the discussion now turns to an examination of the system

f. Tt|yfY i a-rap hnai. ‘ here’ ‘at this place’ g. TuAsmrsm: i ka.bhya mra: ‘these poems’ The data in 86 demonstrate that the deictic specifier can be used with a variety of concrete or abstract nouns. The selection and translation of both deictics appear the same in their English translations. Okell and Allott 2001:261 attribute the difference between the two to a difference in formality, with T i being the more formal. They relate the latter form to a historical process whereby Burmese emulated and translated Pali texts word-for-word. And, where a stylistic form was lacking, one was created or imported for use within a specific context to serve as that specific Pali grammatical function Okell 1965. Both Okell and U Hoke Sein, in his Burmese-English-Pali Dictionary 1978:1044 note the relative equivalence of Burmese T i to Pali ayam. While the historical process is undeniable, what is of interest here are the resources Burmese brought to that solution, and how the system adapted, adopted, and accommodated its own underlying structure, or structuring processes. It is beyond the scope of this study to examine the extent of historical borrowing of structure, but what will be examined is the systematic nature of the use of deictic particles in regard to nominalization. We will look at the usage in Formal Burmese and at the structure as it is represented in modern Colloquial Burmese. Having established the use of onf sany for deixis of nominals, and the similarity in distribution and function of T

i, the discussion now turns to an examination of the system

to which each of these specifiers belong and the implications for nominalization in Burmese.

4.3.3.2.1.2 Degrees of Deixis

Deixis in Formal Burmese lexically relates to three degrees of distance, one distal and two proximal. The proximal differ in the degree of immediacy. All three are realis declarative mood. There is also an irrealis deixis which shifts the mood into an interrogative sense see 4.3.3.2.2. The normal sense of the deictic center is represented by onf sany as ‘this here’. The proximal T i is even closer than a general ‘here’; it is more immediate spatially and temporally.

4.3.3.2.1.3 The Deictic- Possessive- Sentence Proximal Template

The counterpart of realis onf sany as a deictic particle is not irrealis rnf many, but T i . These two proximal deictic markers both have allomorphs which occur in sentence-final position. The onf sany variant is of the same phonological and orthographic shape, whereas the allomorph of T i is e ..This sentence-final marker 3 indicates realis, but with more assertion and emphasis. It is punctiliar, more pointed, more emphatic in temporal space. If sentence-final onf sany were to have a deictic function in that terminal position, it 3 The modern spoken form of both T i allomorphs are almost the same as the sentence-final form except for creaky tone [ i  .]. would be rendered ‘that’s it’, whereas sentence final e. would express the idea of ‘so there’, ‘that’s it’, or ‘so here’ Figure 40. Three degrees of realis deixis Furthermore, it can be observed that the close proximal deictic particle e. occurs as the possessive postposition in Formal Burmese, and contrasts with the regular proximal onf sany possessive reading in the same phrase position. The difference between normal realis onf sany possession and the more marked close proximal e. possession is a more intense sense of possession, or a “closer” or clearer role of possession being referenced rather than the possibility of possession as relative clause. Examples of deictic T i are shown in 86. Examples of clause- and phrase-level use of this mega-morpheme are shown in 87. 87 Example with Final e. a. w amuf \yD: w amuf csdK: ap ` ta yauk pri: ta yauk hkyui: se e. one Clf-person Cp one Clf-person break Cs NomSf ‘.. one by one they tried to break it.’ b. r jum cif yif tvkyf | av ` ma. kra hkang pang a-lup ra. le e. Neg long time Tm Emp work De Att-easy NomSf ‘In no time, he got a job.’ 88 Example of Possessive e. a. xdk ajumif uav: trnf rSm a|_ 0g \zpf yg onf htui kraung ka-le: e. a-many hma hrwe wa hprac pa sany Dm-d cat little Pos name Top gold yellow happen Pl NomSf ‘That kitten’s name is ‘Golden Yellow’.’ b. tFvdyf wdkh vuf atmuf cH bö ingalip tui. e. lak auk hkam bhawa. English Pl Pos hand under Ug existence ‘An existence of being under the hand of the British’ The use of deixis for proximal purposes provides a sense of temporal and spatial immediacy. As such, it is based on numerous metaphors structuring the meaning of the text and the experience of the speech act participants, as well as discourse referents and topics as physical objects within mental spaces. Textually deictic reference shifts or adjusts the attention of the topical frame. Considering sentence-final onf sany, some deictic aspects are retained, although not focal. The deictic sense of ‘that’ or ‘that-ness’ is accentuated in the declarative statement regarding the entire preceding sentence-as-an-object, as a nominal unit. The preceding nominal unit is being pointed out deictically, as well as the operation of terminal bounding of the Nominal + Particle expression itself as a completed construction. The ‘that-ness’ of an object infers its existence as some type of linguistic object. It is that sense of inference and the nominalizing character of particle itself that contributes the nominal character to the unit as a whole. This variety of nominalization while derivational to some degree, retains predicational characteristics that lend themselves to the kinds of distinctions made by Vendler 1967 and Grimshaw 1990 regarding event and result nominalizations. Event nominals are extendable, modifiable with adverbials, due to the fact that the verb is “still alive” even though the verbal profile is cognitively bounded figure 5 and figure 29. With regard to sentence-final nominalizations using onf sany, the verbal sense is highly active and somewhat analogous to event nominals. The contrasting case is with t- a- nominalization which displays a more hearty boundary profile of the verb, which in turn produces a nominal closer in effect to result nominals. The event or process is more fixed in those cases. Compare \rifh onf mrang. sany high + Nom ‘It’s high.’ [Event] with t\rifh a-mrang. Nom + high = ‘height’ or ‘highness’ [Result]. The ability to refer deictically may be a matter completely separate from the profile of a verb, but it would appear that eventive senses are less deictic than those that are more result-like. While sentence-final onf sany exhibits some character of deixis, it is not prominent.

4.3.3.2.2 Deictic Template – Irrealis

rnf many Unlike realis with three degrees of deixis figure 40, irrealis has only one, which is here called proximal figure 41. It appears in constructions as the pre-nominal modifier of a nominal or a postpositional particle with the function of an interrogative designator. The meaning of rnf many in its designator role is close to ‘what’ as an interrogative, or interrogative force WH- in English. The head of the compound with rnf many determines the sense of the whole, as in 89 a–c. Figure 41. One degree of irrealis deixis with rnf many 89 a. rnf ol many su NomIrRl person ‘Who?’ b. rnf odkh many sui. NomIrRl Pth ‘How?’ c. rsm: pGm aom \rdkh whdk onf \rdkh rnf um rÑ mya cwa sau: mrui. tui. sany mrui. many ka hmya. many Q AttNom city Pl NomTopic city Nom Tm RNg om \zpf ju onf sa phrac kra. sany only be Pl-S NomSf ‘Most towns are name-only towns.’ in name only Example 89c demonstrates another component of meaning for rnf many, the sense of ‘name’. Name within the irrealis mood is not definite, but indefinite and is questionable. The sense of the restrictive negative rÑ hmya. together with a further restriction om sa contributes a greater restriction to something already doubtful. It is interesting that English has the same sense of ‘name’, both as something definite and positive ‘name your price’ and in the indefinite and tending toward the pejorative ‘in name only’.

4.3.3.3 Evidential Functions of

onf sany Nominalization and deixis function together with notions of evidentiality to specify the relation of the speaker to the information presented in the sentence, i.e., how it came to be known reported information, hear-say, guessing from facts, observed by speaker and how much validity the speaker feels towards that information, the degree of assertion or force the speaker intends valid or known versus unknown or probable. The two-termed opposition in sentence-final position onf sany and rnf many, realis and irrealis respectively, corresponds to oppositions within the deictic and evidential systems. System Unrealized Realized Immediate rnf many onf sany T

i: Evidential