Name this construction
Richard Barz
richard.barz at ANU.EDU.AU
Tue Nov 7 03:56:35 UTC 2006
VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
Editors: Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
Details: Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
(Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
R.S. McGregor discusses this interesting construction, finding it a
Panjabi influence on Hindi, in note 1.4 on page 46 of his Exercises in
Spoken Hindi (Cambridge U.P.:1970).
Richard Barz
Bob Eaton wrote:
> VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net Editors: Tej K.
> Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York John Peterson, University of
> Osnabrueck, Germany Details: Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu
> and say: INFO VYAKARAN Subscribe:Send email to
> listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME
> LAST_NAME (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
> Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
> Does anyone have a reference describing the tense/aspect/mood of the
> Hindi construction:
>
> V-PERF to.be-PERF PRES
>
> Or in words: the main semantic verb in the perfective aspect, followed
> by "to.be" also in the perfective aspect, followed by a tense
> auxiliary. For example,
>
>
> मैंने
>
>
>
> यह
>
>
>
> काम
>
>
>
> किया
>
>
>
> हुआ
>
>
>
> है।
>
> mai.n-ne
>
>
>
> y-ah
>
>
>
> kaam
>
>
>
> ki-y-aa
>
>
>
> hu-0-aa
>
>
>
> h-ai
>
> 1SG-ERG
>
>
>
> PRX-sg
>
>
>
> work
>
>
>
> to.do-PERF-msg
>
>
>
> to.be-PERF-msg
>
>
>
> PRES-3sg
>
>
> It seems to be some form of present perfect aspect, but I need to
> understand how it is different from the regular present perfect:
>
>
> मैंने
>
>
>
> यह
>
>
>
> काम
>
>
>
> किया
>
>
>
> है।
>
> mai.n-ne
>
>
>
> y-ah
>
>
>
> kaam
>
>
>
> ki-y-aa
>
>
>
> h-ai
>
> 1SG-ERG
>
>
>
> PRX-sg
>
>
>
> work
>
>
>
> to.do-PERF-msg
>
>
>
> PRES-3sg
>
> I have done this work.
>
>
> That is, what does the addition of "to.be" in the perfective aspect do
> for it.
>
> [I'm asking, because Kangri and Dogri make this distinction
> morphologically, and I'm trying to describe it].
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bob
>
--
Dr Richard Barz
South & West Asia Centre
Faculty of Asian Studies
Building 110, Baldessin Precinct Building
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
More information about the Vyakaran
mailing list