Unit 14. Dependent clauses: non-finite
Human fate is fulfilled in failure. And from failure to failure, you get used to never getting beyond a draft.
We should now have a solid idea how to translate infinitive clauses, exemplified by sentences with modal verbs. Let us take a closer look at non-finite constructions in general, and let’s not shy away from the subtleties of English infinitives and gerunds.
As we have seen, there is only one difference between a dependent clause and a whole sentence in Lemizh. The dependent clause is, well, dependent. Recall that the agent of the dependent clause has to be omitted if it is known from the main clause.
|televisioná amelÌi.||Amélie is watching television.|
|láxt veè televisionáy amelÌi.||I want Amélie to watch television.|
|want-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a television-fact-acc2 Amélie-acc-dat3a.|
|Ràks televisionáy amelÌi. ⇒ televisionaRáks amelÌi.||Amélie should watch television.|
|should-fact1 television-fact-acc2 Amélie-acc-dat3a. ⇒ television-fact-should-fact1 Amélie-acc-dat2a.|
|dareá amelyè televisionày.||Amélie dares (to) watch television.|
|dare-fact1 Amélie-acc-nom2a television-fact-acc2.|
|decideíl amelyè televisionày.||Amélie has decided to watch television.|
|decide-cons1 Amélie-acc-nom2a television-fact-acc2.|
|speaká vìe.||You are speaking.|
|mustà speakáy zìe. ⇒ speakamustá vìe.||You must speak. It is necessary for you to speak.|
|must-fact1 speak-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact-must-fact1 PIn−2-dat-nom2a.|
As we know from the previous unit, Lemizh sentences are often clearer and easier to phrase if certain elements (‘Amélie’, ‘summer’ and ‘[for] you’ in the above examples) are considered part of the dependent clause rather than the main clause. Translations on the lines of wantá veè amelyì televisionày. are possible but can be ambiguous.
You surely have noticed that not all examples translate with a full (‘to’) infinitive. This is due to irregularities of English grammar – some verbs want the full, others the bare infinitive. It does not make any difference in Lemizh.
Topicalisation of infinitives
Infinitives, like finite verbs, can be topicalised.
|láxt veè gwìlty amelyì oranutnÌy.||I want Amélie to know about orangutans.|
|want-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a teach-cons-acc2 Amélie-acc-dat3 orangutan-acc-acc3.|
|láxt veè singéRy amelÌe.||I want Amélie to start singing.|
|want-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a sing-ing-acc2 Amélie-acc-nom3a.|
In all of the above sentences, the dependent clause is the accusative object of the main predicate. However, some infinitives have final meaning.
|tryá amelyè teacháy veì boxÌy.||Amélie is trying to learn about the box.|
|try-fact1 Amélie-acc-nom2a teach-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-dat3a box-acc-acc3.|
|heará amelyì teacháUl veì boxÌy.||Amélie is listening to learn about the box.|
|hear-fact1 Amélie-acc-dat2a teach-fact-fin2 PIn−2-nom-dat3a box-acc-acc3.|
|giveà bookyÌ readàUl.||I give you a book to read.|
|give-fact1 book-acc-acc2 read-fact-fin2.|
Subtly different form the final is the tentive case, which does not express a purpose (an intended consequence) of, but an intended identity to, the main action. (The final is the agent-centered equivalent of the consecutive, while the tentive is the agent-centered equivalent of the factive.)
|heará tyè roarào.||He produces a sound intending to roar.|
He produces a sound that is meant to be a roar.
|hear-fact1 this-acc-nom2a roar-fact-ten2.|
Infinitives in combination with ‘enough’ and ‘too’ are straightforward. An exception is ‘enough’ with a consecutive infinitive, which, while it could be expressed as we would expect, is simpler phrased as a comparison.
|wantý horseyè Ìvyn.||There is what the horse wants of the food.||The horse has got enough to eat.|
|want-acc1 horse-acc-nom2a eat-acc-partacc2.|
|fastilmoreìl horseyÌ overtakeìym.||The horse is faster than overtaken ones.||The horse is too fast to be overtaken.|
|fast-cons-more-cons1 horse-acc-acc2 overtake-dat-qualacc2.|
|fastìl horseyÌ winíym raceày.||The horse is as fast as a winner of the race.||The horse is fast enough to win the race.|
|fast-cons1 horse-acc-acc2 win-dat-qualacc2 race-fact-acc3a.|
Some infinitives convey modal information and are translated accordingly.
|teachamustá viì boxÌy.||You must learn about the box.||You are to learn about the box.|
|teach-fact-must-fact1 PIn−2-dat-dat2a box-acc-acc2.|
|maleìl speakashouldìy.||He is the man one should speak to. The man should be the recipient of speaking.||He is the man to speak to.|
Gerund clauses translate just like infinitives. Again, the difference is only in English grammar.
|televisioná amelÌi.||Amélie is watching TV.|
|seeà [veì] televisionáy amelÌi.||I see Amélie watching TV. Amélie is seen watching TV.|
|see-fact1 [PIn−2-nom-dat2] television-fact-acc2 Amélie-acc-dat3a.|
|lieà.||He is lying.|
|behaveìl badyà lieày.||(predicate noun; or factive case for ‘lie’)||Telling lies / Lying is bad behaviour.|
|behave-cons1 bad-acc-fact2 lie-fact-acc2.|
|plugà.||He plugs it in.|
|functionacertainil1/2à plugànu.||Maybe it works by plugging it in-ins.|
Perceptual verbs are yet another example of how the agent of the dependent clause can alternatively be placed as an object of the main clause, only this time it is the nominative: seeà veì amelyè televisionày..
Gerund clauses also appear as attributes, in which case they typically form factive brackets. We have already met such a construction, namely ‘the art of riding’.
Topicalisation of gerunds
Topicalising a gerund, e.g. for marking a verb as receptive, is not necessarily a good idea. For example, topicalising the dative in ‘I see Lucy getting a bottle from Father Christmas’ drops the information that I see the action of her getting the bottle. If it is important that I actually saw the transaction, the factive should remain in place. As ‘I see Father Christmas giving a bottle to Lucy’ is better translated with an agentive Father Christmas, the ambiguity is minimal.
|seeà giveày lusyì FatherChristmasyè bottleÌy.||I see Lucy getting a bottle from Father Christmas.|
|see-fact1 give-fact-acc2 Lucy-acc-dat3 FatherChristmas-acc-nom3 bottle-acc-acc3.|
|seeà giveìy lusyì FatherChristmasyè bottleÌy.||(topicalisation with unwanted result)||I see [the image of] the one getting / the one who got a bottle from Father Christmas, [which is] Lucy.|
|see-fact1 give-dat-acc2 Lucy-acc-dat3 FatherChristmas-acc-nom3 bottle-acc-acc3.|
English gerunds can (like nouns) be modified by adjectives and possessive attributes, or (like verbs) by adverbs, subjects and objects – making no difference in Lemizh. We have already encountered a similar situation when we talked about the genitive case: ‘the baby’s sleep’ (possessive attribute of a noun) = ‘The baby sleeps’ (subject of a verb).
|helpanà nenàe fastÌa.||Fast running / Running quickly didn’t help.|
|help-fact-not-fact1 run-fact-nom2 fast-acc-fact3.|
|proveà meetái amelyè ninyjí easyilkÌy.||Amélie’s / Amélie meeting Nino proved difficult.|
|prove-fact1 meet-fact-dat2 Amélie-acc-nom3a Nino-acc-dat3 easy-cons-opposition-acc-acc2.|
Given that the accusative denotes the content of an action, there is an ambiguity with language related verbs. The following encompasses a number of perceptual verbs, especially ‘hear’ and its sub-category verbs ‘speak, tell’ etc., ‘read’ (basically a sub-category verb of ‘see’), as well as ‘write, think, teach’, the latter being in a way also a perceptual verb. It has already been mentioned that ‘know’ translates as ‘having seen / read / been taught etc.’, so it belongs here as well. (See Stative verbs in unit 10 and the footnote for ‘can’ in unit 13.) Accusative objects of such verbs can either translate as ‘hear/speak/etc. something’ (a direct object) or ‘hear/speak/etc. about something’ (a prepositional object).
When we say we hear a living being or thing, we mean it is the sender of the sound, so we use the nominative; the accusative names the conveyed information. Thus, ‘Lucy sees the lion-nom’ vs. ‘Lucy sees the lion’s-acc image’ (unit 3) correlates to ‘Lucy hears the lion-nom’ vs. ‘Lucy hears about the lion-acc’. When we say we hear actions – words with inner factives, English gerunds and abstract nouns with gerund-like meaning – the difference is less marked; we always say we hear the lion’s roaring whether we think about it as the source or the content of the sound. When Lucy hears about the lion’s roar, the content is not the action itself but the fact of the lion roaring, wanting an inner affirmative. ‘teach’ is similar with respect to what is taught, but the sender is of course the teacher.
English also uses direct objects for hearing/teaching/speaking ‘a lot, a bit’, but such qualifying information really comes under strengthening and weakening: inversion of the constructions we already know results in factive or consecutive objects forming brackets to their predicates. ‘hear good/bad things about someone’ translates into a predicative-like coordination: ‘hear good things about the girl’ is related to ‘hear about the good girl’ like ‘drink one’s coffee black’ to ‘drink black coffee’.
The upshot is: the accusative object translates as an English direct object only if it has an inner factive. To translate a direct object which is not a gerund or abstact noun, we need to switch from the accusative to a different object, typically a nominative, factive or consecutive (but the nominative is possible for gerunds as well). Conversely, to translate a gerund in a prepositional object, we have to use a non-factive inner case: the affirmative suits our needs here. Now it helps that topicalising a gerund results in something that isn’t a gerund.
|Maybe some examples are in order here:|
|teachìl waltzày.||I have been taught the action of waltzing.||I have been taught the waltz. I know how to waltz. I can waltz.|
|teachìl waltzàly.||I have been taught the fact of waltzing.||I have been taught about the waltz. I know about the waltz.|
|hearìl televisionày.||I have heard her watching TV.|
|hearìl televisionàe.||The action of watching TV produces a sound.||I have heard her watching TV.|
|hearìl televisionàly.||I have heard about her watching TV. I know about her watching TV.|
|hearà girlÌe.||The girl produces a sound.||I hear the girl.|
|3/4ìl hearìly girlÌy. ⇔ hearìl 3/4yìl girlÌy.||I have heard a lot about the girl. I know a lot about the girl.|
|3/4-cons1 hear-cons-acc2 girl-acc-acc3. ⇔ hear-cons1 3/4-acc-cons2 girl-acc-acc2.|
|hearà goodyÌ girlÌy.||I am hearing good things about the girl.|
|hear-fact1 good-acc-acc2 girl-acc-acc2.|
With a number of other verbs, the accusative unambiguously translates as ‘about’, even with an inner factive: for example ‘speak, read, write, think’, as we can’t speak an action of giving or a war, ‘be angry/happy about, be certain about (or “that”), be indifferent about’. Other verbs cannot be phrased with ‘about’ in English; for example, translating seeà lionÌy. as ‘She sees [information] about a lion’ would have been more palpable than ‘She sees the lion’s image’ if the former sentence didn’t mean something else in English.
Language related objects
Language related nouns such as ‘language, sentence, word; story, poem; text; book, letter’ not only occur as prepositional objects (translated as accusative objects) but also as direct objects, e.g. of ‘hear, teach, speak, read, write, think’. Having inner non-factives, they can only be treated as ‘qualifying information’ unless the nominative is an option. Predicates indicating production also allow for a translation with an inner plus an outer factive.
|speakà poemyà lÌwy. ⇔ poemÌ speakày lÌwy.||The action of telling is a poem.||I tell you a poem about a lion. ⇔ a poem [told] about a lion|
|speak-fact1 poem-acc-fact2 lion-acc-acc2. ⇔ poem-acc1 speak-fact-acc2 lion-acc-acc3.|
|speakà poemÌy.||I tell you about a poem.|
|hearìl poemÌa. hearìl poemÌe.||I know a poem.|
|hear-cons1 poem-acc-fact2. hear-cons1 poem-acc-nom2.|
|readá beaveryùl ynù bookyè lywÌ childÌi.||(non-sending ‘read’ with agentive instrumental)||The beaver reads a book about a lion to the children.|
|read-fact1 beaver-acc-mot2a PIIn-partacc-ins2 book-acc-nom2 lion-acc-acc2 child-acc-dat2.|
|writeá beaveryè bookaà lÌwy.||The action of writing is the action of making a book.||The beaver writes a book about a lion.|
|write-fact1 beaver-acc-nom2a book-fact-fact2 lion-acc-acc2.|
The last construction can be generalised to writeà màa. ⇔ mÌ writeàa. ‘something made in writing = the writing (concrete noun)’, mÌ singàa. ‘the song’, mÌ paintàa childÌy. ‘a painting of the child’, etc.
Shared properties of infinitives and gerunds
Passive and perfect
Infinitive and gerund also have passive and perfect forms, which are translated accordingly – with a pronoun if necessary. Topicalisation of the consecutive is not a problem, even with gerunds. (See the exercises for an infinitive example.)
|likeà lusyè dày veì dwÌwy.||Lucy likes being given a bottle.|
|like-fact1 Lucy-acc-nom2 give-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-dat3 bottle-acc-acc3.|
|feelà bridgeilÒl gÌjda.||(The reason for feeling good is having built a bridge.)||Having built a bridge-psu feels good.|
|feel-fact1 bridge-cons-psu2 good-acc-fact2.|
Degree of reality
Another point to watch is the degree of reality. In some of the above examples, the dependent clause is real in the same sense as the mice are in ‘I see white mice’ (Rule Seven): if I see Amélie watching TV, or Lucy getting a bottle, that might be a hallucination. A different situation is ‘I didn’t see Amélie watching TV’ in a context of ‘Sorry, I missed that completely’. The seemingly obvious translation seeanà veì televisionáy amelÌi. says absolutely nothing about whether she was actually watching the telly. This problem can be solved by swapping degree of reality with an inversion. Just as in the chapter on modal adverbs, the resulting bracket serves for conferring reality, so that my ignorance does not lose its top-level status.
|seeanà veì televisionáy amelÌi.||I didn’t see Amélie watching TV [so I don’t know whether she did].|
|see-fact-not-fact1 PIn−2-nom-dat2 television-fact-acc2 Amélie-acc-dat3a.|
|⇔ televisioná amelyì seeanÌa zèi.||Amélie watched TV unseen by me. (adverbial participle)||I didn’t see Amélie watching TV [but she did].|
|television-fact1 Amélie-acc-dat2a see-fact-not-acc-fact2 PIn−3-nom-dat3.|
|là wantakýa zèe.||It happened unwanted by me.||I didn’t want this to happen.|
|do-fact1 want-fact-opposition-acc-fact2 PIn−3-nom-nom3a.|
Similarly, ‘Amélie wants to watch TV’ can be used in the sense that she actually will not be able to. To express this situation, we use the phrasing from above and negate both verbs – the modal one with kà., as you remember. The bracket assures that we claim both the not-watching and the not-wanting it. Again, note the similarity to modal adverbs. This type of construction can also be used in other counterfactual statements.
|wantakà televisionanày.||She does not want not to watch TV.|
|⇔ televisionanà wantakÌa.||She un-gladly doesn’t watch TV.||She wants to watch TV [but she can’t].|
|speakaníl veè wantakÌa.||I un-gladly haven’t spoken.||I wanted to speak. I would have spoken.|
|speak-fact-not-cons1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a want-fact-opposition-acc-fact2.|
|speakaná viè wantakýa zèe.||You don’t speak, unluckily for me.||If only you would speak!|
|speak-fact-not-fact1 PIn−2-dat-nom2a want-fact-opposition-acc-fact2 PIn−3-nom-nom3a.|
As this doesn’t work for ‘could have’, we use a different construction here.
|helpaníl veè opportunityanàelm.||I haven’t helped him despite the opportunity (as if without an opportunity).||I could have helped him.|
|help-fact-not-cons1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a opportunity-fact-not-fact-qualcaus2.|
Differences between infinitives and gerunds
Sometimes English uses the gerund to express a difference to the infinitive. This can affect person …
|likeà veè dráwy vèe.||I like to dance. / I like dancing. [my dancing]|
|like-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 dance-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-nom3a.|
|likeà veè dráwy gwÌy.||I like dancing. [watching someone dance]|
|like-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 dance-fact-acc2 any-acc-acc3a.|
… aspect/tense …
|likeakà veè speakaRvày.||(present tense)||I hate to speak [now].|
|like-fact-opposition-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 speak-temp-PIn−2-fact-acc2.|
|mìl veÌ likeakèy speakày.||(gnomic aspect)||I [generally] hate speaking.|
|make-cons1 PIn−2-nom-acc2 like-fact-opposition-nom-acc2 speak-fact-acc3.|
… inner case (typically factive vs. affirmative) …
|forgetà speakày planÌy zèU.||She forgot to tell me her plans.|
|forget-fact1 speak-fact-acc2 plan-acc-acc3 PIn−3-nom-ben4.|
|forgetà speakàly planÌy zèU.||She forgot telling me her plans.|
|forget-fact1 speak-aff-acc2 plan-acc-acc3 PIn−3-nom-ben4.|
– or with an inversion to make it clear beyond doubt that the telling really did happen …
|⇔ speakà planyÌ forgetÌal.||She told me her plans; and forgot the fact that she had.||She forgot telling me her plans [but she did tell me].|
|speak-fact1 plan-acc-acc2 forget-acc-aff2.|
… outer case (a different object, in other words) …
|tryà shoutày.||She tried to shout [but this was difficult because of her sore throat].|
|tryà shoutànu.||She tried shouting [as he hadn’t heard her when she had spoken quietly].|
… or something else, depending on the main predicate. In other words: don’t memorise, analyse.
|shoutà prilcÌwbaR.||She shouted immediately afterwards.||She went on to shout.|
|nà shoutìRy. ⇒ shoutiRnà.||(compare the phrasing for a purpose not achieved)||She went on shouting.|
|not-fact1 shout-egr-acc2. ⇒ shout-egr-not-fact1.|
I hate to repeat myself, but: keep in mind that you need not express the differences if they are irrelevant or clear from context.
|likeà veè danceày.||I like to dance/dancing.|
|like-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 dance-fact-acc2.|
|likeakà veè speakày.||I hate to speak/speaking.|
|like-fact-opposition-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 speak-fact-acc2.|
Actually, I rather like repeating myself.
Participial clauses have already been discussed in the chapter on adjectives and participles as attributes in unit 5: ‘milk spilt on the floor’, ‘a man speaking to a child about elephants’. Being attributive clauses, they are translated with cumulative or partitive brackets or coordinations.
Moving a participial clause to the beginning (or end) of a sentence, we can create a circumstancial clause. The effect is similar to (depictive) predicate adjectives/participles (‘I drink my coffee black’ as opposed to ‘I drink my black coffee’) – so we will translate it as a coordination, moving it away from the object.
|speaká convinceìe teachilý maleyè childyì elephantÌy.||The one convinced of [his] knowledge, the man, spoke to the child about elephants.||Convinced of his knowledge, the man spoke to the child about elephants.|
|speak-fact1 convince-dat-nom2a teach-cons-acc3 male-acc-nom2 child-acc-dat2 elephant-acc-acc2.|
|forgetà speakèe childyì elephantyý maleyè selláy veì artichokeÌy.||The one speaking to the child about elephants, the man, forgot to buy the artichokes.||Speaking to the child about elephants, the man forgot to buy the artichokes.|
|forget-fact1 speak-nom-nom2 child-acc-dat3 elephant-acc-acc3 male-acc-nom2 sell-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-dat3a artichoke-acc-acc3.|
Like predicatives, circumstancial clauses can also be translated as conjunctional clauses, conveying different shades of meaning. (See unit 15, Predicative and circumstancial, translated as conjunctional clauses).