Sì'eyng a ftu Na'rìng #°12: transitivity and verbs of speaking

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

So then, can I conclude that it is the a that does the 'heavy lifting' in clause marking?

So then, it is grammaticalization that makes futa fula fwa furia, etc. that causes these words to act as clause markers that fill in for single nouns, and not some special characteristic of the construction of those terms?

[Carborundum]

Now, any clause introduced by (or ending in, depending on how you decided to word things) a is necessarily a subordinate relative clause.  But that's not the same thing as saying fì-N-CASE a is a general pattern for marking subordination.

That's not really what I was trying to say, but clearly I expressed myself poorly.

My main point was merely that faylì'ut a is a valid construction; perhaps calling it a "subordinate clause marker" was a mistake.

My understanding is that if we have a subordinate clause attached to a noun (any noun, regardless of demonstratives, plurals, cases or adpositions) with the subordinator a, then that noun acts as an "anchor" or "marker" for said clause. Thus, I drew the conclusion that any noun in such a position is a subordinate clause marker, but perhaps a more formal (i.e. correct) definition exists.

So then, can I conclude that it is the a that does the 'heavy lifting' in clause marking?

I feel entirely comfortable with answering "yes" to this question.