Individual session: Ryan Henke
Date: 2017-04-26
Folder: FM2-20170426-RH

Kamu beng aku tipaq singe no        -means the same thing, she says, and it’s not weird        
(1)        Kamu beng aku singe no        →         (2) kamu beng singe no aku
(1) and (2) mean the same thing, but (1) is preferred, she says. That’s odd b/c R, T reversed.
So the word order can be overruled by pragmatics in interpreting the sentence: It was basically like “Well, you’d never give a person to a lion, so you’re always going to interpret it as the lion being given to the person”


(3)        Kamu beng aku tipaq singe no        → (4)        kamu beng singe no tipaq aku
(3) and (4) are different meanings, though: This shows the difference that argument order makes in interpretation. Here it’s very clear.

Kamu beng aku meong (no)
Kamu beng aku ie X (ie is only for human)
Kamu beng meong no tipaq aku → means same thing as Kamu beng aku meong (no)

Aku beng inaq no anak=n        → aku beng inaq no ie ✓
‘I give the mother her baby’        → aku beng ie tipaq inaq no ✓ (so tipaq is OK)
aku beng=n inaq no X → “the =n is confusing”
-so we can use ie to refer to a T, but you can;t cliticize a 3rd-person T, becaue the tendency is to interpret the =N as refering to the A or R not T

Inah beng aku anak=ke        → Inah beng aku ie (yes, but ie feels weird to refer to “my kid”)
Inah gives me my baby        

Aku beng Udin anak=n
Aku beng Udin ie
Aku beng=n Udin X → again “the =n refers to Udin” → 

The takeaway here: It’s probably ungrammatical to have ie refer to a non-human entity, even though Nisa has OKed =n for non-human entities on occasion. I double-checked today using =n for ‘the book’, which she said was OK before, but this time she was adamant that it’s not OK.

PASSIVIZATION
Kamu beng aku meong no
Aku te-beng meong no        →         Aku te-beng meong no siq kamu
I was given the cat        
OK to passive R
                
Meong no te-beng tipaq aku OK        → tipaq aku te-beng meong no 
‘The cat was given to me’                (this one’s technically OK, but “the focus is different”)
-in the second example, the focus/emphasis is switched to :me” to specify that I’m the R
OK to passivize T

Meong no te-beng=ke OK        →         Meong no te-beng=ke siq kamu
The cat was given me
OK to passivize T, cliticize R too

Aku te-beng ‘I was given’ is OK--so you don’t need the Theme “in certain contexts”; like the exchange below:
mbé        taoq=m        ng=anuq                →        aku te=beng
where        place=2        N=whatchamacallit                ‘I was given’
Where did you get that?