| 3.3.2. |
Sub-classification of the verb:
|
The verbs in
this language can be sub-classified primarily into two, viz., locative
and non-locative verbs, as in :
|
| 3.3.2.1. |
Locative verb (LV):
|
| |
moy kukur ekta
 se ‘I have a dog’
tay yate se
‘he/she is there’
|
Non-locative
verb:
|
| |
tay jayse
‘he/she went’
tay tat gorot jabole lage ‘he/she is to go to that house’
etc.
|
The LV in this
language has three different functions. These are :
|
| |
| (i) |
identification of an item/object functioning as the subject (NP1)
with another, viz. NP2 The NP2
would then be a predicator which could be either a nominal or
adjectival predicator as in :
|
| |
tay khetimanu
ekta
sile1
‘he was a farmer’
itu da or
sile
‘it was big’
|
| (ii) |
Locative
function, i,e., indicating the place where the NP (usually
forming the subject) is located. The point/place of location
would be an adverb of direction/place including a functional
adverbs, as in :
|
| |
moy yate
se
‘I am here’
moy rita gorte
sile
‘I was in Rita’s house’, etc.
|
| (iii) |
The
identification of the item/items possessed by a noun/ pronoun
functioning as the subject. In other words, the subject refers
to a person/thing, etc. indirectly involved in the existential
proposition, where the role of the subject is that of a
‘receipient’ as in :
|
| |
moy duy
puali
se ‘I
have two daughters’
mes sari thie
se ‘The
table has four legs’, etc.
|
|
The main
difference between the predicative and possessive types is that in the
former NP1 and NP2 refer
to two different items/persons.
|
In this
language, the equative sentences take a locative verb only in the past
& future tenses and in the present negative sentences. The present
positive sentence has NP1 NP2
type of construction, as in:-
|
| |
tay khietimanu
nse ‘He is not a
farmer’
itu daor nse
‘It is not big’
tay khietimanu
‘He (is a farmer’
itu daor
‘it (is)big, etc.
|
The sub-division
between the LV and the non-locative verbs is based on the following
criteria:
|
| |
| (a) |
Whereas a
non-LV is capable of showing modal differences, the LV is
incapable of showing the modal differences, as in :
|
| |
Non-L.V.
jabi ‘go(imp)’
jayle ‘if....goes’
|
| (b) |
Whereas a
non-LV can occur alone as the predicate of a sentence, a LV is
different from that of a NP complement curing with a LV is
different from that a NP complement occurring with a verb, as
in:
|
| |
moy tay lgot
jabo
‘I will go with her/him’
moy tay lgot moso
khayse ‘I ate meat with her’
moy tat jabo
‘I will go there’, etc.
|
| |
Thus when
a NP occurs as a constituent of a LV, the relationship between a
noun functioning as the subject (NP1) and
that of NP2 is that of a possessor or the
location of the item/ person referred to in the subject whereas
with a non-LV, the NP2 would be a verb
complement having the function of an adverb, as is:
|
| |
moy tay lgot
jabo ‘I will go with her/him’
moy tat jabo
‘I will go there’
|
| (c) |
When both
the LV and non-LV occur in a VP, they have the functions
respectively of the auxiliary and the principal verb. The
auxiliary is always postponed to the principal verb, as in :
|
| |
moy moso
khay
se ‘I
am eating meat’
|
| (d) |
On the
paradigmatic axis, the root/stem forms of the non-locative verbs
have nearly the same shape before different tense/modal markers,
while the LV has the suppletive base forms before tense markers,
as in :
|
| |
Non-locative :
kini
‘buy’
kinise
‘bought’
kinibo
‘will buy’
kinibi
‘buy (imp)’, etc.
|
|
|
|
