Working Paper on Irrealis, Imperative Mode and Complementation ...

m-ajar-akěn pūrwawaira kumatuturana ri saprawrtti
AV1-say-Tr prior-enmity [UV1-AV1]-recall-LV-IRR DAT TOT-actions
sang Duryodhana
title (HON) Duryodhana
sugyan ta n waluyana lara -nira
it may be that PRTCL COMP UV2-return-LV-IRR pain -pro3 (HON)
If we understand sugyan, “it may be” as related to verbs like “seem” in English, then it is
clear here that COMP is involved in a case of raising to subject. This process might be
described as follows:
a. stage 1
[lara -nira w-in-aluy-an-a] sugyan
[pain -pro3 (HON) STA-return-LV-IRR] it may be that
*[His pain will be-returned] seems/may be.
b. stage 2
n [lara -nira w-in-aluy-an-a] sugyan
COMP [pain -pro3 (HON) STA-return-IRR] it may be that
*That [his pain will be-retuned] seems/may be.
c. stage 3
sugyan ta n waluyana lara -nira
it may be that PRTCL COMP UV2-return-LV-IRR pain -pro3 (HON)
“It seems/may be (ta) that his pain might come back.”
In this analysis when sugyan takes the subject position in canonical form COMP is required,
and the clause that is raised follows the [subject ta COMP] configuration.
While I have presented the material here in terms of “three stages” I do not mean to imply a
transformational approach, but simply to bring out similarities with raising-verb constructions
of languages like English. Since it is presupposed that raising-verbs do not affect the
semantic structure of embedded clauses I have not suggested an underlying sentential
component in AV form. Note that wehn sugyan takes the canonical clause-initial position and
is followed by the particle ta (as is obligatory in canonical form) the construction that results
T. Hunter, ISLOJ <strong>Working</strong> <strong>Paper</strong>, 29 May 09, page 44