Eyɔse efufeemɔ feesɛɛ kɛkɛni eyimli ni emli ewola ni erɛɛehoehe, shi ekolɛ ni ehiɛ etɛŋ fe tsutsu.
“He later realized his folly and he left angry and sad, but perhaps a little wiser than before.”
link to Mark's annotated text
den innså sin egen dårskap for sent og gikk avsted sulten og trist men kanskje litt klokere
“it realized its own folly too late and walked off, hungry and sad, but perhaps a little wiser”
link to Eirik's annotated text
In the case of the Norwegian annotation we find that the pronoun "den" and the reflexive pronoun "sin" both refer back to the same entity, the antecedent "hunden" (the dog). The values SINGULAR, 3RD PERSON and COMMON GENDER are part of the content being picked up.
Now, as far as agreement goes, "den" is the controller of the adjectives "trist" og "sulten", for the values SINGULAR and COMMON GENDER.
In the phrase "sin egen dårskap" (its own foolishness) the noun "dårskap" controls both the reflexive and possessive pronouns ("sin" and "egen" respectively) on the values COMMON GENDER and SINGULAR.
When comparing a sentence from Mark's annotated text of his translation of "The dog and his reflection" into Ga with my annotations of the Norwegian translation we see that Norwegian at least in this case has significantly more occurrences of agreement.
In Ga we do find examples of agreement, as Mark states on the main page. However, this agreement seems to be limited to the features PERSON and NUMBER, and seems to apply only to verbs and nouns.
--Eirik Zahl 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ena loohɔlɔ ko shwapo kɛkɛni ebote mli oya kɛkɛni eyaju wu fɛɛfɛo dɔkɔdɔkɔ agbo ko ni ka shɛɛfi lɛ nɔ.
“He saw a butcher's shop and (he) went quickly in and (he) stole a nice fat juicy bone from the shelf.”
This is indubitably a good example of parataxis, with three syntactically independent clauses. If you want to include further examples of parataxis you could also include the conjunction shi in sentence 8.
Be mli ni eekpe wu lɛ kɛ miishɛɛ, etsefoi kɛbote koo lɛ mli.
“While he was happily chewing the bone, he ran into the forest.”
The idiomatic construction be mli ni seems to me to perform a subordinating function, creating an adverbial clause that is subordinate to the main clause. I would say it is a form of hypotaxis albeit a relatively weak one.
Gbee amiyelɔ fee eyiŋ akɛ eetao wu kloklo lɛ hu, nohewɔɔ ebo ni eekpagbɛ akɛ gbee kloklo lɛ yɛ faa mli baaŋmɛɛ ewu lɛ he ejaakɛ eeshegbeyei.
“The greedy dog made his mind that he wanted that bone also, so he growled expecting that the other dog in the river would drop his bone because of fear.”
In this sentence the conjunction akɛ occurs twice and each time after a verb. It seems to have the function of embedding a clause, giving rise to a complex clause. I would say that akɛ is a complementiser since its presence is required to satiate the valency of the verbs it accompanies. These are example of proper embedding i.e. a strong form of hypotaxis.
Ebaakɔ wu kloklo lɛ kɛkɛni ekɛ wui enyɔ baajofoi, shi be mli ni ebo waa koni ekɛwo gbee kloklo lɛ hegbeyei, wu ni yɔɔ edaaŋ gbee faa mli ni enaaa dɔŋŋ.
“He would grab the other bone and would ran away with two bones, but as he gave out a loud snore in order to scare the other dog, the bone in his mouth fell into the river, not to be seen again. ”
In this sentence you have the conjunction koni which subordinates the following clause. The following verb within the subordinated clause carries no tense, in other words it seems to have become downgraded. A sure sign of subordination and hypotaxis.
--Anders Lynghaug Haugen 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)