Types of Particles ‘Uncle’,

The N + N interpretation is represented in figure 20. Figure 20. Adverb as nominal compound construction The analysis presented in 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 demonstrates how it may be possible to reduce the number of basic word categories. The constructions establish a framework from which the semantic component interprets both adjectival and adverbial senses, though this is more a problem for westerners than for native speakers of Burmese. The intuition of numerous linguists that underlyingly only Nouns and Verbs structure Burmese grammar has been shown to be plausible. It has also been shown that it is the structural rules that contribute the distinctive sense or usage of a particular nominal or verbal as it is constructed within the rules of grammar and that the same principles that structure grammar may contribute to the structure of semantic meaning. In the following sections we shall see that the same principles also structure larger grammatical units. Burmese grammar is structured by a common set of underlying units that combine iteratively in a regular system throughout the grammar. The functional load of grammar is reduced to a few basic patterns and constructions, shifting the bulk of the complexity to semantic and conceptual processes.

3.5.4 Types of Particles

There is a wide variety of particles in Burmese. Stewart remarked that “The Grammar of Burmese is almost entirely a matter of the correct use of particles” Stewart 1936:xi. The same particle may appear in combination with different kinds of structures and may fulfill the same or different functions depending on the construction and the lexical or discourse context. Generally, the function of the same particle is similar no matter what structure it is applied to. Linear ordering is highly significant in particle function. If a particle or grammatical form precedes a head, then its function is typically distinct from the same particle that follows the head. Such differences reflect the strong typological tendency in Burmese to require the interpretation of pre-head forms as modifiers at every level of constituency, whether a simple compound word or a highly complex sentence. Similarly, postposed particles are interpreted as functional heads at a higher level of structure and thus they have a different scope. Principally, it is verbs, called by Matisoff 1969 “versatile” verbs, where the pre- and posthead interpretations differ radically in scope. The distinctions in verbs are not handled in ‘make an appointment avoiding Wednesday’ the present study, but their role in the overall sentence structure is well documented in the text analysis section. Particle functions have often been classified according to the general function performed and the kinds of constructions on which they operate. Okell and Allott 2001 have produced an extensive dictionary of grammatical forms, which discusses approximately 800 particles and other grammatical forms. Their glossary is the most comprehensive listing to date of this important class of word forms. These are classified functionally and by the constructional level on which they are active. Nineteen functions were recognized and have been summarized along with their distributional environments in table 21, which is adapted from Okell and Allott 2001:291–302. General Functions Grammatical Distribution Pre- Post- 1. Clause and verb attributes Sentence, Phrase 2. Common elements in compound nouns Noun, Verb 3. Common elements in compound verbs Verb 4. Common numeratives Number 5. Pre-Verbs [pre-head versatile verbs] Verb 6. Coordinate markers Noun -- Noun 7. Location nouns 8. Noun attribute markers Noun -- Noun 9. Noun markers Noun 10. Noun modifiers Noun 11. Selectives [deictic, interrogative] Noun, Suffix 12. Sentence final phrase particles Sentence 13. Sentence markers Verb, Noun 14. Sentence medial phrase particles Phrase 15. Special head nouns Verb 16. Subordinate clause markers Verb, Noun 17. Subordinate sentence markers Verb Attribute [Nominalized clause with onf sany variants] 18. Verb attribute markers V --- N [Nominalized clause as in line17 or other functional head] 19. Verb modifiers [post-head versatile verbs] Verb Table 21. Types of grammatical particle functions The relevant generalized structures for grammatical forms utilized by Okell and Allott are Noun, Verb, Phrase, and Sentence. Generalizing across the types of functions are a modifiers attribute and modifier, deixis, b special semantic head nouns or verbs nominalizers, spatial and temporal location nouns, numeral classifiers, c final particles that relate attitude of speaker phrase, sentence, and d grammatical orientation markers. Particles can be said to vary along a continuum between more lexico-semantic or more grammatical. For some particles, semantic “bleaching” of the original lexical sense is evident where few, if any, properties remain from the full lexical form. In other cases, the sources are unknown and only the functions remain. While some particles are more semantic and others have little except grammatical function, most particles have both elements. For instance, the particle ajumif. kraung. ‘because’ bears a strong semantic association with the nominal tajumif: a-kraung: ‘reason or purpose, cause’ while the particle csuf hkyak functioning as a grammatical nominalizer, as in qHk:\zwfcsuf hcum: hprat hkyak come to end + cut + Nom = ‘decision’, has more grammaticalized force than ajumif. kraung. ‘because’. Although highly grammaticalized, csuf hkyak retains, even in its nominalization, something of the semantics of the source noun csuf hkyak ‘a central point’. Nominalizations with csuf hkyak employ the underlying semantics of some sort of enumerative or persuasive point in the nominalized verb— a|G:lcsuf rwe: yu hkyak select + take + Nom = ‘choice’, a0zefcsuf we hpan hkyak distribute + create + Nom = ‘criticism’. Other particles are entirely or almost so grammatical, such as the nominalizer onf sany about which much has been and will be said here. It also functions grammatically as a sentence-final particle, declarative, realis mood, with evidential force from speaker’s direct knowledge. All such functions are more grammatical than semantic. There are functions it performs resembling a pro-form for ‘people’ or ‘person’ in the nominal Tonf i: sany demonstrative-proximal +