verb sentence marker vs. - Tokyo University of Foreign...
Transcript of verb sentence marker vs. - Tokyo University of Foreign...
1
*
1,2
1998 1998 1999 2007
2009
verb sentence marker vs.
(1) a.
[1m] =vs.RLS
b.
(=FOC)
13
2
attributive clause marker ac. nominal clause marker nc.
vs.IMP IRR RLS INC
4
PRH NEG
5
6
ac.
nc.
(2)
[1m] [1m’]=
(3)
=vs.RLS =attr.RLS=
c. a. b.
(4) a.
[1m] =vs.RLS
3
b.
[1m] =vs.IRR
c.
[1m] not- =vs.NEG
(5) a.
[1m’]=hà
b.
=ABL=hà
c.
[1m] =attr.RLS=hà
d.
=hà
a. d. c. d.
(5) c’.
[1m] =nc.RLS
d’.
(6) a.
[1m] =vs.RLS
b.
[1m] =nc.RLS
(7) a.
[1m] =vs.IRR
b.
[1m] =nc.IRR
4
headless relative/free relative
1992 p.34
d. e.
(8) a.
= - =nc.RLS not- =vs.NEG-Q
b. ibid p.34
=nc.RLS =[ ]=[ ]=vs.IMP
c.
[1f] =nc.RLS =[ ]=[ ]=vs.IMP
d. *
[1m] =nc.RLS=ALL [2m]= =[ ]=vs.RLS=Q
e. *
[1m] =nc.RLS=LOC 1-[ ] =vs.RLS
(9) a.
[1m] - =attr.RLS= =ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
b.
[1m] - =attr.RLS=hà=ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
c.
[1m] - =nc.RLS=ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
(9)’ a.*
[1m] - =attr.RLS= =ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
b.
[1m] - =attr.RLS=hà=ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
5
c.
[1m] - =nc.RLS=ACC - =[ ]=vs.IMP
(9) a. b. c. c. a. b.
(9)’
(9)’a. (9)’c. (9)’b.
(9)’a.
# (9)’b. (9)’a.
(9)’c.
a. c.
(9)’c. (9)c.
(9)’c.
(9)’c.
head-internal relative (9)c. (9)’c.
(9)c. (9)’c
9
event
(10) a.
[3] =nc.RLS(=ACC) not- =vs.NEG
b.
[3] =ALL =nc.RLS(=ACC) not- =vs.NEG
(11) a.
[3] =nc.RLS(=NOM) =vs.RLS
b.
[3] =ALL =nc.RLS(=NOM) =vs.RLS
6
(10)a. (11) a.10 (10)b. (11) b.
(11)
(10)
(12) a.
=[ ] =[ ]=nc.RLS=[ ] NAME=NOM =[ ]
- =nc.RLS =vs.RLS
b.
=loc - - =nc.IRR=[ ]
=[ ]=attr.RLS=[ ] =PL=vs.RLS
c.
=attr.RLS= =NOM -AUG =nc.RLS=[ ] = =NOM
not- =vs.NEG
d.
[1m] =[ ]=nc.RLS=[ ] =vs.IRR
e.
=[ ]=nc.RLS=INS =ALL - =[ ]=vs.RLS
11
7
3.2
1992
2009
(13) a.
[1m] =PAST =LOC =[ ]=[ ]=vs.RLS
b.
[1m] =PAST =LOC =[ ]=nc.RLS=[ ]
(14) a.
[1m] - (=[ ])=vs.IRR
b.
[1m] - =nc.IRR=[ ]
1992 1998 2009
ibid. p.41 A. B. C.12
A.
(15)
a.
=ABL= =PL=GEN =[ ]=[ ] =COM =GEN
8
- =TOP =ABL =vs.RLS=QUOT =PL=nc.RLS=FOC
b.
[ ] =ACC =ESS= =INS =[ ]=nc.IRR
c.
=NOM not- =vs.NEG [ ] =nc.RLS
=nc.RLS =NOM =vs.IRR [ ] =nc.RLS
http://shweamyutay.com/
d. 13
=[ ] =[ ]=[ ]=nc.RLS not- =vs.NEG=Q
(16)
a.
=[ ] =[ ]=vs.IMP [ ] [1f]=GEN= - =[ ]
=1-CLF=[ ] =[ ]=nc.RLS
b.
- =[ ]=[ ] =[ ]=nc.RLS
(17)
a.
=NOM - =[ ] - =nc.IRR=FOC
b.
[1m] - =[ ]=[ ]=nc.RLS
9
A.14
(18) Disney Land
[1m]=NOM =PAST PLN =vs.RLS
Disney Land
[ ] PLN =nc.RLS=Q/ =vs.RLS=Q -[ ]=FOC
(19) Disney Land
[1m]=NOM PLN =vs.IRR
Disney Land
[ ] PLN =nc.IRR=Q/ =vs.IRR=Q -[ ]=FOC
(20) a.
[1m] =PAST PLN=LOC =[ ]=vs.RLS
a’.
10
[1m] =PAST PLN=LOC =[ ]=nc.RLS
b.
{[1m]} =PAST PLT=LOC =[ ]=nc.RLS [1m](=[ ])(=FOC)
c.
[1m] { =PAST} PLT=LOC =[ ]=nc.RLS =PAST (=[ ])(=FOC)
d.
[1m] =PAST {PLT=LOC} =[ ]=nc.RLS PLT(=LOC)(=[ ])(=FOC)
(21) a.
[1m] PLN(=ALL) =vs.IRR
a’.
[1m] PLN(=ALL) =nc.IRR
b.
[1m] { PLN(=ALL)} =nc.IRR PLT(=ALL)(=FOC)
2
B.
11
(22) a.
[3] not- =nc.RL =vs.INC
b.
[1f] =nc.RLS 6-CLF=[ ] =vs.INC
15
(23) a.
[3] NAME=COM - =nc.IRR =vs.RLS
b.
[3] NAME=COM - =nc.IRR =vs.IRR
cf.
[3] NAME=COM - =[ ] =vs.RLS
a. b. cf.
3.2
(24) a.
- =nc.RLS not- =[ ]=[ ]
12
b.
PLN(=ALL) =nc.IRR =[ ] not- =vs.NEG
c.
=nc.RLS 2-CLF =vs.RLS
(24)a. b.
(23) (23)
16
17
(25) a.
NAME=ACC NAME=NOM (=[ ])=vs.RLS
b.
NAME=TOP (NAME’=)NMLZ- (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
c.
NAME=TOP NAME =nc.RLS (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
d.
NAME=TOP (NAME’=) =nc.RLS (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
a. b. d. b. c.
d.
c.
d.
13
(26) a.
NAME=GEN= =ACC NAME=NOM (=[ ])=vs.RLS
b.
NAME=TOP -NMLZ- (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
b’.
NAME=TOP NAME=GEN= -NMLZ- (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
c.
NAME=TOP NAME - =nc.RLS (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
d.
NAME=TOP NAME=GEN= - =nc.RLS (=[ ])=[ ]=vs.RLS
b’.
c.
18
1.2
(27) a.
[1m] not- =vs.NEG
b.
[1m] =nc.IRR not- =vs.NEG
14
c.
[1m] =nc.RLS not- =vs.NEG
1
15
* 2 2010 7 3
1
5 3 70%
45
2
3
4 1992inchoative mood
5
6
7
e.g. a.
[2m] ’=ACC - =attr.RLS=hà
b.
[2m] ’=ACC - =nc.RLS
8
9
10
16
11
e.g.
[1m] =nc.RLS=COM [3] =nc.RLS=COM not- =vs.NEG
e.g.
[3] =LOC - =vs.RLS=COM =vs.RLS
12
13
14
15
16 20092 2010
2010 p.7
17
18
e.g.
[ ’]= [3’]=[ ]=
ABL ablative ABS absolutive ACC accusative ALL allative
attr. attributive clause marker AUG augmentative CAUS ( ) causative
(case) CLF classi er COM commitative COMP comparative COP
copular verb DIM diminutive DEP ( ) deputation (case) ESS
essive EXCL ( ) exclusive (case) FOC focus marker FUT
( ) future time (case) GEN genitive IMP ( ) imperative (mood) INC
( ) inchoative (mood) INS instrumental IRR irrealis (mood) LOC
locative NAME nc. noun clause marker NEG ( ) negative
17
(mood) NOM nominative not negative marker ONM onomatopoeia
PAST ( ) past time (case) [ ] politeness PL plural a x POSS
( ) possessor (case) PURP ( ) purposive (case) Q question particle
QUOT quotation marker RLS realis (mood) TER terminative TOP
topic marker vs. verb sentence marker VVD vividative [1]
[1f] [1m] [2f] [2m]
[3]
[mother] [teacher]
’
e.g. [1m’] [teacher’] e.g.
[ ] [ ]
2009
1998
2009 -ta/-hma
2009 KHAN YA
Myint Soe 1999 A Grammar of Burmese. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon Uni versity.
2007
. 2009 13
. 2009 2
2 2009.12.06
Okell, John 1969 A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. London: Oxford University Press.
Okell and Allott 2001 Burmese/Myanmar Dictionary of Grammatical Forms. Curzon Press.
1983
1992 -ta -hma 11
p.25-61
. 1998 2 (http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/ sawadah/burtexts/burgram2.pdf).
. 1999 1 (http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/ sawadah/burtexts/burgram1.pdf).
Sawada, Hideo. 1994 Signi cance of Pseudo-cleft Construction in Burmese . Current Issues in
Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, Edited by Hajime Kitamura, Tat-suo Nishida, Yasuhiko Nagano, The Organizing
18
Committee, The 26th Inter national Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics 1994, Osaka,
p.723-755.
1992 . pp.567-610.
( )
( )
1986 p.194-219
RFA Radio Free Asia, Burmese Program
URL
Dr. Tun Aung Kyaw
19
On Nominalized Clauses in Colloquial Burmese
Kenji Okano
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Abstract
Burmese nominalized clause, formed with the nominal clause markers and , is, so-called, a
“headless free relative”, and sometimes a noun which the nominalized clause semantically denote can be
occur in it, which type of relatives must be said as a “head-internal relative”.
Usages of a nominalized clause can be classified in three types; “strict-embedded”, “loose-embedded”
and “independent” clauses.
The strict-embedded type can be used not only as a subject or object of the main clause, but also occur
as a clause of reason by adding some case markers. Embedded clause in “passive” construction might be
classified to this type.
The loose-embedded type is found as, so-called a “clause of expressing concomitant circumstances”.
This type includes the sentence of time-elapse, expressing transient emotion, in which a nominal clause
occurs as a quasi-obligate argument, and of presupposition. According to the last type, we can find a noun
which is coincident to it in the main clause.
The third type, the independent nominalized clause is similar to Japanese No(da) sentence, it is called as
“ / “ /
“ /
“ /
almost all
On Nominalized Clauses in Colloquial Burmese
Kenji OKANOTokyo University of Foreign Studies