
-|phrase = Redad iknatūmanaranaft Annūde sararu.
+|phrase = Redad iknatūmanaranaft Annūde kua sararu.
 |IPA =
-| morphemes =   Redad ikna-tūman-ar-an=aft Annu=de sar-ar-u
+| morphemes =   Redad ikna-tūman-ar-an=aft Annu=de sar-Ø-ar-u
-| gloss = man.ABS go-home-PST-INTRANS=NMLZ proper.noun=ERG see-PST-TRANS
+| gloss = man.ABS go-home-PST-INTRANS=NMLZ proper.noun=ERG 3S.ABS see-PST-3S.ABS+3S.ERG-TRANS
-| translation = Annu saw the man who went home. (lit. "The man who went home Annu saw")
+| translation = Annu saw the man who went home. (lit. "The man who went home Annu saw him")
 }}
+If an antecedent's co-referent noun is a semantic Agent in the matrix clause, the verb in the matrix clause must be Antipassivized in order for the co-referent semantic Agent to be demoted to Absolutive status.  This process ensures that the antecedent and its co-referent proform agree in case.  The next example shows the verb of the matrix clause undergoing Antipassivation to demote the semantic Agent from Ergative to Absolutive status:
 {{Gloss