[INDOLOGY] Question about Tamil grammar and usage
Periannan Chandrasekaran
perichandra at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 16:54:33 UTC 2021
Dear Prof. Hock
Greetings.
Some corrections are in order and I hope they are coming not all
that belatedly.
In the set a, in the second sentence, the indirect object phrase
*kōyilukku.p
*would not be repeated.
*avarkaḷ mutalil kōyilukku
pōvarkaḷ*
they first temple.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
*kōyilukku.p pōy-i pūcai ceyvārkaḷ*
go-cvb worship do.fut.3pl.mf
And with the third sentence also the direct object phrase *pūcai* would not
be repeated as well and
then, as Dr.Palaniappan has already pointed out here in this thread, the
converb would also take different form like *ceytuviṭṭu *
where the past adverbial form of the auxiliary verb *viṭu* is appended to
the past adverbial form of the main verb to add a perfective aspect [Lehmann
1993:209, 271
<https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Linguistics/Mega%20linguistics%20pack/Dravidian/Tamil%2C%20A%20Grammar%20of%20Modern%20%28Lehmann%29.pdf>
]
Moreover normally a temporal adverb like *appu**ṯam* (or *appu**ṯantā*ṉ
with the emphatic clitic *tā**ṉ *[Lehman 1993:158]) would be added as well
with a stress on its leading syllable to indicate the finality.
*pūcai cey-tu **ceytuviṭṭu * *appu**ṯam* *
kaṭaikku.p pōvārkaḷ …*
worship do-cvb+-finish-past-adverbial-participle (having done
that) then-ADV shop.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
Regards
Periannan Chandrasekaran
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 5:09 AM a.murugaiyan <a.murugaiyan at wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
> Dear Professor HH , Greetings!
>
> In addition to Dr Palaiappan’s remarks, I would like to add few more
> information.
>
> The converb (conjunctive participle, absolutive, adverbial participle)
> construction in Tamil (and in Dravidian) is used in a clause with several
> propositions, representing ‘successive’ actions (verbs), except the last
> verb, which is a finite one.
>
> The CONV constructions in Tamil involves several different discourse
> (semantic, pragmatic) functions like, succession, completion, consequence
> etc, depending mainly on the discourse context.
>
> The ‘subject’ is deleted if the same ‘subject’ is involved in such
> successive actions. There is no any constraint on the ‘subject’. The
> ‘subject’ need not to be identical and can be inanimate.
>
>
>
> appā
>
> paṇam
>
> koṭuttu
>
> aṇṇaṉ
>
> kaṭai.kku
>
> pōy
>
> kāy
>
> vāṅki
>
> father
>
> money
>
> give.CONV
>
> elder brother
>
> shop.DAT
>
> go.CONV
>
> vegetable
>
> buy.CONV
>
>
>
> piṟagu
>
> ammā
>
> camaittu
>
> cāppiṭṭōm
>
> after
>
> mother
>
> cook.CONF
>
> eat.PAST.1.PL
>
>
>
> “Father gave money, elder brother went to the shop and bought vegetables
> then mother cooed (the food) and we all ate (had our dinner).”
>
> Most importantly, the converb construction is used involving successive
> actions. This structure is part of the upper-level discourse structures.
> That’s why Dr Palaniappan suggested the introduction of completive
> auxiliary and adverbials.
>
> The sentence a) though grammatically well-formed sounds incomplete at the
> discourse pragmatic level. The sentence in a) can appear in, at least, two
> different structures:
>
> a-1. Let us imagine, the sentence describes some regular activities. In a
> sequence of propositions (actions), the first series of sequences need, as
> Dr Palaniappan mentioned, a completive auxiliary. Without the completive
> auxiliary, the previous actions seem to stand in an adverbial relation but
> does not imply the sequence of successive actions.
>
> In a normal conversation:
>
> avarkaḷ kōyilukku* p**ō**yi pūcai **ceytu.viṭṭu**
> kaṭaikku.p pōvārkaḷ *
>
> In narratives or one in a story-telling situation, each previous verb is
> repeated as a converb as in your example. In this context too the
> completive AUX is needed.
>
>
>
> Further, the use of *mutalil* (first) implies, contextually, that ‘going
> to temple’ and ‘performing pooja’ are preliminary conditions ‘to go to the
> shop’. Therefore, with reference to ‘*mutalil’*, there should be another
> adverb like, for example, ‘piṟaku’ “afterwards” to finish the proposition
> in harmony.
>
> Your example b) may be starred as you suggest. This is not because the
> ‘subjects’ are not identical. But as I mentioned above, pragmatically and
> semantically the previous actions have to be marked in completive aspect.
>
> The example c) with INF and the particle –um (ceyy-a-um) raises another
> problem as this construction implies a completely a different meaning. In
> Tamil, INF-um implies actions of ‘immediate sequence’ or ‘immediate
> consequence’, for example,
>
> pōlis varavum tiruṭaṉ ōṭiviṭṭāṉ ‘as the police arrived the thief ran away’
>
>
>
> pōlis
>
> varavum
>
> tiruṭaṉ
>
> ōṭiviṭṭāṉ
>
> police
>
> come.INF.um
>
> thief
>
> run.AUX.3MS
>
>
>
> To conclude tentatively, in my opinion, all the three examples a, b & c
> are ‘morpho syntactically’ correct. However, at the discourse pragmatic
> level they sound problematic. I am afraid that the sentences are a perfect
> translation into Tamil of some English examples. Please forgive me if I am
> wrong.
>
>
> Typologically in tail-head linkage constructions, languages use CONVERB
> constructions. Nevertheless, the CONV in Tamil has an array of meanings
> depending on the discourse context.
>
> Thanks for raising this interesting question. This deserves honestly more
> corpus-based studies.
>
> With my Best regards.
> Murugaiyan
>
>
> Le 23/09/2021 à 23:03, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY a écrit :
>
> Dear Hans,
>
>
>
> In normal day-to-day interaction, to convey the meaning intended by the
> English sentences, the sentence 3 in (a) should have the verb ‘ceytuviṭṭu’
> to denote the completion of the ‘doing’ action. Sentence 3 in (b) should
> have the word for ‘after’ as in ‘ceyta piṉ’. Otherwise, it might give the
> meaning that ‘we’ worshipped them and took them to the shop. Sentence 3 in
> (c) would give the meaning that we will take them to the shop to worship
> too (may be, some priests are being invited to the inauguration of a shop,
> where the priests have to offer worship in addition to buying stuff!)
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Palaniappan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info>
> <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of Indology List
> <indology at list.indology.info> <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Reply-To: *"Hock, Hans Henrich" <hhhock at illinois.edu>
> <hhhock at illinois.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM
> *To: *Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>
> <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Subject: *[INDOLOGY] Question about Tamil grammar and usage
>
>
>
> Dear Tamil-specialists,
>
>
>
> I would appreciate your enlightening me on the following issue
>
>
>
> Tamil is reported to have discourse-linkage structures such as the one in
> (a) below, in which the final verb of an earlier sentence is resumed in the
> form of a converb (or conjunctive participle) at the beginning of the next
> sentence. In such structures the [+ human] subjects of the converb and the
> main verb of the sentence have to be identical.
>
> I understand that, as a consequence, structures like the third line of (b)
> are unacceptable, because the subject of *cey-tu* and *celvōm* are human
> and not identical. Would the use of the infinitive *ceyy-a *± ‑*um* as in
> (c) improve the sentence or even make it grammatical?
>
> Hoping that some of you will be able to answer my question,
>
>
>
> I remain with best wishes to all,
>
>
>
> Hans Henrich Hock
>
>
>
> a. *avarkaḷ mutalil kōyilukku
> pōvarkaḷ*
>
> they first temple.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *kōyilukku.p pōy-i pūcai ceyvārkaḷ*
>
> temple.dat go-cvb worship do.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *pūcai cey-tu kaṭaikku.p pōvārkaḷ
> …*
>
> worship do-cvb shop.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
>
> ‘They will first go the temple; having gone to the temple, they will
> worship; having worshipped, they will go to the shop …’
>
>
>
> b. *avarkaḷ mutalil kōyilukku
> pōvarkaḷ*
>
> they first temple.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *kōyilukku.p pōy-i pūcai ceyvārkaḷ*
>
> temple.dat go-cvb worship do.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *(avarkaḷ) pūcai cey-tu nāṅkaḷ
> avarkaḷai kaṭaikku *
>
> they worship do-cvb
> we them shop.dat
>
> *ar̤aittu.c celvōm** …*
>
> pick.up.cvb go.fut.1pl
>
> ‘They will first go the temple; having gone to the temple, they will
> worship; they having worshipped, we will take them to the shop …’
>
>
>
> c. *avarkaḷ mutalil kōyilukku
> pōvarkaḷ*
>
> he.pl.mf.nom first temple.dat go.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *kōyilukku.p pōy-i pūcai ceyvārkaḷ*
>
> temple.dat go-cvb worship do.fut.3pl.mf
>
> *(avarkaḷ) pūcai ceyy-a(-v.um) nāṅkaḷ
> avarkaḷai kaṭaikku *
>
> they worship do-inf we
> them
>
> shop.dat
>
> *ar̤aittu.c celvōm …*
>
> pick.up.cvb go.fut.1pl
>
> ‘They will first go the temple; having gone to the temple, they will
> worship; they having worshipped, we will take them to the shop …’
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing listINDOLOGY at list.indology.infohttps://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20211125/fa5e7a27/attachment.htm>
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list