Class notes 11/16

Today, our only speaker is Harsha becaues Paroma is taking a math test.
First, we looked at ambiguous constructions.
In English: "I see the man with the binoculars" is ambiguous—do you use the binoculars to

see the man, or does the man have binoculars?  It is not ambiguous in Bengali:
ami ɖuɽbin die lok-ʈa-ke dekʈe pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi
I binoculars with person-the-obj to see able to
“I see the person through my binoculars“

A concise way to say the alternate interpretation would be:
ami ɖuɽbin ala lok-ʈa-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi
I binoculars ??? man-the-obj am able to see

"ɖuɽbin ala" is a made-up phrase but would still be intelligible.
In a more spread-out, accepted format,
ami oi lok-ʈa-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi d͡ʒ-ar kat͡ʃʰe ɖuɽbin at͡ʃʰe
I that man-the-obj am able to see whose near binoculars is
 who has
"I can see the man who has the binoculars"
Here, d͡ʒar kat͡ʃe translates best as "has".

"oi", "d͡ʒe", and "ʃe" are all somewhat similar, as they all mean "that."  oi is a

specifier.

bã hat die kʰete-nei
left hand with eat-NEG
"You should not eat with your left hand"
It is more a suggestion or a reprimand than a command.  It cannot take a subject:
*tʰumi bã hat die kʰete nei

As a command,
bã hat die kʰeo-na
left hand with eat-NEG
tʰumi bã hat die kʰeo-na is valid, unlike with the suggestion construction.

"nei" most closely means "isn't there" when used with a noun.
kʰabar nei - "There is no food"

There are also indirect commands:
class-e (kono) (kʰabar) kʰawa hɔbe -na
class-in (any) (food) to eat will happen -NEG
"There will not be any food eaten in class"
Harsha initially said the sentence without "kono" and then, on repeating himself, added it in.  Also, he noted that "kʰabar" was not necessary in the sentence but added clarity.


Alternatively, if someone IS eating in class and you command them to stop:
class-e (kʰabar) kʰeo-na
class-IN (food) eat-NEG

A positive command:
mat͡ʃ-ʈa kʰeo
fish-DEF eat

class-e kʰabar kʰete nei
"Food should not be eaten in class"

*class-e kono kʰabar hɔbe nei
*"There will be no food-eating in class"

"Stop eating in class", using "tʰama" for "stop"
class-e kʰawa tʰama
This method is more clumsy than class-e kʰabar kʰeo-na but acceptable

ami ʃei lok-ʈa-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi d͡ʒe toma-ke ʃente petʃʰilo
I that man-the-obj am able to see who you-obj was able to hear
"I see the man who heard you"

d͡ʒe(i) lok-ʈa toma-ke ʃunte petʃʰilo (ʃe) ama-ke dekʈe pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰe
that man-the you-obj was able to hear (that) me-of was able to see
"The man who heard you sees me"

When ʃe is included, "the man who heard you is the man who saw me;" that is, correct, but wordy.
Without ʃe, the sentence is more accurately "The man who heard you saw me."

We switch the subjects around a bit...
ami ʃei lok-ʈa-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi d͡ʒake tʰumi ʃunte pet͡ʃile
I that man-DET-OBJ am able to see who-obj you were able to hear
"I see the man you heard"

ami d͡ʒake dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi ʈa-ke tʰumi ʃunte pet͡ʃile
I that-obj am able to see the-obj you were able to hear
"I see the one you heard"

Occasionally, people will substitute ʃune ʃile for ʃunte pet͡ʃilo.  ʃune ʃile is usually more to mean that an individual recognized another's voice than heard them.
Hear ~ Listen
Eat ~ Drink
Watch ~ See
It is also possible to start with "d͡ʒe lokʈake" rather than "ami", although "ami" must appear in the sentence.
"The man that I see is the one that you heard"
d͡ʒe lok-ʈa-ke ami dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi ʈa-ke tʰumi ʃunte pet͡ʃile
that man-the-obj I am able to see the-obj you were able to hear
"lok" is generally "man" but not implicitly gendered.

Switching "d͡ʒe" for "ʃe":
ami ʃei lok-ʈa-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi d͡ʒa-ke tʰumi ʃunte pet͡ʃile
I that man-the-of am able to see that-obj you are able to hear

ami ʃei dud͡ʒon lok-ke dekte pat͡ʃt͡ʃʰi d͡ʒa-der tʰumi ʃunte pet͡ʃile
I these both man-OBJ am able to see that-obj-PL you are able to hear
"I am able to see both of the men you are able to hear"


(-der is the plural of -ke)

ama-der mara hot͡ʃʰe
we-objpl hit are
"We are being hit"

ama-der-ke mara hot͡ʃʰe
we-objpl-obj hit are
"We are being hit" (more explicit, says Harsha)

amar kup - my cup
amader kup - our cup
amader can be "our" or "mine"

-der-ke vs. -der:
Being done to you vs. belonging to you

ama-der paper dewa hot͡ʃʰe-na
we-obj(pl) paper give are-not
"We are not being given papers"
When you add -e or -ke, you make it explicit that the papers we aren't being given belong to us.

ama-der-ke paper dewa hot͡ʃʰe-na
we-obj(pl)-our paper give are-not
"We are not being given our papers that belong to us"

Link to direction-discourse transcription (1 minute)