|
prą jyiząbẽ3 tathā4 prą5 |
| |
good fall-Cond crop-Nom good-Adv |
| |
syakityo6/ |
| |
happen-Prob |
| |
`if3 rains2
fell3 in time1, crope4 |
| |
could be good5’
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8.3.
|
Time Specification : |
|
Sequences of two sentences,
where one specifies the time of happening of the second or relates the
second temporally to any other event in general, the relation is a temporal
relation. The process is marked by the VC of the sentence which serves as
the temporal reference taking the inflexion /-gõ/ in addition to its tense
inflexion. Thus given the two sentences
|
|
(313) |
/cyį1 kam2
bąliyą3/ |
| |
he-Nom work-Acc do-RemP |
| |
`he1 did3
the work2’
|
|
(314) |
/nyś1 kam2
bąyąy miri3/ |
| |
you-Nom work-Acc do-DF (25g)-Neg-Cont |
| |
`you1 won’t be3
doing3 the work2’
|
| |
we can generate a structure
|
|
(315) |
/nyś1
kam2
bąyąy mirigõ3 |
| |
you-Nom work do-DF (2Sg)-Neg-Cont-Temp |
| |
kam5 bąliyą6/ |
| |
work-Acc do-RemP |
| |
`he4 did6
the work5 before3
you1 did3 |
| |
(the work)2’
|
|
|
|
The two sentences have identical accusative NPs.
But no deletion, curiously, occurs in preferred sentences. But in a few
instances, we find the deletion of the lower NP giving rise to a sentence
like
|
| (315a) |
/nyś1 tap 2
thįyąy
mgõ3
cyį4 thįliyą5/ |
| |
`he4 ate5
(rice) before3 you1
ate3
rice2’
|
|
|
The difference could be due to the semantic nature of the
accusative NP. Where it may be a
|
