|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | =====Agreement===== | | =====Agreement===== |
| − |
| |
| − | ''Reference'' is not the same as ''Agreement''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This needs to be sorted out.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Dorothee Beermann|Dorothee Beermann]] 12:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | In Krio, there is referential agreement in PERSON. This is seen in the example below. | | In Krio, there is referential agreement in PERSON. This is seen in the example below. |
| Line 45: |
Line 39: |
| | | | |
| | In the examples above, there is a concordance between the demonstratives and the plural marker 'dehm'. In 1. the singular demonstratives 'da/de' agree with the singular noun 'kop'. In 2. the plural marker agrees with the plural demonstratives 'den/de', eventhough as in 3. the latter can occur on its own and still make the noun plural (however, 'de' on its own is perceived as singular rather than plural). But in 4. the utterance is ungrammatical since there is no agreement between 'dehm' and the singular demontrative 'da'. | | In the examples above, there is a concordance between the demonstratives and the plural marker 'dehm'. In 1. the singular demonstratives 'da/de' agree with the singular noun 'kop'. In 2. the plural marker agrees with the plural demonstratives 'den/de', eventhough as in 3. the latter can occur on its own and still make the noun plural (however, 'de' on its own is perceived as singular rather than plural). But in 4. the utterance is ungrammatical since there is no agreement between 'dehm' and the singular demontrative 'da'. |
| | + | |
| | =====Clause Linkage===== | | =====Clause Linkage===== |
| | | | |
Revision as of 21:25, 4 March 2014
--Beatrice Owusua Nyampong 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreement
In Krio, there is referential agreement in PERSON. This is seen in the example below.
Example:
I si anoda dog we fiba am, ehn i bak ohl bon na im moht.
“He sees another dog which resembles him and he too held a bone in his mouth.”
In this example, the third person pronoun 'I' (he) refers to the dog mentioned earlier in the text. The third person object pronoun 'am' (him) refers back to 'I' (he) which refers to the dog. Again in the second clause, the third person possessive pronoun 'i' (his) refers to the pronoun 'i' (he) which refers to the other dog. - both the subject pronoun and the possessive pronoun have the same form.
There is, however, agreement in NUMBER.
Den i go tek di oda bon ehn ron wit di tu bon dem.
“Then he will take the other bone and run with the two bones.”
In the above example, the plural marker 'dehm' agrees with the numeral 'tu' (two). However, 'dehm' can occur without the numeral as in English:
the two bones
di tu bon dehm
the bones
di bon dehm
Here are some more examples to help establish this fact:
1,Bring da/de kop na ya.
SG SG
Bring that/the cup here.
2,Bring den/de kop dehm na ya.
PL PL
Bring those/the cups here.
3,Bring den kop na ya.
PL
Bring those cups here.
4,*Bring da kop dehm na ya.
SG PL
*Bring that cups here.
In the examples above, there is a concordance between the demonstratives and the plural marker 'dehm'. In 1. the singular demonstratives 'da/de' agree with the singular noun 'kop'. In 2. the plural marker agrees with the plural demonstratives 'den/de', eventhough as in 3. the latter can occur on its own and still make the noun plural (however, 'de' on its own is perceived as singular rather than plural). But in 4. the utterance is ungrammatical since there is no agreement between 'dehm' and the singular demontrative 'da'.
Clause Linkage
The complex clause below is a case of parataxis.
What would be in two clauses? --Dorothee Beermann 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Example:
I ron go insai di forehst, gladi wit di bon I de chamcham.
“He run into the forest, happy with the bone he was chewing.”
| insai |
| insai |
| insideLOC |
| PREP |
| chamcham |
| cham | cham |
| chew | REDP |
| V |
The second clause is not embedded in the first clause (which is also the main clause). Therefore, both clauses are coordinated without evidence of explicit linkage. The first clause is an independent clause, but the second clause is uncertain since it does not begin with a subject, however, it has a subject and it carries tense.