jeff_l
(Jeff_L)
#1
13.6 Verbs and particles with finite complements 691
Yet another construction is that beginning with invariant negated war
i-lkem, literally 'it did (=does) not follow' (cf. §13.1.1.7), plus a comitative
clause.
(853) war i-lkem
Neg 3MaSgS-follow.PerfN
[a-\d aswe-γ aetay]
[DemAComit drink.PerfN-lSgS tea]
Ί will never again drink tea.'
Another construction glossable 'not again, not any more' involves a
negation of the verb -ulvs- 'do again, repeat' (§13.6.1) followed by a VblN.
(854) wasrAd e 0-atas ural
NegACentrip Fut 3MaSgS-repeat.ShImpf return.VblN
'He won't come back any more'. [K-d]
13.6.8 'maybe', 'it's possible that...'
The verb -mukkvn- 'be possible', with nonreferential 3MaSg subject, can take
a factive complement with aAd or aAs. The same is true of the verb -dubu- (+
-t) in the sense 'be possible', though its usual sense is 'can, be able to' (with
referential subject). Thus i-mmukkaen aAd ... (or aAs ...) and 0-asddobas-t
aAs ... 'it's possible that...' plus any ordinary main clause.
The form ammukkaen was recorded as a 'maybe' adverb for K-d. This is
identical in form to the Resit stem -smmukkaen- of the verb -mukkvn- just
mentioned, but it lacks a subject affix.
i-ha minsi (or ...misi) 'risk/danger is in...' can be preposed to an ordinary
clause with no further complementizer.
(855) i-ha
3MaSgS-be.in.Reslt
[u-marAt
[Neg-Fut-\3MaSgO
'There's a chance (=
minsi
risk
anhay-aer]
see.Shlmpf-lSgS]
risk) that I won't see him.'
Another common 'maybe' construction involves t-arhd, which if so
transcribed (t-aerha would also be phonetically accurate) could be taken as a
specialized 3FeSg subject Resit of 'want', plus a clause with aAd. In (856.a) I
give a negative complement to show that we have aAd rather than Future ad
(which becomes ü-mar in this dialect in the negative, as in (855) above.
Another construction that can sometimes be glossed with 'maybe' or 'possible'
is that illustrated in (856.b). The key phrase is i-ll-\e, which usually means 'it
