Lalo clause-final and sentence-final particles

9.7.4.2.7 Summary Co-occurrence restrictions of these sentence-final particles, without details on semantically indistinguishable interjectory particles, are shown in tabular form Matisoff 1973:390: Table 23. Declarative, dubative, question, and persuasive particles co-occurrence restrictions Interjectory Declaratives: general affirmation process affirmation Interjectory Interjectories Interjectories Particle requesting confirmation Neutral dubative particle Surprised declarative particle Opinionated dubative Yesno question wh-question Rhetorical question Persuasive particle Interjectories Even though a string of six such particles seems possible from the chart, “strings of more than three are excessively rare” Matisoff 1973:391. The following examples demonstrate the application of co-occurrence restrictions for sentence-final unrestricted particles: 232 ŋà kàʔ phɛ̀ʔ ɔ và I also able AFFIRM interjection ADV V P P ‘I can do that, too’ Matisoff 1973:383 233 ph ɛ̀ʔ b ɔ̀ jâ yâ- o nē lê be group 2bored group 3excess interjection interjection confirmation V -head two posthead verbs three verb particles ‘Oh, I’m so bored, I could die—you know?’ Matisoff 1973:231, 226, 235, 380, 383

9.7.5 Lalo clause-final and sentence-final particles

9.7.5.1 Clause particles Clause particles may be used for both final and nonfinal clauses, in contrast to sentence-final particles Björverud 1998:134, 145. Lalo’s use of sentence-final particles needs a great deal more analysis, for which data was not available in 1998 Björverud 1998:134. Clause particles divide into two groups by their approximate syntactic order: evidential and miscellaneous, and illocutionary. 9.7.5.1.1 Evidential and miscellaneous The first group has five particles with the following meanings Björverud 1998:136–139: • ‘end of sentence’, • ‘past or nonconcluded event’ usually not personally witnessed, • ‘event witnessed by the speaker regarding second-person and third-person but not first-person subjects’, • ‘contrast with a following clause’ similar to ‘although’, • ‘past events of an unexpected nature’ declarative for 1 P subjects, but usually interrogative for 3 P subjects. The ‘end of sentence’ particle must be the final word in the sentence. It often follows the aspectual particle meaning ‘declarative affirmative’, for example, ŋa là mà= ‘copula-aspectual-final’= ‘that’s how it is Björverud 1998:135. In the evidential and miscellaneous group of particles, for ‘past or nonconcluded event’ usually not personally witnessedseen, three tonal allomorphs exist há, ha, and hà and the mid tone allomorph is the most common, but is never used with 2 P statements Björverud 1998:136. 234 tshú mì xá à v ẁ biq ha là m ɛ̀ person conscious away IMP pastunexpected say past DECL AFFIRM finalangry ‘I say that the person was really unconscious no matter how you deny it’ Björverud 1998:136. Also, in the evidential and miscellaneous group, tonal allomorphs of “event witnessed by the speaker” mù or mú sometimes distinguish between stronger mù and weaker mú assertions. Often, however, only one allomorph is acceptable, but no guiding principle had yet been discovered Björverud 1998:137. In series with other clausal particles this particle follows “past” and it can precede the aspectual particle “declarative affirmation.” 235 ná b ɛ̀ átsá pí ha mù that TOP what do past witnessed ‘[What do you mean] by doing that?’ Björverud 1998:137 9.7.5.1.2 Illocutionary The illocutionary particles may be used with the particle of the first group and always follow them Björverud 1998:139. There are eight of these Björverud 1998:139–145, which include the following meanings: 1. ‘Imperative’ often with an expressed subject 2. ‘First person plural inclusive imperative’ 3. ‘Polite request’ ‘first person singular benefactive imperative;’ ‘do X for me’ 4. ‘Emphatic imperative’ often following an imperative particle of the 1 or 3 types, but never 2 5. ‘Request for confirmation’ 6. ‘Mild pondering’ ‘rhetorical question or polite request’ 7. ‘Nonfinal clause in coordinate or subordinate relation’ 8. ‘Oddness of a proposition’ ‘It would be odd if…,’ or ‘It is odd that…’ The following is an example of the “emphatic imperative”: 236 n ɛ́ pí li xà like that do IMPER IMPER EMPH ‘Do like that’ Björverud 1998:141 9.7.5.1.3 Evidential and epistemic Four final particles comprise a third group. The ‘weak affirmative’ and ‘maybe’ particles are sometimes not sentence-final when they are clause-final in the first clause of a compound or complex sentence. They give evidential and epistemic information. They may fuse with adjacent particles, “giving rise to a wide variety of pronunciations, not always easily separated into their constituent parts” Björverud 1998:145. The meanings of the four final particles include • weak affirmation or slight contrast either with another proposition in the same sentence or with an expected ideaattitude, • attitude of doubt about the proposition ‘maybe’, • attitude of doubt about the content of the sentence speaker’s mind not made up, and • attitude of anger or displeasure two forms, with the longer one being more emphatic.

9.7.6 Nuosu clause-final and sentence-final particles