|
|
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
| | The complex clause below is a case of parataxis. | | The complex clause below is a case of parataxis. |
| | | | |
| − | What would be in twp clauses? --[[User:Dorothee Beermann|Dorothee Beermann]] 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC) | + | What would be in two clauses? --[[User:Dorothee Beermann|Dorothee Beermann]] 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | Example: | | Example: |
Revision as of 12:34, 24 February 2014
--Beatrice Owusua Nyampong 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreement
Reference is not the same as Agreement
This needs to be sorted out.
--Dorothee Beermann 12:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
In Krio, Person is an agreement feature. In the example discussed below, the value is the third person.
Example:
I si anoda dog we fiba am, ehn i bak ohl bon na im moht.
“He sees another dog which resembles him and he too held a bone in his mouth.”
In this example, the third person pronoun 'I' (he) controls the third person object pronoun 'am' (him). Again 'i' in the second clause also controls the third person possessive pronoun 'i' (his) - both subject pronoun and possessive pronoun have the same form.
The subject pronouns in the clauses are the controllers and their targets are the object pronoun and the possessive pronoun respectively.
Clause Linkage
The complex clause below is a case of parataxis.
What would be in two clauses? --Dorothee Beermann 12:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Example:
I ron go insai di forehst, gladi wit di bon I de chamcham.
“He run into the forest, happy with the bone he was chewing.”
| insai |
| insai |
| insideLOC |
| PREP |
| chamcham |
| cham | cham |
| chew | REDP |
| V |
The second clause is not embedded in the first clause (which is also the main clause). Therefore, both clauses are coordinated without evidence of explicit linkage. The first clause is an independent clause, but the second clause is uncertain since it does not begin with a subject, however, it has a subject and it carries tense.