On Nominalized Clauses in Colloquial Burmese

*

1,2

1998 1998 1999 2007 2009

verbsentence marker vs.

(1) a.

[1m] =vs.^RLS

b.

(=FOC)

1

3

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

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

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

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

(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

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

- =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

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’.

[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.

(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- =[ ]=[ ]

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.

(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

c.

[1m] =nc.RLS not- =vs.NEG

1

* 2 2010 7 3

1

5 3 70%

4

5

2

3

4 1992

inchoative mood

5 6

7

e.g. a.

[2m] ’=^ACC - =attr.^RLS=hà

b.

[2m] ’=^ACC - =nc.^RLS

8

9

10

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 2009

2 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

(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

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

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 OKANO

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies