| lāsī |
| therefore |
| nòn |
| now |
| phròk-se-nòk-tòk. |
| he is speckled all over. |
NOTES.
This simple and direct narrative, easy of analysis, affords an excellent illustration of the mechanism of Mikir speech. First, we observe that the indication of time is put at the beginning of the sentence: ārnī-sī, “one day”; ādàp, “in the morning.” Then follows the subject, then the object, and last the verb, with all its qualifications. The most frequent conjunction is ànsī, “and, so,” which appears to be made up of àn, the particle indicating quantity, and sī, the particle indicating locality, used also for the conjunctive participle; the meaning would then be—“so much having passed (what follows comes next).” Àn-kē, àn-lē and àn-lo have the same force.
For the tenses we find the usual suffixes, -lo, -dèt, for the narrative past, -po for the present-future, and -jī for the future. In the narrative a much-used auxiliary is -lē, which means “having arrived.” The passage is remarkable for the number of cases in which, no ambiguity being possible, the tense-particle is omitted, and the past is expressed by the bare root, without, or more commonly with, an adverbial supplement. Thus, we have pulo, pudèt, and pu for “said”; ingnī-thīp, “he sat down and blocked,” kòr-ràk, “bit severely,” chòn-rai, “jumped upon and broke,” ròt-pèt, “cut in two,” klō-dup, “fell plump,” thīmur-phàk, “rooted up,” sàp-rai, “struck and broke,” lut-thòt, “entered,” hēlàng-phlut, “tore up suddenly,” pī-bup, “killed by tumbling on him,” chò-pàn-vèk, “was feeding, grazing,” sàp-phràt-phràt, “beat soundly.” Then, we notice that the great majority of these cases are examples of roots qualified by the addition of a particle which, while not used separately by itself, gives energy and definiteness to the verbal root; this method of heightening the force of verbs is a great characteristic of Mikir diction, and is at once the chief beauty and the chief difficulty (to a foreigner) of the language. The adverbial particles so used are very numerous, but they are appropriated to particular verbal roots, and if they were wrongly applied the result would be nonsense. Thus, the particle lòt is used with three verbs only, thī, “die,” ī, “lie down,” and jàng “close the eyes,” and always precedes the verbal suffixes with these roots: it cannot be used with any other. Thòt, again, always occurs with lut, “to enter,” jòk and vār, “to throw.” Bup conveys the idea of a sudden blow or fall, and is used with verbs of falling or striking. Dàp and dup seem to have much the same force. Pèt, koi, klip are particles used to indicate completeness; lut-pèt-lo, “all have gone in,” ròt-pèt-lo, “he cut through,” chō-koi-lo, “he ate up,” thū-koi-lo, “he killed them all,” chō-klip-lo, “he devoured them.” Several of these auxiliary particles seem to be onomatopoetic.
Much resembling the use of these particles are the cases in which verbal roots are combined together to form a single expression. Thus, in our story, thòn-dàm-lo “he carrying went”; do-kòk-lē “remaining tied-up”; ingnī-dun-chèt-lo “he sat down suddenly (chèt) when the ant was passing (dun)” (dun means “to be with,” and is constantly used as an auxiliary, but can also be employed alone in the sense “to go with”); ārju-dàm-lo “he summoned to answer”; nē klō-nàng-po “I must necessarily fall” (nàng, verb of necessity).
The story gives a number of examples of the remarkable Mikir negative verb: pèk-pē, “did not give way (pèk)”; dàm-dē, “did not go”; pī nē kònglòng-bup-bē-jī, “how was I not to roll down upon him and smash him?” where the negative syllable bē borrows the initial consonant of the qualifying particle bup; similarly, hēlàng-phlut-phlē “not suddenly root up”; sàp-raī-rē “not strike and break”; chòn-rai-rē “not jump upon and break”; chini-nē-dèt-sī “not knowing” (where chini is a loan-word from Assamese).
As regards vocabulary, thā in nē-pèk-thā is the imperative particle: another such particle (rarely occurring) is tē in nē lut-thòt-rā dàm-tē; rā is used as the suffix of the conjunctive participle in a string of imperatives. Hòr in dàm-hòr-lē indicates plurality: “every one has to pass under me”; other such particles are jō and jàm. Tā in chònghō-tā and mīsō-tā gives definiteness and emphasis; so also kē in nē-kē, &c. Sārpō in kārlē sārpō means “big chief”: pō is a syllable added to give honour and dignity. Notice intensiveness indicated by reduplication in āningthī-ningthī, “very angry”; ning-thī, angry, is made up of ning, mind, and thī to be vexed (also to die). Hànthār: see note on p. 46. Ròt-pèt means to cut down a slender stem or twig by drawing a knife across it: pī-pèt to cut down a thick trunk of a tree; ròt is used for drawing a bow across a fiddle in kum-kiròt “fiddle-scraping.” Belèng means a shovel or tray for winnowing rice; phàk-belèng-pī is a wild pig, because he roots about in the earth with his snout like a shovel; -pī is a syllable used to form augmentatives, as -sō indicates a diminutive. Bisār, to hold a judicial inquiry, is Assamese. Hèmphū, “owner,” the God Mikirs belong to. Vo-ārbīpī, “a small bird, the size of a sparrow” (not the sparrow itself, which in Mikir is vo-puru). Nē chōpàn-vèk, “I was grazing”; chōpàn is used of feeding for animals only; vèk (or vèk-vèk) is a particle indicating continuance. Mamàtsī is used of some sudden and unpleasant interruption: klèm-vèk-vèk mamàtsī thī-lo, “he died suddenly as he was working”; nē àn chō-vèk mamàtsī nē chòk-dèt, “he beat me while I was eating.” Notice, finally, nòn, the particle most often used to indicate a strong imperative, here in its original sense of “now”; in this meaning it is usually emphasised by adding kē or lē, nònkē, nònlē.