|
Acc. moy
tomok dekhilo ‘I saw you’ (lit. I you (acc.) see Past) |
|
1
2 3
4
5
1 2 3
4 5 |
|
|
|
dat. xou gosbor tumi moloi
pothaisi lane? |
|
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 |
|
(lit. those three pl you I dative
had sent did) |
|
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 |
|
|
|
When did you send me those trees? |
|
dat. tumar kutharkhan mok ketia
diba? |
|
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8 |
|
(lit. you gen axe I dative when
give will) |
|
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 |
|
|
|
When will you give the axe to me? |
|
gen. taik mor hoga posak zor dia |
|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 |
|
(lit.she dat I gen. white dress
the1 give) |
|
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 8 |
|
‘give here my white dress’ |
|
|
| loc. Xi ghorot asil |
‘he was in the house’ |
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
|
|
(lit. he house in is
past) |
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
abl. gospar
pora ph lto
xori poril |
‘the
fruits fall down fromt he
tree (lt. tree the from fruit |
|
1 2
3 4 |
|
the fall down. |
|
5
6 7 |
| Insr. moy lorartok edal
lathire marile |
‘I hit the boy
with a stick’ |
| 1
2 3 4
5 6 7 8 |
|
| (lit. I boy the acc one
stick with hit) |
|
|
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 |
|
|
When this feature is compared with the ones available
with Sema, a Naga language, one finds that the accusative,
dative and genitive case relations are unmarked overtly.
These are indicated by certain fixed word order, as
in :
|
ascc. ino li ithulu
‘I saw her’
1
2
3 1
2 3 |
|
1This and many other words whose meanings are
given as ‘the’ are in fact nominal classifiers-a feature of the
Austric languages adopted by the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages and also
by the Tibeto-Burman language except the Naga Group.
|
|
| dat.ino
ana lakhi li ciwa |
‘I
gave her a child’ |
| 1
2 3
4 5 |
1
5 4 3 2 |
| gen.liki |
‘her house’ |
| 1 2 |
2 1 |
|
The nominative, sociative,
instrumental, ablative, allative and locative case relations are overtly
marked in Sema Naga. This situation may now be compared with the ones
found in the Angami variety of the Naga Pidgin which amongst all the
varieties of the Naga Pidgin shows the maximum number of opposition in
case relations.
|
| nom.
suali girise |
‘the
girl fell’ |
|
1
2 |
1 2 |
| acc.
k suali mok dikhise |
‘the girl saw me’ (lit. girl I acc see |
|
1 2 3
4 |
1 2 3
4 |
|
past) |
|
5 |
| dat.
k moy tak ekta lorak dise |
‘I gave her a boy’ |
|
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 |
(lit. I she dat. one boy acc gave) |
|
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 |
| Ke.moy
taykhanke ekta lora dise |
‘I
gave them a boy’ |
| sociative
suali moy lgot
jayse |
‘the girl went with me’ |
|
1 2
3
4 |
1 4
3 2 |
| |
|
| gen. r
sualir hath |
'girl's hand' |
| |
|
| instr.
de tak mekeladi bandise |
‘she was tied with a dhoti’ |
|
1 2 3
4 5 |
(lit. she acc dhoti with tied) |
|
1 2
3 4
5 |
| loc.
te mekelate rong ny
(there is) |
‘no colour in thd dhoti’ |
| abl.
tay gor pora ahise |
‘she came from the house’ |
|
1 2
3 4 |
1 4
3
2 |
| allative.tay
gorot jayse |
‘she went (to) home’ |
|
1 2 3
4 |
1 4
3 2 |
|
Even in the Angami variety, the dative and accusative case markers get
mixed up. This is true of Assamese also (cf. Goswami 1966:6). Most of the
other varieties of the Naga Pidgin do not mark overtly the accusative,
dative and genitive case relations, rather fixed word order signals these
case reactions. This pattern seems to be a refection of the patterns in the
Naga languages.
|
