 Ysbyty i eisiau pryd viw yma ynJustus, yn South Easton, ac yn 2800 rhai sefydlu wahanol yn 3 yrhaethau, rhan o fod o gwybodaeth yw'r cyfrifiadau yma yn brofiad, ac mae'n wneud mynd i dyn nhw i'w gweld i niw yw'r petfyn nhw'n hyn ar gyfer yn anghyfodol. Mae'r ddatblygu yn y maesiaid yng Nghymru, mae'r ddweud nad yma yn edgesio. Mae'r ddweud yn rkad adeiladau, mae'r ddweud yn roi y Calling ond mae'r gydag yn rhan. Mae'r ddweud a'r gynhyfrifio ar gyfer barod yng nghymru. Mae'r religions yn ddweud yn rhan o'i ddweud yn rhan o'n cerddolol. Mae'r W knees yn rhan o'n cerddolol. ac mae'n cael llawer os ystod y ddweud y cael llawer, sy'n ei wneud gweld i gynhycoff am rhai codd gennymau. Ac, nad yw'n rhaid i'r gweithio ydw i. Felly, mae have to check that that people are from before you ask them anything tonal at all. Yn hyn arlyw hwnnw, mae'n fyddi'r pawan o'r ddyfynol o'r oedig gydlegaeth. Here are some two nouns which come in high and low terms. That's fine. Every major or minor syllable has a tone and there are lots of non-tonal functional morphemes which acquire their tone by a sort of OCP ripples out from the tonal lexical morphemes. There are five vowel heights, so again a sort of fieldwork is nightmare finding which of those high E vowels is the right one. Not always reflected in spelling. A lot of the orthographical data that we have needs checking. Some morphofnological structures. You have syllables with one tone and you can have some very unusual MS clusters. That's one syllable. There's no morphine boundary in there. In fact you can only really see it. Be a single morphine with a minor and a major syllable. In my dot, I've used hyphens to morphine boundaries and a dot for a minor syllable vowel. A dot is a short up, but I got so bored of typing schwares that I just went for the dot and got it fixed. I'm so sure that I wouldn't like it in there. That's going to have to go. Once you get used to it, it's quite efficient because you have visually something that feels more like the number of actual beats that are there. The main syllable has a low tone, so the ng by because it is next to it gets a high tone. These minor syllables can get a tone, but they can't determine the tone. They can only get tone by derivation. Forms like in C, two more themes in minor syllable and major syllable, so the verb to go, low tone, msi, is two plural inclusive, we go. The m is the prefix and it gets a high tone because it's next to a low tone, msi. I use backward slash for down and forward slash for up because that is a million times faster to type. I don't see it anymore, but I hope you can read those. It's a lot easier than putting accents on top of the vowels. Also I like it because you're associating tones with whole syllables rather than specific vowels. It's faster type, which is great. Three more themes, so we've got in this form, he cooks for me, so clat, a low tone verb, a low tone transitive verb is cook. The a prefix is the singular and the m in the middle is he does it for me, so it's wrong. It shouldn't be true, it should be third to one. The comma in between the subject agreement and the verb can do a number of functions. It can do you to me, he to me, I to you. Is that the same in here? Similar? So it can do he, he to me, you to me and I to you, I think. It's like speech against an object, right? Whenever it's first or second person object. Also first person object, he cooks for me. But again, lots of checking to be done because it doesn't always depend on the transitive or otherwise of the verb, so those things are hard. Right, and then we've got three more themes with two major syllables at the bottom. So the subject marking prefixes disappear in negative verbs. The negation is very simple, you just have an app suffix. So sik is pluck, sik at, don't pluck, sik at, don't pluck it. So in an imperative form you have no, there's no subject agreement, there's only object agreement. And because there's no subject agreement prefix, there's no minus syllable at the beginning so you get this unusual sik cluster at the beginning. So that's just some fun things about some two morphin phonology. Verb stem alternations, so they seem to kind of come in two kinds. One where you, ones where you lose something and ones where you add something. So the verbs like drink, buy and fetch, you lose a final stop. And verbs like sleep, crossover, go or cook, you get a final stop where there was only a double stop. So things seem to be going in two directions. And from what I can recall about 60, it's only about 30% of the verbs that have two forms. There's that kind of proportion, a lot of verbs just have one form. And there's a lot of optionality, so it seems to be acceptable for quite a lot of verbs not to do the stem alternations as speakers will find with it. So it's clearly sort of on the way out for more verbs at the moment. And that's some comparable data from Dive. So I haven't attributed this data from Helge Sir Hartman, obviously. So quite similar to Dive, and I'm sure similar to Helge on other languages. And you never know with them, I haven't looked at as many languages as the rest of you. So you never know quite whether the distribution of verb stem choice is the same. But in some two at any rate you get stem one in finite affirmative verbs and stem two in negatives and imperatives. And also in subordinate clauses in some cases, as I recall. Here is the sort of pronoun system. So you have some interest. This is where the attention to tones became relevant. So you have sort of tone flipping for the dual. So gain, nang and yat, that are all fairly recognisable singular pronouns for the second and third person. And the plural in all cases, you add hneet, which has a fixed high tone. That's not open for debate. And exceptionally you get the... So the marked forms, what's interesting here, the dual forms seem predictable. The hneet has a fixed tone. You would expect the minor syllable to the left to have a low tone because it's next to a high tone. And the plural forms have exceptionally a high minor syllable to the left of the fixed hneet, which is unusual. So what distinguishes dual from plural is a change in tone in the minor syllable. Right. So those are the pronouns. The verb suffixes do something similar. So we've taken the verb oak to drink. So go oak, na oak, ba oak. And again the dots are short schwa. And then the dual forms mo oak, gan oak, nang oak, an oak. And then the plural forms mo oak, gan oak, with this strange sort of double high. Which feels very, very marked. And I would welcome your comments on whether markedness of the plural rather than the dual seems unusual. Right. And then in other cases we get with low tone verbs we get the tone of the verb itself flipping when you go in the dual forms. So in the singular we've got ga si, na si, a si. So I go, you go, he goes. And in the plural we have the same tone pattern. So ma si, gan si, na si, an ansi. And that's first inclusive and exclusive the first two. And then for the dual forms the root verb, the tones flip, the root verb goes high and the pronoun prefix goes low. So they sound the same but with the opposite terms. And if you go to the other end of the sumptuous speaking area, all of that is reversed. And if you go somewhere in the middle you get a mixed pattern. It's a kind of proof of lightning. Upstream and downstream. The tone flipping. So what's interesting is what happens in midstream? There is a big town midstream. They still understand each other miraculously. But I did find that in Minbyar, which is the middle area where the biggest urban population is, that they would refer to people from Yebwm who speak this sumptuous as being the ones who go ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. They had a very distinctive speech because their tones were perhaps more marked. Which all goes to suggest that the functional load of the tones isn't that great. But yet we have systems like this which suggest that it is there too. Right. So here we have a... Oop, which is drink form one. Oop, he drinks. Oop, he doesn't drink. And it has a fixed high tone so you don't get turn alternations. And again in my notation it would be good to find a way of marking the tones that are fixed and marking as being different from the tones which are derived without requiring the reader to know so much about the phonology that they could fill in the unmarked ones. That would be a bit unfair. Right. We find in negative verbs, so negative verbs being perhaps the more conservative forms. Not just a negative verb, we find these verb suffixes after the verb. Where the prefix marking is not present we can have these suffixes which show us number and person. And these compound suffixes. And if you strip out what's there, these are the morphemes that seem to be there. So we have a negative morpheme, a dual morpheme, an exclusive morpheme which shows us also that one singular is exclusive, which is kind of nice. And an inclusive morpheme, plural morpheme. I am just... Hang is exclusive. It seems to be. I don't have that inclusive for like you. Sorry, ha mi. Have I written inclusive instead of... The form is ha mi. Sorry, I is inclusive, not exclusive. That is a typo. I'm speaking rubbish here. Hold on, what's that on? Exclusive. One singular is exclusive because I'm excluding you. That's right. Ha. It's in the negative. Yeah. Yeah, so you get hang in the first singular, the first person dual exclusive. So that's us two, not you. So I, me not you, us two not you and all of us, but not you. That's right. I've got your here, so this is from Zechariah. And they are similar, but not the same. Yeah. It does line up to some degree. Just in the world, yeah. Here they are. We've lined them up. What's going on with the third person dual? What does that form mean? The third dual. So gap hwt. Hwt. Where they drop a sock in the middle. Hwt. Not you. Hwt. Hwt. I was also, firstly, not to get anything like you, because I thought they would also have hwt. So they don't have hwt. So it was kind of silly there. Yeah. So we have this hnit, yeah, hnit, which means to. Hnit is very, very... If you do burmese, that's obviously too. Okay. Right. And then the next thing I'm looking at, which is this e suffix, which is a nice example of a suffix where you can spend a week talking to consultants and you'll get a different answer from everyone you ask. What is e doing? And they will just tell you something that matches for the sentence you're dealing with. And what we eventually got to was that it can make intransitive verbs transitive. So sit to go becomes to take something somewhere. So you go take something somewhere. See e. Lo to come. Lo e to bring something. And it can also make transitive verbs reflexive slash middle. So loc is to fetch something. Loc e is to fetch it for yourself. So you've got it. And the problems where we... So we're working burmese mostly. The problems are that there are all sorts of other ways that you would translate that because burmese doesn't have these. And it took us a long while to pin it down. So now I've just got some examples of sentences with these in. So hlit is to buy a good hlit. I buy. I bought a house. So you have... You can mark the house with an object marker. There's no sort of ergotivity in sum 2. So there would be... You could mark other things. You could mark the house with an object marker. You could have im ma. You could say ge le im ma ge le. So le is very different. Le. So does le work in transitive? No, le is... Is it a topic marker? Is topic marker. That's... I don't know. So also in transitive so you get the city. For in transitive. Yeah. There were no surprises there of any kind. We need to compare notes. Anyway. So to buy a house is im ge le. I buy a house im ge le i. It doesn't have its own tone so it gets a high tone or a low tone depending on what it's next to. That means I bought myself a house. I bought a house. Yeah. I don't know what you want. It means I bought myself a house. It works quite well. French reflexive. So you can have two different means. You can have reflexive meaning. Yes. So depending on the context. So I shade myself. This is it. So you've got this nice transitive verb. So I shade myself. I shave my beard. The beard gets object marked. I shaved myself the beard. It feels very like French to me. But without E what does it mean? Without E. It means... You shave someone else? You can shave something. You can harvest to cut your rice down. So it's the same verb. You shave to cut hair and to cut stalks. Yeah. Yeah. So the E is only there if it's for the benefit of the... There is no stem automation. There is no stem automation. You see any stem automation. You see any stem automation. You see any stem automation. No. Not to do with the E-ness. The presence of E. So here's some... So to get, La is to get. So just to contextualise this data is all sentence only. It was from a textbook written by one of the consultants who had good general syntactic awareness. So we went through the stuff that he'd written and then asked questions around it. So some of the data is from his language learning textbook and some of it is from the discussions around that material. So the two chickens have saws. Got saws. So the chickens got themselves saws. So my chickens have got themselves saws and now I have a problem. Yeah. So that's the sense of anlai. He got inheritance from his parents. So he got himself. He has... So there's a sort of reflexive, benefactive sense. He got himself the benefit of inheritance from his parents. And the first one is sort of autumn malefactible. Yeah. The baby's got itself a cold again. It's that kind of thing. I think. I can also get credit. I can get myself. So again a benefactive sense. He said you will get earplugs. So earplugs as in... Yeah. Plugs like this we call them. But not to keep the sound out. But to wear in your ears and look fabulous. So he said you will get yourself some earplugs. And I got the plank back again. I got myself. I got my... I got the plank back again for myself. Ba. Ba for back. That's another one. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba. Ba ni. Ba has a tone. Has its own tone. Nothing else does. Ni is... Sorry, not the realist that's wrong. Perfective. Anyway. Right. So seat to go. As mentioned before. So... She didn't take her bag. Keat is bag. She didn't... Go taking her bag with her. His brother took it away. So... So l is your topic marker. Marking the brother. And... The E tells you that the brother went and was taking something somewhere. That isn't mentioned in the sentence. Take this to the lower end of the village. So Namdong is the lower part of the village. A is your sort of locative marker. C-E-E. E is a sort of emphatic, imperative kind of marker. So take this. Take this down there. I will take the axe away with me. All right? So hell is your axe. G-C-E-I. So I is your irrealist marker. Completely straight forward in some two. You just do I for the future. And you're done. There's nothing to say. So no need for a talk on that one. What's the verb stem alternation? The verb stem alternation. There is verb stem alternation. Do you get the form one or form two with the... The verb stem alternation? The verb stem alternation. Do you get the form one or form two with the irrealist? Sorry, would they? Form one or form two? Form one. So that's interesting. Is that interesting? This is the thing. They're all very different. And C is a good one because it has a very clear form to stem. And what aspect is that used in? Well, negatives and imperatives. But I'm seeing two imperatives here. Then he hasn't used form two. So that perhaps suggests that C is one where the form two is... He would suspect C. It has a K on the end of the form two. Was it C? Was it C? We had it somewhere. Right, and this is a nice one. So the other thing that E constructions did is a sort of... Well, it feels like in personal type constructions. So there is a blister on my hand. So ffmawr is to be blistered. And so gobona. On my hand. Bonn is hand. So ffmawr i. That tells you that the subject of ffmawr, the verb is third person. So the hand. It is... It is blistering to me. My hand is... My hand is causing me a blister. That's the way it works. It's to me. Transitive. Exactly, it's making it transitive. It's showing that it's third to first person. It's kind of hierarchically organised. Because it's like here there's both third person and first person involved. But it's about... Well, okay. How do you tell them how to write? It also really depends on the verb. And it's annoying because these are some nice sentences. But in some cases the sort of transitiveising object marking is lexicalised. So some verbs just have it always. So it's hard to test. So sometimes it's just... They're in the citation form. And never without it. Ma. Ma is a good example. But it's also if you look in your corpus you're not going to find a million sentences with blistering effect. So I want to check after the event. So there is a saw on the cow's stomach. On the cow's stomach. That's the first constituent. And then it is blistering it. So third to third there's no need to mark the object. So the blister is blistering the cow. Sort of impersonal i. So cae is to be good. And cae is to be well. But means something like want. And but i means I feel like. So it is wanting to me. And again there are some tantalising. They feel like impersonal construction. So it is wanting to me. The beef is making me feel like eating. Kind of thing. Which I haven't got to the end of. And that's all I have. So any questions on that data. The next steps are to look through the corpus more. And hopefully to have a chance to check some of them. A lot of checking this. Do you check with compare with your. They do. But the core functions of this e seems to be. So you can make your intertransitive verbs transitive. And you can make your transitive verbs. Reflexive or sort of. Benefactive. Thinking about that one form where you were expecting it to be. I'm expecting it to be.