18.85 att ɕet khe-paa-la thøn tshuu-tɕe jøp-pa-la
little.bit skill-COMP2-DAT come be.able-SBJV EXIST-NMLZ;Q-DAT dinaa [NAME] sik-
keŋ-ki kalets tɕik-la ɖoo-pa bet. TE74 Dinah [Name] call-NMLZ;CONJ-GEN college INDF-DAT study-NMLZ;Q AUX
‘In order that Dinah would be able to come out a bit more skilled than others, she has studied in a college which is called [Name].’
This purpose clause type does not have any other grammatical marker except negative prefix to mark it as negated purpose. Negated illustration 18.85 would be ...tshuu-t
ɕe mip-pa-la... Or ...tshuu-tɕe mip-
pe ʈhik-la Purpose clause marked by NMLZ;Q-GEN, -p-e and
ʈhik-la postposition 18.86 u-ni u-p-e phumu di
ʈhok tshuu-p-e that-ABL that-HUM1-ERG girl DEF take.by.force be.able-NMLZ;Q-GEN
ʈhik-la thup-tsøt berŋ-ken bet. TE65 purpose-DAT protect-amount strike-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
‘Then family members beat them for the purpose to defend and to be able to take back their daughter by force.’
This is from a story that tells about marriage customs of Lhomis. They typically take the bride forcefully from her home and drag her away. Her family members pretend to resist this on the spot. In
reality they have to consent and let her go. The purpose clause is nominalized and it becomes a complement of the postposition
ʈhik-la. Table 18.3. Summary of purpose–means grammatical markings and inter-clause relations
Purpose markings on adverbial clause Inter-clause relation
- tɕe-la
PURPOSE–means -
tɕe jøp-pa-la, -tɕe mip-pa-la PURPOSE–means
- tɕe-ki ʈhik-la
PURPOSE–means -
tɕe-ki thøl-la PURPOSE–means
-p- e ʈhik-la
PURPOSE–means
18.9.2 Subordinate conditional clause
Condition– consequence
It is the nonfinite verbal suffix -na NFNT1 which marks a conditional subordinate clause. This verbal suffix NFNT1 never nominalizes a verb. It is interesting that the same suffix also marks serial verb
constructions, manner, and means relations see sections 18.10.2 and 18.10.3. When it marks the conditional clause the subject may or may not be co-referential with the subject of the main
consequence clause. There is no single grammatical marker that tells whether the subject changes or not.
18.87 hi-ni missir khajet ʈhuk-pa ɕor-na
that-ABL people plural quarrel-HUM1 break.out-NFNT1 gem-pu t
ɕaa-la ʈhim ɕu=tu ɖo-ken bet. TE33 responsibility-M1 at-DAT law request=PURP go-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
‘If a quarrel breaks out among the people, they go to gembu to sue someone.’
In this example the speaker describes what the legal procedures were in the village a long time ago. Speaker is telling about various responsibilities of a gembu in this section of the text. One of them is to
act as a judge in legal cases. This is not a serial same-subject chain. It is the consequence which is more prominent than the condition.
Speaker also may stipulate the condition for the head to be materialized. It is only if the stipulated condition is fulfilled that the head materializes. Consider the following example.
18.88 ni hi-ko noksam taŋ-na
this-head reasoning send;VBZR-NFNT1 hanteŋ-ki ʈhim hi-ko ga-a bet. TE33
current-GEN law this-head be.pleased-COMP2 COP ‘If one reasons, this current administrative system is better than the old one.
CL-na NFNT1 CL gaa bet HEAD The implication is that if one is not able to reason in his mind, the current administrative system
may not look so good. But if he really ponders, he will understand that the current one is better. 18.89 u-ki ha khoo-na na
that-ERG aud.impact hear;understand[PST]-NFNT1 RSPNS joŋ-la mat-ɕøt tɕhi.
other-DAT NEG-tell[IMP] do;VBZR[IMP] ‘If he has heard all this, then tell him, “Do not tell others”’
In this example the speaker wants to make sure that a secret plan does not spread to any outsider. There is a neighbour who just might have heard what the speaker with his friends have been planning
secretly. At the time of this speech act the speaker does not know if the neighbour has heard it or not and he gives this instruction to one of the participants.
18.90 roo-ki uko ʈøk-køt-na ni lin.
3SG-ERG that give-PROG;EXP-NFNT1 DM take[IMP] ‘If he gives it, take it’
Time reference in this one is future. Speaker must have some hints that the third person is in the process of giving something to the hearer. The direct experience progressive marker -køt loses its
evidential value when used in non-finite position but it still marks the progressive aspect. It would be more natural for Lhomis to use direct speech rather than this kind of construction, e.g. …
ʈøk-ken sin-na ni lin If he says, “I give it to you” then take it
18.91 t ɕalak u-ko roo-la gø-kuk-na ɕok-loŋ.
thing that-head 3SG-DAT need.to-PROG;VIS-NFNT1 leave[IMP]-PUNC ‘If he needs the thing, leave it with him right away’
Speaker is asking someone to take back a tool which he has borrowed but he does not know if the third person needs it.
18.92 ni hi-ki ʈhik-la raŋ-la mi-i tam ʈhii-tɕuŋ-na
this-GEN about-DAT 2.SG-DAT man-ERG message ask-PST.EXP-NFNT1 ni u-la hi-ko
ani saŋmu-la gø-pa tɕhuŋ-soŋ DM that-DAT this-head aunt sangmu-DAT be.needed-NMLZ.Q become-PST.VIS
sin-na ɕøt-tɕit.
say-NFNT1 tell-IMP2 ‘If someone asks you about this thing, tell him Aunt Sangmu needed it.’
Speaker instructs someone to go and borrow a tool from someone who may ask about it. In that case the question would be directed to the hearer who is supposed to give this answer. The non-finite
verb is marked for direct experience -t ɕuŋ. In this illustration the experience marker does not lose its
evidential value. In sections 14.1 and 14.2, I have discussed evidentiality in finite verbs where these markings typically occur in Lhomi.
Hypothetical condition 18
.93 gotta juŋ-køt-na ŋa ɖo-ken. 3SG come-PROG;EXP-NFNT1 1SG go-NMLZ;CONJ
‘If he comes, I will go.’ Subjects are not co-referential; therefore, a personal pronoun has to be added in each clause.
Counterfactual condition 18.94 phits-e ama
daŋ lip-a hin-na child-GEN mother yesterday arrive-NMLZ;Q AUX-NFNT1
ŋa raŋ tɕel-la juŋ-ken bet. 1SG 2SG at-DAT come-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
‘Had the mother of the child arrived yesterday I would have come to you.’ This is interesting The conditional clause is marked for past but the main clause is marked for
nonpast. Typically it is the main clause that determines the tense of the whole sentence. Besides, the first person is not marked on the finite verb. Lhomi does not have anything which is equivalent to English
‘would’ and to use past tense in the main clause would make it perfective, something that has happened, a reality. It is the time adverb ‘yesterday’ which determines the tense and the whole sentence is unreal
IRR.
Consider the same illustration when both clauses are negated, as in the following example. 18.95 phits-e
ama daŋ mat-lip-a hin-na child-GEN mother yesterday NEG-arrive-NMLZ;Q AUX-NFNT1
ŋa saar-la mit-ɖo-ken bet. Or: mit-ɖo-ken hin. 1SG city-DAT NEG-go-NMLZ;CONJ AUX NEG-go-NMLZ;CONJ COP.EXP
‘Had the mother of the child not arrived yesterday I would not have gone to town.’ Or: ‘Had the mother of the child not arrived yesterday, I would not have been the one
who went to town.’ The finite clause takes its tense from the non-finite one. I am told that the better option is the latter
one which is a headless relative clause, …mit- ɖo-ken hin. The person is marked in the copula but it is also
overtly stated ŋa. Both options are acceptable. This is also IRR.
Negative conditional The following examples illustrate a negated conditional clause:
18.96 hi- ni jaŋ u-ki gem-pu di-ki
this-ABL CONTR2 that-GEN responsibility-M1 DEF-ERG u-ki
ʈhim di tɕøt mat-tshuu-na jaŋ that-GEN law DEF cut NEG[PST]-be.able[PST]-NFNT1 CONTR2
go-paa t ɕaa-la tɕø-ken bet gem-pu di-ki. TE33
head-HUM2 at-DAT accompany-NMLZ;CONJ AUX responsibility-M1 DEF-ERG ‘If Gembu would not be able to judge the legal case, he actually would take the man to
Goba.’ Or: ‘Had Gembu not been able to judge the legal case, he actually would take the man to Goba.’
This example tells about the old village administration. In those days Goba used to be the title for the areal headman. This sentence refers back to preceding clauses in the text and takes up the possibility
that the lower ranking village headman called Gembu is not able to judge a legal case but has to refer it to the areal headman. The non-finite verbal suffix is -na and the subjects are co-referential. It is the
negative prefix that actually marks the conditional clause as past English perfect.
18 .97 ŋa ni hi-ntuk tɕhi-pa ɕʏli mit-tɕhit.
1SG DM this-ADVZR do;VBZR-NMLZ;Q at.all NEG-do;VBZR[NPST] khit-
raŋ tɕhi-na tɕhit. 2PL-self do;VBZR-NFNT1 do;VBZR[IMP]
mat-t ɕhi-na mat-tɕhit.
NEG-do;VBZR-NFNT1 NEG-do;VBZR[IMP] ŋa ni mit-tɕhit. TE58
1SG DM NEG-do;VBZR[NPST] ‘I do not follow at all that kind of customs. If you do, do it If you don’t, don’t do it As
for me, I don’t.’ Or: ‘I do not keep that kind of customs. If you keep the old customs, keep them If you don’t, don’t keep As for me, I don’t.’
Speaker is arguing and defending himself in a village court against accusations of not keeping the old traditions.
18.98 keri mit-na ni leader.sheep NEG.EXIST-NFNT1 DM
luk tsas-sa-la ʈhik mit-tshuu-ken bet. TE30
sheep grass-ground-DAT lead NEG-be.able-NMLZ;CONJ AUX ‘If you have no leader sheep, you cannot take the sheep to the pasture.’
In this example the marker -na signals the consequence following the actualization of the condition. Both are negated.
Same subject conditional clause In section 18.10 I will discuss serial verbs. In this current section so far I have been talking about
conditional subordinate clauses which form a sub-set of adverbial clauses. It so happens that the serial medial verbs con-verbs and conditional non-final clauses are marked with the same verbal suffix -na.
A Grammar of Kham also talks about serial chaining and switch reference see Watters 2002:322.
It is obvious that the subject of a conditional clause may or may not be the same as the subject of the main clause. When the subjects are co-referential the non-finite clause may be either a conditional
one or a medial clause. In other words Lhomi does not have any single grammatical marker that would indicate if a non-finite clause is a conditional or a medial clause of a chain. I use the same morpheme
gloss for both NFNT1. The concession clauses are marked differently as we can see a bit later in this chapter.
Examples 18.99–101 illustrate how the language handles this problem: 18
.99 raŋ pakka-la mit-thøn-na ŋa okma-la thakpa taa-na 2SG outside-DAT NEG-come.out-NFNT1 1SG neck-DAT rope tie.up-NFNT1
ɕi ɖo-ken sin-na uu thakpa taa-pa bet die go-NMLZ;CONJ say-NFNT1 frustr. rope tie.up-NMLZ;Q AUX
okma di-la. TE21 neck DEF-DAT
‘“If you do not come outside, I am going to tie a rope around my neck and die,” he said and tied a rope around his neck.’
The reference is actually to suicide. The subject of the first clause is clearly marked by using personal pronoun
raŋ. The next three clauses are same-subject serial clauses. In the second and third clause the subject remains the same but the first clause is clearly conditional, not a medial one. Personal
pronouns mark the subject change in this illustration from raŋ 2 SG to ŋa 1SG. There is more about
clause chaining in section 18.10. 18.100 rika di-la
ʈhik tshuu-na ni forest DEF-DAT take be.able-NFNT1 DM
ʈhʏk-ken di-pa-la le lhaa juŋ-ken bet. TE65 drag.along-NMLZ;CONJ DEF-PL2-DAT work easy come-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
‘If the ones who drag her along are able to take her to a forest, it will be easier work for them.’
This is about forcefully taking a wife in Lhomi country. Subjects are co-referential, those who drag along the girl. The development marker ni never occurs with the medial verbs; therefore, it is a clear
signal that this is a conditional clause. 18.101 do
ʈhet-na do berŋ-ken bet. rock meet-NFNT1 rock strike-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
ɕiŋ ʈhet-na ɕiŋ berŋ-ken bet. piece.of.wood meet-NFNT1 piece.of.wood strike-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
jari-ki ʈhi pik-na juŋ-ken bet. TE65
some-ERG knife unsheath-NFNT1 come-NMLZ;CONJ AUX ‘If they find a rock they will throw the rock at them. If they find a piece of wood
they beat with it. Some unsheath the knife and come.’ In these clauses all subjects are co-referential. They are the relatives of the girl whom others are
trying to drag away from home for marriage. It is the semantics that helps here to realize that the first two non-finite clauses are conditional and the last one is a medial one.
If the subjects are co-referential in a non-finite clause and the main clause, then Lhomi syntax provides various ways that help the hearer to understand if it is a conditional clause or a medial clause
of a chain. Here is a list of those hints which the hearer gets when there is no overt marking to distinguish medial clause from a conditional one:
1 Semantics of the subordinate clause 2 When the development marker ni DM occurs, it marks a conditional clause, never a medial
clause 3 Response particle na never occurs following a medial clause see example 18.12
4 Verb type and its arguments in the subordinate clause 5 Use of quotative direct speech
6 The whole cultural and linguistic context of the speech act
18.9.3 Subordinate concessive clause
