Tibetan Grammar - Syntactic particles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Grammar articles}} | {{Grammar articles}} | ||
''by Stefan J. | ''by Stefan J. Eckel'' | ||
==Syntactic Non Case Marking Particles== | ==Syntactic Non Case Marking Particles== | ||
Revision as of 21:44, 5 July 2012
WORK IN PROGRESS: the grammar articles are being edited for wiki publication. During editing, the content might be incomplete, out of sequence or even misleading.
| Articles on Tibetan Grammar |
| 1. Introduction |
| 2. Formation of the Tibetan Syllable |
| 3. Formation of the Tibetan Word |
| 4. First case: ming tsam |
| 5. agentive particle |
| 6. Connective Particle |
| 7. La don particles |
| 8. La don particles—Notes |
| 9. Originative case |
| 10. Verbs |
| 11. Verbs—Notes |
| 12. Syntactic particles |
by Stefan J. Eckel
Syntactic Non Case Marking Particles
The following particles are "non case marking" when taking the eight Tibetan cases as base to determine which particles are case marking. Some of them are considered case marking particles in other presentations.
- For instance Nicolas Tournadre[1]: "In summary, according to the above morphological analysis, Literary Tibetan has ten grammatical cases:
- 1. absolutive, ངོ་བོ་ཙམ་, 2. agentive, བྱེད་སྒྲ་, 3. genitive, འབྲེལ་སྒྲ་, 4. dative, ལ་སྒྲ་, 5. purposive, དུ་སྒྲ་, 6. locative, ན་སྒྲ་, 7. ablative, ལས་སྒྲ་, 8. elative, ནས་སྒྲ་, 9. associative, དང་སྒྲ་, and 10. comparative, བས་སྒྲ་."
Categories of syntactic non case marking particles
1. Possessor particle, བདག་སྒྲ་
2. Coordinating particle, དང་སྒྲ་
3. Coordinating particle, ཞིང་
4. Continuative particle, ལྷག་བཅས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་
5. Concessive particle, "ornament gather particle", རྒྱན་སྡུད་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་, ཚིག་རྒྱན་
6. Particle ཡང་
7. Topic particle, ནི་སྒྲ་
8. Completion particle, full stop, སླར་བསྡུ་, རྫོགས་ཚིག་
9. Question particle, differentiating and including particle, འབྱེད་སྡུད་
Endnotes
- ↑ Tournadre, Nicolas: Himalayan Linguistics, Vol. 9(2): 87-125, 2010, The Classical Tibetan cases and their transcategoriality—From sacred grammar to modern linguistics.