344 Chapter 11 Complex sentences
(42) Ja'/mon Siti melle roma anyar bud.hu.
COMP/if Siti AV.buy house new stupid
‘That Siti bought a new house is stupid.’
(43) Ja'/mon Ali se nga-rosak komputer ma-cengngeng Siti.
COMP/if Ali REL AV.KA-ruined computer AV.CS-surprise Siti
‘That Ali ruined the computer surprised Siti.’
Naturally, the semantics of the matrix predicates determine whether or not a
sentential subject is possible in the basic form.
While virtually every predicate allows the subordinating conjunction in
the complement clause to be optional with no obvious affect on meaning, physi-
cal perception predicates such as katela' ‘see’ and edhing ‘hear’ can behave
differently. When the complement occurs without a complementizer, the asser-
tion is that the subject of the matrix predicate directly perceived the state of
affairs denoted in the complement, as in (44). The occurrence of an overt com-
plementizer is unacceptable with perception predicates, and so (45) is judged
ungrammatical.^5 The impossibility of a complementizer with perception predi-
cates is reported by Donohue (1999) for Tukang Besi.
(44) Aba'eng nga-tela' oreng teppa'-eng moger ka'-bungka'-an se
he AV.see person right-DEF AV.chop RED-tree-AN REL
ce' raja-na.
very big-DEF
‘He saw a man chopping a very big tree.’
(45) *Aba'eng nga-tela' ja' oreng teppa'-eng moger ka'-bungka'-an se
he AV.see COMP person right-DEFAV.chop RED-tree-AN REL
ce' raja-na.
very big- DEF
(He saw that a man had chopped a very big tree.)
However, at times while the complement of the perception predicate may occur
without a complementizer, there is no implication of direct perception by the
subject. Thus in (46) the perception predicate pereng ‘hear’ does not that the
king directly perceived his daughter’s pregnancy aurally, just that he heard
about the state of affairs.
(^5) Some young speakers consider (45) acceptable, but with a difference in meaning.
When the complementizer is present the implication is that the subject gained the know-
ledge second hand.