Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:grammar:conjunctions [2021-12-08 20:21] – [se] liba -> li ba christian
+++ en:grammar:conjunctions [2022-09-16 22:12] – [se] Supply word christian
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{page>nav}}
 ====== Conjunctions ======
-XXX List all conjunctions and describe them shortly.
+XXX Possibly rename this chapter, as subordinating conjunctions (subordinators) should be treated under [[dependent clauses]] instead.
+XXX List all (coordinating) conjunctions and describe them shortly.
 ===== se =====
@@ Line 7: / Line 11: @@
 Clauses introduced with **se** 'if' describe the condition under which a hypothetical situation might be or become true. The hypothetical situation is described in the main clause. In English, the main clause is optionally introduced with 'then'; in Lugamun, this word is simply omitted. As in English, the main clause can follow or precede the **se** clause.
-**Mi ba iti, se mi punya tem.** – I would go if I had the time.\\
+**Mi ba go, se mi ha tem.** – I would go if I had the time.\\
-**Se mi punya tem, mi ba iti.** – If I had the time, (then) I would go.
+**Se mi ha tem, mi ba go.** – If I had the time, (then) I would go.
 The mood marker **ba** 'would' is often used in the main clause. In the **se** clause, it is typically omitted, since **se** already implies that one talks about a hypothetical situation.
-**Se ta xuan xi kat, ya ba [catch more mouse].** – If that dog were a cat, it would catch more mice.
+**Se ta xwan xi kat, ya ba pakar mas [mouse].** – If that dog were a cat, it would catch more mice.
 If one is more confident about a hypothetical situation becoming real, on can use **ga** in the main clause; optionally it can also be used in the **se** clause, but again this is not necessary, since the clause itself implies that the situation is not (yet) real.
-**Mi ga iti, se mi (ga) punya tem.** – I will go if I have the time.
+**Mi ga go, se mi (ga) ha tem.** – I will go if I have the time.
 When talking about counterfactuals – hypothetical situations that lie in the past and hence no longer can become true – **li ba** 'would have' is used in the main clause. In the **se** clause, it is often shortened to **li**, since the unreality expressed by **ba** is already implied. But if you want to use **li ba** instead, that's fine too.
-**Se [taxi] li / li ba [arrive on time], nas no li ba [miss flight].** – If the taxi had arrived on time, we would not have missed our flight.
+**Se [taxi] li (ba) tiba ni tem, nas no li ba [miss] tara.** – If the taxi had arrived on time, we would not have missed our flight.