16 As a nominalized clause: That John wrote a letter…. John
pm a|: onf
sa re: sany
John letter write NomTopic The pattern in 14 is exactly that of an independent clause or sentence, as in 15. It is
also the pattern of a dependent clause, that is the pattern of a nominalized clause, as in 16. There is no significant difference in Burmese between a simple sentence and a nominalized
clause except for the many more particles in the independent, or final clause, that refer to the sentence as a “thing” as a whole. This view is perhaps original here, so further comment is
made since this study does not discuss the verb phrase in detail.
Post-verbal particles are analyzed as higher level heads to “daughter” units that are often the whole of the preceding content. Thus in the verb phrase
od|Sd\yD:
si. hri. pri: ‘know
be complete’
od
si. ‘know’ is head to the larger construction of what was known. The verb
|Sd
hri. ‘be’ is a further predication in a chain of predications that the whole clause of which
od
si. is the head, exists. It is as if to say ‘x knows y’ then the next predication indicates in the verb chain that “ ‘x knows y’ exists’ ”. See sentence 3 part 2 of Snake Bite Text in appendix
D for a complete display of these relationships.
A further principle of tight reduced construction mirroring the semantic blending of elements into a whole is also exemplified in Burmese nominalizations. The basic principle
being that reduction of postpositional particles reduces the grammatical and phonological “bulk” and that simplification iconically mirrors the extent of blending of the concepts into a
whole unit. See Adjectival Nominal in 2.5.14.
The following list corresponds to the types of nominalization patterns observed cross- linguistically. In Burmese, these patterns are based upon the same basic set of a regular
nominalized clause pattern: Clause-Nom, or the relative clause pattern of an object or subject nominalization with the specific argument extracted as the head nominal of the relative
clause, as in 17.
17 Clause - Nom Head
[Subject Object]
2.5.1 Action Nominal
John’s writing the letter …surprised us. 18 The letter John wrote surprised us.
am[ef a|: aom pm
udk
jon re: sau
ca kui [[[[John write] Atr] letter] Ob]
uGsefr wdkh onf
tHhjo ap
onf`
kywan ma. tui. sany
am. au ce
sany 1p - female Pl
NomTop surprise Cs NomSf
The full sentence is included here in order to demonstrate the full form, but what is focal is the nominalized clause before the parentheses which functions as the subject of the
matrix clause. 19 John’s letter he wrote surprised us.
am[ef a|: aom pm onf
jon re: sau
ca sany [[[[John write] Atr] letter] TopNom]
uGsefr udk
tHhjo ap
onf`
kywan ma. kui
am. au ce
sany 1p -female Ob
surprise Cs NomSf
The difference between the action nominal in 18 and 19 is the profiling of the nominalized clause. In both examples the internal structure of the nominalized clause is
exactly the same with the extracted object of ‘letter’ to form a construction of an attributive nominal clause. In 18 the ‘letter’ is the direct object marked by
udk
kui and in 19 it is the
topic marked by
onf
sany. The topicalized nominal has the force of establishing the ground
or basis for something else to follow. 20 For John to write the letter….surprised us
am[ef D pm udk a|: | \cif: onf
jon di ca kui
re: ra.
hkrang: sany
[[[[[[John [Dm-p letter]] Ob] write] De] Nom] Nom]
In 20 the deontic particle ra. is not obligatory in the nominalizing construction but,
when added, the semantic force of the nominalization is reinforced as being “off” the main proposition line of the sentence. While it is perfectly clear grammatically that this nominal
clause is subordinated to the main clause, the nominalizer itself is semantically “bland” and thus is more likely to occur with such verbal particles as those that establish the reason or
type of action of the nominalized clause in relation to the main clause.
2.5.2 Factive
21 That John wrote the letter….
am[ef D pm udk a|: \cif:
udk yif
jon di ca
kui re:
hkrang: kui pang [[[[[[John [Dm-p letter]] Ob] write] Nom]
Ob] Emp] 22
That John wrote the letter….
am[ef pm udk a|: cJh \cif:
jon ca kui
re: hkai:
hkrang:
[[[John [letter Ob]
write] Pr] Nom]
23 That John wrote the letter….
am[ef pm udk a|: | \cif: onf
jon ca kui
re: ra.
hkrang: sany
[[[[John [letter Ob]
write] De] Nom] Nom]
24 John’s having written the letter….
am[ef pm a|: cJh onf
jon ca re:
hkai. sany
[[[John letter
write] Pr ]
Nom]
2.5.3 Future Nominal