Minhast Morphosyntax

The Verb Phrase and Clause Combining

Characteristics

Avoidance of Ditranstivity

The S/O Syntactic Pivot

Clause combining operations in all languages inevitably deal with a situation where there are two core NPs in one clause, one of which is coreferrent with an NP of following clause. In languages with verbal pronominal affixes referencing the core NPs, the correfferrent NP is often not explicitly mentioned in the succeeding clause(s). As long as the gender, number, animacy, and case of the implicit correferrent NP is different from that of the other core NP, the identity of the correferrent NP is clear. However, in situations where two core third person NPs share number, gender, and animacy, the identity of the correferrent NP may be ambiguous when it is not explicitly mentioned. The following English sentence illustrates an example of a two-clause sentence structure, containing two core NPs that share gender and number: "Iradem struck Isnar, and (he) left."

Did Iradem leave after he hit Isnar, or did Isnar leave after being hit by Iradem? Languages have developed different strategies to disambiguate the correferrent NP, such as switch-referencing, obviation, or other morphosyntactic strategies to deal with sentences like the above example. For Minhast, the sentence above contains no ambiguity because the language handles correference by using pivots: if a core argument is correferrent with that of a preceding clause, the correferent NPs of both clauses must agree in case. Thus, if an Patient NP in clause #1 is coreferrent to the Agent NP in clause #2, the Agent NP in clause #2 must be in the Absolutive case in order to agree with the Patient, e.g:

Iradembe Isnar ušnarumā, weyhapni nuħtaharan. "Iradem struck Isnar, and after that he (Isnar) ran off ."

The first clause is transitive, taking two core arguments, Iradem in the Ergative case, and Isnar in the Absolutive case. The second clause is intransitive and is gapped: there is no overt mention of either NP from the first clause. Nevertheless, there is no ambiguity as to which person ran off - it could only be Isnar. The verb nuħtaharan is an intransitive verb, as indicated by the intransitive marker -an, and its pronominal affix is the null-marked third person masculine singular person. Thus, nuħtaharan can take only one core argument, the Absolutive. Isnar is in the Absolutive case in the first clause, and is the gapped Absolutive argument of the second clause.

In combinations where all the verbs are semantically transitive and Agent and Patient interchange their case frames, valency operations occur: a verb may be antipassivized thereby demoting an Agent to the Absolutive case. The Patient may then either be demoted to the dative or instrumental case, or omitted altogether, as in the sample sentence:

Iradembe Isnar ušnarumā, usapārammā, bušnaru. "Iradem struck Isnar, (Isnar) kicked, and (Iradem) struck him again."

This sentence starts with the two core arguments explicitly mentioned in the first clause (Iradem[erg] and Isnar[abs]). The second and final clauses are gapped, none of the core arguments are explicitly mentioned after the first clause. All verbs are notionally transitive but the second verb (usapār-an=mā) is grammatically intransitive, as indicated by its intransitive marker -an, whereas the first and final verbs are marked as expected with the transitive marker -u. The affix -an. when it appears on a notionally transitive verb, indicating the verb has been antipassivized.

The intransitive usapārammā can take only one argument, the Absolutive. Isnar is the Absolutive argument in the first clause, and so must be the gapped argument in the second clause, even though Isnar's role is now that of Agent, not Patient. Isnar is also the gapped Absolutive argument in the final clause. Isnar is the Absolutive argument of all three clauses, whether explicit or implicit, and is therefore coreferrent with all three clauses. If a speaker wanted to mention explicitly mention the Patient in the second clause, the Patient would have to be marked as an Oblique argument, using the dative postposition =aran, as in:

Iradembe Isnar ušnarumā, Irademaran usapārammā, bušnaru. "Iradem struck Isnar, (Isnar) kicked Iradem, and (Iradem) struck him again."

Languages which use an Absolutive argument to coreferrence linked clauses are said to employ an S/O pivot. Morphologically ergative languages that coordinate clauses with S/O pivots therefore demonstrate ergativity at a syntactic level. Minhast is such a language, ergative at the syntactic level as well as at the morphological level.

Clause Types and Structure

Simple

Basic syntax is XSOV.

Subordinate Clauses

Alternative

(See Dixon). These clauses do not exist in Minhast. Instead, resultative and conditional clauses replace Dixon's "Alternative-Rejection" and "Alternative-Suggestive".

1) Rather than saying "I stayed home instead of visiting my friend Tahme", one can instead say "I did not visit my friend Tahme, but I stayed home ( + Resultative "-duur", i.e. "as the end result")

2) Rather than saying "Unless he goes to the hospital, he will die", in Minhast one says "He will die if he does not go" or "If he does not go, he will die"

Verb Serialisation

Verb serialization is a process where the verb of the matrix clause is linked by the clause linkage operator -mā to its dependent clause. Serialized verbs cross-reference core arguments with S/O pivots and typically agree in tense and person. The -mā connective need not convey a temporal meaning, unless context and pragmatics indicate a temporal meaning.

Adverbial

Minhast has a wide array of conveying adverbial expressions. In addition to having a closed set of adverbial particles, the verb contains in slot #5 (the verb stem) a sub-slot for verb-like affixes, some of which convey an adverbial meaning. Verb serialization is another way of conveying adverbial meaning, and is employed as a way of focusing on the manner in which an event or state occurs.

As an example, the verb paskan (to perform a forceful action) may be linked as a subordinate clause with -mā to render the meaning "to do something hard", as in the expression Yakaran Joe ušnarammā paskammā, i.e. "Joe hit me hard".

This method of conveying adverbial expressions may be selected when one of the core arguments, the Absolutive, has been focused as a topic by S/O pivot operations within an extended passage.

Different Subject Control Clauses

Back to Minhast