A subject is the person or thing performing the action of a verb. Subjects can be nouns or pronouns. According to the terminology used by Craig Preston, intransitive verbs have subjects while transitive verbs have agents.
For example in the sentence below, the subject is underlined:
The sun rises.
The water boils.
Snow mountains appear to be blue to the eye consciousness.
An agent is the do-er or the person or thing that is performing the action of a transitive or agentive verb, as opposed to a subject. Like subjects, they can be nouns or pronouns. The subject vs agent distinction is one created by Craig Preston to clarify the important distinction between agentive and non-agentive verbs in Tibetan. Wilson calls agents subjects.
The agent is underlined in the sentences below:
The boy hit the ball.
Buddha taught the dharma.
They walked across the mountains.
The person or thing that received the action of the verb. It is the thing or person the action is done “to.” In English it is common to speak of direct objects and indirect objects. Generally, when we say object in the context of classical Tibetan, we mostly mean the direct object.
It is not that Tibetan does not have indirect objects. It is simply that we speak about them in terms of case endings and the various functions of the case endings instead of as indirect objects (in colloquial Tibetan, this is less true). For example, the 4th case is used to mark the recipient of a verb where there is clear benefit. This recipient is the indirect object. But mostly we would say the recipient is in the second case marking benefit.
For example, in the sentence Tashi read the sutra to Drolma, the object is the sutra while Drolma is the indirect object. Or another example: The Buddha taught the dharma to the disciples. The dharma is the object (or direct object) and the disciples are the indirect object.
In the Preston/Wilson system of Tibetan grammar, a complement tells us more about the subject of an intransitive verb or the object of a transitive verb. An intransitive verb does not have an object, so the complement cannot inform us about that, and agents of transitive verbs simply do not have complements.
Complements complete our understanding of the subject of an intransitive verb or the object of a transitive verb in one of three ways:
Complement to object of transitive verb:
You should know all sentient beings as [having been your] mothers.
The Sutra School asserts the person to be imputedly existent.
Complement to subject of intransitive verb:
Snow-covered mountains appear to be blue to the eye consciousness.
The predicate of a linking verb is also called a complement. In this sense it is the complement of an intransitive is verb. But this is a very important special case and deserves a specific mention.
Pots are impermanent.
Complements in Tibetan are either in the nominative or 2nd case. The linking verb is the use that is in the nominative case. All other uses are 2nd case complements.
The 2nd-case complement (and possibly the complement of a linking verb) is a construction that was called a དེ་ཉིད་ in Tibetan that Wilson moved into the 2nd case.
In the Preston/Wilson system of Tibetan grammar, qualifiers are words, phrases, and clauses that qualify the action expressed by the verb by showing how, when, where, why, for whose benefit, and the like.
Unlike complements, qualifiers can be in basically any case except the nominative case and the 6th case.
Examples of qualifiers:
Snow-covered mountains appear to be blue to the eye consciousness.
The Buddha taught the dharma in India.
Migrators wander in cyclic existence.
Mountains exist in Tibet.
Effects depend on causes.
The use of qualifiers can be broken down by case. The 1st / nominative case and the 6th / connective cases are not used to qualify verbs.
1st case (nominative) is not not used to qualify verbs
2nd case (objective)
3rd case (agentive)
4th case (beneficial & purposive)
5th case (originative)
6th case is not used to qualify verbs
7th case (locative)
Adverbs modify the action of a verb.
He reads quickly.
She debates fiercely.
I waited impatiently for my pizza.
In English, adverbs can also modify adjectives and other adverbs.
The man is quite tall.
This book is more interesting than the last one.
In Tibetan, adverbs can be formed by the 2nd-case particles and by a non-case usage of the 3rd-case particles.
བདེན་པར་ཡོད་པ
truly existent
རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཡོད་པ་
inherently existent
The 2nd case construction (and possibly the non-case usage of the 3rd case, not sure) is an example of a དེ་ཉིད་ usage that Wilson migrated into a case in his system.
See this website.
In English, a participle is a verb form that can be used
There are two types of participles:
Participles can be single words or phrases.
1. Examples of participles used as an adjective:
the boiling water → present participle
the boiled water → past participle
the rising sun → present participle
the risen sun → past participle
Examples of participle phrases:
The car making a lot of noise is annoying. (making a lot of noise describes the car)
He ate the donuts covered with chocolate icing. (covered with chocolate icing describes donuts)
Amazed by the view, the tourists quickly took lots of selfies. (amazed by the view is an adjective for the tourists)
2. In English, the participle is used in different verb tenses, such as the past, present, and future conjugations of the present, progressive, and present progressive tenses.
I was going.
I will be going.
I had been going.
I have gone.
etc…
3. The past participle is also used to form a passive voice construction.
The book was written.
The car was wrecked.
The pizza was eaten.
The use of the participle in Tibetan, while similar in some ways to the English constructions, is more closely derived from Sanskrit grammar and usage. Participles are essentially verbal adjectives – adjectives and adjectival clauses – formed from verbs by the addition of པ་ or བ་. Notice that this is also exactly how a verbal noun is formed.
The participle form in Tibetan is used in three ways:
1. The present active participle describes a present action related to a noun. It is an adjective in the sense that it modifies a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase. The action described occurs simultaneous to the main action of the sentence or clause. This in contrast with a gerund where the action is part of a prior sequence, a separate action that is not a description of anything. Take a look at this page and this page on the Sanskrit grammar.
Present active participle example:
the running man
Gerund example:
After running, she took a nap.
2. The past passive participle describes a past action in relation to a noun. Like the present active participle, it acts as an adjective, modifying a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase. In Tibetan it is differentiated by the present active participle simply by verb tense and context.
Past passive participle examples:
the exhausted woman
the conquered King
As was said, verbals can be used to form both verbal nouns and verbal adjectives. Both of these are formed in exactly the same way. It is potentially confusing when thinking about Tibetan grammar in relation to English grammar because the function of verbal nouns in Tibetan is performed by the gerund in English (the teaching or the killing). However, in Tibetan, Paul Hackett calls the VERB + ནས་ a gerund, presumably because that is the construction it is derived from in Sanskrit.
This use of the Tibetan gerund is NOT as a verbal noun, but instead as a type of continuative (which is what Wilson calls it). What precedes the ནས་ grammatically is understood to also precede it temporarily or logically. Craig Preston calls this construction a participle because it uses a verbal.
ABC ནས་ XYZ → Having ABC'd, XYD
For example (in a simple, made up example):
མཐོང་ནས་རྟོགས།
Having seen, [she] realized.
It's important to understand that in Tibetan when a participle is used as an adjective it implies simultaneity whereas the construction using a continuative (including ནས་) implies a temporal sequence.
<< TODO:
– need examples of 3. Predicate adjective making indirect statements
– understand example from pp. 11 of Hackett Verb Lexicon 1st Edition
>>
See this website.
In English, a gerund is a verb formed using -ing. Such as running, flying, and realizing. A gerund in English looks exactly like the present participle (-ing). However, a gerund always has exactly the same function: as a noun. In this sense, the gerund operates like verbal nouns in Tibetan.
The following is an example of using a gerund in English:
Eating food is important.
Flying would be awesome.
Realizing emptiness is good.
To translate the last sentence into Tibetan, one would say:
སྟོང་ཉིད་རྟོགས་པ་ཡག་པོ་ཡིན།
emptiness – realizing – good – is
Compare this to a participial usage, where one might say the realized lama. When used as a gerund, the verb form is a noun. When used as a participle, the verb form is used as an adjective. Another example could be boiling water is important (a verbal noun or gerund usage) vs drink boiled water (participial or verbal adjective usage).
Notice that this could also be translated as if there were an omitted 6th case:
སྟོང་ཉིད་[ཀྱི་]རྟོགས་པ་ཡག་པོ་ཡིན།
The realization of emptiness is good.
It's important to remember that verbal nouns in Tibetan are formed in exactly the same way as participles (also known as verbal adjectives), the difference being made clear by context and verb tense.
Also note that Hackett calls the VERB + ནས་ a gerund (having …, then …) in the first section of his verb lexicon. This is presumably from Sanskrit usage of participles.
A transitive verb is a verb that requires a direct object, which is a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that follows the verb and completes the sentence's meaning by indicating the person or thing that receives the action of the verb.
Another way of saying this is that a transitive verb requires an object separate from the agent performing the action to receive the effects of the action.
For example, He reads the book. The verb read is transitive because the boy is reading something – the book. However, in the sentence The sun rises, the verb rises is intransitive. Verbs of motion are also intransitive. She went to town is an intransitive construction.
Transitive and intransitive is often equated with the Tibetan divisions of ཐ་དད་ (different) and ཐ་མི་དད་ (not different). However, this is not actually correct. ཐ་དད་ and ཐ་མི་དད་ are much more about volition and effort toward a separate object, not simply the object being separate from the subject or agent. See the wiki page on this.
For example, Tibetan typically has volitional and non-volitional pairs of verbs, such as to see (མཐོང་) and to look (ལྟ་). Seeing in Tibetan is non-volitional. Seeing just happens without effort or intention. Looking, however, is an act of will. The verb to see (མཐོང་) is a ཐ་མི་དད་ verb while to look (ལྟ་) is ཐ་དད་. Yet both are transitive in English. Similarly, hearing versus listening and knowing versus thinking.
The དེ་ཉིད་ is Tibetan way of talking about syntax that was folded into the Wilson system of eight verb classes and eight case endings. Tibetans talk about the 2nd case, 4th case, and 7th case PLUS categories called time and identity (or དེ་ཉིད་). Wilson, following old Tibetan grammar texts, collapsed time and identity into the other cases, moving time to the 7th case and identity to the 2nd case.
Wilson moved
In the Tibetan grammar system, དེ་ཉིད་ (identity) can modify both verbs and substantatives. Wilson split དེ་ཉིད་ into two categories: adverbial and complement (this reflects the strong divide in English between the function of modifying a verb and the function of completing the meaning of a sentence by modifying a noun or noun phrase).
The following are all དེ་ཉིད་ identity constructions in Tibetan:
སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་མར་ཤེས།
Know all sentient beings as mother
གངས་རི་སྔོན་པོར་སྣང
Snow mountain[s] appears to be blue
ཁ་ཅིག་གིས་སེམས་གང་ཟག་གི་མཚན་གཞིར་འདོད་དོ།
Some people assert mind to be the illustration of the person
བདེན་པར་ཡོད་པ
Truly existent
What about 3rd-case adverbial constructions like རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཡོད་པ་ (inherently existent)? Is this an example of a དེ་ཉིད་? This is an open question. I am not sure. We need access to a Tibetan grammarian to answer that question.
What about complement of linking verb? We talk about impermanent in pots are impermanent as a complement that is in the nominative case. Would Tibetan's consider this usage a དེ་ཉིད་ construction? Another good question!
There's a nice couple stanzas from Yang-jen-ga-way-lo-dro's grammar verse that talk about some of this. You can see below that in the uses of the la-group particles, Yang-jen-ga-way-lo-dro lists the 2nd, 4th, and 7th cases – as well as identity (དེ་ཉིད་) and time (དུས་ or ཚེ་སྐབས་). The translation below is (mostly) from Paul Hackett. It's interesting that in his translation of this verse, he does not translate the identity and time uses (the underlined below) and leaves them out of the English. I added them in to the English translation.
སུ་རུ་ར་དང་དུ་ཏུ་ན། ལ་དོན་རྣམ་པ་དྲུག་ཡིན་ཏེ། །
རྣམ་དབྱེ་གཉིས་པ་བཞི་པ་དང་། བདུན་པ་དེ་ཉིད་དུས་ལ་འཇུག །
སུ་, རུ་, ར་, དུ་, ཏུ་, and ན་ are the six types [or particles with the same] meaning as ལ་. At the time of [declining words in] the second, fourth, seventh, identity, and time [case], the case marking particles are affixed.