all the varieties. Difference
however is found in the occurrence of the past tense marker in that
three different markers are found to occur with different varieties.
These are: ile, ele and th kise. Of these, ile,
has the high frequency of occurrences and hence it is set up as the
past marker for the locative verbs.
|
Aspects:
|
Some varieties
show a three-way opposition in aspect viz., progressive, perfective
and habitual. Of these only the progressive has been set up for this
grammar. A brief statement of the three including the reason for not
setting up the other two are given below.
|
Progressive
aspect:
|
There is an
intersection of tense with this aspect in that it shows a three-way
opposition in all the varieties studied.
|
These
oppositions are : Past progressive, present progressive and future
progressive. And the present and future progressives are marked in the
same manner in all the varieties i.e., postposing the base form of the
non-locative verb to the root of the principal verb for the present
progressive and postposting the future form of the auxiliary verb thka
‘remain’ to the root fo the principal verb for the future progressive
as in :
|
khayse
‘is eating’ and
khay thkibo
‘will be eating’
|
These two
markers are therefore set up respectively for present and future
progressive aspects. The past progressive however, shows some
variations i.e., a majority for the varieties have the past form of the
non-locative verb postposed to the verb root, while a few have the
past form of the auxiliary postposed to the verb root. The former is,
therefore, set up for this grammar, as in.
|
khay
sile
‘was eating’
|
Perfective
aspect:
|
Only the Angami,
Rengma and Chang varieties have the occurrence of this aspect. Even in
their case, the simple past form is/can be used for indicating the
present and past perfect forms also, for instance,
|
moy mo so
khayse ‘I have/had
eaten/ate meat’
|
Future
perfective is not found to occur with any variety. In view of this,
the perfective aspect is not set up for this grammar.
|
Habitual aspect :
|
As far as the
habitual aspect is concerned the one feature that is common is the use
of the adverb hoday ‘always’ for expressing the recurring nature of an
action. Some of the varieties that mark this aspect mark it using
different auxiliary verbs. Since the adverb hoday signals the
recurring nature of the action specified, this aspect is not set up
for this grammar.
|
Modals:
|
All the
varieties studied show a minimum of seven-way opposition in modality.
These are: indicative (unmarked), imperative, obligatory, potential,
permissive, conditional and infinitive. A few varieties show as many
as ten-way opposition. The three additional modals found in some
varieties are : polite imperative, probability1and
probability2. Since a polite imperative as
opposed to a simple imperative is found only with the Angami variety
it is not set up for this grammar and the simple imperative is
redesignated as imperative. The probability modal2
and the probability modal2 express respectively
the prediction and the weakened prediction of the speaker about the
occurrence of an action or event in the future. In most of the
varieties, these two modals got mixed up with the potential modal. In
five varieties, viz., Ao, Chang, Sangtam, Zemi and the Liangmei, a
single from, viz., Vf pare stands for all the
three modals: and in some varieties, one of the two probability modals
with or without opposition in tense are available. Only in five
varieties, viz., Angami, Sema, Chokri, Kanyak and Mao, this three way
opposition is maintained . Even for these varieties, depending upon
the context, a single form viz., Vf para could
represent all the three modals. Therefore the need to set up the
probability1 and probability2
modals is not felt. And as such only the protential modal is set up.
The potential modal in all the varieties show a two-way opposition in
tense viz., past and non-past. In the non-past, four of the varieties
show the future marker with both the principal and auxiliary verbs, as
in :
|
jabo paribo
‘can go’
|
whereas the rest
of the varieties show the future tense only with the principal verb,
as in :
|
jabo pare
‘can go’
|
In view of this,
the latter form is accepted for this grammar. Two of the varieties
mark the past tense with the principal verb, as in :
|
jayse pare
‘could go’
|
whereas all the
other varieties have the past marker with the auxiliary verb which
signals modality as in :
|
| jabo parise
‘could go’ |
|
|
