Time
|
|
452 |
a. |
izho1
(o)zho (ko) süe2
|
today 1
(is) wednesday 2
|
|
452 |
a. |
izho1
(o)zho (ko) süe2
|
today 1
(is) wednesday 2
|
| |
|
shu i
hi
cüthi2 kosü-e2
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
b. |
cühü-lino1
ovo koso no2
|
'morning1
is the correct4
time3 to |
| |
|
opha3
maci-e4 work
2 |
work' |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
c. |
sodu1
mani2 le3
t |
Tomorrow1
will be3 rest-day
2 |
|
|
d. |
südeni1
krismas-e2 |
the day after1
(is) Christmas2
|
|
|
A final point is that the (logical) subject is not an
obligatory part of a Mao sentence. It may be deleted (a)
in terms of discourse context, when it is optionaly absent
(egs. 453 I-II) (b) in terms of a systemic convention,
when it is optionally but typically absent (systemic deletion
(egs. 454) and absent (c) in terms of speaker-knowledge,
when ity is obligatorily absent or (d) deleted in terms
of speaker-intention or its irrelevance, when it is optionally
absent.
|
|
453 |
1. |
O1
ocü vu tai-e
O1
|
went away home to
the native place |
|
|
2. |
O1
odzü akhrü-o bu-e O1 |
is washing body
parts |
|
|
3. |
O1
mikrü-li lo-e O1
|
went down to Imphal
|
|
|
4. |
O1
ni-yi duno-e O1
|
for you |
|
|
5. |
O
thi-ie
O |
died |
|
|
6. |
O
mozü-i-e
O |
is/are/am hungry |
|
|
7. |
O
avu-lo-i-e
O |
had meal |
|
|
8. |
O
kra-e O |
is crying |
|
|
9. |
O
sho le mo-e O |
will not drink
|
|
|
10 |
O
adimüi-ko-e |
what village/community
does O belong
to? |
|
|
11 |
O
kolamüi-ko-e O
|
(is) (a) plainsman’ |
|
The above are examples of subject-absence triggered either
by discourse or intersentential context or pragmatics. Sent
453.1 above could be an answer to the discourse-initial.
|
| cakho1
adicü2 bu-e3
where2 is3
Chakho1 ? |
Sentences 453. 1-9 can not open a discourse/dialogue because
their antecedent, say cakho ‘Chakho (a proper noun)’
as in the I example, must have occurred before in the discourse
in which they are embedded. An example where the deletion
is pragmatically triggered - where the antecedent subject
is not linguistic but is in the nonlinguistic situation
of utterance e.g., the speaker, being the referent of the
deleted subject, asking the man accompanying him, or a face-to-face
encounter between two strangers, the deletion in the latter
cases being ni ‘you (sg.)’ - is the equation sentence 453.10.
Subject deletion in 453.11 which could be an answer to the
question in 453.10 could be pragmatic too. Pragmatically
triggered subject-deletion is, however, much less common
than linguistically induced subject deletion.
|
| b. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
454 |
1. |
tao |
‘scram I’ |
|
|
|
2. |
kra-sho
‘ |
don’t cry’ |
|
|
|
3. |
pfoyi peno1
mape-hio 2 |
‘make him1
tell2 |
|
|
|
4. |
tasoni-yi
peno1 ta-io2
|
‘let Tasoni1
go2 ; make Tasoni1
go2 |
|
|
|
5. |
sho -lo
sho- lo ‘ |
drink, drink’ |
|
|
|
6. |
kro bu-o
‘ |
sit down’ |
|
|
|
7. |
pe-hi |
‘speak’ |
|
|
|
8. |
phro-lo
|
‘read I’ |
|
|
|
9 |
he ko |
‘come here’ |
|
|
|
10 |
ayi pio |
‘give me’ |
|
These exemplify conventional or systemic deletion, in particular,
deletion of the second person pronouns. This has nothing
to do with intersentential context and can open a dialogue.
|
| c. |
Speaker-Knowledge |
| |
|
|
|
| |
455 |
1. |
ayi1
larübvü2kali3movupie4a5larücü6-lino7
|
| |
|
|
I1
was sent4 a3
book2 from7
my5 school6
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
2. |
a1
pfoyi2 ora3
lino4 soha-oie5
|
| |
|
|
my1
father2 was killed5
in4 the war3
|
| |
|
|
|
| d. |
Speaker-intention |
| |
|
|
|
| |
456 |
|
ni-yi1
da-oi2
le3 lohe4
ko5 -li6
|
| |
|
|
you1
will be3 beaten2
if6 (you) go5
there4 |
| |
|
|
|
| e. |
Irrelevance |
| |
|
|
|
| |
457 |
1. |
ree·io1-lino2
oko3 pe4
|
| |
|
|
the news/it3
was announced4
in2 the radio1
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
2. |
rüsho-hi1
loli2 cü3
lino4 pi-we5
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
ration1
is given5 at4
Loli’s2 house3
|
|
