Syntax in Jutean
▲
2▲ 2 ▼ 0
Overview of syntax in Jutean
This public article was written by [Deactivated User], and last updated on 22 May 2021, 18:11.
[comments] jutjuteangrammarsyntax
7. Lesson of Iki
?
?
11. Pragmatics
?
?
12. Prehistory of Jute
?
?
14. Songs in Jutean
?
?
16. Syntax in Jutean
?
?
17. Verbs in Jutean
?
?
?FYI...
This article is a work in progress! Check back later in case any changes have occurred.
This article is a work in progress! Check back later in case any changes have occurred.
Syntax in Jutean
The predominant word order in Jute is VSO in main clauses. Adverbs come last, with locations preceding time adverbs. Auxiliary verbs precede the other verb directly. Subclauses are usually nominalized, especially relative ones.
The complete order would be:
1. Conjunction (if two main clauses are connected)
2. Verb or verbs used as auxiliary verb
3. Auxiliary verb particle
4. Verb
5. Verb particle
6. Subject (Noun/pronoun in direct case)
7. Direct object (takes the indirect case)
8. Oblique/indirect object (usually takes the oblique case)
9. Adverbs (manner - place - time)
10. Question particle (separated by comma)
However, if the oblique object is animate, and the direct object is inanimate, sometimes the oblique object can come before the direct object.
Adpositions usually come in front of the noun they're referring to, but some also appear after them.
[ADD EXAMPLES!]
"Stacking" of verbs, creating verb chains also known as serial verb constructions, can be done to avoid long chains of oblique objects.
Saiho hokonol hokohe saihasao na lumadooti, haa? You think you can't allow yourself to question orders?
Think be_currently_able-NEGNegative (polarity)
not allow-REFLReflexive (valency)
argument acts on itself question 2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you) order-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct | QInterrogative
question
Like in English, there is no conjunction introducing a subclause, however, there is no need to repeat the subject in Jutean either, and instead a sequence of infinitives and even conjugated verbs can often be created, thereby incorporating several sentences into a sole clause. This ‘verb-stacking’ can often be used where English uses constructions with one or more infinitives:
Saihoko sao tataimomo ta. I like to swim to forget.
Like swim forget-ANTIPAntipassive voice (valency)
valency is decreased by one 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I
Saihoko hotiomo ho mohomoo ta niti. I like to write to keep my life in balance.
Like write-ANTIPAntipassive voice (valency)
valency is decreased by one continue balance 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I life-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct
(more literally “I like to write (so as/in order) to continue to balance (=keep balanced) (my) life”)
Often the verbs, when they aren't functioning as auxiliaries (such as hokono 'to be currently be able to'), are connected semantically, e.g. through causation, and syntactically, by having the same subject and object or objects. Usage of this structure is therefore not possible if two or more verbs have distinct subjects or distinct objects. Contrast the previous and the following sentence:
Saihoko hotio ta tahiti nuhe hohi a mohomohi he. I like to write stories so I stay balanced/even-tempered myself.
Like write 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I story-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct BENBenefactive (case)
recipient of benefit continue-GERGerund
verbal noun of be_balanced-GERGerund
verbal noun REFLReflexive (valency)
argument acts on itself
(more literally “I like to write stories for the benefit of the continuing of being balanced myself (=to stay balanced/even-tempered myself)” )
Here hotio and hohi a mohomohi have two different objects, so a separation was necessary, with the latter becoming a gerund.
Alternatively, the subject can be dropped:
Sahono ta tohi li saaniti a me la ma. I assume he has gone/is going to the beach.
Assume 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I go-GERGerund
verbal noun towards beach-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct of OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object 3SThird person singular (person)
neither speaker nor addressee OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
(more literally: “I assume his going/having gone to the beach”)
Sahono to la li saaniti. He is assumed to have/be gone/going to the beach.
Be_assumed go 3SThird person singular (person)
neither speaker nor addressee towards beach-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct
Several types of sentences are exceptions and do allow stacked verbs to have a subject-object mismatch.
Among those are sentences using the causative voice, i.e. verbs using the causative suffix or verbs preceded by a noito ('make, lead, force') as auxiliary, as well as similar other constructions with verbs acting as auxiliaries, such as permissive sentences with oso 'let'.
Other verbs with a specific auxiliary meanings (i.e. verbs having a different meaning when used with other verbs in one sentence) such as memo (here: 'to tell so. to do sth.'), saihodo (here: 'to expect so. to do sth.') or noito (here: 'to force, make so. do sth.') may also have a different subject than other verbs in a sentence with verb stacking. These are listed in the verbs article.
However, they still have to form a single unit of meaning, i.e. all verbs have to be semantically connected.
Saihodo fulo fal he ta a me na ma. They expect me to tell about you.
Expect_to tell 3Third person (person)
neither speaker nor addressee.COLCollective (number)
'group or mass entity' IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I about OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object 2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you) OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
Noito fulo fal he ta a me na ma. They force me to tell about you.
Expect_to tell 3Third person (person)
neither speaker nor addressee.COLCollective (number)
'group or mass entity' IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I about OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object 2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you) OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
[FURTHER EXAMPLES TO BE ADDED]
Subclauses, for example relative clauses, are exclusively formed by nominalizing main clauses, i.e. turning them into a noun phrase. Word order in nominalized subclauses is still VSO and otherwise unchanged as well, though there is no need to always have a distinct subject, as subclauses can refer back to the subject of the main clause. Unless they are the direct object of a sentence, they are usually introduced by a, 'of, from, by, about', or other adpositions such as li ‘to, towards, in order to’ or ehe ‘as, like’. The gerund form of the verb follows, and the arguments of the subclause are introduced via more adpositions.
However, subclauses are generally avoided, especially in everyday speech. Usually separate main clauses are preferred, linked with a conjunction, most of the time u, 'and', or a connector phrase such as tonte ji 'after this', memo (...) ji 'this was said/... said this/', or ehe ji 'as a result, so'.
The same is the case with sentences like 'I think that' which often would be translated as Saimo ta ji: ..., 'I think this: ...' instead of resorting to gerunds. Alternatively, a main clause may be rephrased, e.g. with the help of verb stacking (serial verb constructions), to render a nominalized subclause unnecessary.
This avoidance is used in particular to avoid having multiple nominalizations in a single sentence, since this is seen as unnecessarily confusing and hampering speech and conversations. This still applies, albeit less so, for written language.
In single-argument subclauses, where the main clause and sub clause refer to the same subject, there is no need to restate the subject in the subclause, as subclauses can refer back to the subject of the main clause. In these cases, the object can come first and then be followed by a + gerund.
Joo ta tovohi a vailitade. / Joo ta vailitati a tovohi. I see the car being driven / I see the car that
is/was driven.
See 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I drive-GERGerund
verbal noun of vehicle-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object / See 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I vehicle-IDRIndirect (case)
indirect or oblique, vs direct drive-GERGerund
verbal noun
(more literally “I see the driving of the car / I see the car of driving”)
Joo ta tovohi a sainide. / Joo ta sainiti a tovohi. I see the person who drives/drove.
See 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I drive-GERGerund
verbal noun of person-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
(more literally “I see the driving of the person / I see the person of driving”)
Sentences that use the subjugator “that” in English are often rendered similarly:
Saiho ta (a) teohi/tehide a tohohi (a me ta ma). I think (that) I should go now.
Think 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I (of) need-GERGerund
verbal noun/need-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object of leave-GERGerund
verbal noun (of OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object)
(more literally: “I think of the need/the needing of leaving”)
In this case, the last part describing the person with the need can be omitted and simply deduced by context, unless it is to be emphasized. The introductory a can also be dropped in most cases, particularly informal speech or writing.
As can be seen, a + object in the oblique case can both be an agent or patient, and only context disambiguates.5.2.2 Subclauses with two or more different arguments
However, if a subclause does have two distinct arguments, e.g. patient and agent strict VSO order applies and the gerund has to come first, followed by a + the patient in the oblique case and then na + the agent in the oblique case.
Joo ta tovohi a vailitade na sainide. I see the person drive a car.
See 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I drive-GERGerund
verbal noun of vehicle-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object by person-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
(more literally “I see the driving of a car by a person”)
A phrase containing na + oblique object referring to an agent can’t stay on its own and has to be preceded by a full subclause including gerund and a + the patient.
If the second argument is not an agent, a different adposition, such as the previously mentioned li ‘to, towards, in order to’ or ehe ‘as, like’ is used, to avoid having multiple oblique objects introduced by a in the subclause with different roles.
The above mentioned in 2.2 is not the case if the arguments in a subclause all belong to a chain of oblique objects showing possession or relationship between two or more objects. Usually this is the case when personal pronouns are involved.
Deko ta a noitosanohi a tahivide a me na ma he. I hear that you are studying languages now.
Hear 1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I of study-GERGerund
verbal noun of language-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object of OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object 2SSecond person singular (person)
addressee (you) OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object now
(more literally “I hear about the studying of languages of you now”)
A sentence having both several arguments as well as one or more of them being chains of objects is rare and almost always avoided.
Some sayings and short phrases can use zero-copula phrases instead of the regular predicative "X is Y" construction, which in regular sentences would be seen as incomplete or simply ungrammatical. In writing separated they are separated by a comma.
Toloma, ukainimo! Toloma, the hero(!) / Toloma is a hero(!)
Toloma | hero
No Toloma ukainimo(!) Toloma (really) is a hero(!) / There's Toloma, who (really) is a hero(!)
be Toloma hero
If used as an exclamation, rather than neutral declarative sentence, the later implies a "really", as it's often used
to emphasize one or both parts of the predicate.A similar phrasing is also somewhat commonly used with comparisons:
Donosanohi a fenoohi, a ukea ilehe nuohi a fenoide. Teaching fishing, better than (just) giving fish.
Teach-GERGerund
verbal noun of fish-GERGerund
verbal noun | of betterness compared_to give-GERGerund
verbal noun of fish-OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
(more literally “Teaching of fishing, better than (just) giving of the/some fish.”)
No donosanohi a fenoohi a ukea ilehe nuohi a fenoide. Teaching of fishing is better than (just) giving fish.
Be teach- GERGerund
verbal noun of fish- GERGerund
verbal noun | of betterness compared_to give- GERGerund
verbal noun of fish- OBLOblique (argument)
indirect or demoted object
(more literally: “Teaching of fishing is better than (just) the giving of fish.”
The former is usually seen as part of the more poetic or colloquial register, the latter is the more often neutral/plainly declarative version. Like in the previous sentence, it can however be used to stress the "is", and thereby emphasize how it is (seen as) factual, rather than supposed or merely alleged. ✎ Edit Article ✖ Delete Article
Comments
