‘Locative’ -e 291
(37) Deni a-bala dha' Budi ja’ Ali se ma-becce’ sapedha motor-ra.
Deni AV-say to Budi COMP Ali REL AV.CS-good motorcycle-DEF
‘Deni said to Budi that Ali is the one who fixed his motorcycle.’
(38) Deni a-bala-i Budi ja’ Ali se ma-becce’ sapedha motor-ra.
Deni AV-say-LOC Budi COMP Ali REL AV.CS-good motorcycle-DEF
‘Deni said to Budi that Ali is the one who fixed his motorcycle.’
(39) Budi e-bala-i Deni ja’ Ali se ma-becce’ sapedha motor-ra.
Budi OV-say-LOC Deni COMP Ali REL AV.CS-good motorcycle-DEF
‘Deni said to Budi that Ali is the one who fixed his motorcycle.’
Again, when the goal is a core argument, the locative suffix (here realized as -i)
is used (38) and (39). The clause can also be subject, in which case the locative
suffix cannot be used. Here the suffix -agi is optionally used.
(40) Ja’ Ali se ma-becce’ sapedha motor-ra se e-bala(-agi) Deni ka
COMP Ali REL AV.CS-good motorcycle-DEF REL OV-say-agi Deni to
Budi.
Budi
‘Deni said to Budi that Ali is the one who fixed his motorcycle.’
lit. ‘That Ali is the one who fixed his motorcycle is what was said by
Deni to Budi.’
When clauses are to be subjects, the cleft construction is frequently used. The
structure of clefts is examined in Chapter 11 section 6.^4
Inasmuch as the goal of communication is a human goal/location, similar
to human goals of verbs of transmittal, the basic use of -e here is the same as
with those verbs of transmittal: -e registers the fact that the location/goal is a
core argument.
1.4 Verbs of cognitive state
The locative suffix also plays a prominent role with verb denoting cognitive
states such as baji' ‘hate’, enga' ‘remember’, esto ‘love’, loppa ‘forget’, percaja
‘believe/trust’, tao ‘know’, terro ‘want’, yaken ‘be sure’, and others. These
verbs are semantically transitive but syntactically intransitive: these predicates
require two arguments, an experiencer and a stimulus, but only the experienc-
er/cognizer is a core argument. The stimulus argument occurs in a PP. By and
(^4) As discussed in Chapter 11 section 6, the structure of clefts is somewhat more compli-
cated than need concern us here. It is shown there that the element that is the predicate
in the cleft is actually the element that on the surface appears to be the subject.