For the 'new' relations, ADVRS, NEG, ANT, COND, and RESL, for which there is no specialized native marker available, insertion seems to be the only logical option, although we have argued that for at least ANT and COND, the CNTMP marker might have been a substitute in some cases, while CONJ
might have been present in at least part of the potential ADVRS cases.
From this definition and the logical fact, "For all P, Q, if <2+2 = 4> materially implies CONJ
(P,Q), then <2+2 = 4> materially implies P", it is readily inferred that true conjunctions have true conjuncts.
For convenience, we treat CONJ
as if it took n-tuples of propositions and returned "their conjunction".
ina i tina evriskis pembe remember-IMP,2SG CONJ
if someone find-2SG send-IMP,2SG pros eme to me 'Remember .
ABL ablative ACC accusative COMP completive aspect CONJ
:SUBJ conjunct subject CONJ
:UNDER conjunct undergoer DISJ disjunct DROP perfective serial verb FUT future tense IMPF imperfective aspect IMPFPART imperfective participle INF infinitive INTER interrogative LOC locative NEG negative NOM nominative PAST past tense PFPART perfective participle Q question marker Q:UNSURE uncertain question marker SG singular TEMP temporal clitic TOP topic marker WHEN temporal subordinator
N) destroy) (what AOR1SG get + CONJ
work) `(I don't intend to stand around) (and watch you) (ruin) (what I've managed to do).