Individual session: Ryan Henke Date: 2017-04-12 Folder: FM2-20170412-RH aku wah inem teh ‘I drank tea’ wah=ke inem teh ‘I drank tea’ The A argument can be cliticized here aku inem teh inem=ke teh aku inem=n ‘I drink tea’ *‘I drink tea’ ✓ ‘I drink tea’ But it’s not as grammatical to cliticize A if the construction is just V-A P. However, it’s OK to cliticize the P in the same context, as long as the referent for P has been established by context. kamu bau kembang no → *bau=m kembang no → kamu bau=n ✓ ‘You pick the flower’ -Again, the cliticized P is OK but not the cliticized A, if it results in V-A P kamu wah bau kembang no → wah=m bau kembang no → kamu wah bau=n ✓ 2 already pick flower DEM kamu wah=n bau X ‘You picked the flower’ ?*‘You picked the flower’ ‘You picked the flower’ The cliticized A is OK in wah=m bau kembang no, but Nisa says it’s “More OK for a question”, like cliticizing the A implies a question instead of a statement. Notice that cliticizing the P is OK, as long as it gets cliticized after the V. The version where A and P are on the same side of the verb creates an ungrammatical utterance. ie lanjak aku → lanjak=n aku ✓ → ie lanjak=ke ✓ 3 kick 1.SG kick=3 1.SG 3 kick=1.SG ‘he kicks me’ ‘he kicks me’ ‘he kicks me’ -In these examples, the A and the P get cliticized. Nisa did not seem to react negatively to either clitic construction. aku wah inem teh → wah=ke inem=n kan ✓ → wah inem=ke=n X ‘I drank tea’ ‘I drank tea right ‘I drank tea’’ Here, it is not permitted to put two clitics onto the same element. Also, Nisa often prefers to end an utterance with a discourse marker like ‘right’, when you have an utterance comprised of two elements with a clitic on each. Leaving off ‘right’ renders the utterance more like a question than a statement. kamu yaq bau kembang no → yaq=m bau=n kan ✓ → yaq bau=m=n X ‘You will pick the flower’ Again, it is not permitted to put two clitics onto the same element. Also, Nisa often prefers to end an utterance with a discourse marker like ‘right’, when you have an utterance comprised of two elements with a clitic on each. Leaving off ‘right’ renders the utterance more like a question than a statement. kanak no wah gitaq manòk → wah=n gitaq manòk ✓ → wah=n gitaq=n The child saw a chicken The child saw a chicken ✓, “but like a question” Again, employing cliticizing the A & P seems to create a more question-like utterance than a statement. aku inem teh no → siq=k inem=n kan ‘I drink the tea’ *‘I drink the tea’ -Nisa doesn’t like the siq construction here. She says it’s technically grammatical but nobody would actually say something like this. I was trying to cliticize the A and the P together in a monotransitive kamu bau kembang no kan → siq=m bau=n kan ✓ 2 pick flower DEM right ‘you pick the flower, right’ -Nisa said this one was OK, though, right away. The A and the P are both cliticized. ie lanjak aku → siq=n lanjak=ke kan ✓ ‘he kicks me’ -Nisa says the siq version here works as long as something comes after lanjak=ke. This construction has a cliticized P. aku wah inem teh → *siq=ke wah inem=n ‘I drank tea’ Nisa did not like cliticizing the A and the P here kamu yaq bau kembang no → siq=m yaq bau=n kan ✓ ‘You will pick the flower’ ‘you use this to pick that, right?’ Putting both clitics in changes the meaning to ‘you use this to pick that, right?’ kanak no gitaq manòk kan → gitaq=n kan=n The child sees a chicken, right ✓, but as a question Again, both clitics create more of a question terus ie béng aku kanak no → terus=n béng=ke kanak no ✓ ‘then he/she gave me a child’ → *terus=n béng=ke kanak -Here the A and R are both cliticized. Furthermore, the construction is ungrammatical if T is unspecified with a DEM. Nisa was clear about that. Maybe that’s because the T here is human. terus kanak no béng guru no paoq → *? terus=n béng=n paoq ‘then the child gave the teacher a mango’ BUT terus siq=n beng=n paoq ✓ -Nisa questions whether this example is ungrammatical because there are “too many =n” clitics. For some reason, though, the construction is OK in PV. kanak no wah béng kamu paoq → wah=n béng=m paoq ✓ ‘the child gave you a mango’ siq=n béng=m paoq✓ Here both constructions were totally OK aku bèng=m kembang → *aku bèng=n kamu I give you a flower I give you a flower A cliticized R is fine, but cliticizing T doesn’t work here because =n is typically used for a human referent. kamu bèng aku buku no → *kamu bèng=n aku X ‘you give me the book’ Again, a cliticized T won’t work for a non-human referent Aku beng inaq no bebèyaq no → siq=ke beng inaq no bebeyaq no ‘I gave the mother the infant’ FM2-20170412-RH Note: These are grammatical, but not preferred. Culturally insensitive. wah=ke beng kanak no mèong *siq=ke wah beng kanak no mèong ‘I already gave the child a cat’ OK to have cliticized A in AV. In PV it is not a good construction, because of the presence of wah: “you can’t use the clitic with wah there”. This wah=ke beng=n mèong ✓ → siq=ke beng=n mèong ✓ ‘I already gave him/her (the child) a cat’ Yes! Here is a perfectly good example with cliticized A and R. Good in AV and PV. But it’s not acceptable to cliticize the T. *wah=ke beng=n kanak no → *siq=ke beng=n kanak no *’I already gave the child it (a cat)’ But it’s not OK to cliticize the T: “I’m not sure if =n refers to cat or child”. This could be because of a conflict involving prominence, so compare it to whether I can cliticize an “it” in a tipaq construction, because that’s OK in English. aku wah bèng kamu kembang → *wah=ke bèng=n kamu I gave you a flower Again, non-human referent for clitic T is not OK dengan mame no béng aku tipaq singe → ✓ dengan mame no béng=ke tipaq singe ‘The man gives me to a lion’ aku beng kembang no tipaq kamu → *aku beng=n tipaq kamu ‘I give the flower to you’ Again, no cliticizing non-human T kamu bèng ès tipaq kanak no 2 give ice to child DEM ‘You gave ice to the child’ Nisa says it’s OK without DEM on kanak, but “you need to have no to make it perfect” dengan mame no bèng aku tipaq bebaloq (no) man give 1.SG to crocodile (no) ‘The man gives me to the crocodile’ Again, with or without DEM is OK. Nisa definitely prefers the DEM with a 3rd-person human referent aku bèng kamu mèong no siq=ke bèng kamu mèong no aku bèng=m mèong no siq=ke bèng=m mèong no aku bèng=n kamu X siq=ke bèng=n kamu X ‘I give you the cat’ aku bèng mèong no tipaq kamu siq=ke bèng mèong no tipaq kamu bèng=ke mèong no tipaq kamu wah=ke bèng=n tipaq kamu aku bèng=n tipaq kamu siq=ke bèng=n tipaq kamu ‘I give the cat to you’ *wah=ke beng=n kanak no → *siq=ke beng=n kanak no *’I already gave the child it (a cat)’ FM2-20170412-RH But it’s not OK to cliticize the T: “I’m not sure if =n refers to cat or child”. This could be because of a conflict involving prominence, so compare it to whether I can cliticize an “it” in a tipaq construction, because that’s OK in English. terus kanak no béng guru no paoq → terus siq=n beng=n paoq ✓ ‘then the child gave the teacher a mango’ FM2-20170412-RH kanak no wah béng kamu paoq → siq=n béng=m paoq✓ ‘the child gave you a mango’ FM2-20170412-RH siq=m beng kanak no es ✓ ‘You give the child ice’ FM2-20170412-RH dengan mame no béng aku tipaq singe→ siq=ne beng=ke tipaq singe siq dengan mame no ‘The man gives me to a lion’ Here both A and T are cliticized! *siq=m beng es tipaq kanak no ‘You give ice to the child' I don’t remember why she didn’t like this one. Probably because ‘ice’ isn’t specified? But T doesn’t always need to be specified … ? siq=n bèng paoq tipaq guru siq kanak no ✓ A child gave a mango to a teacher Kanak has to have no here siq=n bèng paoq tipaq guru no siq kanak no ✓ A child gave a mango to the teacher siq=n bèng paoq no tipaq guru siq kanak no ✓ A child gave the mango to a teacher siq=n bèng paoq no tipaq guru no siq kanak no ✓ A child gave the mango to the teacher siq=n bèng paoq no tipaq guru no siq kanak no ✓ The child gave the mango to the teacher