Minhast: Difference between revisions

Line 1,810:

# To bind evidential and modal particles to a clause, e.g. ''Kaš wassuyyeknapār harran'' >> Kaš wa=suyyekna=pār ha-ar-an'', i.e. ''It is said, dubiously, that he came with good intentions'' (''came with good intentions'' == ''came using a [good] heart'').

# To bind existential particles to clauses for creating transitive clauses with an unknown agent, e.g. ''Matti waħħurkintesnattuš'' >> *Matti wa=ħurk-nten-satt-u=š, i.e. ''There is someone who will hurt you'' (lit: There is a who/something which will hurt you).

# To bind ~~deixis~~ adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Sappu wamminhast kirmennemu'' >> Sappu wa=Minhast kirim-ennem-u ''We speak Minhast here''.

# To bind demonstrative adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Sappu wamminhast kirmennemu'' >> Sappu wa=Minhast kirim-ennem-u ''We speak Minhast here''.

# To form the ''absolute negation'' structure with the negation particle hatā' and the verb of the bound clause in the negative (essentially creating a double negative), e.g. ''Hatā' watteškīkaš'' >> Hatā' wa=ta-eški-ek-an=š, i.e. ''I will absolutely not follow.''

# To bind stranded nominals that arise due to verbal valence operations, especially when these operations would create double Dative (i.e. double indirect objects), which are ungrammatical in Minhast, e.g. ''Nismien wappiyānaran Anyar yakte raħkittekaru >> Nismien wa=piyān=aran Anyar yak=de rak-hitt-ek-ar-u'' → PN.ABS CONN=piano=DAT PN.ABS 1S=ERG BEN.APPL-give-3S.ABS+1S.ERG-PAST-TRANS, i.e. ''I gave on behalf of Anyar a piano to Nismien''. Here, piyan is a direct object, but it is marked with the Dative clitic =aran because it is indefinite4, and Anyar is a derived Absolutive via AF using the Benefactive Applicative affix ''-rak-''. The sentence *Nismien=aran piyān=aran Anyar yak=de rak-hitt-ek-ar-u is ungrammatical

Line 1,821:

# To allow inversion of an Interrogative pronoun/particle to final position, e.g. ''Kalluttaharaš wabbāk?'' >> kallut-tah-ar-an=š wa=bāk? i.e ''You ate what?''

# To provide an alternative to Preposed Wa- constructions in binding evidential and modal particles to their head clause, e.g. ''Suyyeknapār harran wattušmat'' >> Suyyekna=pār ha-ar-an wattušmat'', i.e. ''He (supposedly) came with good intentions, it is said'' (''came with good intentions'' == ''came using a [good] heart'').

# Like Preposed-Wa structures, to bind ~~deixis~~ adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Minhast kirmennemu wassappu'' >> Minhast kirim-ennem-u wa=sappu, i.e. ''We speak Minhast here''.

# Like Preposed-Wa structures, to bind demonstrative adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Minhast kirmennemu wassappu'' >> Minhast kirim-ennem-u wa=sappu, i.e. ''We speak Minhast here''.

Although both the Preposed and Postposed-Wa structures bind adjuncts to clauses, an important determiner for the speaker in selecting which structure to use is the issue of scope. The Preposed-Wa structure has narrow scope, and governs only its adjunct and the clause immediately following it, whereas the Postposed-Wa structure has wide scope, governing not just its adjunct and the clause immediately preceding it; its scope governs all the clauses of a sentence. This difference is why the majority of evidential and modal particles are sentence-final; evidentials and modals are in the majority of cases used to cover the speaker's beliefs and attitudes and trustworthiness of the source, which applies to whole statements, but rarely for just individual segments of a given statement. Another important difference is that the Preposed-Wa structure can be preceded by a verb marked with =mā or other subordinating clitic. This means that the number of Preposed-Wa structures can occur for each and every clause in a sentence. Such is not the case with Postposed-Wa structures; only one Postposed-Wa structure can occur for a given sentence.

@@ Line 1,810: / Line 1,810: @@
 # To bind evidential and modal particles to a clause, e.g. ''Kaš wassuyyeknapār harran'' >>  Kaš wa=suyyekna=pār ha-ar-an'', i.e. ''It is said, dubiously, that he came with good intentions'' (''came with good intentions'' == ''came using a [good] heart'').
 # To bind existential particles to clauses for creating transitive clauses with an unknown agent, e.g. ''Matti waħħurkintesnattuš'' >> *Matti wa=ħurk-nten-satt-u=š, i.e. ''There is someone who will hurt you'' (lit: There is a who/something which will hurt you).
-# To bind deixis adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Sappu wamminhast kirmennemu'' >>  Sappu wa=Minhast kirim-ennem-u ''We speak Minhast here''.
+# To bind demonstrative adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Sappu wamminhast kirmennemu'' >>  Sappu wa=Minhast kirim-ennem-u ''We speak Minhast here''.
 # To form the ''absolute negation'' structure with the negation particle hatā' and the verb of the bound clause in the negative (essentially creating a double negative),  e.g. ''Hatā' watteškīkaš'' >> Hatā' wa=ta-eški-ek-an=š, i.e. ''I will absolutely not follow.''
 # To bind stranded nominals that arise due to verbal valence operations, especially when these operations would create double Dative (i.e. double indirect objects), which are ungrammatical in Minhast, e.g. ''Nismien wappiyānaran Anyar yakte raħkittekaru >> Nismien wa=piyān=aran Anyar yak=de rak-hitt-ek-ar-u'' → PN.ABS CONN=piano=DAT PN.ABS 1S=ERG BEN.APPL-give-3S.ABS+1S.ERG-PAST-TRANS, i.e. ''I gave  on behalf of Anyar a piano to Nismien''.   Here, piyan is a direct object, but it is marked with the Dative clitic =aran because it is indefinite4, and Anyar is a derived Absolutive via AF using the Benefactive Applicative affix ''-rak-''.  The sentence *Nismien=aran piyān=aran Anyar yak=de rak-hitt-ek-ar-u is ungrammatical
@@ Line 1,821: / Line 1,821: @@
 # To allow inversion of an Interrogative pronoun/particle to final position, e.g. ''Kalluttaharaš wabbāk?'' >> kallut-tah-ar-an=š wa=bāk? i.e ''You ate what?''
 # To provide an alternative to Preposed Wa-  constructions in binding evidential and modal particles to their head clause, e.g. ''Suyyeknapār harran wattušmat'' >>  Suyyekna=pār ha-ar-an wattušmat'', i.e. ''He (supposedly) came with good intentions, it is said'' (''came with good intentions'' == ''came using a [good] heart'').
-# Like Preposed-Wa structures, to bind deixis adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Minhast kirmennemu wassappu'' >>  Minhast kirim-ennem-u wa=sappu, i.e. ''We speak Minhast here''.
+# Like Preposed-Wa structures, to bind demonstrative adverbs to their head clause, e.g. ''Minhast kirmennemu wassappu'' >>  Minhast kirim-ennem-u wa=sappu, i.e. ''We speak Minhast here''.
 Although both the Preposed and Postposed-Wa structures bind adjuncts to clauses, an important determiner for the speaker in selecting which structure to use is the issue of scope.  The Preposed-Wa structure has narrow scope, and governs only its adjunct and the clause immediately following it, whereas the Postposed-Wa structure has wide scope, governing not just its adjunct and the clause immediately preceding it; its scope governs all the clauses of a sentence.  This difference is why the majority of evidential and modal particles are sentence-final; evidentials and modals are in the majority of cases used to cover the speaker's beliefs and attitudes and trustworthiness of the source, which applies to whole statements, but rarely for just individual segments of a given statement.  Another important difference is that the Preposed-Wa structure can be preceded by a verb marked with =mā or other subordinating clitic.  This means that the number of Preposed-Wa structures can occur for each and every clause in a sentence.  Such is not the case with Postposed-Wa structures; only one Postposed-Wa structure can occur for a given sentence.