In each of above,
the hi postposed to the subject signals
that the property identified by the
predicate is a generic property of the
subject referent, and further, the speaker
has had personal experience of it. In
contrast, no, probably in its
indemnificatory function, added to the
subject in the above linguistic contexts,
would mean (a) that the statement is
specific, restricted in scope to a particular
man/entity pr community/group of people
and the speaker in fact does not quite
know the specific entity and (b) that
there might be something unexpectedly
sinister in the nature of the subject
NP referent. Note that pe-lo shü-e
‘can’t say’ can follow the sentence
with the -no marked subject
and not the sentence with the hi-
marked subject.
|
|
345.
|
1. |
raho-hi1
o a
a-li-e2
*pe-lo shü-e3 |
| |
|
birds1
are of different kinds2
; (one) can’t say3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
1a. |
raho-no1
oa
a-li-e2
pe-lo shü-e3 |
| |
|
birds1
are of different kinds2
; (one) can’t say3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2. |
nieomüi-hi1
ozhü cü-e2
*pe-lo shü-e3 |
| |
|
females1
are self-centred/egoistic/stingy2
; (one) can’t say3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2a. |
nieomüi-no1
ozhü cü-e2
pe-lo shü-e3
|
| |
|
females1
are self-centred/egoistic/stingy2
; (one) can’t say 3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
3. |
cüvemüi-hi1
docü-te2
*pe-lo shü-e 3 |
| |
|
thieves1
are very dangerous2
; (one) can’t say 3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
3a. |
cüvemüi-no1
docü-te2
pe-lo-shü-e3
|
| |
|
thieves1
are dangerous2
; (one) can’t say3 |
|
4.3 The specifier particle
|
no
is the specifier particle. It singles
out an entity or a group of entities
from among many entities or groups of
entities. It occurs only with nouns.
|
|
346 |
1. |
hokrü-no1
idzü2
modzü-we3 |
| |
|
(it
is) the hen (that)1
lays3
eggs2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2. |
tukrü2
-no1
nilei-yi2
tunidzü3
pi-we4 |
| |
|
(it
is) the cow (that)1
purveys4
us2
milk3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
3. |
a1
cümüi-no2
ayi3
ko-o bu-e4
|
| |
|
(it
is) my1
wife (who)2
is calling4
me3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
4. |
pfo-no1
pfo2
pfü-yi3
leshü-e4
|
| |
|
(it
is) he (who)1
loves4
his2
mother3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
5. |
besü-no1
bel2
da-oi-e3 |
| |
|
(it
is) besü (who)1
rang3
(the) bell2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
6. |
pfokho-no1
ayi2
ora ro-i-e3 |
| |
|
(it
was) Pfokho (who)1
got angry with3
me 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
7. |
kaikho-no1
ve 2 |
| |
|
(it
was) Kaikho (who)1
stole2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
8. |
mangili-no1
vu-se2 |
| |
|
(it
was) Mangili (who)1
came2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
9. |
 aiho-no1
thi-i-e2 |
| |
|
(it
was) Daiho1
(who) died2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
10. |
a1
cü2
kaikho3
cü-no4
lopüi5
bu-e6
|
| |
|
(it
is) on the other side5
of Kaikho’s3
house4
(that) my1
house2
is6
|
|
The specifying
function of no is tellingly
illustrated by the fact (a) that the
human interrogative pronoun takes -no
invariably in nonequational sentences
:
|
| 347
|
1. |
{
ahie-no
}1
|
pe2
who1
said2
? |
| |
|
{
?? ahie
} |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
2. |
{
ahie-no
}1
|
ayi2
ko-o bu-e3
who1
is calling3
me2
? |
| |
|
{
?? ahie
} |
|
|
and (b) that if the identity-seeking question is addressed to an
individual, the answer precludes -no. Thus, if the question
|
|
338 |
a. |
ahie-no1
osi-yi2
da-e3 |
| |
|
who1
beat3
(the) dog2
? |
|
is addressed to the individual qho happened to beat the dog, the
answer has a null-marked subject :
|
|
b. |
i.
ai1
da-e2
I1
beat2
(it) |
|
If, on the other hand, it is addressed to a group of individuals,
the answer (by an individual) has a no- marked subject
|
|
b. |
ii.
ai-no1
da-e2
it is I1
who beat (it)2
|
|
Further, no can occur with any sentence constituent except the
direct and indirect objects (including Goal).
|
