For a very good summary of this same information--a introduction to the syntax of sentences in classical Tibetan--refer to How To Read Classical Tibetan by Craig Preston (pp. 37-47).
A Tibetan verb always occurs at the end of a clause or sentence. This is the definition of a sentence. A sentence ends in a verb.
Classical Tibetan sentences tend to be equivalent to paragraphs in English, with a series of clauses connected to form a long sequence terminating in a final verb.
A clause ends in either
Verbs almost never end in པ་ or བ་.
Verbs have a class (I-VIII) that describe the types of case markings (or declension) that they are typically found with in the sentence. The case markings mark nouns, adjective, and verbals, but not verbs themselves. Verbs do not have case or case markings.
Verbals (verbal nouns and verbal adjectives) usually do end in པ་ or བ་ (although they may not, especially in verse). Much that is true of verbs is true of verbals: they may have (depending on the type of verb) subjects, complements, objects, an qualifiers.
One can think of a verbal as acting as a verb to the left and a noun or an adjective to the right. To the left of the verbal, it can have its own complete grammar, with subject, objects, complements, and qualifiers. To the right, however, grammatically, it acts as a noun or a verb.
Besides a terminal verb, a Tibetan sentence has a subject (or agent), usually either a complement or an object, and often a qualifier or group of qualifiers. The same holds true for clauses, except that they often end in verbal nouns or adjectives.
Note that in Craig Preston's system, subject is used exclusively for intransitive verbs and agent is used for transitive (or agentive) verbs. Agentive verb, action verb, and transitive verb are used interchangeably.
Sound is impermanent.
སྒྲ་མི་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་ནོ།
A doctor gives medicine to the ill.
སྨན་པས་ནད་པ་ལ་སྨན་སྟེར།
Who has the ability to liberate [beings]?
སྒྲོལ་བའི་ནུས་པ་སུ་ལ་ཡོད།
Sprouts need water.
མྱུ་གུ་ལ་ཆུ་དགོས།
Joe Wilson's use of complements in his canonical book suffers from some inconsistency. Craig Preston, who had the benefit of coming a little later, has clarified this system.
In both systems, qualifiers are understood to clarify or modify the action expressed by the verb.
In Craig Preston's system, complements tell us more about the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb. As mentioned, Wilson's use of the term complement is inconsistent.
Snow-covered mountains appear to be blue to the eye consciousness.
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” (Preston, How To Read Classical Tibetan by Craig Preston, pp. 43).
Any sentence at any time can have one or more qualifiers.
Qualifiers can be marked by any case except the first (nominative) case.
In the example above, “to the eye consciousness," is a qualifier. It modifies the action of the verb by telling us where the “blue, snow-covered mountains” appear.
Complements tell us more about an object, either:
Agents of transitive verbs and predicates of linking verbs do not have complements.
The object may:
In the example above, the snow-covered mountains appear “to be blue.” They do not appear “blue-ly." That is, the complement is not modifying the action of the verb but modifying the subject of the intransitive verb “appear.”
All Tibetan verbs have a subject or agent. However, the subject or agent is very frequently implied or omitted and must be known through context.
Agentive verbs have objects (the tree that is felled, the doctrine that is taught). They may also have a complement that tells us more about the object (but cannot have a complement that modifies the agent).
Linking verbs necessarily have a complement (sound is impermanent). The complement tells us what the subject has the manner of being. Sound is not exactly the same as impermanent. They are different words expressing different ideas. Yet, sound has the quality of being impermanent. That is to say, everything that is sound is necessarily impermanent. But “sound” is not (the same thing as) “impermanent” even though sound has the quality of being “impermanent."
The full philosophical implications of linking or predication are actually quite deep and reach all the way down to the roots of what being merely imputed in Prasangika Madhyamaka actually means. To dig deeper, take a look at Georges B. J. Dreyfus Recognizing Reality and Dan Perdue's Debate In Tibetan Buddhism.
Sound is impermanent.
སྒྲ་མི་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་ནོ།
A doctor gives medicine to the ill.
སྨན་པས་ནད་པ་ལ་སྨན་སྟེར།
He looked at forms with [his] eye[s].
ཁོས་མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ལ་བལྟས།
Agentive verbs may have complements in addition to objects. The object of assert is mind. It’s complement is as the illustration of the person.
Some assert mind as the illustration of the person.
ཁ་ཅིག་གིས་སེམས་གང་ཟག་གི་མཚན་གཞིར་འདོད་དོ།
The complement is telling us how mind is seen (as the illustration of the person) and not more about how some people assert.
ཁ་ཅིག་ is used often as an agent to say that “some people” or “those people" assert something that is generally thought of as mistaken for foolish. When you see kh cig, you can guess the author is going to introduce an idea that has been or will be refuted. གང་ཟག་, on the other hand, is used to mean person more in the sense of human being.
Most clauses and sentences have qualifiers and any sentence may have one or multiple qualifiers. Some sentences require them. They can be words, clauses, or phrases. They modify the action of the verb. They can be marked by any case marking except the first case or nominative (no case marking).
Their functions include:
Buddha taught the doctrine in India.
སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་རྒྱ་གར་ལ་ཆོས་བསྟན།
One alone goes to the next world.
རང་ཉིད་གཅིག་བུ་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་འགྲོ
Bubbles come out of the water.
ཆུ་ལས་ཆུ་བུར་བྱུང་།
Transitive verbs are known as agentive verbs and action verbs. In the Tibetan system, they are known as ཐ་དད་, or different, in that the agent of the verb and the object of the verb are not the same entity.
For example, in the boy hits the ball, the boy and the ball are different entities. Don't ask me what happens when the boy hits himself with the ball. Maybe Tibetans have a different verb for somebody hitting themselves.
Agentive / Transitive / Action verbs:
The basic example of an intransitive sentence in English is the water boils. In the Tibetan system, these are ཐ་མི་དད་, or not different. The subject, water, is also the object, that which is boiling.
Intransitive verbs:
Classical Tibetan uses
In English, we use the same verb for existence and linking. We can say “is/am/are” to mean exist or to mean has the quality of being something else. For example:
There are books.
Those books are bad.
In classical Tibetan, however, existence and linking are different verbs. ཡིན་ is the basic linking verb. ཡོད་ is the basic verb of existence.
དེབ་ཡོད།
BOOKS[S] EXIST
དེབ་དེ་སྡུག་ཅག་ཡིན།
BOOK THAT BAD IS.
Notice how the sentence that says “book[s] exist” does not say anything about how many books exist. Could be one. Could be a billion. We have no idea.
Also notice the use of དེ་ in the second sentence. Without that article, we really have no idea if we are talking about a specific book, the set of all books, or what. Tibetan doesn't use definite and indefinite articles the way English does, such as “the” or “an.” Instead they typically use adjectives such as “this/that/those," pluralizers and nominalizing particles, and specific numbers. Tibetan will commonly say things such as the following to specify plurality and ensure the reader understands that the writer is speaking about a specific book or set of book. Thus, at times when an English speaker might say “the book," a Tibetan may say “book-one” or “book-that" in a way to make it clear they are talking about a specific book and a single book.
དེབ་དིར་
This book.
དེབ་དེ་
That book.
དེབ་དེ་ཚོ་
Those books.
དེབ་རྣམས་
Books (explicitly plural).
དེབ་གསུམ་
[the] three books
Now, to further complicate things, Tibetan uses the same verb for existence and possession, unlike English which uses different verbs for existence (am/are/is) and possession (have).
དེབ་ཡོད།
BOOKS[S] EXIST
ང་ལ་དེབ་ཡོད།
ME-FOR BOOK[S ]EXIST
I have [a/the/many] book.
Possession, which classified as a type of specialized verb in the Wilson system, does not translate very well literally in English. In English, we should say, “I have a book." The Tibetan sentence above does not actually say “a” book, but specifies some undefined, non-zero number of books. Further, more literally, it might be read as saying, “[a/the/many] book[s] exist for me.”
Ultimately, the challenge is that classical Tibetan, which is derived largely from Sanskrit, signifies meaning in this case in a way that is simply structurally different than English. When Tibetan say ང་ལ་དེབ་ཡོད།, what they mean is “I have [some number of] book[s].” What they would more likely say is something like : ང་ལ་དེབ་གཅིག་ཡོད། Or: I have one book. However, they are not saying: For me one book exists.
Most broadly, we can think about Tibetan verbs broken down into three categories:
Many (but not all) category one, or nominative verbs, are verbs in which no action takes place. For example linking verb (ཡིན་), verbs of existence (ཡོད་), and verbs of dependence (རྟེན་).
Agentive verbs includes only action verbs, but not all action verbs, since certain action verbs (such as verbs of motion) have nominative subjects and are included in the first category.
Specialized verbs include verbs of possession (ཡོད་), necessity (དགོས་), and attribution (such as ཟེར་, when it means be called or named).
Many verbs whose subjects are theoretically agentive occur at least occasionally with nominative subjects.
A more comprehensive way of classifying Tibetan verbs is by breaking them down into eight categories.
There are eight classes of verbs and eight cases. They are related but not the same. This is endlessly confusing if you don't keep the two separate in your mind.
Further, the eight cases are marked by eight classes of case marking particles, but many of the same particles are used for multiple cases. For example, type II verbs, nominative-locative verbs, have a subject in the seventh case, not the second case, as you might naively expect. However, because the 2nd, 4th, and 7th cases share the same case marking particles, they use the same set of particles to mark the subject as the agentive verbs use to mark objects and locative verbs use to mark subjects.
Yes, it's confusing. But it's manageable.
Initially, it's most important to get a handle on the larger division of verbs into nominative, agentive, and specialized, and then to familiarize oneself with the eight classes of verbs and the various case marking particles used to mark the eight cases.
This subject corresponds to appendix 4 and appendix 5 of Wilson. Appendix 4 breaks Tibetan verbs down by very type. Appendix 5 breaks Tibetan grammar down by case (or declension).
These are the eight cases. Cases refer to the case of the noun, phrase, or clause marked by the case marking particle. Cases are how Tibetan denote the relationship of the various elements of the sentence (or clause) relate to the verb of the sentence (or clause).
1st nominative
2nd objective / accusative
3rd agentive / instrumental
4th beneficial & purposive / dative
5th originative / ablative
6th connective / genative
7th locative
8th vocative
The verb type is determined by what cases are typically used to mark different elements of sentence or clause that is terminated by the verb type. Thus a Type V, agentive-nominative, has a subject in the third case and an object in the first case (plus whatever complements and qualifiers it may have).
The eight verb types are:
Type I. nominative-nominative
Type II. nominative-locative
Type III. nominative-objective
Type IV. nominative-syntactical
Type V. agentive-nominative
Type VI. agentive-objective
Type VII. purpose-nominative
Type VIII. locative-nominative
The following section summarizes the eight verb types, grouped by the three larger classes (nominative, agentive, and specialized). It also lists the major sub-types of the various eight types.
Nominative verbs are so named because they have a subject or agent in the nominative case. There are four types of nominative verbs (listed below). The verb types are named according to the case of their subject and object.
All nominative verbs are intransitive verbs that cannot take direct objects. Even when they express actions, they express actions in which the agent does not act on a separate object.
Most of these verbs are regular: they occur only in one syntactical pattern. However, irregular verbs that can occur in multiple syntactical patterns exist. An important example is འདོད་, to assert. While འདོད་ typically has an agentive subject, it also frequently appears with a nominative (unmarked) subject.
Type I: nominative-nominative verbs
Type II: nominative-locative verbs, four types:
Type III: nominative-objective verbs, three types:
Type IV: nominative-syntactical verbs, four types:
Action verbs express various types of activities, such as: giving, doing, making, speaking, helping, seeing, meditating, and going. Some action verbs specify actions done by an agent on a object (transitive); others express actions without agents or objects (intransitive, the Type III nominative-objective verbs).
Type V: agentive-nominative verbs: སྟོན་, teaches
Type VI: agentive-objective verbs: ལྟ་, looks at or view
Specialized verbs include verbs of necessity and verbs of possession. Generally speaking, verbs of this type have a superficially simple verb syntax. However, as one digs deeper into the translation of this syntax, one begins to discover some deep differences in how Tibetan and English encode meaning.
Type VII: purpose-nominative verb of necessity, དགོས་, has a 4th case subject
Type VIII: locative-nominative verbs have 7th case (locative) subjects. There are two types:
Since the particles that mark the 4th and 7th case are the same, the la-group (སུ་རུ་དུ་ན་ར་ལ་), both classes are structurally similar.
Following traditional Tibetan grammar, verbs of necessity require fourth case subjects since needing something shows purpose or potential benefit. Thus, they are purposive-nominative verbs. The following is an example of such a verb.
Sprouts need water.
མྱུ་གུ་ལ་ཆུ་དགོས།
Sentences governed by verbs of possession (Type VIII) use an apparently identical syntax, where the subject is marked by one of the la-group particles, this time marking the 7th case.
Arhats have no afflictions.
དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ་ལ་ཉོན་མོངས་མེད།
Don't forget that the verbs of possession (ཡོད། མེད།) are also used to signify existence if used without the 7th case, in which case they simply have a nominative subject.
Attributive verbs (the second type of Class VIII) verbs are relatively complex usage that does not translate well literally into English. They are verbs that are normally agentives, such as ཟེར་ and བྱེད་, that are being used in a specialized manner that can be translated into English as is called, refers to, or is taken to mean. The typical example is:
ཚོར་བའི་མྱོང་བྱ་ལ་རྣམ་པར་སྨིན་པ་ཟེར།
The experienced object of feeling is called fruition.
FEELING-OF OBJECT-OF-EXPERIENCE-ABOUT FRUITION SAY
The la-group particle here is used to mark what the nominative object is called, is referred to as, or is taken to mean. The subject, the refer-ee (if you will), is in the nominative case. The attributive construction is considered in more depth in Wilson on pages 290-291, 537, and 609-611.