Left-dislocated elements appear at the beginning of the sentence, preceding the topic (if any), and separated from the rest of the clause by a rising intonation followed by a slight pause (indicated here by a comma). The set of constituent types which can be left-dislocated is somewhat heterogeneous, though in most cases the function of left-dislocation is to call attention to an entity, situation, etc., which was not previously salient in the discourse. Among those phrases which can appear in the left-dislocation position are the following:
(1) Switch-reference topics: The function of a switch-reference topic is to highlight a particular entity as a new subject of discourse. Switch-reference topics often correspond to phrases in English of the form as for X or as far as X is concerned:
Ne suhpana Elim, imai hielen inlotka the:Abs brother-the:NA Elim I:Dat see-Pst-him:Abs yesterday "As for Elim's brother, I saw him yesterday" or "Speaking of Elim's brother, I saw him yesterday"
In this sentence, the speaker is introducing (or reintroducing) Elim's brother as a new topic of conversation. Note that switch-reference topics are only felicitous in situations where the participant in question has not been mentioned recently in the discourse. Switch-reference topics are especially common in contexts like the following, where they serve to set up a contrast with a previously-mentioned topic (here the speaker contrasts Han with herself):
Imai henka maka kauen, le na Han, touta eiasoti te I:Dat like meat chicken but the:Erg Han never Foc-eat-Neg it:Abs "I like chicken, but as for Han, (he) never eats it"
(2) Temporal adverbials: Temporal expressions such as inlhai "now", iaslò "today", pehisu "next", often appear in the left-dislocation position, especially when they serve to set up a contrast between the time frame of the present utterance and that of a previous utterance:
Iaslò, ten talpe tsuniakma today the:Pl:Abs field till-we:NA "Today we'll till those fields" Sai suehma kete antè lò, le hatham, niokta they:Abs be:away for many-Dat day but soon return "They have been away for many days, but soon (they) will return"
(3) Adjunct clauses: As in English, clausal adjuncts in Tokana - especially those headed by aun "if", aunim "when, whenever", and im "when, as" - are often fronted to the left-dislocation position:
Aun etanne Han tahat, kima sepa ante uehon if go-Dep-the:Abs Han visit-Dep we:Erg drink much wine "If Han comes to visit, we will drink a lot of wine" Im etanne Han tahat, kima sepa ante uehon when go-Dep-the:Abs Han visit-Dep we:Erg drink much wine "When Han comes to visit, we will drink a lot of wine" Aunim sukankat tsuohante, nai muelhoksoina ie klotat when do-try-Dep too:much he:Abs tired-become with quick-Dep "Whenever [he] tries to do too much, he tires quickly" Aunintsama iokmelat, kima ie klotat isikespa in:most:cases Arb-help-Dep we:Erg with quick-Dep Foc-harvest "Usually if people help, we can finish the harvest quickly" or "If people help, we can usually finish the harvest quickly"
Word order in dependent clauses is much the same as in main clauses, except that dependent clauses lack positions for topics and left-dislocated elements. The template for dependent clauses is given here:
Operator - Focus - Verb Phrase
The following sentences show examples of preverbal operators and focused elements in dependent clauses (notice that the verb is prefixed with the focus marker i-, just as in main clauses):
Imai untsepa melh n'isulhtanna Mafe I:Dat wonder where Qu-Foc-live-Dep-the:NA Mafe "I wonder where Mafe lives" Imai iona na Han isepine miote uehon I:Dat know the:Erg Han Foc-drink-Dep:Pst-the:Abs all wine "I know that it's Han who drank all the wine" Imai iona tun aku isepoteià uehon I:Dat know not you:Erg Foc-drink-Neg-Dep:Pst-the:Abs wine "I know it's not you who drank the wine"
In the first sentence, melh n'isulhtanna Mafe "where Mafe lives" is an embedded interrogative question acting as the complement (or 'object') of the verb untsepa "wonder"; here, melh "where" is occupying the operator position of the dependent clause. In the second sentence, na Han is in the focus position of the dependent clause, and in the third sentence, aku is in the focus position (note the use of the negative focus particle tun in this sentence; see 3.3.1, 5.4.4).
The order of elements following the verb is pretty much as in main clauses (section 5.1.1): The subject precedes the object. Note that in embedded clauses, just as in main clauses, non-specific object noun phrases must immediately follow the subject, as shown below:
Imai iona uthminna Han homa isai ihai I:Dat know give-Dep:Pst-the:NA Han bread the:Pl:Dat woman-Dat "I know that Han gave bread to the women" Imai iona uthminna Han ihai te homa I:Dat know give-Dep:Pst-the:NA Han woman-Dat the:Abs bread "I know that Han gave the bread to (some) women"
In the first sentence, the non-specific direct object homa "bread" must precede the specific indirect object isai ihai "(to) the women". In the second sentence, it is the indirect object which is non-specific, and so the order is reversed. When both direct and indirect object are specific, both orders are possible:
Imai iona uthminna Han te homa isai ihai I:Dat know give-Dep:Pst-the:NA Han the:Abs bread the:Pl:Dat woman-Dat "I know that Han gave the bread to the women" Imai iona uthminna Han isai ihai te homa I:Dat know give-Dep:Pst-the:NA Han the:Pl:Dat woman-Dat the:Abs bread "I know that Han gave the women the bread"
Note that even though embedded clauses lack a preverbal topic position, it is quite possible to topicalise an argument of an embedded clause verb by moving it into the topic position of the main clause - or, to put it another way, the main clause topic may to be 'linked' to a position in the embedded clause. For instance, consider the following sentence:
Ionama henkat upam inai eitheina Sakial know-I:NA like-Dep apple the:Dat horse-Dat-the:NA Sakial "I know that Sakial's horse likes apples"
Here the topic field is empty, so we construe this sentence as simply presenting a situation, without presupposing any previously-mentioned discourse referent to which that situation applies. But suppose we wanted to predicate this sentence of Sakial's horse - i.e. suppose we wanted to make the assertion that Sakial's horse has the property such that I know that he likes apples. In order to express this, we move "Sakial's horse" up to the topic position of the main clause, leaving a gap in the subject position of the embedded clause:
Ne eithena Sakial ionama henkat upam the:Abs horse-the:NA Sakial know-I:NA like-Dep apple "Sakial's horse is such that I know that (he) likes apples"
Here ne eithena Sakial "Sakial's horse" is interpreted as the topic of the entire sentence. As in previous examples, the gap in the embedded clause (viz. the empty position where the subject would normally occur) acts a 'placeholder' for the topic. Paraphrasing the above sentence in the manner of formal logic, we see that the gap fulfills the same function as the variable X:
Topic Predicate Ne eithena Sakial... ionama henkat upam "Sakial's horse X... (is such that) I know that X likes apples"
Notice that in this example, there is a case mismatch: The topic ne eithena Sakial "Sakial's horse" appears in the absolutive case, even though the verb henka "like" assigns dative case to its subject (see 3.8.3). It is a general rule in Tokana that whenever a topic corresponds to the subject, object, etc. of an embedded verb, it will appear in the absolutive case by default. (This may be because, in some sense, the topic is acting as though it were the object of the main clause verb: We might paraphrase the sentence above as "I know of Sakial's horse that (he) likes apples", where "Sakial's horse" is the object of the verb "know".)
The phenomenon illustrated above, where a noun phrase in the topic field corresponds to the subject, object, etc., of an embedded verb, is called topic raising. Topic raising is particularly common with verbs which take an embedded clause as their only argument (see section 3.8.2). The following sentences illustrate topic raising with tiyla "seem", mahtha "taste" and hiela "see, appear" (concerning the latter two verbs, see the discussion of verbs of perception in 3.8.3):
Tiyla moutanne Han seem sick-Dep-the:Abs Han "It seems that Han is sick" Ne Han tiyla moutat the:Abs Han seem sick-Dep "Han seems to be sick" or "Han is such that it seems that (he) is sick" Mahtha paienane sati taste delicious-Dep-the:Abs food "(One can) taste that the food is delicious" Te sati mahtha paienat the:Abs food taste delicious-Dep "The food tastes delicious" lit. "The food, (one can) taste that (it) is delicious" Hielama kestantsa latie see-I:NA happy-Dep-the:Pl:NA children-Dat "I see that the children are happy" or "It looks to me like the children are happy" Se lati hielama kestat the:Abs children see-I:NA happy-Dep "The children look happy to me" or "The children, I see that (they) are happy"
In each of these pairs of examples, the first sentence presents a situation (e.g. "It seems that Han is sick"), while the second sentence predicates a property of some presupposed entity (e.g. "Han seems to be sick" or "Han is such that it seems that (he) is sick").
Related to topic raising is the phenomenon of embedded argument deletion under coreference with the topic, first discussed in section 4.4.2: When an argument (subject, object, etc.) of an embedded clause is coreferential with the topic of the sentence that contains it - that is, when it denotes the same entity as the topic - then the embedded argument obligatorily deletes. Compare:
Imai iona moutanke I:Dat know sick-Dep-you:Abs "I know that you are sick" Imai iona moutat I:Dat know sick-Dep "I know that I am sick"
In the second example, the absence of a clitic on the embedded verb moutat "be sick" indicates that the subject of moutat is the same as the topic of the sentence, namely the first person subject of the verb iona "know". (If the first person clitic determiner -me were attached to moutat in the second example, yielding moutanme, the sentence would be ungrammatical.) Consider also this pair:
Inai Hane iona moutanne the:Dat Han-Dat know sick-Dep-he:NA "Han knows that he (i.e. someone else) is sick" Inai Hane iona moutat the:Dat Han-Dat know sick-Dep "Han knows that he (i.e. Han) is sick"
In the first sentence, the embedded subject clitic -ne must refer to someone other than the topic (i.e. "he" cannot refer to Han). In the second sentence, the embedded subject is phonetically null; here it must refer to the same person as the topic (i.e. "he" must refer to Han). Tokana differs from English in this respect: Whereas the English sentence Han knows that he is sick is ambiguous, the Tokana sentences above are not.
Note that if the subject of the embedded clause is elided, then the embedded object determiner may not attach to the verb as a clitic, as shown in the second sentence below:
Inai Mafè opa kuolunana ne moiha the:Dat Mafe-Dat think meet-Dep:Cpl-he:NA the:Abs girl "Mafe thinks that he (i.e. someone other than Mafe) has met that girl before" Inai Mafè opa kuoluna ne moiha the:Dat Mafe-Dat think meet-Dep:Cpl the:Abs girl "Mafe thinks that he (i.e. Mafe) has met that girl before"
Here, the determiner ne is prevented from cliticising onto kuoluna by the presence of a 'gap' in the embedded subject position which refers back to the topic inai Mafè.
The following examples show a null embedded object referring back to the topic:
Inai Mafè opa hielinna Elime nai inlotka the:Dat Mafe-Dat think see-Dep:Pst-the:NA Elim-Dat him:Abs yesterday "Mafe thinks that Elim saw him (i.e. someone other than Mafe) yesterday" Inai Mafè opa hielinna Elime inlotka the:Dat Mafe-Dat think see-Dep:Pst-the:NA Elim-Dat yesterday "Mafe thinks that Elim saw him (i.e. Mafe) yesterday"
The second sentence is literally "Mafe thinks that Elim saw yesterday". The absence of an overt object here indicates that the person seen by Elim is the same as the topic of the sentence - viz. Mafe.
Finally, consider the pair of sentences below, where the second sentence shows coreference between an indirect object topic and an embedded direct object:
Inai mikale itsema tahanoma ne ifoi lolhampute the:Dat boy-Dat say-Pst-I:NA visit-Subj-I:NA him:Abs then(Fut) week-Dat "I told the boy that I would visit him (someone other than the boy) next week" Inai mikale itsema tahanoma ifoi lolhampute the:Dat boy-Dat say-Cpl-I:NA visit-Subj-I:NA then(Fut) week-Dat "I told the boy that I would visit him (the boy) next week" lit. "The boy is such that I said (to him) that I would visit (him) next week"
In this section I use particle as a catch-all term for words which occupy a fixed position within the clause. Phonologically, these words tend to be short (a few are inherently unstressed). Semantically, they tend to be interpreted as operators which take scope over - or range over - a part of the clause (or the clause as a whole).
There are four kinds of particles in Tokana:
Discourse particles (Disc): ampefai, temai, teuk, etc. The question particle (Qu): ni The evidential particles (Evid): nie, lo, hio, tia, lue, mo The focus particles (Foc): tiefu, husu, ala, tun
At most one particle from each of these categories can occur in a given sentence. Referring back to the word-order template in section 5.1, we can add slots to indicate the positions of these particles in the sentence:
Topic Field - Disc - Operator - Qu - Evid - Foc - Focus - Verb Phrase
I discuss the functions of these particles in 5.4.1-5.4.4. Then in 5.4.5 I discuss the vocative/quotative element ia, which I will treat as a particle even though it does not occupy a fixed position in the clause.
The discourse particles are so called because their function, roughly speaking, is to link together clauses and indicate the relationship that holds between them (e.g. a discourse particle might indicate that the clause in which it occurs is an exception to, consequence of, etc. the previous clause or sentence). The set of discourse particles includes the following:
ampefai "also, furthermore, moreover" kufu "by contrast, on the other hand" nemmai "yet, on the other hand" otohkai "however, in spite of that" pehisu "then, and then, next" temai "then, thus, so" teuk "therefore" usna "instead"
Discourse particles occur immediately after the topic field and before the operator position. This is illustrated in the following examples, with ampefai and temai:
Nai kuolotunma, ki te esianna ampefai fana him:Abs meet-Neg-Cpl-I:NA and the:Abs name-his:NA furthermore be:unsure:of "I have never met him, and furthermore (I am) unsure about his name" Aun nioktotia hatham, nai temai etulhkakim kypesat if return-Neg-Dep soon her:Abs then go-must-we look for-Dep "If (she) doesn't return soon, then we must go look for her" Ikoi temai imè'n inelhahma? you:Dat then when-Qu Foc-leave-intend "So when do you intend to leave?" or "When do you intend to leave, then?"
Yes/no questions in Tokana are marked with the particle ni. Compare the following sentences:
Na miua fiuaten osek the:Erg cat catch-Pst-the:Abs mouse "The cat caught the mouse" Na miua ni fiuaten osek? the:Erg cat Qu catch-Pst-the:Abs mouse "Did the cat catch the mouse?"
The question particle occupies a position following the topic field and the operator position, and preceding the focus position. The fact that ni precedes focused elements is shown by the sentence below (where na Han is the topic and kamana suhpaina is in focus):
Na Han ni kamana suhpaina isatanie? the:Erg Han Qu for-the:NA brother-Dat-his:NA Foc-cook-Pst "Is it for his brother (as opposed to someone else) that Han cooked?"
The question particle is also used to introduce embedded questions, in which case it corresponds to whether or if in English. Compare:
Ni etahmana Elime moke? Qu go-intend-the:NA Elim-Dat home-Dat "Does Elim intend to go home?" Ami nesepe ni etahmanna Elime moke I:Erg ask-Pst Qu go-intend-Dep-the:NA Elim-Dat home-Dat "I asked whether/if Elim intends to go home"
If a yes/no question has a second person subject (e.g. aku, kyina), this subject is often left out:
Ni etahma moke? Qu go-intend home-Dat "Do (you) intend to go home?"
As discussed in 2.5.1 and 5.1.3, ni is also required in main clause interrogative questions, where it follows the interrogative operator (and contracts with the operator when the latter ends in a vowel, or contracts with the verb if the verb immediately follows ni):
Na Han mà'n isatanie kamana suhpaina? the:Erg Han what-Qu Foc-cook-Pst for-the:NA brother-Dat-his:NA "What did Han cook for his brother?" Sa lihpako melh n'isulhta? the:Pl:Erg sister-your:NA where Qu-Foc-live "Where do your sisters live?" Imè'n ietahmana Elime moke? when-Qu Foc-go-intend-the:NA Elim-Dat home-Dat "When does Elim intend to go home?"
An embedded clause headed by an interrogative operator may or may not take ni, depending on whether it counts as an embedded question. An example of an embedded interrogative question is given here:
Imai untsepa imè'n ietahmanna Elime moke I:Erg wonder when-Qu Foc-go-intend-Dep-the:NA Elim-Dat home-Dat "I wonder when Elim intends to go home"
Compare this sentence with the relative clause examples in section 2.4, where the operator has a non-interrogative interpretation, and ni is absent.
Tokana has six evidential particles, nie, lo, hio, tia, lue, and mo. These particles occupy a position in between the topic field and the focus position, immediately after the position occupied by ni.
The purpose of the evidential particles is to indicate whether the speaker knows or believes the sentence s/he is uttering to be true, as well as whether s/he assumes that the listener knows the sentence to be true. The meanings of certain particles can be represented roughly in the form of a table:
| Speaker knows truth of sentence | Speaker does not know truth of sentence | |
| Speaker assumes listener knows truth of sentence | nie | lo |
| Speaker assumes listener doesn't know truth of sentence | hio | tia, lue |
The particle nie marks the sentence as asserting something which is 'self-evident', or common knowledge: By using this particle, the speaker is claiming that the sentence is true, and is also claiming that the truth of the sentence should be obvious to the listener:
Na Han nie sulhta kuntsai lihpai the:Erg Han Evid live with-the:Pl:Dat sister-Dat "As you know, Han lives with his sisters" or "Han lives with his sisters, of course"
The particle lo is used to indicate that the speaker is unsure if what he/she is saying is true, and is looking to the listener for possible confirmation:
Na Han lo sulhta kuntsai lihpai the:Erg Han Evid live with-the:Pl:Dat sister-Dat "Han lives with his sisters, doesn't he?"
By using the particle hio (presumably related to hiò "yes"), the speaker indicates that s/he believes that the sentence is true, but does not expect the listener to know that the sentence is true. This particle is often used when the speaker is revealing new (and perhaps surprising) information to the listener:
Ilohfoi hio itskanan Sakial tomorrow Evid arrive-the:Abs Sakial "As a matter of fact, Sakial is arriving tomorrow" or "As it happens, Sakial is arriving tomorrow"
Hio can also be used as an all-purpose emphatic particle, especially when it precedes a focused element in the sentence:
Na Han hio mai euima! the:Erg Han Evid me:Abs Foc-love "Han loves me!"
The particle tia is used to indicate that the speaker is unsure if the sentence is true, and does not expect the listener to know either. Tia marks the sentence as being a matter of general speculation:
Ilohfoi tia itskanan Sakial tomorrow Evid arrive-the:Abs Sakial "Perhaps Sakial will arrive tomorrow" or "One wonders if Sakial will arrive tomorrow"
The particle lue is similar to tia, in that it signals that the speaker is unsure if the sentence is true, and does not expect the listener to know either. Lue is used to report hearsay or rumour - i.e. information which the speaker has heard secondhand and cannot confirm:
Ilohfoi lue itskanan Sakial tomorrow Evid arrive-the:Abs Sakial "Sakial is arriving tomorrow, they say" or "Rumour has it that Sakial will arrive tomorrow"
Finally, the particle mo indicates that the sentence represents the speaker's personal opinion or belief:
Na Sakial mo uonia hostanat the:Erg Sakial Evid be:good:at dance-Dep "Sakial is a good dancer, in my opinion" or "I think that Sakial is a good dancer"
The particles tiefu, husu, and ala, together with the constituent negation marker tun, occupy a position immediately before the focus position, and after the topic field (or after the evidential particle, if there is one). Focus particles take scope over (or 'range' over) a following focussed element or verb phrase.
Tiefu is the equivalent of English only (in the sense of "solely" or "exclusively"). Examples of tiefu are given below:
Na moiha tiefu iase upam the:Erg girl only eat-Pst apple "The girl only ate an apple (and did nothing else)" Na moiha tiefu upam eiase the:Erg girl only apple Foc-eat-Pst "The girl only ate an apple (and nothing else)" or "The girl ate only an apple" Tiefu na moiha eiase upam only the:Erg girl Foc-eat-Pst apple "Only the girl ate an apple (and no-one else)"
In the first sentence, tiefu scopes over the verb phrase iase upam "ate an apple", and sets up an implicit comparison between this action and other possible actions which did not take place. In the second sentence, tiefu scopes over the object upam "apple", which is sitting in the focus position. In the third sentence, tiefu scopes over the subject na moiha "the girl". The fact that na moiha in the third sentence is sitting in the focus position rather than the topic position is indicated by the presence of the focus marker on the verb (see section 3.6.4).
The particle husu is equivalent to English even or also. The following examples illustrate the use of husu:
Na moiha husu iase upam the:Erg girl even/also eat-Pst apple "The girl also ate an apple (in addition to doing other things)" Na moiha husu upam eiase the:Erg girl even/also apple Foc-eat-Pst "The girl also ate an apple (in addition to eating other things)" Husu na moiha eiase upam even/also the:Erg girl Foc-eat-Pst apple "Even the girl ate an apple"
The sense of English even can be brought out by using husu together with the emphatic particle hio:
Te halma lhai hio husu na Sakial imalhun! the:Abs book here Emph even/also the:Erg Sakial Foc-read-Cpl "This book even Sakial has read!"
The particle ala is known as the 'distributive' particle. It is used with plural topics (or topics which include a quantifier like kekua "each"), and serves to indicate that the following verb phrase or focused element is distributed over the set of items in the topic: That is, for each element in the set of objects denoted by the topic, there is an individual event (or corresponding object). To see how this particle works, consider first the following sentence without ala:
Sa lati sepe es mekul meunu the:Pl:Erg children drink-Pst one bowl milk-Abl "The children drank a bowl of milk"
This sentence could mean one of two things: Either the children shared a single bowl of milk, or they each drank a separate bowl of milk (where the first reading is probably the preferred one). However, if we insert the particle ala, then the sentence can only have the second meaning:
Sa lati ala sepe es mekul meunu the:Pl:Erg children Dist drink-Pst one bowl milk-Abl "The children each drank a bowl of milk"
Here, ala indicates that for each child, there was a corresponding event of milk-drinking. Ala can also be used to distribute over objects. The following sentence, with es mekul meunu "a bowl of milk" in the focus position, emphasises that for each child there was a separate woman that s/he talked to:
Sa lati ala es iha ikuoponun the:Pl:Erg children Dist one woman Foc-talk:with-Cpl "The children each talked to a (different) woman"
Ala may be used in combination with te iat or ne iaton "the other" to express an alternating reciprocal event - that is, multiple participants performing a particular action on each other in turn:
Sa lati ala skonen iaton the:Pl:Erg children Dist look:at-Pst-the:Abs other "The children each looked at the other(s)" or "The children looked at each other (in turn)"
Finally, the negative focus particle tun marks constituent negation:
Na pyi tun ne iha ikuoponotun the:Erg child not the:Abs woman Foc-talk:with-Neg-Cpl "It's not the woman that the child talked to (but someone else)" Tun na pyi ikuoponotunne iha not the:Erg child Foc-talk:with-Neg-Cpl-the:Abs woman "It's not the child who talked to the woman (but someone else)"
Note that when the focused element occurs outside of negation, then the preverbal negative particle tu (combined with the focus prefix i- to form itù) is used in place of tun:
Na pyi itù kuopotunne iha the:Erg child Foc-not talk:with-Neg-Cpl-the:Abs woman "It's the child who didn't talk to the woman (not someone else)"
Tun and tu can also be used together, yielding a double negative:
Tun na pyi itù kuopotunne iha not the:Erg child Foc-not talk:with-Neg-Cpl-the:Abs woman "It's not the child who didn't talk to the woman (but someone else)"
There is an element ia which I will classify as a particle, even though it does not occupy a fixed position in the sentence. This particle appears to have two distinct uses, which may or may not be related:
(1) As a vocative particle: When using a name or title (e.g. a kinship term) to address someone, ia occurs in place of the determiner. Compare the following:
Ne Han lhiane the:Abs Han come:here-Pst "Han came here" Ne kamelihpama lhiane the:Abs cousin-my:NA come:here-Pst "My cousin came here" Slune lhiana, ia Han please come:here Voc Han "Please come here, Han" Slune lhiana, ia kamelihpama please come:here Voc cousin-my:NA "Please come here, cousin"
(2) As a quotative particle: Ia is used with verbs such as itsa "say", nesepa "ask", etc., to introduce direct quoted speech. In this usage, ia may be followed by a single word, a phrase, or a complete sentence:
Ani itsema ia tune she:Erg say-Pst-me:NA Quot no "She said no to me" Ani itsema ia nelho ie klotat she:Erg say-Pst-me:NA Quot leave-Imp with quick-Dep "She told me to leave quickly" lit. "She said to me: Leave quickly!" Ani nesepema ia, Melh ni sikà? she:Erg ask-Pst-me:NA Quot where Qu to "She asked me, 'Where (are you going) to?'"
Compare the example above with the one below, where the quotation is indirect, and ia is absent:
Ani nesepema melh n'ietanme she:Erg ask-Pst-me:NA where Qu-Foc-go-Dep-I:NA "She asked me where I was going"
Note also the use of ia with the verb taksa "be named, be called" in the following example (this is similar to, but distinct from, the vocative use of ia):
Mai taksa ia Elim I:Abs be:called Quot Elim "My name is Elim" lit. "I am called 'Elim'"
Compare this with the following example, where ia is used in juxtaposition to a noun koin "a person". Here ia serves to introduce the name of the individual denoted by the noun:
Ami inlotka kuole koin ia Elim I:Erg yesterday meet-Pst person Quot Elim "Yesterday I met a person called Elim" more lit. "Yesterday I met a person 'Elim'"