Print

Print


Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 10/07/99 10:24:37  , Boudewijn a =E9crit :

>  Well, what do you think? How would you analyse _ga_ on the
>  basis of these examples?

i'm not a linguist so i can't say much more
than for "tan". maybe i'm completely wrong here but
temptatively it makes me think of japanese
nominalizing-topicalizing
"no wa", "to iu no wa", "to iu koto", "to itte", etc..
so you can topicize any argument, verb, copula,
clause, raccoons, etc...
except that sometimes it seems also trigger a kind of
dutch "er" or "daar" in the rheme
and sometime it just points at the focus (?).
also i guess that the fact that NEG is right after or before
any negated item makes it possible to either
topicize/focus a negation or negate the topic/focus (??).
i must say that some of your examples i would have
flatly misinterpreted.

S =3D subject
T/F =3D topic/focus
iO =3D indirect object
dO =3D direct object
?O =3D what kind of object ?

your structure seems to me :

S iO V dO

stuff like "cu" and "at" reminds me of serial intransitive verbs
or english up and down in put it up/cut it down or japanese
copulas.

>       Adanvough ga  barusha  goho qireze.=20
>       old_man   NOM mountain high see
>       The old man sees the mountain that is high.
>       The old man sees that the mountain is high.

S-T/F ?O V

in light cast by the following i guess ?O is actually iO:

>       Keda   ga  naha   afran teshitlo gevir ram.
>       father NOM mother go    market   give  money=20
>       father gives money to mother who goes to the marked
> =20

S-T/F iO V dO

>       Zinahama ga  aday  yos=E9   sam=E9.=20
>       grandma  NOM child cheeky say
>       Grandma gives the cheeky child a talking-to

S-T/F iO V

mathias