Structurally this looks like a concessive relation but it is not. Negation covers both medial and final clause. Suffix -na marks the same-subject serial chaining here.
18.11 Complement clauses
In section 13.8 I have discussed various complements of a VP. In this chapter the topic is clausal or sentential complements. Noonan 2007:52 defines the complement as follows: “By complementation, we
mean the syntactic situation that arises when a notional sentence or predication is an argument of a predicate...A predication can be viewed as an argument of a predicate if it functions as the subject or
object of that predicate.”
My intention is to talk about various kinds of clausal and sentential complements Lhomi has and those verbs that typically take complements, so called CTP complement taking predicates. Typically
clausalsentential complements are nominalized clauses but Lhomi also has what Noonan calls sentence- like complements. In chapter 16 on modality verbs and in chapter 17 on relative clauses, there are more
examples of complement clauses. Lhomi has a few verb nominalizers which often are complementizers. It is the matrix verb that typically governs the case markings. Consider the following the matrix verb
argument is in square brackets.
18.1 87 daŋ-hariŋ [ ne dʑaa-pa-la ] le lhaa-mu min-tuk. TE48
yesterday-today pilgrimage visit-NMLZ;Q-DAT work easy-F1 NEG-EXIST.VIS ‘These days it is not easy to visit a pilgrimage site.’ Or: ‘Going for a pilgrimage is
not easy these days.’
In this example the underlined part is the dative case marked subject of the possessive copular type matrix verb. The object is ‘easy work’. It is the dative case marker -la in the NPCL which is the
complementizer. 18.188 gempu-
la=raŋ partan pantsa u-ko lit-ni gembu-DAT=FOC pradhan panch that-head come-NFNT2
ʈhim tɕøt-tɕe di [ mip-pa-la ] soŋ-a bet. TE36 law cut-SBJV DEF NEG.EXIST-NMLZ;Q-DAT go-NMLZ;Q AUX
‘After Gembu became the pradhan panch, the legal procedures have ended in the village.’ Or: ‘…have gone to nothing.’
This example comes from a story that tells how the whole administrative system changed and in the new system the old village leader Gembu has no power to act as a judge in the village. The nominalized
negated existential copula mip-pa-la has all the markings of a dative case marked indirect object of the matrix verb ‘to go, to become’. Indirect object is one of the arguments of this ST1 verb.
18.189 [ ŋ-e tam hi-ko khuŋ-ten hin thaŋ mel-la ]
1SG-GEN speech this-head true-steady COP and NEG.COP-DAT phaa-tu phin-na tø-let.
over.there-LOC go.come[PST]-NFNT1 look-SCI ‘Go over there and check if my speech is true or not’
Speaker tells the hearers to go and have a look to find out if his speech is true or not. The matrix verb in this one is T2 type and the complement clause is dative case marked direct object.
18.11.1 Complementizer =tu
Givón talks about a subgroup of manipulation verbs 2001:152. He gives four syntactic definitions for these verbs and Lhomi causatives fit in this subgroup of verbs.
In section 13.5 I have already listed some pairs of suppletive causative verbs which are not complement taking verbs. Various kinds of causative constructions and suppletive causatives form a
major part of Lhomi syntax. In this section I explain the syntax of the causative verb ts
ʏt. Though the complement clause is marked with purpose clitic =tu it is not an adverbial clause but a clausal complement of the main
clause. With other main verbs this marker marks an adverbial clause see section 18.9.1. The following arguments help to see that:
• The complement clause is marked with the purposive clitic =tu which nominalizes the complement-clause verb and is so called complementizer.
• The verb of the main clause is causative verb ts ʏt ‘to cause, to make’.
• The main clause is a BT or T1 clause. • The subject of the main clause is the ergative marked argument.
• The manipulee of the main clause is the indirect object of the main verb and the rest of the
complement clause is the direct object argument. Consider the following examples the complement clauses are in square brackets.
18.190 pap- e ŋa-la [domaŋ ɖok=tu ] tsʏs-soŋ.
father-ERG 1SG-DAT rel.book read=PURP cause-PST.VIS ‘Father made me read the domang book.’
18.191 gott- e ŋa-la [ tɕhampa dʑak=tu ] tsʏt-tɕuŋ.
3SG-ERG 1SG-DAT flu VBZR=PURP cause-PST.EXP ‘He caused me to catch a cold.’
Though the main verb is a volitional one the speaker does not mean that the friend intentionally made him sick.
18.192 dak- ʏ ŋa-la [ khaa=tu ] tsʏt-tɕuŋ.
friend-ERG 1SG-DAT get.tired=PURP cause-PST.EXP ‘A friend caused me to become tired.’
This may imply that the friend walked too fast or gave him a heavy load to carry. 18.193 lam-e
[ t ɕheppa
d ʑak=tu ] tsʏs-soŋ.
lama-ERG rain VBZR=PURP cause-PST.VIS
‘The lama caused it to rain.’ Or: ‘The lama made it rain.’ Lamas perform certain rites and people believe that the rain results. The main clause is a T1 type
clause. The complement clause is the object argument. There is no IO. 18.194 dak-
ʏ ŋa-la [ gotta ŋuu ɕii=tu ] tsʏt-tɕuŋ. friend-ERG 1SG-DAT 3SG face know=PURP cause-PST.EXP
‘A friend caused me to get to know him a third person personally.’ Or: ‘My friend made me to know him personally.’
When causative manipulation is negated there is a semantic shift, the meaning becomes ‘not to let, not to allow’ rather than ‘not to cause’. Consider the following example from a text.
18 .195 daŋ-hariŋ-ki polis thaŋ partan pantsa thaŋ
yesterday-today-GEN police and pradhan panch and kurikki [
ɕentoŋ tɕhit=tu ] all-ERG exploiting do;VBZR=PURP
mit-ts ʏk-ken bet. TE33
NEG-cause-NMLZ;CONJ AUX ‘In these days police and the pradhan and all people do not allow them to exploit.’
This sentence is elliptic, the indirect object comes in the next clause.
18.11.2 Complementizer -ri
