Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan

UC Santa Barbara Himalayan Linguistics Title Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bq059cw Journal Himalayan Linguistics, 21(1) Author Hill, Nathan Publication Date 2022 DOI 10.5070/H921156970 Copyright Information Copyright 2022 by the author(s).This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Himalayan Linguistics Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan Nathan W. Hill Trinity College Dublin ABSTRACT The verbs གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant', because of their complementary semantics and parallel syntax, provide a convenient window through which to caste light on the two forms of subordinate clauses that they both govern, namely infinitives and terminative verbal nouns. KEYWORDS Old Tibetan, switch reference, subordination This is a contribution from Himalayan Linguistics, Vol. 21(1): 29-39 ISSN 1544-7502 © 2022. All rights reserved. This Portable Document Format (PDF) file may not be altered in any way. Tables of contents, abstracts, and submission guidelines are available at escholarship.org/uc/himalayanlinguistics Himalayan Linguistics, Vol. 21(1). © Himalayan Linguistics 2022 ISSN 1544-7502 Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan Nathan W. Hill Trinity College Dublin 1 Introduction The verbs གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’, have clearly complementary meanings; those addressed by requests either grant them or not. In addition, གནང་ gnaṅ is an honorific verb and གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ is a humilitic verb (Kitamura 1975). The verbs གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ also share a parallel syntactic ability to govern subordinate clauses. 1 These subordinate clauses take two forms, which I call ‘terminative verbal nouns’ and ‘infinitives’.2 The verbal nouns are those subordinated verb forms nominalized with the suffix པ་ -pa or བ་ -ba, to which the terminative case marker ར་ -r is added. The infinitives are subordindated verb forms followed directly by དུ་ -du and its allomorphs. 3 Two verb stems make themselves available to function as infinitives, namely the present and the future. Terminologically we can thus further distinguish ‘future infinitives’ and ‘present infinitives’. The verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ governs the future infinitive and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ governs the present infinitive (Garrett et al. 2013). To my knowledge the grounds on which verbs select either infinitives or terminative verbal nouns, and why some verbs govern present infinitives and others future infinitives, has not yet been discussed in print. This essay attempts to elucidate these questions from the vantage point of the behavior or གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’. In order to ensure that we investigate a single linguistic system, the evidence examined here comes exclusively from Version I (mss. D + A) of the Old Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa ( Jong 1989), a paraphrase in Tibetan of a well known Indic epic.4 1 This research builds directly on unpublished work of Abel Zadoks, in particular the sixth chapter of Zadoks (2017). The reader, like one anonymous referee, may prefer a different terminology than that used here, but since the English terminology for Tibetan verbal forms remains far from conventionalized and since a subordinate verbal form by any other name smells just as sweet, I implore the reader to bear with these terminological choices. 2 3 Taking inspiration from the French distinction between a “complément d’objet direct” that directly follows a verb and a “complément d’objet indirect” where an à or de interposes itself between the verb and its object, one can draw a distinction between a Tibetan ‘direct infinitive’ and an ‘indirect infinitive’. Where the subordinate verb directly precedes the matrix verb, this is the direct infinitive. In Version 1 of the Old Tibetan Rāmāyaṇam, I identify only the three matrix verbs ནུས་ nus ‘be able’ དགོས་ dgos ‘need’ ཕོད་ phod ‘dare’ as governing a direct infinitive. Where the terminative converb interposes itself between the subordinate verb and the matrix verb, this is the indirect infinitive. Nonetheless, because both གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ and གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ govern the indirect infinitive, it suffices for the purposes of this essay to understand ‘infinitive’ as always meaning ‘indirect infinitive’. 4 Manuscript A has the shelf mark IOL Tib J 0737-1 and manuscript D the shelf mark IOL Tib J 0737-3. Himalayan Linguistics, Vol 21(1) 2 The verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ Subordinate clauses governed by the verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ show a striking distribution, whereby infinitives occur in direct speech (§2.1) and terminative verbal nouns in the narrative frame (§2.2). 2.1 The verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ in direct speech All examples of གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ governing infinitives in Version I of the Old Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa occur in direct speech. In most examples, the speaker requests of the addressee that the addressee undertake some action. (1) པྲིན་ཡིག་བརྫང་དུ་གསོལ་ཞེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་༎ « prin-yig « letter brdzaṅ-du send\FUT-CVB.TRM gsol » źes gsol-pa-daṅ // request » QUOT request-NMLZ-ASS // ‘I request that [you] send a letter,’ he said. (Rama A 273) (2) བདགི་བུ་མོ་མེ་ག་སྀ་ན་འབུལ་ན་བཞེས་སུ་གསོལ་ཞེས། བུ་མོ་ཁྲིད་དེ་འོངས་ནས་བུལ་བ་དང་༎ « bdagi « me.GEN bu-mo Me-ga-sĭ-na girl Meghasenā źes / bu-mo QUOT / girl khrid-de lead-CVB.SF ḫbul-na bźes-su gsol » offer-CVB.LOC accept.HON-CVB.TRM request » ḫoṅs-nas come\PST-CVB.ELA bul-ba-daṅ // offer-NMLZ-ASS // ‘I offer my daughter Meghasenā, I request that [you] accept her,’ thus [he] brought his daughter and offered her. (Rama D 39-40) (3) དེ་རྣམས་ལ་རྨར་གསོལ། ཞེས་མཆི་ནས༎ de that rnams-la PL-ALL gsol / źes mčhi-nas request / QUOT say-CVB.ELA rmar ask.HON.CVB.TRM // // ‘I request that [you] ask them,’ he said. (Rama A 181-182) In example (4) the agent of the subordinate verb is not the addressee, but generic. (4) མྱྀ་སྡུག་་གཟུགས་ཆན་འདྀ་ལས་པྲོག་དུ་གསོལ་ཞེས་མཆིསྟེ། myĭ NEG sdug gzugs pretty form čhan ḫdĭ-las possess this-ABL prog-du rob\FUT-CVB.TRM 30 gsol request\HON źes QUOT Hill: Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan mčhiste / say\CVB.SF / ‘I beg to be taken away from this ugly creature!’ (Rama A 186) Example (4) may lead us to wonder whether examples (1), (2), and (3) are also amendable to inter-pretation as passives, viz. ‘request that a letter be sent’, ‘request that she be accepted’, and ‘request that they be asked’. If so, the implication in these sentences that the addressee is the one meant to undertake the action of the subordinated verb is a pragmatic result of the discourse situation rather than a syntactic consequence of the construction. Two further considerations weigh in favor of this passive interpretation. First, passives are cross-linguistically typical of the indirectness appropriate to polite requests; to say ‘please be seated’ lacks the impatient air of ‘please sit down’. Second, a patient focused meaning characterises the future stem in general (Tillemans 1988, Tillemans and Herforth 1989, Tillemans 1991a, Tillemans 1991b). There are also considerations that speak against an analysis of examples (1)-(4) as passives; for instance, in example (2) the speaker is of course only offering his daughter to the Ṛṣi and not simply asking that she be taken of his hands. Nonetheless, if we permit outselves to entertain the hypothesis that that the future infinitive, when governed by གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’, is syntactically passive and pragmatically a polite request, this hypothesis dovetails nicely with the wider tendency for future infinitives of transitive verbs to put the patient in focus.5 Example (5), with the unambiguous transitive subordinated verb ‘hunt’, makes this patient prominence clear. (5) འུ་ནྀ་ བཟླུ་བའྀ་རི་དགས་ཡིན་བས། བསྙག་དུ་མྱི་རུང་སྟེ། ḫu this nĭ NF bzlu-baḫĭ deceive-NMLZ.GEN ri-dags yin-bas/ deer to be-NMLZ.ERG/ bsñag-du hunt-CVB.TRM myi ruṅ-ste / NEG suitable-CVB.SF / This is a deceptive deer and is not suitable to be hunted (Rama A 145-146) The clause བསྙག་དུ་མྱི་རུང་ bsñag-du myi ruṅ ‘is not suitable to be hunted’, in which མྱི་རུང་ myi ruṅ ‘is not suitable...’ governs the future infinitive, includes no overt noun phrase, neither the hunter nor the quarry, but the unsuitableness obtains only to the quarry. 2.2 The verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ in the narrative frame In the narrative frame the verb གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ governs the terminative verbal noun and not the infinitive. Naturally, those making the requests, those to whom these requests are made, and Obviously, when the subordinated verb is intransitive it is the sole argument that is in focus, e.g. མཚོ་ལ་བརྟེན་པའྀ་ངང་དང་ངུར༎ གུད་དུ་འཔུར་དུ་གནས་མ་མཆིས༎ mtsho-la brten-paḫĭ ṅaṅ-daṅ ṅur // gud-du ḫpur-du gnas ma mčhis // Ducks and geese which live on the lake have nowhere to fly for shelter (Rama A 348). 5 31 Himalayan Linguistics, Vol 21(1) those who would engage in the requested activities are in the narrative frame all third person. Still, a variety of co-reference relationships are available among these parties; let us distinguish the three parties as ‘speaker’, ‘addressee’, ‘undertaker’. In example (6) the addressee and the one performing the requested activity are both the king (speaker ≠ addressee = undertaker). (6) རྒྱལ་པོ་གཤེགས་པར་གསོལ་ནས། rgyal-po king gśegs-par go\HON-NMLZ.TRM gsol-nas / request-CVB.ELA // They asked the king to come. (Rama A 115) In example (7) the one requesting and the one performing the requested activity are both Lakṣana (speaker = undertaker ≠ addressee). (7) གཅུང་ལག་ཤ་ནས་སྔར་བརྒལ་བར་གསོལ་ནས༎ gčuṅ Lag-śa-nas younger.brother Lakṣana.ERG sṅar first-TRM brgal-bar cross-NMLZ-TRM gsol-nas // request\HON-CVB.ELA // The younger brother Lakṣana ་asked to cross first. (Rama A 314-315) In example (8) the Devaputras are requesting a boon from Mahadeva, when the goddess of speech interferes. The request is for supernatural abilities; since no action is requested it is not meaningful for either the speaker or addresee to undertake the requested action (speaker ≠ addressee, no undertaker). (8) གང་ལ་མདའ་འཕངས་ཕོག་ཆིང་འགུམ་བར་གསོལ་བར་བསམས་པ་དང་། མདའ་དང་པོ་འཕང་སྟེ་འགུམ་བར། ལྷ་མོས་བསྒྱུར་ཏོ༎ gaṅ-la mdaḫ ḫphaṅs who-ALL arrow shoot.PST phog-čhiṅ hit.PST-CVB.CONT bsams-pa-daṅ / mdaḫ think.PST-NMLZ-ASS / arrow daṅ-po ḫphaṅ-ste first shoot.PST-CVB.SF lha-mos goddess.ERG ḫgum-bar gsol-bar die-NMLZ.TRM request-NMLZ.TRM ḫgum-bar / die-NMLZ.TRM / bsgyur-to // change.PST-FIN // ‘They intended to ask that whoever they shot would be hit lethally, but the goddess changed it so the first arrow they shot would be lethal.’ (Rama A 52-54) 32 Hill: Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan In sum, the co-reference relations among the speaker, addressee and undertaker are in no way encoded by this construction. 3 The verb གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ The verb གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ also governs both infinitives and terminative verbal nouns, but the obvious division of labor that worked in the case of གསོལ་ gsol ‘request’ with infinitives in direct speech and terminative verbals nouns in the narrative frame, does not here obtain. Instead, the present infinitive construction is used when the subordinate verb is intransitive and its sole argument is the same as the agent of གནང་ gnaṅ (§3.1), whereas if either of these criteria is not met, we instead find the terminative verbal noun construction (§3.2). 3.1 Present inf initives with the matrix verb གནང་ gnaṅ All examples of the verb གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’ governing infinitives in Version I of the Old Tibetan Rāmāyaṇa happen to take the motion verb གཤེགས་ gśegs ‘go, come’ as their subordinate verb. Nonetheless, as we will see when we look at the distribution of terminative verbal nouns governed by གནང་ gnaṅ ‘agree, grant’, it seems likely that the plot of the story and not some grammatical constraint is the reason that we see infinitives only with this verb. The intransitivity of the subordinate verb is probably the salient factor. (9) མྱི་འགྲོ་འོ་ཞེས་བྱུང་ནས༎ གཤེགསུ་མ་གནང་ངོ་༎ «myi «NEG ḫgro-ḫo » go\PRS-FIN » źes QUOT byuṅ-nas // arise\PST-CVB.ELA // gśegsu go\HON.CVB.TRM ma NEG gnaṅ-ṅo // grant\HON-FIN // He said: ‘I shall not go’ and did not agree to go. (Rama A 35) (10) མ་ཧ་དེ་བ་ནྀ་གཤེགསུ་གནང་བ་ཡང་མྱི་འདྲའ་ན༎ Ma-ha-de-ba Mahadeva nĭ NF gśegsu go\HON.CVB.TRM gnaṅ-ba grant\HON-NMLZ ḫdraḫ-na // seem-CVB.LOC // ‘It doesn't seem like Mahadeva will agree to come.’ (Rama A 37) 33 yaṅ myi WF NEG Himalayan Linguistics, Vol 21(1) (11) ཚ་བོ་རྣམས་ཚེ་གཆིག་ལང་ཀ་པུ་རར་གཤེགས་སུ་ཇི་གནང་ཞེས་ tsha-bo rnams tshe nephew PL time gčhig ART Laṅ-ka-pu-rar gśegs-su Laṅkāpūra.TRM go\HON-CVB.TRM ǰi what gnaṅ » grant\HON» źes QUOT ‘Would you nephews agree to go to Laṅ kāpūra sometime?’ (Rama A 8) (12) ལྷའི་བུ་རྣམས་གཤེགསུ་གནང་སྟེ༎ lhaḫi gods.GEN bu son rnams gśegsu PL go\HON.CVB.TRM gnaṅ-ste // grant\HON-CVB.SF // The Devaputras agreed to go. (Rama A 9) Looking for other examples of the present infinitive construction in the text, we find that among the verbs that Garrett et al. (2013) give as governing this construction our text offers only བྱེད་ byed ‘do’ and this only in one instance. (13) རྟ་མགོ་འུད་ཆེས་བཆད་ནས། རྫུ་འཕྲུལ་སྟོར་ཏེ། ཡོ་ཡོ་ནས་། མྱི་དང་སྤྲེ་འུ་དམག་གྀ་སྟེང་དུ་འགྱེལ་དུ་བྱེད་པ་དང་ rta-mgo horse-head yo teeter ḫud ḫud čhes bčhad-nas QUOT cut-CVB.ELA yo-nas / teeter-CVB.ELA / ḫgyel-du fall-CV-TRM myi-daṅ men-ASS / rdzu-ḫphrul / magic stor-te / lose-CVB.SF / spre-ḫu monkey dmag-gĭ army-GEN steṅ-du top-TRM byed-pa-daṅ do-NMLZ-ASS The horse-head ‘swoosh’ was cut off. [The demon] lost his magical power. He swayed to and fro and made (as if ) to fall on the army of the men and monkeys. (Rama A 319-20) So, it is fair to say that co-reference between the subject of the super-ordinate and subordinate verb is part of the meaning of the present infinitive construction. 3.2 Terminative verbal nouns with the matrix verb གནང་ gnaṅ The terminative verbal noun is used whenever one of the two conditions (viz. coreference and intransitivity, §3.1) calling for the present infinitive construction do not obtain. Thus, we have 34 Hill: Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan examples of co-reference but with transitive subordinate verbs (§3.2.1) and examples with intransitives but no co-reference (example 20).6 3.2.1 Examples of co-reference, but with transitive subordinate clauses In example (14) the speaker, a Ṛṣi, agrees to himself accept in marriage Meghasenā, the daughter of Man-lya-pan-ta. (14) ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་བུ་མོ་ཡང་༎ ཁབ་དུ་བཞེས་པར་གནང་ངོ་ཞེས་བྱུང་ནས༎ khyod-kyi you-GEN bu-mo yaṅ // girl WF // khab-du wife-TRM bźes-par take-NMLZ.TRM gnaṅ-ṅo źes grant\HON-FIN QUOT byuṅ-nas // occur-CVB.ELA // ‘I consent to take your daughter as consort,’ he replied. (Rama A 1) In example (15) the addressees, the Devaputra, are asked to agree to themselves take revenge against the gods. (15) ཚ་བོ་ཁྱེད་ཀྱིས་ལན་གླན་ཞིང་ལྷ་རྣམས་ཁ་གདག་པར་ཇི་གནང་ཞེས་གསོལ་པ་ལས༎ tsha-bo nephew khyed-kyis lan glan-źiṅ you.HON-ERG answer answer-CVB.CONT kha gdag-par kha gdag-NMLZ.TRM ǰi what gnaṅ grant\HON źes QUOT lha god rnams // PL // gsol-pa-las request-NMLZ-ABL // ‘Would you agree to take revenge and vanquish the gods?’ he asked. (Rama A 20-21) In (16) it is both Rama who does not agree and Rama who would rule (if he agreed to). (16) རྒྱལ་སྲིད་མཛད་པར་མྱྀ་གནང་ན་ཡང་༎ ... rgyal-srid reign mdzad-par myĭ do-NMLZ.TRM NEG gnaṅ-na grant\HON-CVB.LOC yaṅ // ⋯ WF // ⋯ ‘Even if you don't agree to reign […] (Rama A 88-89) 6 An anonymous referee proposes that examples (14)-(17) do not necessarily involve co-reference, and thus one can thus draw the stronger conclusion that the infinitive is used for coreference and the terminative verbal noun is used for switch-reference. I remain open minded about the possibility of this analysis, but believe it is appropriate for me to stay with the weaker analysis and hope that the referee will pursue this matter elsewhere. 35 Himalayan Linguistics, Vol 21(1) In a letter to king Rama, Hanumān requests that Rama does not rebuke him. (17) བཀའ་མྱི་འབུབ་པར་ཇྀ་གནང་ཞེས་གསོལ་ནས༎ bkaḫ word myi NEG ḫbub-par jĭ gnaṅ send down.FUT-NMLZ.TRM what grant\HON źes QUOT gsol-nas request-CVB.ELA ‘Would you agree not to rebuke me?’ he asked. (Rama A 351-352) 3.2.2 Examples where there is no co-reference between the one agreeing and the one acting In examples (18) and (19) the addressee is asked to agree to let the speaker(s) do something. In both examples the subordinate verb is transitive. (18) བདག་ནྀ་ཆགས་འོག་གི་བློན་པོ་བགྱིད་པར་ཇི་གནང་ཞེས་ bdag me nĭ NF čhags ḫog-gi shoe below-GEN blon-po minister bgyid-par do.PRS-NMLZ.TRM ǰi what gnaṅ grant źes QUOT ‘... would you allow me to act as minister under your shoe?’ (Rama A 88-89) (19) ལྷ་མོ་ལ་པྱག་འཚལ་བར་ཇི་གནང་ཞེས་གསོལ་པ་དང་༎ lha-mo-la queen-ALL pyag salute ḫtshal-bar ǰi do-NMLZ.TRM what gnaṅ grant\HON źes QUOT gsol-pa-daṅ // request-NMLZ-ASS // ‘Would you allow us to salute the queen?’ they asked. (Rama A 414-415) In example (20) a demon accidentally asks for the boon of sleep. The one granting the boon and the one sleeping are not the same. This example is intransitive. (20) རེ་ཤིག་ན་སྲིན་པོ་བུམ་རྣ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ༎ སྤུན་སེམས་ཤན་ཐམས་ཆད་ལ་ཟ་བར་དངོས་གྲུབ་བུབས་པ་ལས༎ ལྷ་འྀ་དབང་པོས༎ ཚྀག་ལ་དབང་བ་འི་ལྷ་མོ་གཆིག་ལྕེའི་ཐོར་ཏོ་ལ་སྤྲུལ་ཏོ། གཉིད་ལོག་པར་ཇྀ་གནང་ཞེས་བསྒྱུར་ནས། དུས་ཐམས་ཤད་དུ་གཉིད་ལོག་པ། re while śig-na ART-LOC srin-po Bum-rna demon Many-Eared thams-čhad-la za-bar dṅos grub all-ALL eat-NMLZ.TRM siddhi źes QUOT bya-ba // do-NMLZ // bsgrubs-pa-las // achieve-NMLZ-ABL // 36 spun sems śan fellow creatures lhaḫĭ god.GEN Hill: Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan dbaṅ pos // power.ERG // tshĭg-la speech-ALL thor to-la tip-ALL sprul-to / gñid log-par transform-FIN / sleep-NMLZ.TRM bsgyur-nas / change-CVB.ELA / dus time dbaṅ-baḫi lha mo have power.NMLZ.GEN goddess thams-śad-du all-TRM jĭ what gčhig ART gnaṅ grant\HON lčeḫi tongue.GEN źes QUOT gñid log-pa / sleep-NMLZ / ‘Once there was a demon named ‘Many-Eared’ who practised to acquire the power to eat all fellow creatures but, by the power of the gods, a goddess of speech transformed onto his tongue tip and changed [his request] into ‘would you allow me to sleep,’ whence he would sleep all the time.’ (Rama A 301-303) The goddess of speech also interfered with the wording of a request for a boon earlier in the narrative (example (21)). This example includes both གནང་ gnaṅ and གསོལ་ gsol as matrix verbs. The verb བགྱིད་ bgyid ‘do’, which is subordinate to གནང་ gnaṅ, is transitive. (21) སྲྀད་གསུམ་ལ་དབང་བྱེད་པར་གསོལ་བར་བསམས་པ་དང་། ལྷ་ལ་དབང་བགྱྀད་པར་ཇྀ་གནང་ཞེས། ལྷ་མོས་བསྒྱུར་ཏོ༎ srĭd gsum-la world three-ALL dbaṅ byed-par power do\PRS-NMLZ.TRM bsams-pa-daṅ / lha-la think.PST-NMLZ-ASS / god-ALL lha-mos goddess.ERG gsol-bar request-NMLZ.TRM dbaṅ bgyĭd-par power do.PRS-NMLZ.TRM jĭ what gnaṅ grant\HON bsgyur-to // change.PST-FIN // ‘They intended to ask for power over the three worlds, but the goddess changed [this request] into ‘would you grant us power over the gods?’’ (Rama A 50-51) Example (22) is interesting because the second person addressee is potentially co-referenced as the subject of མཇལ་པར་ mǰal-par and it is not entirely obvious whether མཇལ་པར་ mǰal-par should be considered a transitive or intransitive verb. Nonetheless, since the terminative verbal noun is not used when both the subordinate verb is intransitive and there is coreference between the subjects of the matrix and subordinate verbs, we can conclude from the use of the terminative verbal noun that either the verb མཇལ་ mǰal is transitive (‘you consent to meet me’) or at least that there is no coreference (‘you consent to us meeting’). (22) མྱི་པྲད་དུ་མྱྀ་རུང་ན༎ ལན་ཆིག་མཇལ་པར་ཇི་གནང་ཞེས་ myi NEG prad-du myĭ meet-CVB.TRM NEG ruṅ-na be suitable-CVB.LOC 37 // // lan time čhig ART Himalayan Linguistics, Vol 21(1) mǰal-par ǰi meet.HON-NMLZ.TRM what gnaṅ grant\HON źes QUOT ‘If it were not an option not to meet, would you consent to meeting once?’ (Rama A 380-381) 4 Conclusions In conclusion, future infinitives constitute a sort of passive that can be used as a polite imperative and present infinitives require an intransitive subordinate verb and coreference between the agent of the matrix verb and the sole argument of the subordinate verb. When neither the future or present infinitive are appropriate, the terminative verbal noun is used. A B B R E VI A T I O N S ABL ALL ART ASS CONT CVB ELA ERG FIN FUT GEN HON IMP LOC ablative allative article associative continuative converb elative ergative finite suffix future genitive honorific imperative locative NEG NF NMLZ PFV PL PROX PRS PRT PST QUOT SF TRM WF negative narrow focus nominalizer perfective plural proximate present particle past quotative semifinal terminative wide focus REFERENCES Garrett, E.; N. W. Hill; and A. Zadoks. 2013. “Disambiguating Tibetan verb stems with matrix verbs in the indirect infinitive construction”. Bulletin of Tibetology 49.2: 35–44. Jong, J. W. de. 1989. The story of Rāma in Tibet: text and translation of the Tun-huang manuscripts. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Kitamura, H. 1975. “The honorifics in Tibetan”. Acta Asiatica 28: 56–74. Tillemans, T.; and D. Herforth. 1989. Agents and actions in classical Tibetan: the indigenous grammarians on Bdag and Gzhan and Bya byed las gsum. Wien: Universität Wien, Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien [Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 21]. 38 Hill: Making and agreeing to requests in Old Tibetan Tillemans, T. J. F. 1988. “On bdag and gzhan and related notions of Tibetan grammar”. Tibetan Studies, 491–502. Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tillemans, T. J. F. 1991a. “Note on bdag don phal ba in Tibetan grammar”. Études Asiatiques 45.2: 311–323. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-146922 Tillemans, T. J. F. 1991b. “gSer tog blo bzan tshul khrims rgya mtsho on Tibetan verb tenses.” In: E. Steinkellner (ed.), Tibetan History and Language. Studies dedicated to Uray Géza on his seventieth birthday, 487–496. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien [Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 26]. Zadoks, A. 2017. “Syntax and semantics of the Tibetan verb”. Unpublished manuscript. Nathan W. Hill [email protected] 39