• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    The IPI-clause as part of a clause built on the A-construction or B-construction
    quickinfo

    The verb of the irrealis perfect, hie had, can be found in the adjunct Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo (IPI)-construction. An example is given below:

    Example 1

    Hy moast it spul fleane litten ha en hie mar om in hinnekommen sjoen
    he must the thing go let.PfP have and had DcP for a safe.place seen
    He should have let the thing go and have looked for a safe place for himself
    readmore

    The following sentences show that an adjunct IPI containing the verb form hie had can be found in a clause carried by the B-construction:

    Example 2

    Do koest der ek wol efkes hinne gien wêze en hie earst ris sjoen as …
    you could there also DcP DcP to gone be and had first DcP seen if
    You could have gone there and check if …

    The Frisian sentence cannot be analysed as a conjunction of two tensed verbs: this would require the presence of the 2SG form of the verb, that is, hiest had.2SG. Note that the English translation is also peculiar since the verb check lacks perfect morphology. The example in (3) is another example of an adjunct IPI built on the irrealis perfect imperative integrated in a B-construction clause. The example below, from nineteenth-century Frisian, features a coordination or list of two IPI's in the scope of the modal verb of the main clause:

    Example 3

    Ik moast ommers hinne gien ha en hie mysels mar tige by tige wiis makke, en hie alle oare minsken sa dom bliuwe litten as se wienen, dan hie ik altyd jild by de bult fertsjinje kind
    I must for to gone have and had myself DcP very by very wise made and had all other people so stupid stay let.PfP as they were then had I always money by the heap earn.OI could.PfP
    For I should have gone and have made myself very well-informed and have let other people be as ignorant as they were, then I would always have earned heaps of money

    In the example in (3), the main clause B-construction functions as a counterfactual condition, as indicated by the word dan then in the last clause. We see that a main clause can be a conditional clause without this being overtly expressed by the conditional complementiser.

    A clause built on the perfect irrealis adjunct IPI may also be part of a clause built on the A-construction. This is illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 4

    a. Hy hie wol by de dokters oangean kinnen en hie har op jûn noadige te kofjedrinken
    he had DcP at the doctors stop.over could.PfP and had them on evening invited to coffee.drink
    He could have stopped over at the doctors and have invited them for a coffee in the evening
    b. De boer hie sels earst tuge leare moatten en hie dan syn hynder oanbean
    the farmer had self first tackle learn must.PfP and had then his horse offered
    The farmer should have learned to tackle up first and then have offered his horse

    The examples given in this section are all from nineteenth-century Frisian. The B-construction is not used anymore in Modern Frisian (except the logical B-construction, see a different B-construction: the logical B-construction), but the A-construction is still in use. The examples given above do not sound too bad, but they sound better if the second instance of hie had is omitted, so that a coordination analysis is feasible. This may be related to the fact that the adjunct IPI itself is rare in Modern Frisian.

    References:
      ABOUT THIS TOPIC
      Author(s):
      Eric Hoekstra
      Category:
      Frisian Syntax
      Publication date:
      14 May 2020
      Keywords:
      IPI-constructionA-constructionclauseB-construction
      cite
      print
      report error
      Jump to:
      X