Copala Triqui has an unusual syntax for recounting people's thoughts in a text. Rather than 'X thought [ABC]', the usual Triqui syntax is '[ABC], rá X'. (I am not completely sure, but I think that other orders with rá are not possible; at least none occur in natural texts.)
Sometimes [ABC] itself maycontain another verb that implies thought, like me rá 'want'.
Questions that I do not know the answer to about this construction:
a.) Logically it seems that [ABC] is subordinate to "X thinks", but is there syntactic evidence for the relationship between the two clauses?
b.) Does it have the same syntax as the similarly reversed causative construction '[ABC] caused X'?
c.) How large is the possible scope of the material before rá? How do I know where the left edge of the [ABC] unit is to be found?
d.) Are there any restrictions on the person/number of the subject? (I have only seen it for 2nd or 3rd person X, but maybe other uses are possible...)
e.) Is it possible for X to be null? I have transcriptions of some passages that seem to show this pattern, but I am not 100% sure that they are right.
f.) Any restrictions on the aspect or other elements of the [ABC] materials?
Here are some examples:
1.) In this example, the wants/thoughts of public hypocrites are described. The scope of rá seems to extend back to the me rá 'want' verb, since the two potential aspects on 'speak' and 'see' are triggered by the presence of these verbs in the complement of 'want'.
2.) In this example, it seems like the final question particle ga logically goes with the 'Which woman is my mother?' part of the sentence, not with the 'you think' part. (I.e. the sentence does not mean 'Do you think which woman is my mother?') Also ga typically shows up with wh-questions, not yes-no questions, so it is linked to the 'which woman'...
3.) Here is a case where the 'thinker' is the same as the subject of [ABC], and seems to be null in the syntax. This passage bears on question (e) above, but I want to have more examples to be sure that this is correctly analysed.
Sometimes [ABC] itself maycontain another verb that implies thought, like me rá 'want'.
Questions that I do not know the answer to about this construction:
a.) Logically it seems that [ABC] is subordinate to "X thinks", but is there syntactic evidence for the relationship between the two clauses?
b.) Does it have the same syntax as the similarly reversed causative construction '[ABC] caused X'?
c.) How large is the possible scope of the material before rá? How do I know where the left edge of the [ABC] unit is to be found?
d.) Are there any restrictions on the person/number of the subject? (I have only seen it for 2nd or 3rd person X, but maybe other uses are possible...)
e.) Is it possible for X to be null? I have transcriptions of some passages that seem to show this pattern, but I am not 100% sure that they are right.
f.) Any restrictions on the aspect or other elements of the [ABC] materials?
Here are some examples:
1.) In this example, the wants/thoughts of public hypocrites are described. The scope of rá seems to extend back to the me rá 'want' verb, since the two potential aspects on 'speak' and 'see' are triggered by the presence of these verbs in the complement of 'want'.
3.) Here is a case where the 'thinker' is the same as the subject of [ABC], and seems to be null in the syntax. This passage bears on question (e) above, but I want to have more examples to be sure that this is correctly analysed.
No comments:
Post a Comment