Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:38, 25 August 2017

Welcome to béu

..... Questions

..

English is quite typical of languages in general and has 8 question words ... "which", "what", "who", "whose", "where", "when", "how" and "why". *

..

béu has nine ...

..

If you hear any of these words you know you are being solicited for some information. These words have no other function apart from asking questions.

..

Notice that there is no word for "how" or "why" in the above table. These are expressed by wé nái and nenji** respectively.

On the other hand, béu has single words where English has "how much" and "what kind of".

..

The first two have dual forms ... nén and mín are the absolutive forms and nós and mís are the ergative forms.

..

Now ʔai? always comes utterance final ... ʔala always comes between two NP's. This leaves 7 QW's. Of these nén mín dá and kyú are fronted***

And láu kái dá and nái **** are found in their respective slots within a NP ...

Note that when questioning who owns something yó mín occurs within the NP ... this is a sort of secondary usuage of mín and is not considered here.

Also note that dá can be either fronted or within a NP. When fronted it asked where the action takes place. When within a NP it asks about the NP's location. For example ...

..

jene-s	halma	dá	hump-o-r-u
Jane- ERG	apple	where	eat-3SG-IND-FUT

=> where is the apple that Jane will eat

A suitable answer to the above is pazbala "on the table"

dá	jene-s	halma	hump-o-r-u
where	Jane- ERG	apple	eat-3SG-IND-FUT

=> where will Jane eat the apple

A suitable answer to the above is pazba?e "at the table"

..

Statement .... bàus glán nori alha = the man gave the woman flowers

Question 1 .... mís glán nori alha = who gave the woman flowers ?

Question 2 .... minin bàus nori alha = the man gave flowers to who ?

Question 3 .... nén bàus glán nori = what did the man give the woman ?

Question 4 ... bàus glán nori láu alha = How many flowers did the man gave the woman ?

Question 5 ... bàus glán nori alha kái = What kind of flowers did the man give the woman ?

Question 6 ... dá bàus glán nori alha = Where did the man give the woman flowers ?

Question 7 ... kyú bàus glán nori alha = When did the man give the woman flowers ?

Question 8 ... í glá nái bàus nori alha = to which woman did the man gave the flowers ?

Question 9 .... há bàu nái glán nori alha = which man gave the woman flowers ?

Question 10 .... bàus glán nori alha ʔala cokolate = Did the man gave the woman flowers or chocolate ?

Question 11 ... ʔír doika ʔala jaŋka = Do you want to walk or run

Question 12 .... bàus glán nori alha ʔai? = Did the man gave the woman flowers ?

Question 13 ... minji bàus glán nori alha = Why did the man give the woman flowers ?

..

*Note ... there was also a "whom" until quite recently. Also some people count "whose" as a separate QW ... however it shouldn't be ... it is just "who" + "z" (the genitive clitic).

**Well nenji is the normal traslation of "why". In certain situations you might hear minji ... when it is knows that an action/state is for somebody's benefit and no other reason is applicable.

***Around one third of the world's languages front a question word. English is one of them. [ see http://wals.info/feature/93A#2/25.5/151.2 ]

****Actually these 4 words often stand alone. But when they do, they are still considered within a NP ... only that the rest of the NP has been dropped.

..

In the table of question words above I have marked the top two and the bottom two off. The top two because they are the QW's par excellence ... they are used more than the other QW's. The bottem two because their answers are restricted to two items. ?a is restricted to "yes" or "no" ... ?ala to one of the NP's that sandwich it.

láu kái dá kyú and nái each have low tone equivalents. These particles are important grammatical words in their own right and they each are related to their high tone equivalent in subtle ways. Basically làu introduces the "partitive construction" , kài means "like" or "similar", dà introduces an adverbial phrase of location, kyù introduces an adverbial phrase of time, and, nài is a "relativizor".

... nài

..

In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...

"The man who ate the chicken"

"The chicken that was eaten"

"The knife and fork which were used to eat the chicken"

..

In béu there is only one relativizer, which is nài. For example ...

glá nài bàu timpori = "The woman who the man hit"

Now ... in the above ... glá is being modified by nài bàu timpori. nài bàu timpori implies a clause bàu timpori glà.

To construct a relative clause for glá, nài is inserted between the noun and clause, and the noun is dropped from the clause.

Now in the above example ... the roll of glá in the clause is absolutive (i.e. glá is unmarked). However if the roll of the noun ... in the clause ... is one defined by one of the 17 pilamo, this pilamo must be suffixed to nài. For example ...

..

pi ... the basket naipi the cat shat was cleaned by John.

la ... the chair naila you are sitting was built by my grandfather.

... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...

tu ... báu naitu ò is going to market is her husband = the man with which she is going to town is her husband ... kli.o naitu he severed the branch is rusty

ji ... The old woman naiji I deliver the newspaper, has died.

-s ... báu nàis timpori glá_rò jutu sowe = The man that hit the woman is very big.

wo ... The boy naiwo they are all talking, has gone to New Zealand.

-n ... the woman nàin I told the secret, took it to her grave.

fi ... the town naifi she has come is the biggest south of the mountain.

?e ... nambo naiʔe she lives is the biggest in town = the house in which she lives is the biggest in town

-lya ... the boat nailya she has just entered is unsound

-lfe ... the lilly pad nailfe the frog jumped was the biggest in the pond ... (note to self : improve this, work out translation for all these concepts)

..

If the roll of the noun (in the clause) is one not specificated by the 17 pilamo then the noun can not be dropped entirely, it must be represented by a pronoun. For example ...

gwài	nài	polg-u-r-a	ala	ʃì
the islands	REL	sail-1PL-IND-PRES	between	them

Literally "the islands that we are sailing between them" ... or ... in good English ... "the islands that we are sailing between"

gawa	nài	toti-s	lent-o-r-e	tài	nù
the women	REL	children-ERG	play-3SG-IND-PAST	in front of	them

Literally "the women that the children played in front of them" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of"

..

há	gawa	nài	toto-s	lent-o-r-e	tài	nù	waulo	dainuru
ERG	the women	REL	children-ERG	play-3SG-IND-PAST	in front of	them	dog	kill-3PL-IND-FUT

Literally "the women that the children played in front of them, will kill the dog" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of will kill the dog"

..

In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. béu has this also ...

nài bwair rò nài mair = "what you see is what you get"

nàis bwor rò nàis mair = "that which sees is that which gets"

ò nàis bwor rò ò nàis mor = 'he that sees is he that gets" ... [this one not headless of course ... a pronoun has been added to narrow down what exactly we are talking about]

..

... kyù

..

kyù = when

toili gìn naru kyù twairu = I will give you the book when we meet ............................ kyù twairu can be considered an adverb of time.

..

... dà

..

dà = where

pà twahu dà yildos twaire = meet me where we met in the morning ........................ dà yildos twaire can be considered an adverb of place.

..

... kài

..

kài = as, like

jono	r	kài	dada	ò
john	is	like/as	older brother}	his

=> John is like his older brother .................................................................... in this example kài and what follows can be considerd an adjective.

jono	r	kài	dada
john	is	like/as	older brother}

=> John is like my older brother .................................................................... in this example kài and what follows can be considerd an adjective.

...

jono-s	klud-o-r	kài	tomo-s	klud-o-r
john-ERG	writes-3SG-IND	like/as	thomas-ERG	writes-3SG-IND

=> John writes like Thomas writes ........................................................ in the following examples kài and what follows can be considerd an adverb of manner.

jono-s	klud-o-r	kài	tomo-s
john-ERG	writes-3SG-IND	like/as	thomas-ERG

=> John writes like Thomas ...........................................Note ... the final verb has been dropped but Thomas keeps the ergative marking.

jono-s	huz-o-r	kài	kulumo
john-ERG	smoke-3SG-IND	like/as	chimney

=> John smokes like a chimney

taud-o-r-a	kài	hunwu	tú	húa	gayana
to be annoyed-3SG-IND-PRES	like/as	bear	with	head	aching

=> he/she is annoyed like a bear with a headache

(Note to self .... is gayana still valid)

bù	?oim-o-r-a	kài	fiʒi	mù	moze
not	to be happy-3SG-IND-PRES	like/as	fish	out	water

=> he/she is unhappy like a fish out of water

gì	r	gombuʒi	kài	jono
you	are	argumentative	like/as	John

=> you are argumentative like John .............................. i.e. in the same manner ... for example ... shouting over other people when they try and put forward their arguments

Note ... the wide variety of things being compared ... clause to clause : clause to noun : noun to noun

..

... làu

..

Question ... ò r láu bòi "how good is he ?"

Answer .... ò r làu bòi jonowo "he is as good as John"

làu means "to such an extent or degree" and is used in front of adjectives. The below are all single clauses.

..

jono r làu bòi jenewo = "john is as good as jane"

tomo r làu fat _ plùa bù blòr doika = "thomas is so fat that he can not walk"

??? Mmmmh ... as a conjunction plùa has been superceded by badas ... badas not appropriate here .... neither is gò ???

The way to do it is ... tomo r fat làu bù blòr doika

But this would imply ...

jono r bòi làu jene = "john is as good as jane"

ʔazwo pona làu hói hoŋko = two cups of hot milk

..

There are three main usages for this particle. The three examples above demonstrate these three usages. ..

..

Note ... all the above should be actually two clauses but because of truncation ... [ a chimney ] <= [ a chimney smokes ] ... [ before ] <= [ she used deceit before ] ... [ John ] <= [ John is argumentative ] ... [ agreed ] <= [ all parties agreed ] ... [ John ] <= [ John is ] ... these constructions often appear as if only a NP follows kài.

Usually for particles that can either be followed by a NP or a clause, I add gò after the particle when a clause follows. This is to prevent errors in comprehention. For example jì means "for" and is followed by a NP (usually a person). I have jì gò meaning "in order that" ... jì gò being followed by a clause. In béu the first word of a clause is often a noun. If I had jì meaning "in order that" there might be misunderstanding (albeit temporary). English does this also in many constructions [ I should go into this more fully ??? ]. Of course I could have a totally different particle for "in order that" but I wanted to emphasis the semantic overlap between these to constructions.

But there is no chance of misunderstanding when kài is heard ... it is always followed by a clause. Even in (5) what we have is a clause. The clause is jono r (with the r dropped). Actually kài means "in the manner or roll specified" ... the last bit added to include cases like (5).

..

Note ... kài can not be followed by an adjective.

There are 5 nouns that are associated with 5 of these above question word / indefinite pairs. làus = amount, quantity : kàin = kind, sort, type : dàs = place : kyùs accasion, time : sàin = reason, cause, origin

These 5 nouns are never followed by nài. The table below is interesting. It shows the logical equivalence of a hypothetical expession (on the LHS) and the logical equivalent actually used (on the RHS).

..

*làus nài => làu

*kàin nài => kài

*dàs nài => dà

*kyùs nài => kyù

*sàin nài => sài

..

There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs. laubo meaning "enough" and kaibo meaning "suitable".

Also there are two nouns associated with these question word / particle pairs. lauja meaning "level" and kaija meaning "species/model".

sài

..

sài = because of

dari solbe sài ò = I started to drink because of her .................................................. sài ò can be considered an adverb of reason.

Note ... sài means "because of" ... sài gò means "because"

..

To say something like "john is as good at writing as jane" you have to use ʔà (or ʔàbis) ... see the next section.

..

Note that 3) and 8) do not mean the same thing ... kài defines a multi-characteristic concept (thing or action) while làu specifies position* on a uni-characteristic scale. [* or "degree" or "amount"]. So làu introduces only a quantity and kài intruduces a quality or manner.

..

I find the above table interesting. It is skewed ... OK pí wé nài ("in the manner that") can be used but it hardly ever is. Usually kài = "in the manner that". Why is it skewed ? My answer is ...

"For everyone the most important things around them are other people. And the most important "attribute" of a person is "how" they behave."

Hence kài has supplanted pí wé nài.

Also notice that any adjective outwith a NP has to be introduced by the copula, hence sàu kài instead of simply kài.

..

Note ... nù r làu jutu saduwo and nù r jutu kài sadu do not mean the same thing ... nù r làu jutu saduwo would be said when you have one specific sadu "elephant" in mind.

So nù r làu jutu saduwo => "they're as big as the elephant" ... nù r jutu kài sadu would be said when you are talking about elephants in general. So => "they're as big as elephants"

..

Good, Better, Best

..

làu is part of a larger paradigm ... the comparative paradigm ... demonstrating with the help of bòi ("good") ...

..

>>>	boimo	best
>	boige	better
=	làu bòi	as good
<	boizo	less good
<<<	boizmo	least good

..

The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".

The fourth one down is used less frequently than the second one down. This is because its sentiment is sometimes expressed by negating the third one down. For example ...

gì bù r làu bòi pawo = "you're not as good as me" can be used instead of gì r boizo pawo "you are less good than me"

[ actually gì r boizo pawo would be the normal way to express this sentiment. But gì bù r làu bòi pawo would be used, for example, as a retort to "I'm as good as you" ]

The superlative forms are found as nouns more often than as adjectives. That is boimo and boizmo are rarer than boimos and boizmos. (see table below)

..

boimos = the best : bàu boimo = the best man

boizmos = the least good : bàu boizmo = the least good man

..

[ you are argumentative like John but you are even worse ] ... explain this more

... ?ài

..

The same or not the same

..

ʔài = "same"

bù ʔài = "different"

Note ... for "the other", NP before the verb : for "another", NP after the verb)

1a) jono lé jene sùr ʔài bèn = "John and Jane are the same" ... logically the bèn is unnecessary, but it is often included ... euphony.

1b) jono r ʔài jenewo = "John is the same as Jane"

The above two examples are ambiguous as to whether John and Jane are the same w.r.t. one characteristic or the same w.r.t. all characteristic.

2a) jono lé jene r ʔài jutuwo = "John and Jane are the same size"

2b) *jono r ʔài jenewo jutuwo = "John is the same as Jane, sizewise" = "John is the same size as Jane"

The above is not allowed ... there is a rule saying that you can't have two consecutive -wo endings. So 2b) has to be re-assembled as ...

jono r làu jutu jenewo .... see Ch2.11.1

[Note jutuwo is derived from jutumiwo but the mi "ness" is invariably dropped.

ʔàibis = similar

ʔài dù = exactly the same

ʔaimai = similarity

lomai = difference

To say something like "John is as good at writing as Jane" we can not say *jono r làu bòi jenewo kludauwo [ ??? ] [ two consecutive -wo no good ? ]

You must use a sort of topic comment construction.

wo kludau bòi_jene r ʔài jonowo or wo kludau bòi_jene lé jono r ʔài

..

..... Totality ... collectively or individually

..

Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.

For this we use the particle ú before the plural of the noun. For example ...

moltai = a/the doctor

moltai.a = doctors

ú moltai = all doctors

Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...

falaja ú = all morning

..

The opposite of the above, is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.

By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.

Some examples ...

kòi = day

kòi kòi = every day

moltai = doctor

moltai moltai = each doctor

falaja = afternoon

fa-falaja = every afternoon

Notice that for words over two syllables, only the first syllable is prefixed.

..

The "word-hood" of these duplications is murky. When the word in its entirety is dublicated, they are written as to seperate words. When a word is only partially duplicated I write it as a hyphenated word. In the béu script a special symbol is used to indicate duplication.

Single syllable words retain their tone when duplicated ... which indicates two separate words. However you also get phonological processes that are usually only word internal. That is to say, these structures show "sandhi".

For example ...

yildos yildos (every morning) would be pronounced / jildoʃ jildos /.

bàu bàu can be pronounced bàu vàu ... [ If you remember ( Chapter 1.1) b and v are in free variation ]

là bàu bàu = "on every man" .... indicates that bàu bàu is multi-word as the pilana is in its stand alone form.

Anyway ... these constructions are never written out in full. Instead a special symbol is placed above the simple noun. This symbol can vary a bit, depending on the font being used : it can vary from a lower half circle bisected by a vertical stroke to a shape that looks a bit like the Arabic shaddah.

For example ...

..

It some contexts, semantically, it does not matter whether the individual or the collective form is used. When this is the case, the default choice is "individual" structure. ú tends to be used with tangible nouns more, it is hardly ever used with nouns denoting periods of time.

Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...

ú bàu súr = all men are

bàu bàu sór = every man is

NOTE TO MYSELF

Every language has a word corresponding to "every" (or "each", same same) and a word corresponding to "all". "all" emphasises the unity of the action (especially when the NP is S or A) while "every" emphasises the separateness of the actions. Now it is not always necessary to make this distinction (perhaps in most cases). It seems to me, that in that case, English uses "every" as the default case (the Scandinavian languages use "all" as the default ??? ). In béu the default is "all" ù.

The meaning of this word (in English anyway) seems particularly prone to picking up other elements (for the sake of emphasis) with a corresponding lost of power for the basic word when it occurs alone. (From Etymonline EVERY = early 13c., contraction of Old English æfre ælc "each of a group," literally "ever each" (Chaucer's everich), from each with ever added for emphasis. The word still is felt to want emphasis; as in Modern English every last ..., every single ..., etc.)----

TO THINK ABOUT

?à ?à bàu hù ?ís = any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )

?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís = any men that you want

?ài bàu = some men

..

..... lé .... lú .... ló

..

Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.

However this is only true when the words have no pilana affixed to them. If you have two contiguous nouns suffixed by the same pilana then they are both considered to contribute equally to the sentence roll specified. For example ...

jonos jenes solbur moze = "John and Jane drink water"

In the absence of an affixed pilana, to show that two nouns contribute equally to a sentence (instead of the second one qualifying the first) the particle lé should be placed between them. For example ...

jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo = "Jane drank water and milk"

jonos jenes bwuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusʔa = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.

[ Compare the above two examples to á jono jene solbori moze = Jane's John drank water ... i.e. The John that is in a relationship with Jane, drank water ]

This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...

..

Note ... in the béu script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.

..

The following construction is also found.

lé moze lé ʔazwo = "both water and milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lé

Another linking word is lú meaning "or".

jenes blor solbe moze lú ʔazwo = "Jane can drink water or milk"

The following construction is also found.

lú moze lú ʔazwo = "either water or milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lú

There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is ʔala and it is a question word. For example ...

ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo = "would you want water or milk"

And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"

Say you were asking somebody if they were thirsty and you had only water or milk to give them. Then you would say ... ʔís moze lú ʔazwo ʔai@

The expected answer to the above question would be either "yes" or "no" (as is always the case when you have @ ( @ is pronouced a bit like ʔai but has contour tone instead of a normal high tone, it has a special symbol and I am using "@" to represent this symbol in my transliteration)).

Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...

ʔís mose ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume

But sometimes (either because of the laziness of the speaker or because the likelyhood was not considered) ... ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume comes out as ʔís moʒi ʔala ʔazwo.

So ʔís leume (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo

If the questioner would like to rule out the answer ʔís leume he would use the construction .

ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo

So ʔala before the first item does exactly the same as lé or lú before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.

..

... "no"

..

In béu, jù corresponds to "no".

"neither water nor milk" would be translated as jù moʒi jù ʔazwo

..

... lists

..

So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...

..

lé	giving	2	items
lú	giving	1	item	.....	ʔala	asking for	1	item
jù	giving	0	items

..

However we can join up more than two items. When more than two items are joined by the above 4 linking words, it is considered good style to have the linking word before the first item and the last item, before each item (except the first and the last) should be a slight pause (I call it a gap ... see "punctuation and page layout" earlier on this page).

For example ...

jenes bwori lé ifa sadu _ uba ʔusʔa _ ega moŋgo lé oda gaifai falaja dí = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.

..

... other

..

ló = other

lói = others

kyulo = again

welo = otherwise

..

..... Another passive

..

We have seen the impersonal passive above (where the vowel before the r becomes a schwa.

However there is another passive form made with the verb jwòi "to undergo" plus the infinitive.

bwari jono katala lazde = I saw John cutting the grass ....................... katala lazde is a saidau kaza ..... katala is a saidau baga

bwari lazde jwola kata = I saw the grass being cut ............................. jwola kata is a saidau kaza

bwari lazde jwola kata hí jono = I saw the grass being cut by John .... jwola kata hí jono is a saidau kaza

Note ... although the là suffix is probably connected to the second pilamo it should be recognized as a separate siffix here. If it was the pilamo we would have ... bwari lazde là jwòi kata

bwari lazde kataya = I saw the grass that has been cut

bwari lazde katawa = I saw grass that must be cut = I saw that the grass must be cut

lazde katawa bwari = I saw the grass that must be cut

bwari lazde nài r katawa

..

..... Making it flow

..

Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits.

Getting rid of the lumps entails dropping the elements that are already known ... these elements that are already uppermost in the mind. (De-lumping also involves inserting words that efficiently link to these elements that are already uppermost in the mind ... sometimes known as "anaphora". This aspect of de-lumping will be covered in the following section).

..

... Dropping

..

This section is about dropping known elements ... both arguments and person-tense markers.

A sentence [utterance = ???] is made up of one or more clauses [r-blocks]. Two r-blocks are separated by è or another particle. é is the most common particle for joining clauses and means "and then".

In béu the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is lé

In English "he eats cheese and nuts" could be analyzed as "he eats cheese and (he eats) nuts" with the bracketed part dropped. In béu this analysis is not available. The particle between the two nouns would be lé (ar perhaps if the speaker had added "nuts" on as an afterthought ... uwe "also" would come after "nuts" (a pause before) ). The particlle è would not be used. It only separated two clauses that have dissimilar verbs.

Now in English allows the dropping of an S or A argument in a sentence when this argument has already been established as the topic. béu is pretty much the same. When two clauses are joined certain arguments are dropped from the second clause. The béu rules for dropping arguments are not atypical of the worlds languages*. The rules are given below.

..

In the above "C1" stands for "the first clause" and "C2" stands for "the second clause". And also in béu it is possible to integrate the two clauses further ... if the two claues share a subject and all the tense/aspect/evidential of the two verbs match, then the second verb can take its i-form (and as the definition of a béu clause is "one r-block" ... the result should be considered ONE clause. The dropping of the subject in the second clause is more or less mandatory, it would sound quite strange to retain it. As for conflating the two verbs ... well it depends how tightly bound logically the two verbs are ...

..

Two examples are given above. The choice between conflated and not conflated depends upon the larger body of text that these examples are embedded in. But the relative likelyhood of conflation (over all situations) is given above. It can be seen that the more predictable second verb has a greater chance of being converted into its i-form. This makes sense as more unpredictable => more information. And we do not like to put to much information in one clause.

Examples are given below ...

1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]

2) The man awoke and then [the man] ate his breakfast. [ this would usually be conflated ]

3) The man drank all the beer and then [the man] slept. [ this would usually be conflated ]

4) The man coughed and then [the man] went to sleep. [ maybe two clauses ... no real logical tie between the two verbs ]

5) The man hit the woman and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??

6) The man woke up and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??

7) The man hit the woman. Then the woman shot the man.

8) The man hit the woman. Then the woman cried.

9) The thief robbed the girl. Then the pirate raped her.

Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the dropped arguments are counted as S arguments. In béu they are considered O arguments.

Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the A argument can be supplied in a hí phrase (similarly, in English the agent can be supplied by a "by" phrase)

Dropping arguments is appropriate when the to clauses are bound together in meaning (and when bound together in meaning, by iconicity, usually on the same tone contour).

The last three cases which could not drop any arguments, are felt to be, not so tightly bound together. It is no co-incidence, that these clause pairs are often given separate tone contours ... that is ... they are separate sentences.

..

... Linking back

..

A good example of a word that links back is badas "afterwards"*. It is derived from bada "after" plus the adverbial suffix -s.

Normally when you join to clauses the linking particle is è "and then". However if the second clause is an afterthought that comes after you have stopped speaking, you must use badas. This word is an adverb (has scope over the whole clause) and means "after" ... but after what ? The answer is the action already described in the first clause ... this information is still uppermost in everybody's mind and still very accessable. Alternatively there can be no first clause ... badas can appear after a long period of silence. In this case "the after what" refers to some action that is uppermost in everybody's mind although not recently spoken about**.

In a similar manner the adverb jés "meanwhile" is derived from the particle jé "at" (timewise).

badas = afterwords ... after that

kacas = beforehand ... before that

jés = meanwhile ... at that time

jé used before "hour numbers"

DAY TEN = the tenth day = 7 minutes into the day => jé always precedes the "hour numbers" (well if the name of the day kika exists it can be dropped)

falaja = afternoon : falajas = in the afternoon/every afternoon .... (jé) falaja = in the afternoon

yildos = morning : yildozas = in the morning/every morning ....... (jé) falaja = in the afternoon

jana (swahili) = yesterday : kojana = the day before yesterday :

kuzaza (zulu) = tomorrow : bezaza the day after tomorrow :

sabata (chewa) = month ... 73 day period

"longtime" súa / short-time gìa

he will do it ...... python (128) ?oli (5) kika (73) "hour number" ...... omba komo(the past)/bene(the future) "omba number" python (128) ?oli (5) kika (73) "hour number"

he did it .......... komo(the past)/bene(the future)

omba = ring = cycle = circle

....................................................................................

jefias = since then ....... since < sið ðan [after that]

jenas = until then ...... until < (up to)/(as far as) x 2

*In English(well in my variety of English anyway, some from North East USA find (3) unacceptable and (1) marginal), there are three ways to that this anaphorical operation can happen.

(1) “John came. Afterwards Mary came” (2) “John came. After that Mary came” (3) “John came. After, Mary came”

In béu only construction (1) is acceptable ... i.e. with badas

**For example ... say you are a painter and decorator working with your helper at some sight. Now you both know that the next task will take around 15 minutes and it is a two man job. Your helper says he is gasping for a cigarette. To put him off for a bit, you can simply say badas

..

Now the five particles talked about in the previous section must always be followed by something appropriate. If they are not, they must change their form.

..

OK let us discuss this usage a bit. In English it is possible to say "We will do the paperwork after". Now the interlocarors must have some task (or tasks) in mind which they are going to do before the paperwork. In English this task is simply dropped ... it is part of the background. However in béu the particles feel wrong if they do not have appropriate words following, so the longer version is used.

Anaphor .... things whizzing around .... "mindwhiz" .... dropping and anaphora

It might be felt that the suffix is referring back some action that was mentioned before.

bada = after ...... badas = afterwards

kaca = before ... kacas = beforehand

ò is used to represent an person, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.

ʃì is used to represent an object, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.

só is used to represent an scenario, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.

The above would be used in such sentences as ... "She acquiesced to return to Crosby's hotel room ... which was a very bad idea".

jé = at that time ......... jés = meanwhile

jefi = since ................ jefis = since then

jén = until ................. jenas = until then

English is quite permissive as to what can be used for anaphora.

"That is good" or "This is good" can be about a situation [ they can also be about an object mentioned before as well ]

In béu "That is good" or "This is good" (when talking about a situation) => án rò bòi

"That is good" or "This is good" or "It is good" (when talking about an object) => dò r bòi

??? "it is good that he is coming back" .... "that he is coming back is good" is too front heavy .... What can béu use for "it" ?????? just miss it out "is good that ..... " ???

..

Four (five with nai.an ?) other particles also take -an. They are ...

lau.an	to that degree
kai.an	like that
we.an	thus, so, in that way
sai.an	for that reason

English uses that for anaphora in the above 4 examples.

All these words are overwhelmingly/always ? utterance final.

..

..... Ways to join clauses

..

Another particle used for combining clauses is tè "but". This is used when C2 is "contrary to expectation".

??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in béu' we use u?u ???

There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as tè.

?? Well this is the more neutral particle (the particle plí can also be used ??

??? sé dù/è dù : these mean that action B follows on immediately from action A.

??? sé kyude/è kyude : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes sé è are dropped.

??? kyugo : this means that action A and B happen at the same time. Usually we have different actors in the two clauses, but not always.

..

*There are other possible rules though. RMW Dixon uncovered the very interesting Dyirbal system.

..

pleulas and then

unya

badas afterwards

jį gò

ji?is ..

huzu = to smoke

koʔia = to cough

solbe = to drink

caume = medicine

Joining clauses timewise

..

In béu the particle used for tying two nouns together and the particle used for tying two verbs (and consequently clauses) together are different. For example ...

jonos solbor ʔazwo lé moze = John drinks milk and water

As opposed to ...

jenes flora gò solbora = Jane is eating and drinking

jenes flora gò jonos solbora = Jane is eating and John is drinking

For adjectives ... gò is used for copula complements ...

ò r jini gò yubau = He is clever and strong

But for noun attributes ... simple junxtapositioning is used ...

bàu gèu tiji = the little green man

If you are interested in the above ... then the following webpage will also be of interest ... http://wals.info/chapter/64

..

1) The default conjunction is gò. Semantically gò is neutral. It has no implications of time but I list it here as it is involved in the derivation of conjunctions 5 and 6.

Actually if you were telling a story then the interclause particle gò would be interpreted as "and then" or "then". But this sort of "consequential" meaning can be thought of as derived from the linear narrative as opposed to the particle.

The following 5 particles join two clauses and define a certain time relationship between them.

..

If you wanted to emphasize that the unmarked action came before the marked action you would use ...

2) tàin = before .... [ tàin < tài "in front of" ]

pazba saikaru tàin pintu (saikaru) = "I will paint the table before (I will paint) the door"

*tàin pintu saikaru_pazba saikaru = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table" ... this construction is not allowed

tàin saiko pintu_pás pazba saikaru = "before painting the door, I will paint the table"

=> :

..

If you wanted to emphasize that the unmarked action came after the marked action you would use ...

3) jáus = after .... [ jáus < jáu "behind" ]

pintu saikaru jáus pazba (saikaru) = "I will paint the door after (I will paint) the table"

*jáus pazba saikaru_pintu saikaru = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table" ... this construction is not allowed

jáus saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"

..

If you wanted to emphasize the simultaneousness of the two actions you would use ...

4) ʔéu = while, as .... [ ʔéu < ʔé "at" ]

pás pintu saikaru ʔéu gís pazba saikiru = "I will paint the door, while you paint the table"

*ʔéu gís pazba saikiru_pás pintu saikaru = "while you paint the table, I will paint the door" ... this construction is not allowed

ʔéu saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "while painting the table, you smoked"

..

If you wanted to emphasize that the first action will continue until the second action you would use ...

5) igo = until .... [ igo < í + gò ]

gís huʒiri igo dare saiko pazba = "you smoked until I started to paint the table"

*igo dare saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "until I started to paint the table, you smoked" ... this construction is not allowed

igo día saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "until starting to paint the table, you smoked"

..

If you wanted to emphasize that the first action has been continuing all the time since the second action you would use ...

6) figo = since .... [ igo < fì + gò ]

gís ʔès huʒira figo care saiko pazba = "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"

gí-s	ʔès	huʒ-i-r-a	figo	c-a-r-e	saiko	pazba
you-ERG	already	smoke-2S-IND-PRES	since	stop-1S-IND-PAST	painting	table

==> "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"

*figo care saiko pazba_gís huʒira = "since I stopped painting the table you have smoked" ... this construction is not allowed

figo cùa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira = "since stopping painting the table, you have smoked" ... [By the way ... figo ìa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira = "since finishing painting the table, you have smoked" ]

Notes on grammar .... If you have two clauses, the particle must come between them : the element containing only infinitives (for example ... figo ìa saiko pazba) is not a clause. I call it a "clause adjunct" or "adverbial phrase" [I should pick one term] : for the examples above containing a clause adjunct, note that only the main clause has a subject : notice that what is marked by the perfect in English is marked by ʔès "already" in béu. In English the perfect has 3 functions ... the resultative, the experiential and the so called universal which indicates that activity has been going on for sometime and still is. In béu the perfect marker was derived from a verb meaning "finish" ... a marker derived from this source can scarcely be expected to have this "universal" function.

Also note ... cùa jì gò saiko pazba = "to leave in order to paint the table" ... In English you can drop "in order" to get "to leave to paint the table". In béu this would result in "to stop painting the table" ... never leave out jì gò.

Usually this type of clause adjunct does not express a subject ... but sometimes it can ... the subject is places after the word sàin "reason, cause, origin" and sàin comes after the object (if there is one) and the object comes after maŋga. The only element allowed to the left of maŋga is the negative jù. For example ....

timpa jene sàin jono r kéu = John's hitting of Jane was bad .... [maybe hí is better than sàin ???]

Adverbial Phrases

..

To show where an action takes place, béu places ?é before the "where" (of course ?e is appended to the "where" if it is a single word).

In a similar manner, to show when an action takes place, béu places jé before the "when" (this word is not a pilana and hence is never appended to anything). For example ...

..

garu jé geufa = I will do it on the seventh

..

g-a-r-u	jé	geufa
do-1SG-IND-FUT	on	the seventh day of the month

..

jene dore jé ajai = Jane arrived at eight in the morning

..

jene	d-o-r-e	jé	ajai
Jane	arrive-2SG-IND-PST	at	08:00

...

As well as defining "when" absolutely using these special time adverbs, it can be defined relative to some other "action". When this happens the phrase describing this other action is equivalent to a time adverb ... called a time adverb phrase. A time adverb phrase is a dependent clause (called an under clause in béu). It is shown in red in the diagram below. The main clause is shown in yellow.

..

There are five particles used to introduce these time adverb phrases. Each of these particles defines a different time relationship between the main action and the under action.

Note ... Both the main action and the under action can vary considerably in length. In the above diagrams I give what I consider typical time lengths.

Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...

jefi jono joru_ufan rù bòi = After John goes, everything will be fine

The literal translation of the above is "since John will go, everything will be good" ... In English "since" has taken on a second meaning*. In béu, jefi has no such secondary meaning and it is perfectly to use jefi with a clause set in the future. [In the chart I specify a NOW ... this is really to signify the situation for typical usuage of the English word. The NOW is not relevant to the béu usuage]

..

*GIVE THAT EXAMPLE FROM DEUTSCHER'S BOOK.

..

The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...

jono liga ko?ori jén ós solbori moze = John was coughing until he drank some water ..... ko?ia = to cough

Now the above can be recast ...

John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => jono liga ko?ori jén solbe moze hí ò

This can be futher cut ...

John was coughing until the drinking of water => jono liga ko?ori jén solbe moze

And further cut ...

John was coughing until drinking => jono liga ko?ori solben .... Not *jono liga ko?ori jén solbe

When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -n instead of the particle jén

In a similar way, when the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -fi instead of the particle jefi. For example ...

John has been coughing since he smoked a cigarette => jono ko?ora jefi ós huzore ʃigita ... huzu = to smoke, to suck

John has been coughing since smoking => jono ko?ora huzufi .... Not *jono ko?ora jefi huzu

..

For kaze and bago, when the time between the two events are stated ... it comes immediately after kaze or bago. For example ...

kaze odai yanfa jene fori = After five minutes Jane left (is féu Ø or H ?) .... [ yanfa = 5 seconds, odai = 50₁₂ = 60₁₀ ... so the translation is 100% accurate ]

..

Joining clauses otherwise

..

7) jì gò = "in order that" "so" "so that"

It shows that the first action was done in order to bring about the second action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.

jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós ò klór = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.

The second clause is the <purpose> of the first clause .... jonos jenen toili nori is a clause : ós ò klór is a clause : jì gò ós ò klór is an adverbial adjunct

The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the gò jì makes the second verb sort of irrealis.

..

Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... jì "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.

If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct, and the particle jì is used.

toili mapari jì kludau ʃila = I opened the book in order to write in it

tarye dían jì twá gì = I came here (in order) to meet you

Occasionally you can have this construction where the object of the first clause is the subject of the second clause ...

pà babas gaidoryə dían twá gì = My father brought me here to meet you

From the underlying semantics of the above, it is pretty obvious that "the father" was not intent in "meeting you"

[ Note to self ..... In English "in order to" is only used with same subject constructions .... interesting ]

..

8) plùa = "therefore" "so" "hence"

It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.

ò klár plùa òn nari toili = I like her so I gave her a book

The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction

..

9) sài gò = "because" "as" "since"

It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.

jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili = Jane likes John because he gave her a book

The second clause is the <reason> for the first clause .... jenes jono klór is a clause : òn nori toili is a clause : sài gò òn nori toili is a adverbial adjunct

..

Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... sài "because of" would be the particle used.

..

10) dà = where

pà twá dà twaire yildos = meet me where we met in the morning

pà twá is a clause ... twaire yildos is a clause ... dà twaire yildos is an adverbial adjuct .... "adjunct" is something that can be added to a clause

..

11) kyù = when

kyù twaru jene òn fyaru = When I see Jane I will tell her.

12) tà = if (hypothetical)

13) ʔáu gò = if (counterfactual) ... maybe equivalent to "suppose, imagine, assume".

Actually the above 3 form a sort of continuum as regard to the likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring. We could say ...

kyù covers the likelihood range of 100 % => 90 % : tà from 90 % => 10 % : ʔáu gò 10 % => zilch

All three are used with pretty much the same frequency in béu.

Actually the context determines to a large extent likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring in English (and in most languages). For example ... "when pigs can fly"

..

Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.

"If it rained tomorrow, people would dance in the street." .... notice that the conditional clause has a past tense verb, but is actually talking about the weather

"If it had rained yesterday, people would have dance in the street." .... and to get a counterfactual "past tense meaning", we actually have to use the past perfect form.

..

14) jindu = as soon as

15) tè gò = unless .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use gò to separate the clauses : should they use plùa to separate the clauses ???) ..

16) dó = "although" "though" "even if"

This conjunction introducing a clause denoting a circumstance that might be expected to preclude the action of the main clause, but does not. It has a more emphatic variation .... ?emodo

Notice that dó and plàu are related. Any pair of clauses joined by plàu can be transformed into a pair of clauses joined by dó ...

a) negating the first clause

b) swapping the clause positions

c) get rid of plùa and insert dó between the clauses.

He is tall so he is good at baskerball

He is good at basket ball although he is short

..

17) kài = "as", "like", "the way"

kài is sufficient for joining clause (kài gò is never seen). If you look back on the chart at Ch2.11.1 you see that kài is an introductory particle indicating "manner". Manner means some action and action means a clause.

"I was never allowed to do things as I wanted to do them"

..

..... Word building

..

Many words in béu are constructed from amalgamating two basic words. The constructed word is non-basic semantically ... maybe one of the concepts needed for a particular field of study.

..

In béu when 2 nouns are come together the second noun qualifies the first. For example ...

toili nandau (literally "book" "word") ... the thing being talk about is "book" and "word" is an attribute of "book".

Now the person who first thought of the idea of compiling a list of words along with their meaning would have called this idea toili nandau.

However over the years as the concept toili nandau became more and more common, toili nandau would have morphed into nandəli.

Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.

There are 4 steps in this word building process ...

1) Swap positions : toili nandau => nandau toili

2) Delete syllable : nandau toili => nandau li

3) Vowel becomes schwa : nandau li => nandə li

4) Merge the components : nandə li => nandəli

..

The above example is for 2 non-monosyllabic words. In the vast majority of constructed words the contributing words are polysyllables.

The process is slightly different when a contributing word is a monosyllabic. First we look at the case when the main word is a monosyllable ...

wé deuta (literally "manner soldier")

1) Swap positions : wé deuta => *deuta wé ........ there is no step 2

3) Vowel becomes schwa : *deuta wé => *deutɘ wé

4) Merge the components : *deutə wé => deutəwe

..

And the case when the attribute is a monosyllable ...

nandau sài (literally "word colour")

1) Swap positions : *sài nandau

2) Delete syllable : *sài dau .......................................... there is no step 3

4) Merge the components : *sài dau => saidau

..

And another case when the attribute is a monosyllable ...

ifan kwò (literally "double wheel")

Note .. the head is the notion of "duality", Also kwò "wheel" is related to "kwèu "to turn"

1) Swap positions : *kwò ifan

2) Delete syllable : *kwò fan .......................................... there is no step 3

4) Merge the components : *kwò fan => kwofan

..

And the case when the attribute ends in a consonant ...

megau peugan ... "body of knowledge" "society"

1) Swap positions : *peugan megau

2) Delete syllable : *peugan gau

3) Delete the coda and neutralize the vowel :*peugan gau => *peugə gau

4) Merge the components :*peugə gau => peugəgau

..

And the case when the main word has a double consonant before the end vowel ...

kanfai gozo ... merchant of fruit

1) Swap positions : *gozo kanfai

2) Delete syllable : *gozo fai ............................. Note kan is deletes, not just ka

3) Vowel before the final consonant becomes schwa :*gozo fai => *gozə fai

4) Merge the components :*gozə fai => gozəfai

..

And here are a few examples to demonstrate the semantic range that this technique can encompass ...

laŋku = shadow, reflection

miaka = echo, response, effect

Which produce miakəka meaning "subtle influence" or "to subtly influence"

..

sword.spear => weaponry ... shield.helmet => armour, protection ... knife.fork => cuttlery ... table.chair => furniture

There are no cases where both contributing words are monosyllables.

As with the schwa-form and the i-form verbs ... the schwa is represented by cross.

When spelling words out, this cross is pronounced as jía ... meaning "link".

Notice that when you hear nandəli, deutəwe or peugəgau you know that they are a non-basic words (because of the schwa).

This method of word building is only used for nouns.

..

..... Bicycle plus

..

Above I explained the word for bicycle ...

There are a few more words that follow the same pattern ....

kwoban = tricycle

poməfan = a biped ............................... poma "leg"

poməgan = a quadruped

poməlan = an insect

poməzan = an spider ............................ note béu is one of the few languages in the world to give the octopus a unique name.

nodəban = a threeway intersection ....... node "node"

nodəgan = a fourway intersection

nodədan = a fiveway intersection

And so on ...

The regular shapes in 2 dimensions ...

?aban = a triangle

?agan = a quadrilateral

?adan = a pentagon

?alan = a hexagon

And so on ...

The 5 regular shapes in 3 dimensions ...

ʔaugan = a tetrahedron

ʔaulan = a cube

ʔauzan = an octahedron

ʔaujaun = a dodecahedron

ʔaujauzan = an icosahedron

The 6 regular shapes in 4 dimensions ...

ʔaidan = a 5-cell

ʔaizan = an 8-cell

ʔaijaugan = a 16-cell

ʔaifain = a 24-cell

ʔaipain = 120-cell

ʔaigaufain = 600-cell

..

..... Set Phrases

..

If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò yír fales "may you have peace".

If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say gò yér fales "may you have peace"

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò nela r gimau "may the blue sky be above you"

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò nela r jemau "may the blue sky be above you"

If you pass somebody in the street or you meet your workmates for the first time in the morning fales is sufficient. If you say gò yír fales it typically means that you are going to have a ten minute (at least) chat.

..

There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections

Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" } which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.

(A) yuajiswe.iʃʃ which expresses consternation and/or grief. In about 30% of cases it is shortened to swe.iʃʃ only.

It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)

(B) hambətunmazore which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to hambətun only.

It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)

(C) And finally when somebody is telling a story or giving detailed instructions, you might say plirai at suitable intervals. This is simply a contraction of plìr ʔai? ... "do you follow ?"

(D) ... OK, we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Not an exclamation in béu but maybe an exclamation in another language ... hù nén.

It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!

(E) kè kè = "sorry" or "excuse me" ... Related to the word kelpa meaning "to apologize".

(F) sè sè = "thank you" ... Related to the word senda meaning "to thank".

..

... A discussion on Complement Clauses and Variable Clauses

We live in a world that has an independent reality. For example ... If nobody is looking at ... say A TREE, that TREE continues to exist. If nobody is thinking about this TREE, this TREE continues to exist. Even if no sentient being has any knowledge whatsoever of this TREE, this TREE continues to exist ... in fact this TREE is totally indifferent as to whether it is being looked at or thought about ... this TREE is totally indifferent as to whether it has EVER been looked at or thought about.

I BELIEVE THE ABOVE IS SELF-EVIDENT.

The philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) questioned the above (or at least he is reported to have questioned the above).

But in reality ... the entire Universe exists independently of any observers. In actual fact EVERY ADULT HUMAN carries an (imperfect) model of his environment in his mind and uses this model to plan his actions. The main reason HUMANS have been so successful compared to other animals is that we have a more complete model than ... say ... our primate cousins. The reason that out model is good is that we have LANGUAGE and so get information from our fellows. Probably the building of this MODEL and LANGUAGE were co-developements and could well be reflected in the size of the HUMAN BRAIN over the last few million years. I believe that this MODEL and LANGUAGE are intertwined and hence I don't think it is a good idea to consider either in isolation.

Now usually when we communicate ... we just talk about reality. For example ... JOHN IS TALL. We do not acknowledge the actual more complicated situation ... IN MY WORLD MODEL, JOHN IS TALL.

But sometimes we do .... usually when we are talking about activities related to our mind ... like "thinking", "knowing" ... disseminating knowledge to our fellows "telling", "saying" ... gathering knowledge first hand "seeing", "hearing" ... trying to gather knowlege from our fellows "asking". All these bracketed verbs can take what are called complement clauses. When you see a complement clause you are seeing an admission that what we are talking about is not in fact REALITY, but some MODEL of REALITY. Maybe you could say that it is an admission that we are using META-DATA rather than DATA.

The following might illuminate a bit. What is on the white background is REALITY. What is on a black background is part of a MIND MODEL . The script on an orange background is a speach act appropriate for the situation shown. The first panel is the way that we normally speak ... that is REALITY is presented directly with no referrence to any MIND MODEL.

===>

Now it seems that most languages have at least one way of bracketing off the META-DATA from DATA.

..

From now on Complement Clauses => CC's

Dixon reckons there are 7 different types of CC in English ...

(1) John said that you are an idiot.

(2) John knowswhat you did last night.

(3) She mentioned John hitting the dog.

(4) It's bad for Jane to waste all her money.

(5) She declared John to be an idiot.

(6) I told her where to park her car.

(7) She dissuaded him from going

Actually I would only consider (1) and (2) to be CC ... I would say (3) to (7) to contain different types of "Infinitive Phrases" ( Infinitive Phrases => IP )

Take example 7 for example ... how can you parse that ? There should be nothing underlined there ... "dissuade" is a 3-part verb ... "from" is a preposition that defines the roll of the least pertinant part ... "she dissuaded him from going" really can not be broken up into smaller parts.

(1) The word "that" functions as what is called a "deictic noun" ia in "Did you see that ? It is reasonable to assume that "John said that you are an idiot" <= "John said that" ... "you are an idiot" with "that" referring to the second clause. However over time this sentence type got more integrated and (along with a change in intonation) "that you are an idiot" got re-analized as an embedded clause.

(2) This type of construction is very interesting. The embedded clause what you did last night is equivalent to a variable in mathematics (usually represented by X, Y or Z). And just as in mathematics the use of variables allows you to you to manipulate concepts without knowing there exact value, this "what" type of construction allows to to say things that ... either (a) you don't know .... or (b) are to unwieldy to say. For example the guy that spoke "John knowswhat you did last night" does not have to have this knowledge himself (alternatively he could have this knowledge ... but maybe if ten things were done last night ... well it is just too time consumming to enumerate them all).

This type of construction represents a "indefinite" ....

(2a) She asked what did you eat ................................... indefinite thing

(2b) She asked who ate the sandwich ........................... indefinite person

(2c) She asked where did you eat the sandwich ........... indefinite place

(2d) She asked when did you eat last ........................... indefinite time

(2e) She asked whose sandwich did you eat ................ indefinite owner (person)

(2f) She asked which restaurant did we eat at ............. indefinite X out of all the X present/possible/pertinant. X represents a "unit" rather than a "type".

(2g) She asked how we got to the restaurant .............. indefinite manner

(2h) She asked why we didn't go to her restaurant ..... indefinite reason ............. 8 question words in all in English

All 8 function as Question Words.

All 8 function as Complementers ... well all languages have verbs which introduce direct speech (page 36 of A Semantic Approach to English Grammar). And as all 8 are used in direct speech (i.e. QW's) it is not surprising that they have worked their way into complementizer position. Note that the above CC do not have direct speech. Well sometimes it is hard to determine if they are direct or indirect ... you must know the background to know ???

..

Note that the QUESTION and the VARIABLE CLAUSE have different forms because of the English rule that you swap the position of the subject and the first word in the verb phrase in a question. However for (e) and (f) this swapping of positions is not possible as "whose" and "which" are constituents of NP as opposed to constituents of a verb phrase.

It is (probably) for this reason that the element -"ever" is required appended to these to forms. In fact the element -"ever" can be appended to the "wh" word in any variable clause. It increases the "indefiniteness" feeling.

From this analysis it seems like we should write "whose" as "who's" ... that is ... there is no independent word "whose".

As to "why" is not a variable clause ... well to me "why I let you go ..." sounds infelicitous rather than a big NO NO. I judge it to be wrong but not by much. Probably it is illegal because of the prevalence of the conjunction "because" ... which makes a variable clause about reason ... unnecessary.

... Extending a NP using the partitive ..."làu"

..

In section 2.7 we analyzed the the different components that can go into seŋko kaza or the noun phrase if you will. Here we will go into it in a bit more detail. It will be seen that there is a bit of "internal structure" ... a bit of complexity that is not obvious upon first blush.

..

.. Sets and subsets

..

Nearly every seŋko occurs in multitudes. OK, there are a few counter examples, such as kòi "sun" but for the most part they occur in multitudes. When we talk about any plurality of these nouns it is possible to change the scope of the set under discussion ... it as if we can zoom in and zoom out and this ability to "zoom" is defined by grammar (what else).

Let as take the noun moltai "doctor" to demonstrate this. Below ... represented by the orange area is all the doctors in the world (and also presumable the Universe*).

*This "zooming" idea is not fully air-tight, there is a bit of fuzzyness about it ... hence the inclusion of "presumably".

..

The above is as far as we can zoom out. Call the total orange area the "u* set". This scope is appropriate for generic pronouncements. Such as ...

moltai.a súr jini = "doctors are clever"

* u for universal.

..

OK ... now lets zoom in a bit. To zoom in we need to take in or give out some narrative. So now we hear the following ....

Next week British junior doctors will withhold many services in protest against the long hour expected of them

OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "these doctors" moltai.a dí is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.

moltai.a dí is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

OK ... lets hear another bit of narrative and change the "set" of doctors under consideration again. The narrative is ...

Much to the disgruntlement of the senior doctors who will have a hard week ahead of them making up for the short fall.

OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "those doctors*" moltai.a dè is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.

moltai.a dè is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

OK ... after hearing that, the NP "those doctors*" moltai.a dè is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.

* This is presuming that the NP moltai.a dí was actually talked about after the first narrative. If not ... then the NP moltai.a dí would be used to refer to the senior doctors. So it is like the particles dí and dè are letting us keep track of two "sets" of doctors at the same time. That is ... the NP's moltai.a dí and moltai.a dè have been set up in the minds of all interlocators to refer to two different sets. The second NP ( moltai.a dè ) only exists as a sort of contradistinction to the initial NP moltai.a dí .

OK ... this is as far as we can go with this example. I believe if you add the set "senior" doctors to the set "junior" doctors you have a set identical to the "set" doctors (However I could be wrong about this)

..

Lets change the example to take this idea further. Let us take bawa "men" for our noun. OK assume some narrative was given, and then bawa dí was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind.

Then more narrative was given (defining a further subset) and bawa dé was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind. A further NP can be used to refer to all bawa outside the first two sets. This NP is bawa lò "other men"

Actually bawa lò is usually used just one ... the set referred to as bawa lò are hardly ever kept in anybody's mind for more than a few seconds. In actual fact the first two terms don't usually persist long in a discourse either. We are continually zooming in ... zooming out ... changing our perspective.

..

.. The extended NP

..

When we were talking about how the NP was built up ( chapter 2.7 ) we mentioned the "numerative slot" that comes just before the head. We said that in this slot we can have either a "numerative" or a "selective". In this section we will discuss how these two classes of words interact with the singularity/plurality of the head noun. Also we will introduce a construction called "the extended NP" which gives a "partitive" meaning.

..

1	jù moltai dí...	no doctor here	moltai.a dí làu jù...	none of these doctors
2	ʔà moltai dí...	one doctor here	moltai.a dí làu ʔà...	one of these doctors
3	hói moltai dí...	two doctors here	moltai.a dí làu hói...	two of these doctors
4	léu moltai dí...	three doctors here	moltai.a dí làu léu...	three of these doctors
5	iyo moltai dí...	a few doctors here	moltai.a dí làu iyo...	few of these doctors
6 ...	euca moltai dí...	seven doctors here	moltai.a dí làu euca...	seven of these doctors
7	hài moltai dí...	many doctors here	moltai.a dí làu hài...	many of these doctors
8	ú moltai dí...	all the doctors here	moltai.a dí làu ú...	"all of the doctors here" or "every one of the doctors here"

..

In the table above the RHS has a "partitive" meaning. For example ... euca moltai dí means that we are talking about "seven doctors" and they are "here". But moltai.a dí làu euca means, we are talking about "seven out of a (significantly) larger number of doctors here". The RHS expressions I call an "extended NP's" ... [ NP + làu + numerative = extended NP ]

làu has been mention before in Chapter 2.12.1 ... it is a particle and it serves a number of functions*

* These different functions are not totally unrelated to each other ... they "impinge" on each other ... just as particles in natural language do.

To use an extended NP is to "zoom in". It is to narrow the scope of the items we are focusing on (as discussed in the previous section).

..

TWO RULES ...

A) For non-extended NP ... in any numerative before the head, then the head is SINGULAR.

B) For extended NP ... the head is PLURAL.

..

But what about the "selectives". What about ín and èn ? Listing the four possibilities below ...

..

9 ) ín moltai dí = any doctor here

10) ín moltai.a dí = any doctors here

11) èn moltai dí = some doctor here

12) èn moltai.a dí = some doctors here

..

It can be seen that following a "selective" ... the head can can be either SINGULAR or PLURAL

Now how can we interpret a sentence ... such as ... "any two doctors here" ?

Well the rules state that only one word is allowed in the numerative slot ... so ... *ín hói moltai dí or *hói ín moltai dí are not allowed.

However we can use extended NP's. For example ...

..

9	ín moltai dí	any doctor here	=>	[ empty due to Rule B ]
10	ín moltai.a dí *	any doctors here	=>	ín moltai.a dí làu hói	any two doctors here
11	èn moltai dí	some doctor here	=>	[ empty due to Rule B ]
12	èn moltai.a dí	some doctors here	=>	èn moltai.a dí làu hói	two doctors here **

..

* ... ín moltai.a dí exists, however it is a very rare beast. By far the most common use of ín is with a singular head. But in certain situations you have a situation where it is known that a PLURALITY is needed. For example "to lift up a long narrow table". So in this situation ín moltai.a dí could be used ( "any doctors here can lift the table" ... just an example). However in most situations where it is known that a plurality is needed ... it is know exactly HOW MANY are needed. In the above example TWO ... hence you would hear ín moltai.a dí làu hói more often than hearing ín moltai.a dí

COMMON .... ín moltai dí >>> ín moltai.a dí làu X (where X is any numerative) >>> ín moltai.a dí ... UNCOMMON

..

** You don't know which two ... bit we are defining them now ... henceforth we shall refer to them as nù.

..

The particle nò can also occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...

moltai.a dí làu nò = "several of these doctors"

In this case ... nò can be looked on as indicating plurality neutrally ... without any connotations of HIGH MAGNITUDE as hài ... or LOW MAGNITUDE as iyo.

Note that nò now has 3 uses ... it is a noun "number" ... it is a plural marker for most monosyllable nouns ... and now this use. Note that it is not a numerative (or a selective either for that matter).

..

moltai.a dí làu ʔà lú more = "one or more of these doctors" ??????????????

..

Note ... ʔà moltai dí means pretty much the same as èn moltai dí ... one a selective, one a numerative.

In béu, èn is preferred over ʔà to code indefinite [ ??? go into indefiniteness after this section ??? ]

ʔà moltai dí could mean "the one man here" but ʔà/"one" is superfluous in both béu and English (unless you were to appand a relative clause)

..

Two other numeratives that we haven't mentioned yet are tontu "the majority"/"most" and tonji "the minority".

ton = bit/part/section ... tontu <= ton jutu ... tonji <= ton tiji ... toŋko = to seperate ???

..

The distributive can occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...

moltai.a dí làu ò ò ... = You see the doctors here ... well everyone of them ...

[ Of course if "the doctors here" was on the top of every ones mind ... then only ò ò would be expressed ]

OK ... I have explain all the above using the determiner dí. But it is exactly the same pattern with a different determiner or no determiner at all.

I have explain all the above using a multi-syllable head. But the same pattern holds for mono-syllable heads ... regular and irregular. For example you could change wèu "vehicle" or "car" for moltai and nò wèu for moltai.a in the above explanation and everything would hold. Or bàu for moltai and bawa for moltai.a.

Also pronouns follow the above pattern. But note ... "those two*" in English is hói nù "two us" in béu ... "you three" is léu jè ... "us four" (including you) is ega wìa ... "us five" (excluding you) is oda yùa ... and so on.

"five of them" being nù làu oda of couse, following the exact same pattern that a normal noun takes for partitiveness.

á hói yùa doikuarua í london = "the two of us will walk to london" OR "us two will walk to london" ... [ I guess there would be a tendency to drop yùa??? ]

á yùa làu hói doikuarua í london = two of us will walk to london ... [tendency to drop yùa??? ]

* I guess English is a bit irregular with the 3rd person plural pronoun. This would be "they two" if it patterned the same as the other pronouns.

( write about partitive in Finnish ) ... ( write about the other uses of làu ) ... ( revisit the DISTRIBUTIVE )

WHAT ABOUT .... enough of the men .... too many of the men ... above 100 of the men ... more of the men

all others => ú lòs

some others => nò lòs

any doctor => ín moltai

any doctor here = any of these doctors => ín moltai dí

any of the doctors here => ín moltai.a dí

..

ʔà ʃì = it ... nò ʃì = them (inanimate)

..

1	ʔà ʃì nái	which one
2	nò ʃì nái	which ones
3	léu ʃì nái	which two
4	léus nái	which two

..

... A discussion on definiteness

[ IMPORTANT ... And at this point I would like to say that I consider "definite" to be the same as "specific" to be the same as "referential". I actually like to use the term "known". I am always careful to always specify "known to who". So "definite" = "specific" = "referential" = "known" ... and a noun "N" designated by any of these terms can be identified as one particular "N" out of every "N" in existance.

Also I consider "indefinite" to be the same as "non-specific" to be the same as not referential. I actually like to use the term "unknown". I am always careful to always specify "unknown to who" So "indefinite" = "non-specific" = "not referential" = "unknown" ... and a noun "N" designated by any of these terms can not be identified as one particular "N" out of every "N" in existance. ... IMPORTANT ]

..

Before I discuss how béu handles definiteness I would like to digress a little. Originally I tried using terms like 1st person specific / 2nd person non-specific and 1st person non-specific / 2nd person non-specific etc. etc. to express my ideas. But I soon realized that by using such terms I wasn't helping matters at all. So I decided to use a new terminology. I like to compare me introducing this new terminology and the introduction of modern algebraic notation. Algebra existed for a long time with very little progress being made : all through the Greek Age and the Roman age and the Middle Ages. It was only when an efficient notation was devised that people could started to manipulate the different terms and progress was made. I hope I can do likewise for the definite/indefinite dichotomy.

Logically you can gave the specificity of a noun in a 24-way system (or we can say a noun can exist in 24 different situations). Namely ...

The noun in question can be either specific or non-specific to the speaker. (2 choices)

The speaker can consider the noun to be specific to the listener, the noun to be non specific to the listener, or the speaker can be ignorant about the specificity of the noun to the listener. (3 choices)

A third person could exist or not exist, if they exist, the speaker can consider this third person to know the noun in question specifically, to not know the noun in question specifically, or the speaker can be ignorant about how this third person knows the noun in question. (4 choices).

2 x 3 x 4 so 24 ways that the various protagonists can view the specificity of a given noun. Of these 24 states, 16 are just over fussy, they specify specificity too specifically :-) to be useful. So that leaves us with 8 states (of definite/indefiniteness) which I believe can be profitably considered.

So now let me introduce my notation ...

..

The term for every state will begin with a capital "S" (maybe meaning "state" or "situation" or "in the situation" ... it doesn't really matter). Then there will follow 2 or 3 values.

The first value is "1" if the item (noun under consideration) is known to the 1st person (i.e. the speaker) ... "0" if not.

The second value is "1" if the item is known to the 2nd person (i.e. the spoken to) ... "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "spoken to" can identify the item, the value is "X" (unspecified).

The third value is blank if no third person is involved ... "1" if the item is known to a 3rd person ... "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "3rd person" can identify the item the value is "X" (unspecified).

So ... in the sentence "She wants to marry the Norwegian", we can say Norwegian is defined [S 1 1 1] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən wən wən.

In the sentence "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl", we can say "girl" is defined [S 1 0] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən zɪro.

In the sentence "Do you know that/the guy that got drunk last night ?", we can say "guy" is defined [S 1 X] ... pronounced ... ɛs wən ɛks.

OK ... we have the notation. Now let us consider my 8 states one by one.

..

(A) [S 1 1] .... this one is easy. known to both speaker and hearer, part of the body of knowledge that they share. I consider (A) to be "stable"

(B) [S 0 0] ... this one is also easy. The item is non-specific to both speaker and hearer. (B) is "stable" also.

The next 4 situations represent a mismatch between the knowledge that the first person has and that the second person has. Now assuming that the two protagonists are from the same family or tribe : that they are friends or colleagues (the usual situation) they would probably like the information to spread to the other person.

(C) [S 1 0] ... This one is my favorite. I consider it pretty unstable ... humans are a gregarious lot and like to share information. In English there are two particles used to tag (C) items ... "a" and "this".

When physically introducing a new item to a person it is common to use "this". For example "come and look at this colorful little insect". Well of course "this" core meaning is/was for drawing the hearers attention to something near the speaker ... the hearer typically being further away from the object. Right away you get connotations of ... "seen better by the speaker" => "understood better by the speaker" => perhaps "known only by the speaker" and hence in modern day English "this" is used for introducing an unseen [S 1 0] object. And just as when you introduce a visible object with "this", when you introduce a distant object with "this", the expectation is that you are going to talk a bit about the object : to change the state from (C) => (A) .

If you heard from an acquaintance "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl" you would expect to hear quite a bit about her. Whereas if you heard "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" there would be no such expectations. Maybe the latter sentence was a reply to you saying "all hungarian girls are unfriendly to foreigners" ... "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" is just your acquaintance rebutting your assertion.

So I would say, (C), when tagged with "this", is likely to change into (A) but when tagged with "a", is more likely to stay an (C) state. However these are just tendencies, not rules. There is nothing wrong with introducing an [S 1 0] state with "this" and then saying nothing more about it, and there is nothing wrong with introducing an [S 1 0] state with "a" and then expanding on it.

I consider (C) tagged by "this" as "unstable" and tagged by "a" as "stable".

..

OK ... we have covered the first three situations. The remaining 3 situations are quite different. They all engender questions*. So instead of the objects being tagged with "the"/"a"/"this", they are sought ou, they are represented by a question word such as "who"/"what"/"which".

* Well they engender questions only if they are deemed significant, if they are considered insignificant (only part of the background) they will continue to be referred to as indefinite.

(D) [S 1 X] ... Pretty unstable. The speaker will want to ascertain if the hearer can identify the object that he wants to discuss. So he ask question to that effect. If the hearer replies in the affirmitive then immediately the situation changes : [S 1 X] => [S 1 1].

If the hearer replies in the negative, the speaker will, in all probability, enlighten him. A two stage process leading to the same result : [S 1 X] => [S 1 0] => [S 1 1]

NB .... where as in (C) the speaker will use "this" if he intends to talk more about a certain object. In (D) the speaker might use "that" in a question to ascertain if the situation is [S 1 1] or [S 1 0] **. For example "do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" ***. In this case "girl" is [S 1 1] but maybe she is not that prominent in the hearers memory. The reason for "Do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" is to raise awareness of the girl in the hearer's mind ... to make her a solid [S 1 1] (as opposed to a [S 1 0.5] or a [S 1 0.3] ..... or even [S 1 X] if the hearers attention was wondering the night before).

** I find it pretty neat how the usage of "that" in (D) mirrors the usage of "this" in (C).

*** This is a good time to point out that we are not talking digital here ... more analogue ... more a spectrum of values than two discrete values. But of course there is always an attraction in considering a situation as either black or white ... it makes it so much more simple.

(E) [S 0 1] ... Along with (C) the most unstable. If you don't know something and your mate does ... well, you will want that information.

(F) [S 0 X] ... Unstable. How the situation changes mirrors (D). For example ... the speaker knows that Jane had been raped a few days ago in the town. So, of course, he knows a human male agent was involved. But he doesn't know who. Assume he is visited by his brother from the town. The question will be either "who raped Jane" or "do you know who raped Jane". That is either a content question or a polarity question.

Content Question ...

Question : "who raped Jane" ... Answer : "I don't know" ......................... [S 0 X] => [S 0 0]

Question : "who raped Jane" ... Answer : "Mad Hugo raped her" ............ [S 0 X] => [S 1 1]

Polarity Question ...

Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer : "Mad Hugo" ......... [S 0 X] => [S 1 1]

Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer : "no" ...................... [S 0 X] => [S 0 0]

Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer : "yes" ... Retort : "well who" (annoyed voice) ..... Maybe this dialogue shouldn't be included. To answer "yes" in this situation is abnormal.

..

Here is a table of what we have covered so far ...

..

Notice that there are no undefined values in the final states, our interlocutors have shared information as much as possible.

..

Earlier I proposed considering how well a third party knew the object under discussion. My initial system was very complicated. I was going to include all of [S 1 1 1] , [S 0 0 1] , [S 1 0 1] , [S 1 X 1] , [S 0 X 1] , [S 0 1 1] , [S 1 1 0] , [S 0 0 0] , [S 1 0 0] , [S 1 X 0] , [S 0 X 0] , [S 0 1 0] , [S 1 1 X] , [S 0 0 X] , [S 1 0 X] , [S 1 X X] , [S 0 1 X] ... definitely overkill.

However I would like to keep these two situations ...

(G) [S 0 0 1]

(H) [S 0 0 0]

The third person I am talking about, could be anybody. If one person can identify the object under discussion it is obviously real.

If nobody can identify the object under discussion it is not (necessarily) real or at least not real at this point in time.

..

Martin Haspelmath has written a thought provoking book called "Indefinite Pronouns" ( ISBN: 9780198299639 ). In it he talks about 9 indefinite "situations" (page 64 if you have the book at hand) and about how the grammar of different languages express the indefiniteness of these different situations. I find that 3 of his "situations" correspond to 3 of my "situations". In particular I find (1) = [S 1 0] : (2) = [S 0 0 1] : (3) = [S 0 0 0].

I have marked (yellow background) where my "situations" overlap with Haspelmath's "situations". [I would include another situations ... [S 1 1] to the left of [S 1 0]].

..

The main observation in this book is that different languages divide up this semantic domain and have different particles tagging the 9 "situations". The interesting thing is that these tags must appear contiguously on the diagram. For example ... below is the semantic domain of English with the particles some-, any- and no- mapped.

..

The sentence "Mary wants to marry a Norwegian"**** can be given an [S 0 0 0] interpretation and an [S 0 0 1] interpretation.

**** I find it a bit strange that English has no way to differentiate between (G) and (H). If "she wants to marry any norwegian" was grammatical this differentiaion would be made. However I find it a bit unfelicitous. The string "Mary wants to marry a norwegian ... ANY norwegian" I find felicitous ... strange.

..

... How béu codes definiteness

..

In English if the definite article "the" comes before a noun it means that the noun is specific to both the speaker and the spoken to ... that is [S 1 1]

Also in English if the indefinite article "a" comes before a noun, it means that the noun is non-specific to the spoken to ... that is [S 0 0]

[S 1 0] is coded the same way as [S 0 0]. Most modern Western European languages do things in a similar way. However it is possible to code [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] together. For example ...

..

béu follows Futuna-Aniwa and Samoan in codeing [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] the same way. For [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] the noun comes before the verb, for [S 0 0] (which includes both [S 0 0 1] and [S 0 0 0]) the noun comes after the verb. So we have ...

bàu doikori = The man walked / A man walked ..... [S 1]

doikori bàu = A man walked .................................. [S 0]

The first example encompassing both [S 1 1], [S 1 X] and [S 1 0]. Actually in béu ... for [S 1 0] if the speaker intends to talk about this object for a bit (if he intends to make it "known" to the listener) then the first time it is mentioned this object will have ʔà "one" in front of it. If it is a plural object it will have nò in front of it and the object itself will appear in its base form. For example ...

ʔà bàu doikori ... = This/a man walked ... (I know who but you do not)

nò bàu doikuri ... = These men walked ...

..

béu can also code indefiniteness by the particles ín and èn. These two particles are nearly used in the same way as "any" and "some" (see Haspelmath's Implicational Mapin the previous section). See below ...

..

(??? what about using glu.ia "known" ... glu.ua "to be known" ... uglu.ia "unknown" ... uzwia "unsaid" ??? )

..

Addendum

..

*Futuna-Aniwa (Dougherty 1983: 135, 23)

a) na-n tukia ta fatu

pst-1sg hit spec rock

‘I hit against a rock.’

b)

a roroveka kaseroitia ma sa ika aratu

art Roroveka catch neg nonspec fish tomorrow

‘Roroveka won’t get any fish tomorrow.’

..

Samoan ...

o sa fafine = a woman

o le fafine = a woman

..

... Correlatives

..

uda	everywhere	uku	always	ubu	everybody	ufan	everything
juda	nowhere	juku	never	jubu	nobody	jufan	nothing
ida	anywhere	iku	anytime	ibu	anybody	ifan	anything
eda	somewhere	eku	sometime	ebu	somebody	efan	something

The above 16 correlatives all have a special symbols (ignore the blue and red squares).

If you wants to make plural any word from the last two rows, you must revert to the nearest generic noun available and build up a NP in the normal way..

ida	anywhere	iku	anytime	ibu	anybody	ifan	anything
nò dà ín	any places	nò kyù ín	any times	abua ín	any people	fanyoi ín	any things

eda	somewhere	eku	sometime	ebu	somebody	efan	something
nò dà èn	some places	nò kyù èn	some times	abua èn	some people	fanyoi èn	some things

A further 3 of these special symbols are shown below ....

..

The short-hand forms are always used.

..

(Note to self : resolve the stuff below)

The columns are related to the words ... dàn = place ... kyùs = time/occasion ... glabu = person ... fanyo = thing

ubu can mean "each person" and "all the people". If they act together uwe can be added. If they act individually bajawe can be added.

..

... The non-alphabet symbols

..

@@ Line 1,188: / Line 1,188: @@
 ..
-[[Image:TW_846.png]]
+[[Image:TW_847.png]]
+..
+[[Image:TW_848.png]]
 ..

Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:38, 25 August 2017

Contents

..... Questions

... nài

... kyù

... dà

... kài

... làu

... ?ài

..... Totality ... collectively or individually

..... lé .... lú .... ló

... "no"

... lists

... other

..... Another passive

..... Making it flow

... Dropping

... Linking back

..... Ways to join clauses

..... Word building

..... Bicycle plus

..... Set Phrases

... A discussion on Complement Clauses and Variable Clauses

... Extending a NP using the partitive ..."làu"

.. Sets and subsets

.. The extended NP

... A discussion on definiteness

... How béu codes definiteness

... Correlatives

... The non-alphabet symbols

... Index

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Tools