13.62 surti-la mi
ŋaa-soŋ. cigarette-DAT fire get.lighted-PST.VIS
‘The cigarette got lit.’ 13
.63 ŋ-e surti-la mi ŋaa-pen. root type 17
1SG-ERG cigarette-DAT fire light-1PST ‘I lit the cigarette.’
13.6 Agreement patterns on finite verbs
Inflectional suffixes on finite verbs turned out to be more complex than we first realized. What we earlier described as a role of an experiencer is more thoroughly treated in this paper under the evidentiality
strategies and direct evidentials in chapter 14. In this current section I only introduce some of the more straightforward agreement markings of the semantic role of an agent in Lhomi verbs.
The agreement is marked in the finite verb with cross-reference to an agent. It means that the subjectagent governs the verb of the clause. This agreement pattern results in two different kinds of
verb forms which are usually called conjunct and disjunct. I mark the finite suffix for conjunct NMLZ;CONJ and leave the disjunct forms unmarked.
13.6.1 Conjunctdisjunct agreement patterns
Bartee 2005:2 quotes from R. Hargreaves the following conditions that are necessary for conjunct verb forms to appear: “1. the clause is finite, and 2. the event being described is interpreted as involving an
intentional action by the actor and 3. the speech act is either a declarative first person or b interrogative second person or c reported speech when the matrix clause subject and complement-clause
subject are coreferential.”
Keeping in mind the definition above I have left the experiencer related markings that occur in finite verbs for the section on evidentials where they rightfully belong see chapter 14.
The agreement pattern related to an agent occurs only with finite agentive verbs in Lhomi. First person agentsubject agrees with the nonpast conjunct verb form in a declarative clause and a second
person agentsubject agrees with the nonpast conjunct verb form in an interrogative clause. All other persons are disjunct forms which are left unmarked in this write-up. In the past tense forms of agentive
verbs there is no conjunctdisjunct pattern. Neither does it happen with non-agentive verbs, existential copulas, or equative copulas.
The following examples illustrate this agreement pattern. Verbal markers are underlined. Second person interrogative has the conjunct marker only in nonpast verb forms. More recent writers have used
the term egophoricity for this grammatical feature see Jalava and Sandman 2012. Table 13.8. Conjunctdisjunct marking on finite agentive verbs
Person NPST declarative
PST declarative
NPST interrogative
PST interrogative
1. -ken
NMLZ;CONJ -pen
1PST 2.
-ken bet -NMLZ;CONJ AUX
-pa bet -NMLZ;Q AUX
-ken -NMLZ;CONJ.Q
=pa =NMLZ;Q
3. -ken bet
-NMLZ;CONJ AUX -pa bet
-NMLZ;Q AUX -ken bek=ka
-NMLZ;CONJ AUX=Q -pa bek=ka
-NMLZ;Q AUX=Q
13.6.2 In bi-transitive verbs
Interrogative conjunct, clause type BT 13.64 khok-ki dortsi-la ra t
ɕik tsoŋ-ken? 2SG-ERG dortsi-DAT goat INDF sell-NMLZ;CONJ.Q
‘Do you sell a goat to Dortsi? Will you sell a goat to Dortsi?’ The marker in the finite verb of this question looks like the one in the next example. However, the
final syllable of this question is phonologically stressed and there is rising intonation. Otherwise there are no morphological markers to mark it as a question.
Declarative conjunct, clause type BT 13
.65 ŋ-e dortsi-la ra tɕik tsoŋ-ken. 1SG-ERG dortsi-DAT goat INDF sell-NMLZ;CONJ
‘I will sell a goat to Dortsi.’ Or: ‘I sell a goat to Dortsi.’ This could be an answer to 13.64. Typically it would be shorter, just the verb
tsoŋ-ken with the conjunct markings.
Negated answer to 13.64, 1.person negated nonpast 13.66 mit-
tsoŋ. NEG-sell[NPST]
‘I will not sell.’ Or: ‘I do not sell.’ This is the standard way to reply to the question above. Only affirmative answer gets the first
person conjunct marker -ken. There is no grammatical marker to mark 13.66 as 1.person, yet it is undoubtedly. I have called it NEG-V[NPST]. This applies to all agentive verbs in Lhomi.
Examples 13.64 and 13.65 illustrate the kind of conjunctdisjunct pattern Lhomi has. I will show that in the evidentiality system, Lhomi has some traces of conjunctdisjunct patterns but it is the source of
information which dominates and rules over the whole grammar.
Declarative disjunct, clause type BT 13
.67 aku tshiriŋ-ki ŋ-e toto-la ra tɕik tsoŋ-ken bet. uncle ‘tshiring-ERG 1SG-GEN brother-DAT goat INDF sell-NMLZ;CONJ AUX
‘Uncle Chiring sells a goat to my brother.’ Speaker drawsinfers from general factual knowledge which is often the backbone of an
argumentative discourse. Interrogative disjunct, clause type BT
13 .68 aku tshiriŋ-ki ŋ-e toto-la ra tɕik tsoŋ-ken bek=ka?
uncle tshiring-ERG 1SG-GEN brother-DAT goat INDF sell-NMLZ;CONJ AUX=Q ‘Does uncle Chiring sell a goat to my brother?’
Speaker draws from general factual knowledge. Speaker assumes that the hearer does not have any other source of information.
Interrogative 2.person past, clause type BT 13.69 khok-ki dortsi-la ra t
ɕik tsoŋ=a? 2SG-ERG Dortsi-DAT goat INDF sell[PST]=Q
‘Did you sell Dortsi a goat?’ There is audible phonological stress on the final syllable which is the question marker. It is not the
question marker alone that marks this as a second person question. The question marker is the same throughout the inflectional paradigm, only morphophonemic changes occur. However, when it is
attached to the past root of an agentive verb the resulting structure is past second person question.
Negated interrogative 2.person past 13.70 khok-ki dortsi-la ra t
ɕik mat-tsoŋ=a? 2SG-ERG dortsi-DAT goat INDF NEG-sell[PST]=Q
‘Did you not sell a goat to Dortsi?’ Declarative 1.person past, clause type BT
13 .71 ŋ-e dortsi-la ra tɕik tsoŋ-en.
1SG-ERG dortsi-DAT goat INDF sell[PST]-1PST ‘I sold a goat to Dortsi.’
As can be seen in these examples the past tense forms do not participate in this agreement scheme, only the nonpast forms.
Negated 1.person past, answer to 13.69 or 13.70 13.72 mat-
tsoŋ. NEG-sell[PST]
‘I didn’t sell.’ This is a typical answer to the question in 13.69. Morphologically this is exactly like the negated
imperative: ‘Do not sell’ However, the context helps to sort it out, even though this particular verb root does not participate in vowel changing scheme.
Interrogative 1.person past, clause type BT 13
.73 ŋ-e dortsi-la ra tɕik tsoŋ-soŋ=a na 1SG-ERG dortsi-DAT goat INDF sell-PST.VIS=Q or
mat- tsoŋ-soŋ=a?
NEG-sell-PST.VIS=Q ‘Did I sell a goat to Dortsi or did I not sell?’ Or: ‘Did you see me selling a goat…?’
Speaker has forgotten and asks someone else to tell. He may have been drunk at the time. Speaker has to use evidential which here implies that the hearer has seen the event which he himself cannot
remember. This is the only kind of first person question that makes sense.
13.6.3 In other agentive verbs
