(Meadow Mari)

NoRepDMark & RepdWV2

NoRepDMark: Although indirect reported clauses exist, they are not indicated by any specific grammatical marker or other morphological strategy.

RepdWV2: Reportativity is marked by the use of a dedicated word that appears in the reported clause.

(1)“möŋgə-škaj-em”nad’ušman-e.
homeILLgo1SGNadyushsayPST1.3SG
’I am going home – said Nadyush.’ (T. E.)

(2)nad’ušman-e,tudomöŋgə-škaj-a.
NadjushsayPST1.3SGshehomeILLgo3SG
’Nadyush said she was going home.’ (T. E.)

(3)nad’ušman-e,štotudomöŋgə-škaj-a.
NadyushsayPST1.3SGthatshehomeILLgo3SG
’Nadyush said that she was going home.’ (T. E.)

(4)nad’ušmöŋgə-škaj-emmanənman-e.
NadyushhomeILLgo1SGthatsayPST1.3SG
’Nadyush said that she was going home.’ (A. S.)

In Meadow Mari reported clauses do not have an obligatory marker (1)–(2). An optional što ‘that’ complementiser can appear in case the main clause precedes the dependent clause (3). When the main clause is after the subordinate clause, the complementiser manən ‘that’ meaning ‘said’ can be used (4). In the latter case we are dealing with what is called direct reporting embedded within the dependent clause, when the subordinate clause does not agree with the main clause in number and person.

Author: Bogáta Timár


[🠐 back]