3.2.2.
|
Pronouns
|
The pronouns in this language
form a sub-class of nominals. A pronoun was earlier defined as
belonging to that class which is capable of showing contract in
person, number and case and is capable of substituting a noun
including a noun phrase having an anaphoric reference. A pronoun also
does not admit of determiners. The contrast in person, however, is not
marked overtly through person markers, rather different lexical items
are used to mark this opposition, for instance:
|
| |
| moy |
‘I’ |
moykhan |
‘we’ |
 puni |
‘you (sg) |
punikhan |
‘you (pl)’ |
| tay |
‘he/she’ |
taykan |
‘they’ |
| |
|
|
|
| Morphological
construction: |
| moy |
‘I’ |
moykhan |
‘we’ |
| puni |
‘you (sg)’ |
punikhan |
‘you (pl)’ |
| tay |
‘he/she’ |
taykhan |
‘they’ |
|
Morphological
construction:
|
On the
pradigmatic axis, the pronouns are capable of taking only the number
and case markers, as in:
|
| |
| moy |
‘I’ |
moykhan |
‘we’ |
| muke |
‘to me’ |
moykhanke |
‘to us’ etc. |
|
This feature is
found with all the three personal pronouns. Therefore, from the
illustrative examples given above, the morphological construction of a
pronoun can be stated as:
|
pronoun
®Root ± number
±
case
|
There is not
special limitations in the occurrence of these markers except that
they occur only in the order mentioned above. The morphological
construction of a pronoun in this language has total of four types,
viz.,
|
| |
| Root alone |
moy |
‘I’ |
| Root+number |
moykhan |
‘we’ |
| Root+case |
muke |
‘to me’ |
| Root+no+case |
moykhanke |
‘to us’ etc. |
|
Sub-classification
of the pronouns:
|
It was mentioned
earlier that the pronouns in this language show opposition in number
and case. Some pronouns also show different forms for indicating
different persons. Not all pronouns, however, show these oppositions.
The presence or absence of certain categories could, therefore, be the
criterion for sub-classifying the pronouns in this language, though
not all pronouns are classified on this criterion.
|
Personal pronouns:
|
The first
sub-classification would be based on the criterion of having different
forms for different persons. Thus the pronouns that show different
forms to indicate the person, form a sub-group called personal
pronouns and the rest form the non-personal pronouns. The personal
pronouns show an additional feature in that they show opposition in
number whereas the non-personal pronouns do not show opposition in
number, as in:
|
| |
| moy |
‘I’ |
moykhan |
‘we’ |
| puni |
‘you’(sg) |
punikhan |
‘you (pl)’ |
| tay |
‘he/she’ |
tayk han |
‘they (human)’ |
|
| |
hotoli kowise tay
mo so k
habo
‘Hatoli said that she would eat meat’
|
| |
1
2 3 4 5
6 7 |
| |
|
(lit Hatoli say past she meat
eat future) |
| |
|
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 |
| |
gonmey gor ekta se, tay gor durse
‘gonmei has a house, his house is far away, etc. |
| |
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 1
4 3
5 6 8 7 |
Reflexive
pronouns:
|
‘Reflexive
pronouns replace co-referential noun phrase, normally within the
finite verb phrase’ (quirk & Greenbaum 1975 : 103). Unlike in English
and many Indian languages the reflexive pronouns in this language do
not occur as separate entities, nor are repeated, rather the emphatic
particle hi is suffixed to the noun/pronoun, concerned as in:
|
| |
moyhi jayse
‘I myself went’ |
| |
tayk hanhi kamtu koribolage
‘they must do the work themselves’ |
| |
1
2 3 4 5 6
7 |
(lit. they emp. part work
specific do will must) |
| |
|
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 |
| |
punihi sob kam korise lage
‘You should have done the entire work yourself’ |
| |
|
(lit. you emp. all work do
past must) |
| |
|
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 |
