The Language of the Modhupur Mandi (Garo), Volume 1

Word Order

(B)

pp. 305

This chapter describes clauses, and the way in which clauses can be joined together to form larger sentences. The first step is to describe the organization of the main (as opposed to subordinate) clauses.

Order of Constituents in Main Clauses . So-called "pro-drop" languages have been widely discussed in the linguistics literature. This term describes a language in which a subject, specifically a pronoun subject, can be optionally omitted or "dropped" from a clause. Garo might be described as having pro-drop with a vengeance. Subjects simply are not included when the context makes the information unnecessary. For what it is worth, the non-native speaker who is writing this paragraph finds the term "pro-drop" to be whimsically misleading as a characterization of Garo. Subjects, whether pronouns, nouns, or noun phrases, simply never need to be put into the sentence at all, so there is nothing to be "dropped". The fact that Garo pronouns have no reduced forms confirms the lack of any sort of "dropping". If a subject (or any other argument for that matter) is not needed, it is simply not put in. If it is present in a sentence it is because the meaning requires it, and its importance would be undermined if it were phonologically reduced. If it is worth having at all, it is worth having it with full form and full stress.

The lack of any need for a subject is particularly striking in a language that has no hint whatsoever of verb agreement. If the subject is not included among the arguments of the verb, there is no way, from the sentence alone, to know what the subject might be, but of course, peoplePage  306do not understand from isolated sentences. Listeners have countless clues to help them interpret the speaker's meanings, both from the previous and subsequent parts of the conversation and from the extra-linguistic situation in which the sentence is used. In a high proportion of sentences, if the larger context is taken into account, it would be entirely redundant to put in a subject. Garos do not bother.

Nor are any other arguments obligatory, and many Garo sentences consist of nothing but a verb. Of course verbs cannot always do the job alone, so many other sentences do include a string of arguments, but none of these is obligatory, and so far as I have ever been able to discover, the presence of one is never dependent upon the presence of another. If you start with a sentence consisting of three arguments followed by a verb and ask a speaker's opinion, you will be told that any selection of the arguments, from none to all three, would form a possible sentence. This would admit eight possible combinations of arguments. But it is not only the choice of arguments that is left free, but also the order in which those selected occur. The order of noun phrases is limited only by the rule that they all normally occur before the verb, and even this rule is not absolute. An argument is occasionally shifted to a postverbal position, but it then has an unmistakably distinctive intonation that shows this to be a highly marked place for an argument. In natural conversation, an argument is occasionally shifted to the postverbal position, but given time to think about a sentence, and time to compose it with care, consultants rarely do such a thing.

The order of items before the verb can be very free because the case markers show the syntactic and semantic role of the noun phrases so clearly. When asked, speakers simply say that any order is possible, and that all mean the same thing. Nevertheless, some orderings are certainly more frequent than others. Subjects, especially pronoun subjects, often appear early in a clause, even first. Direct objects often come late, and direct objects that are indefinite usually come immediately before the verb. Adverbs also have some tendency to be late, but this is no more than a tendency and it is possible for them to occur anywhere in the sequence. Question words have no special restrictions that distinguish their order from that of other noun phrases.

Perhaps there is a tendency for old information to be placed early, as it is in English, but that is not obvious. Of course old information can be more easily omitted from a sentence in a language where arguments are always optional, and old information that can be taken for granted is often simply omitted from a Garo sentence. If only new information is included in the sentence, it is impossible to sort what remains into old and new. This may sound as if information is conveyed in a more compacted form in Garo thanPage  307in a language such as English that is less permissive about allowing omissions, but surely that cannot be the case. I have wondered if the apparent lack of redundancy that comes by omitting what is clearly understood is, to some extent, offset by the kinds of anticipating and echoing phonology that was described in the Chapter 11, but that is mere speculation.

Beyond these general and frequently violated tendencies, I have no doubt that the order is influenced by subtle pragmatic considerations. My sense is that Me'-a-sa me'-chik-ko nik-jok is likely to imply 'the man (whom we have been talking about) saw the woman', while Me'-chik-ko me'-a-sa nik-jok is more likely to suggest 'the woman (whom we have been talking about) was seen by the man' ( me'-chik 'woman', me'-a-sa 'man'), but I cannot be confidant that I am not simply transferring my competence in English into my second language. All my attempts at generalizations amount to no more than a first approximation to an understanding of word order. Directing of attention, and the organization of information into old and new must be involved, but it may take a linguist with native competence to do justice to the subtleties.

Order of Constituents in Noun Phrases . The subject, objects, locatives and other arguments that come before the verb are noun phrases. These may be as simple as a single pronoun or as complex as the speaker's time and ingenuity allow. In most respects, the order of words within a noun phrase is considerably more constrained than that of arguments within a main clause, though it is still less rigid than the order of morphemes within a word. In one respect, however, a noun phrase is even less constrained than a sentence. An ordinary sentence does require a verb, but there is no single constituent that must be included within a noun phrase, not even a noun.

If a demonstrative is included it always comes first, and a case marker, along with any following postposition, always comes last. Verbal modifiers, numerals and the noun itself, come between the demonstrative and the case marker. Like demonstratives, genitives come early in the noun phrase and they always precede the word that names the thing possessed. The only thing that can precede a genitive is a demonstrative, as in i-a man-de-ni nok 'this person's house'. In this phrase, however, i-a 'this' modifies man-de 'person' rather than nok 'house', so it means 'the house of this person' rather than 'this house of the person'. (It could also be an equational sentence meaning 'This is a person's house.) In any case, a demonstrative and genitive are not very often found in the same noun phrase, so genitives, when present, are likely to begin a noun phrase

The point of greatest freedom of word order within the noun phrase is that numerals and simple verbal modifiers can occur either before orPage  308after the noun. They always follow any demonstrative or genitive, and precede any case marker or postposition. There is probably a statistical preference to place numerals and verbal modifiers after the noun, but if both a numeral and a modifier are used with the same noun, one is likely to be placed before the noun and the other after, as if to get them out of each other's way. Relative clauses always precede the noun that they modify, but single-word verbal modifiers can either precede or follow.

In the presence of a genitive there is some tendency to place a numeral after the noun. Thus ang-ni ma'-su mang-git-tam 'my three cows', literally 'my cows three', is considerably more likely than ang-ni mang-git-tam ma'-su , although the latter is certainly possible. On the other hand, there seems to be little to choose between bi-ni dal'-gip-a a-chak and bi-ni a-chak dal'-gip-a , either of which means 'his big dog'. In other words, simple verbal modifiers occur as easily either before or after the noun modified, even in the presence of a genitive.

When the subject of a relative or subordinate clause is made genitive, it is always the first argument of the clause. This brings the genitive to the front of the noun phrase in which the relative occurs, and this is exactly where genitives belong in other circumstances:

A demonstrative, numeral, or modifier can occur without any noun at all, and any one of them can act as the head of a noun phrase. It is possible, though hardly common, for a genitive to be used with either a number or a modifier, even in the absence of a noun: ang-ni mang-git-tam 'my three animals', where the classifier shows that it is animals that are being counted but the particular kind of animal is not made explicit; bi-ni dal'-gip-a 'his big one'. Case markers are suffixed to whatever word is last in the noun phrase, and this can be any constituent at all. The case markers are the only constituent of a noun phrase that are never used alone. They need to be suffixed to something, but it can be any other constituent.

The order of morphemes within words is described wherever the various types of words are described, and this will not be repeated here. Nevertheless it should be obvious that the "word", as that term is used here, is a rather different object than a word in English or in other European languages. Garo words have so many parts and these parts can combined so productively that it would be impossible for a dictionary to list all the possible words in the language. If a dictionary is considered to be a list of the words of a language, then a "complete" Garo dictionary would be utterlyPage  309impossible. In describing English we speak of "lexical items" and we think of them primarily as either words or short phrases whose meanings and use are sufficiently idiosyncratic that they need to be listed separately from the component words. Garo, of course, has such lexical items, but productive rules easily yield new Garo words from smaller parts, and these freely constructed words are not really lexical items, since their meanings are fully predictable from their parts. This means that it is often the smaller bits, such as numeral classifiers and adverbial affixes, that need to be listed in the dictionary as lexical items. Although these cannot act as independent words, they can be used productively to construct new words. Such words are as freely constructed as short phrases are constructed in English. English lexical items include both words and short phrases. Garo lexical items include many bound morphemes as well.

Clause Coherence: Final Noun Suffixes

(C)

pp. 309

The relationship among the words that join to form a clause needs to be made clear for the listener, and word order, case markers, and various sorts of subordinators all help to bring this clarity. Another important means of keeping the organization clear in Garo is provided by the four final noun suffixes, -ba 'and, also, as well', -de , which can sometimes be translated as 'but', -sa, -ha 'only', and -in , which foregrounds its word and focuses attention. Like case markers these are really clitics rather than suffixes since they follow the final word of a noun phrase. They come after case markers, and if the noun phrase is followed by a postposition, they even come after the postposition. No more than one of these four can be suffixed to the same noun phrase. Their suffixation to nouns and other nominals was described in Chapter 8, "Nouns". This section will focus on the way they interact with each other and in that way help to organize a sentence.

-ba and-de form a pair with contrasting meaning. -ba says that things are similar, while -de says that the word it is suffixed to contrasts with something else: bi-a-ba sok-jok 'he also arrived (as did someone else'); bi-a-de sok-jok 'he arrived (with the implication that someone did not)'. In sentences like these, the suffixes add context to what is being said, and their contrasting meanings introduce constraints on the way they can be combined within a sentence or even in successive sentences. Two words with -ba 's can be used together as long as parallel actions are being described:

Page  310

On the other hand, if two -de s are used in parallel, they must show some sort of contrast.

-de can be used in some situations where 'but' would be unlikely in English, but it still implies some sort of contrast. In the next example, the -de that has been suffixed to the pronoun ang-a 'I' is not explicitly contrasted to anything, but it still implies that someone else might know what I do not:

In the next example, where the suffix is used with da'-o 'now', it shows clearly that at some other time, litchis were not to be found at the market:

When a word has both a case marker and a -ba or -de , the case marker must come first. As this implies, -ba and -de are never used with the combining form of the monosyllabic pronouns, but require the free (or "nominative") form: ang-a-ba 'I also' and na'-a-de 'but you' are fine; *ang-ba and *nang'-de are impossible.

-ha, and-sa are alternative pronuncitions of a final noun suffix that is so much like English 'only' that it raises few problems. It does have to interact with -ba and -de in logical ways, however. The first of thePage  311following two examples is fine, but the second does not make sense, since -de announces that something different will happen to Binsen than to Retji:

The next two examples have words with both -ba and -sa . Once again, only the first example makes sense:

The last of the final noun suffixes is-in , which foregrounds a noun or noun phrase within a clause, and so focuses attention on it. Its role is rather different from the other three, but by pointing to significant points, it also helps to keep the organization of the sentence clear. Like -de , -in can be used with no more than one item in a clause. This makes sense since the purpose of -in is to select out the particular point to which attention should be focused, and it would be contradictory to have two competing points of focus. In many sentences, the -in draws attention to one particular word in a straightforward way. Its sense can often be conveyed by emphatic stress in English:

Page  312

Some words are particularly likely to attract -in . Among these are gim-ik 'all' and an'-tang 'self'. These words are often meant to carry an emphatic meaning, and their strength is augmented when foregrounded by -in . Indeed, an'-tang is so frequently used with -in that the suffix can almost seem to become a part of the word:

-in is often used in answers to questions where it usually marks the word that specifically supplies the answer. In the next example, consultants deny that it would be possible to put the -in on the bi-ko . This pronoun stands for Romes so it is information that is already known, and attention would not need to be drawn to it. On the other hand, while not required, -in would be perfectly fine on ching-a 'we'.

In the next example, on the other hand, it is impossible to suffix the ching-a with -in since this refers to the same person as na'-a 'you' in the question. Here ching-a is old information and the new information is supplied by Romes-ko . This can be marked by -in but it is not required:

The following two sentences use -in to focus the attention on different phrases. It would be impossible to have -in on both noun phrases in the same sentence.

Page  313

The following sentence has a relative and correlative so it counts as having two clauses. This makes it possible for both the relative pronoun and the correlative pronoun to have an -in suffix:

Collectively, the four final noun suffixes give a kind of scaffolding to sentences, and even to the discourse. They must support each other logically if the discourse is to make sense. Although never obligatory, they are very common. One's speech would be impoverished without them, even if it would not be ungrammatical.

Conjoined and Subordinate Clauses

(C)

pp. 313

Garo has many methods of combining two or more clauses into a single sentence. By using these methods repeatedly, and in combination, it is possible to build up very complex sentences. The constructions vary in the type of constituents that are joined, in the tightness of the resulting construction, and in the ways in which subordination is marked. A large part of the complexity of Garo syntax lies in the many ways of joining clauses.

Unmarked Clause Coupling . Just as words and phrases can be conjoined in Garo with no overt mark at all, so can clauses, although as they become longer and more complex, clauses are increasingly likely to have some overt mark of subordination. The mark helps to keep the relations among the clauses clear, but simple clauses may be clear without one:

Page  314

As noted in the section on "Conjunctions" in Chapter 11, "Minor Parts of Speech", conjunctions play a less prominent role in Garo than in English. Nevertheless, some conjunctions can be used to join clauses, as well as words and shorter phrases. Conjunctions that link two otherwise independent clauses, and the sentences that result from this linking are described in Chapter 11.

Subordinate Clauses with -e, -e-ming, -e-min-a . A verb or a clause can be subordinated to a following verb or clause by means of the subordinating suffix -e or by one of its longer synonyms -e-ming or -e-min-a . The subordinate clause normally precedes the main clause, and the verb of the main clause comes at the end of the sentence and carries the tense.

In some cases the two verbs are so closely linked that they amount to a compound verb. In the next example gam-e cha'-a is a conventional expression for 'living by working'. In the second example , bon'-e 'having finished' and cha'-a 'eat' are used together in the sense of 'eat up':

In many cases, the verb in -e is little different from an adverb. In the following sentence ja-brang-e is derived from a verb meaning 'scared, frightened' but here it modifies the verb meaning 'stay':

More than a single -e subordination can occur in the same sentence:

Page  315

In most of these examples, the subordinate verb immediately precedes another verb, either the main verb or another subordinate verb. In cases where noun phrases precede pairs of verbs, the noun phrases act as the arguments of the pair. Paired verbs such as these always have the same subject. Subordinate verbs in -e do not need to directly precede the main verb, however, and except for the subjects, which must be the same, each verb can have different arguments. Subordination with -e is fully productive, and both the subordinate and main clause can be indefinitely long and complex:

-e-min-a and -e-ming are longer synonyms of -e . As sentences grow longer and more complex, it becomes increasingly likely that one of the longer forms will be used instead of the simpler -e . Being longer, -e-ming and -e-min-a are also more explicit, and when the sentence is complex they probably help to keep the construction clear. No rule forbids a longer form in a short sentence, or the shorter -e in a long one, however, and the three suffixes can be freely substituted for one another with no change in meaning:

Page  316

A common rhetorical strategy for tying together the sentences of a discourse is to introduce a new sentence with a verb that echoes the final verb of the previous sentence but that ends with a subordinating suffix. Longer subordinating suffixes seem to do this better than a simple -e , and they infuse the discourse with a certain importance, almost a ceremonial flavor:

As a final example, I offer the following sentence, which was constructed by a consultant, Bilasini Chambugong, to describe an event in which she and I had just participated. We had been discussing the subordinating -e , and she thought I might enjoy a better example. People do not generally construct sentences that are quite so elaborate, but she was playing with her language and found the sentence quite funny. Although self-consciously constructed, it is perfectly grammatical and perfectly understandable. Either -e-ming or -e-min-a could be substituted for any or all of the -e 's. Notice that ma'-su 'cow' is the subject of the entire sentence:

Page  317

Adverbs with dak-e . Adverbs are often followed immediately by dak-e , which is a form of the verb dak-a 'make, do' that has been suffixed with the subordinating -e . Ja'-wek-a , for example, is a verb meaning 'to have short legs'. A related adverb is ja'-wek-wek which is difficult to translate except as 'having short legs'. It is an adverb, however, so perhaps 'in a short-legged way' would be a more revealing translation. Adverbs modify verbs, and dak-a is used as a verb that an adverb can modify but dak-a itself is nearly empty of meaning: ja'-wek-wek dak-a 'do in a short legged way'. A phrase such as this, in turn, is often formed into an adverbial phrase by exchanging the final -a for the subordinating suffix -e . The phrase can now modify another verb so that ja'-wek-wek dak-e kat-a means 'run in a short legged way' or perhaps 'run, doing it in a short legged way'. A more compact ja'-wek-e kat-a , where ja'-wek-e is directly subordinated to kat-a is also possible, and that would seem to allow a considerably more direct and efficient way to do what ja'-wek-wek dak-e kat-a does. What the longer expression with dak-e seems to do is to make fully explicit the subordination of the adverb to the verb. Ja'-wek-wek dak-e kat-a is just a bit less in danger of being misunderstood than ja'-wek-e kat-a . Perhaps dak-e is on the way to becoming lexicalized as a marker of subordination.

The adverb ran'-to-tok is derived from the verb ran'-tok-a 'dried out'. The following sentence might have been constructed from ran'-tok-e , but instead the longer but more explicit wording with dak-e was used:

Adverbs that do not end with -e are particularly likely to be used with dak-e :

Page  318

Even verbs (or adverbs) that end in -e are sometimes used with dak-e although the verb alone should be capable of doing the job. Each sentence of the next example has a dak-e . In the first sentence, dak-e follows a verb in -e and in the second it follows an adverb:

In-e . A sentence with an ordinary tense-aspect marker such as neutral -a or future -no-a can be subordinated to another verb (or sentence) with the help of the subordinating conjunction in-e placed between the two clauses. Verbs with meanings such as ordering, believing, and saying are often used in the second clause. Unlike subordination with the infinitive -na (see just below) the two clauses that are connected with -in-e can have different subjects, and both subjects remain in the nominative. This allows a very free kind of subordination. In-e , however, always shows some degree of logical or causal connection between the two clauses. It conveys, roughly, the sense of 'that is what'. The in-e construction is the only way to subordinate a sentence with an ordinary tense-aspect marker to another verb or sentence. In-e cannot be omitted from such sentences without disrupting the syntax and altering the meaning:

Page  319

In-e is obligatory when subordinating a clause that ends with an ordinary tense-aspect marker. It can be used optionally with some other types of subordination, but not all. It is optional with a clause that is subordinated with -kan or -ka-na , and in some cases after clauses subordinated with infinitive -na . However, it cannot be used when subordination is accomplished with -e, -e-ming , or -e-min-a , or with one of the locative subordinators.

The Infinitive -na . One verb or, indeed, one clause, can be subordinated to another by means of the infinitive suffix -na . The infinitive marker is suffixed to the verb that completes the subordinate clause, and it is followed by the main clause.

A few Mandi verbs follow an earlier infinitive so closely and tightly that they might be considered to be auxiliary verbs. When one of these verbs is used, the subordinating conjunction in-e cannot intervene between it and the preceding infinitive verb. Many of these "auxiliaries" correspond in meaning to the verbs most often used with the infinitive in English. These are verbs of 'wishing, needing, ability' and so on. Since several of these verbs have meanings related to 'wish', I will call them the "wishing verbs", and the following wishing verbs have come to my attention: ha'-sik-a 'wish, want', gong'-a 'inclined to', nal-a 'enthusiastic about, addicted to', nam-nik-a 'like, love', hai'-a 'know, know how, understand', nang-a 'need',Page  320 man'-a 'can, be able to', sap-a 'be skilled at, know how'. The list is unlikely to be complete, but I doubt if there are very many others.

One other verb, ham'-a, am'-a , has two uses and two meanings. It can mean 'want', but in that sense it is almost always used with a noun object rather than with an infinitive, so it does not count as a "wishing verb". With an infinitive compliment it means 'about to, on the point of' and in that usage it must be included among the auxiliary-like "wishing verbs" although it does not, in this case, mean 'want' or 'wish': Bi-a si-na ham'-ing-a 'He is about to die'.

Rarely, a noun or pronoun subject is slipped between the two verbs:

More often the main verb follows the infinitive directly, and the two verbs form a tight pair. The absence of much that separates the verbs helps to give the second verb the quality of an auxiliary.

Other verbs, whose meanings might lead one to expect them to belong with the "wishing" verbs can be separated from a preceding infinitive by an intervening subordinating conjunction in-e , although such an in-e is neverPage  321obligatory. Verbs which allow in-e and which thus act less like auxiliaries than those listed above, include: ches-ta dak-a 'try', ku'-mong-a 'agree to', mat-u-a 'greedy for, lust after', ken-a 'afraid of', ku'-ching-a 'threaten'. In the following examples, in-e is placed in parentheses to show that it is optional:

In addition to the constructions already described, infinitives can also express the sense of 'in order to, for the purpose of'. For this meaning, the main clause can have virtually any verb. As with other infinitive subordinations, the subject of the main and subordinate clauses must be the same, but their other arguments can be different. The arguments of the second verb are generally placed after the infinitive, so the two verbs can be separated more widely than when the infinitive is used in a more auxiliary-like way. In-e is optional when the sense is 'in order to':

Page  322

Notice that the prohibition of a change of subjects between the infinitive and the following verb means that Mandi does not allow a closely literal translation of an English sentence such as I want him to go where the subject of the infinitive verb is not the same as that of the main verb. In Mandi these can be expressed by a third person imperative (see next section) or by the type of nominalization that might be translated literally as 'I want his going'. Nominalizations of this type were described in the previous chapter.

Subordination with -kan, -ka-na . In one of their uses -kan and -ka-na are third person imperatives, as in mi cha'-ka-na 'let (him) eat'. In another use, the same suffixes act as subordinating suffixes, especially, although not exclusively, when the main verb has a meaning such as 'telling' or 'ordering'. The suffixes often reflect their imperative sense even when acting as subordinators, since the one who is telling or ordering can be thought of as issuing an imperative. As subordinators, just as when they are imperatives, -ka-na and -kan are alternate pronunciations with no apparent difference in meaning.

Usually the verb of the main clause has an accusative object, which is simultaneously the logical subject of the subordinate clause: pi'-sa-ko 'child, accusative', in the next example, and nang'-ko in the example that follows. In-e is an optional subordinating conjunction after -kan and -ka-na , and it is especially useful in marking the structure of complex sentences. One speaker told me that she feels more need for in-e after -kan than after ka-na .

Page  323

-kan and -ka-na provide a way to escape the limitation that the subject of an infinitive must be the same as that of the main verb. Thus in English it is possible to say either 'I want to go' or 'I want him to go'. In the first case the subject of the two verbs is the same, but in the second they are different. In Mandi the infinitive -na can only be used when the subject remains the same: Ang-a i'-ang-na ha'-sik-a 'I want to go'. When the subject is different -kan or -ka-na must be used instead: Bi-ko re'-ang-kan (in-e) ang-a ha'-sik-a 'I want him to go'. Bi-ko is the object of ha'-sik-a 'want', and therefore in the accusative, but since it specifies who or what it is that is supposed to perform the action of the -kan clause, one can also think of it as the subject of the verb with -kan .

In the preceding examples, the subject of the main verb is placed after the infinitive clause and directly before the main verb, but it is very common for this subject to be shifted to the front of the sentence, where it is likely to be side by side with the object of the main verb (the subject of the -kan clause). In this case the subordinate clause is embedded within two parts of the main clause, with the subject of the main clause, as well as its object, coming first, and the verb of that clause coming at the end:

Other verbs than those of ordering and telling can be used in the main clause after -kan or -ka-na , but they usually suggest some sort of directive action:

The main verb can, itself, be an imperative, but the one who is directed by this imperative also tells someone else to do something:

The -kan construction can sometimes mean 'so that, in order to', and in this case the object of the main verb need not be the same as the subject of the subordinate verb:

Page  324

Subordination with postpositions . Like any other noun, a nominalized verb can become the head of a postpositional phrase. For example re'-ang-a-ni gim-in 'because of going' consists of the verb base re'-ang- 'go' which is nominalized with -a . The genitive case marker -ni and the postposition gim-in 'because' complete the phrase. The phrase is exactly parallel to ang-ni gim-in 'because of me', except for the added nominalizing suffix -a of re'-ang-a-ni . A phrase with a nominalized verb, however, has one potential complication that a phrase with a pronoun or ordinary noun does not. A verb can bring its arguments with it when it is nominalized and then it is a whole clause that takes the postposition, not just a single word. Notice that the subject of a verb that is used in a prepositional phrase of this type is genitive, rather than nominative:

While this is similar to a postpositional phrase, it actually plays a role in a larger sentence that is more like that of a subordinate clause. Even the genitive subject suggests that this should be seen as a subordinate clause. Such clauses are very common, especially with postpositions of cause and time, such as gim-in 'because of' and ja'-man-o 'after'.

Both the main verb of the sentence and the verb of the postpositional clause can have overt subjects, the former being nominative, the latter genitive. The nominative subject of the main verb may follow the postpositional clause or it can be moved to the front, and of course, neither subject is obligatory. Thus both the following sentences are fully grammatical, but ang-a in the first sentence is the subject of the main verb while ang-ni of the second is the genitive subject of the subordinate verb:

Page  325

Both pronouns can, of course, be used in the same sentence: Ang-a ang-ni re'-ang-a-ni gim-in cha'-na man-ja. 'I cannot eat because of my departure'.

Logical '-o' suffixes: -o-de 'if',-o-ba 'although',-o-sa/-o-ha , 'only if'. These three principal verb suffixes subordinate their clause to the following (main) clause of the sentence. Any sentence can be turned into a subordinate clause simply by using one of these three suffixes in the position of the principal verb suffix. Nothing else distinguishes this clause from an independent sentence. The two clauses can have either the same or different subjects, and each can have its own arguments. The subject of a subordinate clause that is formed with one of these three suffixes is always nominative, never genitive, as it is in some forms of subordination. No type of subordination is simpler than this. The three suffixes are closely related. They all begin with an -o and all express a logical relation between the clauses.

-o-de 'if'. Like other subordinating suffixes, -o-de completes a subordinate clause, and it is immediately followed by the main clause of the sentence. Thus, like other subordinating suffixes, the -o-de fits between the two clauses that it relates:

-o-ba 'although, even if' is parallel in form to -o-de . It also forms a subordinate clause and it is followed by the main clause. The subjects of the two clauses can either be the same or different:

Page  326

-o-sa/-o-ha 'only if'. -o-sa and -o-ha are both used in Mandi; -o-sa is the only form in A'chik.

-jok-o-de, -jok-o-ba, -jok-o-sa/-jok-o-ha . In addition to occurring in the position of the principal verb suffix, the three logical '-o' suffixes can occur after the tense-aspect marker -jok and after the immediate future -na-jok (see just below). Somewhat oddly, they cannot occur after the future tense marker -no-a . They do not occur after the present/neutral tense marker -a either, but it is not unreasonable to interpret simple -o-de, -o-ba and -o-sa/-o-ha to have been formed by the loss of -a before '-o' . In that way, the logical '-o' suffixes could be said to occur with three of the four tense markers, -a, -jok and -na-jok . Nothing is available to fill the gap left by the future, however.

As would be expected, when one of these suffixes follows -jok the -jok adds a sense of completion to the 'if', 'although' or 'only'. The sense of completion is not always strong, however, and the meaning of these affixesPage  327is sometimes not much different from that of the simpler -o-de, -o-ba , and -o-ha/-o-sa .

jok-o-de 'if'.

-jok-o-ba 'although'. Once again, the -jok adds a sense of completion to the -o-ba 'although':

-jok-o-sa, -jok-o-ha 'only if' combines the sense ofcompletion with that of 'only':

-na-jok-o-de, -na-jok-o-ba, -na-jok-o-sa/ha . Each of these three compound suffixes combines the sense of immediate or intentional future with the sense of one of the logical '-o' suffixes:

Page  328

Homophony of -de, -ba and -sa/-ha

(C)

pp. 328

The syllables -de, -ba, -sa/-ha and -in have a curious insistence on cropping up together in a number of different places. They appear, first of all, as the four final noun suffixes, where -de shows a contrast with something, -ba means 'also', sa-/ha- means 'only', and -in foregrounds. Three of these also appear as -de-, -ba- and -in- in the phonological anticipations, which were described in Chapter 11, "Minor Parts of Speech" in the section "Echoes and Anticipations.

Now, a different selection of these syllables, -de, -ba and -sa/-ha are found tagging along after -o to form the three logical -o suffixes. In form, these are exactly like the combinations of locative -o together with one of the final noun suffixes. The logical -o-ba means 'although', while the -o-ba that joins locative -o to the final noun suffix -ba means 'also while'. The constructions are formally different, since a clause with the logical -o-ba requires a nominative subject, but -o nominalizers occur as subordinate clauses where they need genitive subjects. In the next example, the subjects of both verbs are genitive, showing that the -o-ba needs to be interpreted as having the meaning 'also when' or 'also at' rather than 'although':

In the next example, the subject is in the nominative, showing thatthe -o-ba means 'although':

Page  329

The logical -o-de 'if' also differs in both meaning and in the case of its subjet from the locative -o , when followed by the final noun suffix -de . Whether it is a locative nominalizer or a logical -o suffix, however, -o-sa/-o-ha have much the same meaning. Both mean 'only if' or at least something close to it. Either a nominative or genitive subject is possible with little change in meaning. Very literal translations might be: Bi-a bil-ang-o-sa, grap-no-a 'Only when he flies away will (I) cry', Bi-ni bil-ang-o-sa grap-no-a 'Only at his flying away will (I) cry'.

Equational Sentences

(B)

pp. 329

Throughout these chapters, I have repeatedly pointed out that the verb is the only obligatory part of a Garo sentence. Even this requirement has a few exceptions, though most of them are quite marginal. It is, of course, possible to use interjections by themselves, without a verb (e.g. ai-au 'wow!'). A single interrogative word can ask a question: bat-cha? 'where to?', sa? 'who?'. If the context is clear, it is also quite natural to use a single word as a reply to a question, and it need not be a verb: da'-o 'now', ang-a 'I', rang'-gin-i 'twice'. Practically any other word in the language can be used this way if the context is clear enough. Whether one wants to consider these to be sentences is a matter of definition. They are certainly meaningful and complete utterances.

Equational sentences constitute a more significant exception to the rule that every sentence requires a verb. These are sentences in which two noun phrases are equated to each other without the help of any verb at all. Such a sentence simply asserts that a thing named by one noun phrase is the same as a thing named by another noun phrase. Short and simple nouns can be equated, but so can quite complex noun phrases:

In the following, more complex example, kra-a 'be proper' is a verb, but in this sentence it has been nominalized by gip-a 'the one who'. ThePage  330terminal noun suffix -de helps to show that this word completes the first noun phrase of the sentence. The second noun phrase consists of just one word, me-chik-sa 'woman':

It is not possible to attach most verb affixes to a noun, even in an equational sentence, so whenever a tense, or a meaning conveyed by an adverbial affix is needed, a verb base must be found to hold the affixes. Filling this role is one important use of the verb base ong'- . In an equational sentence ong'- is placed after the second noun phrase, at the end of the sentence where verbs belong. Any combination of verb affixes can then be added to the ong'- . By itself, ong'- is nearly empty of meaning, but it holds the affixes. In fact, ong'- can be used as an equative verb even with no affix at all other than the neutral -a . This adds no real meaning to the sentence, just a bit of bulk. If the noun phrases that are equated are sufficiently complex, the ong'- may, of course, help to make the construction clear by marking its completion:

Ong'- is less dispensable when a negative or tense marker is needed, even in very simple sentences:

In the section on "Terminal Suffixes" in Chapter 7, "Optional Verb Suffixes", it was pointed out that while terminal suffixes are almost always suffixed to verbs they are occasionally suffixed to nouns instead. This probably happens most often with equational sentences. Principal verb suffixes cling quite tightly to a verb base, but terminal verb suffixes such as -ming 'past', -kon 'probably', -ma 'question particle' and -na 'quotative' are just a bit less dependent on a verb. Equational sentences occasionally attract a terminal verb suffix even without a verb. I caught the following sentences on the fly from spontaneous talk:

Page  331 Page  332