Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview



Assertion

This usage does not specifically relate to verbs and is used to give more information, reasons, or divisions.
It has four types:

  1. Divisions (དབྱེ་བ་འདྲེན་པ།)
  2. Reasons (གཏན་ཚིགས་འདྲེན་པ།)
  3. Etymology (ངེས་ཚིག་འདྲེན་པ།)
  4. Further explanation (རྒྱས་བཤད་འདྲེན་པ།)

The first is used to present divisions. For example:

This second example is also an example for the second usage (Reasons) marking the predicate of a syllogism and paired with its reason, usually marked with a Third Case Reason or ཕྱིར་སྒྲ།.

For example:

The third and fourth usages explain the meaning of a particular word or term and give more information about what was said. Many grammar texts struggle to differentiate these two from the previous two, saying that the previous is giving a reason for the usage of a term while the latter is like a division that does not have to be definitive but merely gives some examples.

However, these could be subsumed into a single further usage that is common and expresses something different from the first two: Apposition.

Apposition

This involves two closely related and overlapping usages:

  1. Clarifying a word or phrase by using a synonym or equivalent term, or
  2. Explaining a word or phrase by giving further explanation of its etymology, context or meaning.

In the first case, the word or phrase being clarified and the synonym or other term being used to clarify it will be equivalent to each other; no extra meaning is technically being added.

For example:

In these cases, the word or phrase before the Continuative Particle (ལྷག་བཅས།) is equivalent to the one after it.

The second usage is giving further explanation. This is similar to the previous usage, but the two words or phrases connected by the Continuative Particle (ལྷག་བཅས།) are not equivalent to one another but rather are clarifying it in context or giving an etymology and so forth.

For example:

With both usages, the Continuative Particle (ལྷག་བཅས།) is often omitted to form what might be called the appositional dot (ཚེག). This is when there seem to be two (or more) unmarked words (i.e. left in the First Case) next to each other in a sentence that cannot be otherwise resolved, e.g. by being a noun with its adjective, a list, or being a First Case for a different verb and so forth.

For example:

This often happens (technically) when numbering outlines, for example:

Although, through familiarity, it seems obvious that the 1 (དང་པོ།) is grammatically connected to the rest of the phrase, it is not so clear how. It is unmarked by any other case and so forth, so could technically be said to be in the First Case, but then it would be difficult to assert that the rest of the phrase is an adjective for it. Failing that, it is difficult to connect it in any other way.

As such, that 1 (དང་པོ།) is said to be appositional – i.e. the first outline is “identifying the mind striving for liberation” and “identifying the mind striving for liberation” is the first outline – and could be seen as an implicit (i.e. omitted) Continuative Particle (ལྷག་བཅས།).

Up a level: Continuative Particles