Possessive Particles in Runyankore-Rukiga
I would suggest that you maintain the apostrophe in the first line, since this shows the surface structure on the phrase and the pronunciation/orthography but when it comes to showing the morphological working please remove the apostrophe and show the morphology of each word independently. Consider the following sentence:
Haihi n'omuti heemereireho omwojo
“Near the tree there stands a boy”
You will also notice that in the verb 'heemereireho', the first morpheme is ha- for class 16, but because of sound assimilation, a- changes to e-, (which is the first letter of the root -emerer-). So I think it is important to show all these levels.
--Justus Turamyomwe 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) In Runyankore-Rukiga, we use apostophe to combine two phrases under the following cases.
1.When the possessive particle 'of'combines with a noun (apart from proper nouns), there is always a contraction and therefore an apostrophe is used to combine this particle and the proceeding noun.
2.In case of conjunctions, such as 'and' to combine two nouns where the proceeding noun is not a proper noun
Omuhiigi yaagenda n'embwa
“The hunter has gone with the dog.”
3.When combining two phrases.
Mbwenu nkayenzire kureeba abakazi n’abaishiki baitu barikuvuga egaari na pikipiki, ningira ngu obwakare bakaba ni baremwa kutwaza batyo ahabw’okujwara ebiteeteeyi na bodingi, baitu hati obu baingi omuri bo barikujwara empare z’endabada nabo ni babaasa kwevuga aha gaari nari ahari pikipiki, bakareka kufakubi barikuronda abashaija kuba nibo babavuga.
“Therefore,i would like to see our women and girls riding bicycles and motorcycles, I think that in the past they couldnot ride because of wearing dresses and gomesi but since most of them now can wear trousers, they can ride themselves on bicycles and motorcycles and stop suffering looking for men to ride them”
However, I have always faced challenges when annotating such phrases in TC. Should the apostrophe be left with the possessive particle 'of' as seen in example http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/or be separated from the noun so that the boundary is maintained instead of combining the two as seen in http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/?
To you all
I have observed that there exists inconsistency on how we number our Noun classes in the TC database. I attribute this inconsistency to 2 major grammar books that try to classify Runyankore-Rukiga Noun Classes. i.e. Taylor C. (Nkore-Kiga) and Moris and Kirwan (A Runyankore-Grammar).
Can we therefore agree on one form or harmonise the two forms suggested by the above writers so that our database is clean.
--Justus Turamyomwe 14:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Justus, good idea --Dorothee Beermann 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
a tshimuma tshi-d-ibu-a mu nzubu (kudi muana)
fruit 7.SU-eat-pass-I in house (by boy)
‘the fruit is eaten at home (by the boy)’
b mu nzubu mu-d-ibua tshimuma (kudi muana)
in house 18.SU-eat-pass-I fruit (by boy)
‘*at home(subj.) is eaten the fruit (by the boy)’
The examples above come from Tshiluba (ISO 639-2 lua) and are taken from a paper by Gloria Cocchi about LOCATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN BANTU. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica - Università di Firenze 10 (2000): 43-54
Chocci uses the example to show, as many linguists before her (see her article for references), that locative nouns in Bantu behave like argument NPs.
How would the above sentence come out in Runyankore-Rukiga? --Dorothee 22:05, 16 September 2009 (CEST)