Knowledge base · source

Ijäs 2023

Ijäs, Silja (2023). Aynu itak a-eyaypakasnu ro — Let’s learn Ainu: Ainu language grammar guide.

prior-analysis hokkaido text held locally

Chapters citing this source

Examples cited from this source

Sentences of the first edition citing this source

1. Ijäs (2023) provides an accessible English-language learner grammar of Ainu, available as an online guide. no page Aims, Scope, and Design Philosophy of This Grammar
2. The last generation with full first-language command was born approximately between 1900 and 1910; their children acquired Japanese as the primary language and did not transmit Ainu in the home ; . no page The Sociolinguistic Situation: Endangerment and Revitalization
3. Satō notates the same morphemes with hyphens — ku-ye, a-kor — as does Ijäs's teaching grammar , and Yu records both practices side by side . no page Interlinear Glossing, Abbreviations, and Citation Conventions
4. It has never been universal: Tamura's dictionary and papers print inflected forms solid or hyphenated, Refsing and Satō use hyphens for all bound morphemes (ku-kor wa k-ek), and Ijäs follows the hyphen practice; Nakagawa and the Handbook tradition use =, and it is adopted here. no page The Latin Phonemic Transcription
5. Ijäs's online pedagogical grammar represents the most accessible English-medium resource for learners, and it applies the modern romanization throughout. no page Orthographic Standardization and the Word-Division Problem
6. The practice is not universal: it dominates the Nakagawa-lineage descriptive and pedagogical literature, while Satō consistently writes the person markers with hyphens (ku-kor wa k-ek 'I bring it') , as does Ijäs ; Hattori's dialect dictionary and much of Tamura's work print the inflected forms solid (kumokor, kuytak); and Kirikae separates the person marker as an independent word (ku mokor). no page Orthographic Standardization and the Word-Division Problem
7. Ijäs follows the six-class scheme in her pedagogical grammar. no page The Word-Class Inventory and the Noun/Verb Bipartition
8. The pedagogical account in uses the person-affix set as its primary classificatory criterion, organizing the verb inventory in the same way. no page Verbal Subclasses: A Valence-Based Word-Class Taxonomy
9. presents property verbs as intransitive stative verbs throughout the pedagogical guide, with no separate adjective paradigm and with stative versus inchoative readings resolved by context. no page The 'No Adjective Class' Thesis: Property Concepts as Stative Verbs
10. The principal derivational suffix operating on Hokkaido Ainu nouns for size and affect is , which attaches to a noun stem to yield a derivative meaning 'small X' or 'dear X' ; ; . no page Derivational Morphology on Nouns: Diminutive, Augmentative, and Size Modification
11. Two semantic values are present in the attested data and are recognized by subsequent treatments ; . no page Derivational Morphology on Nouns: Diminutive, Augmentative, and Size Modification
12. presents the compound–phrase distinction as a key point for learners of Ainu, treating the presence or absence of internal syntactic modification (TAM morphology, person marking) on the first element as the diagnostic: a root bearing its own grammatical morphology is in a phrase; a root appearing directly before the head with no such morphology is a compound constituent. no page Noun–Noun Compounding: Headedness, Linking, and Semantics
13. The nominalizer appears as p after a vowel-final form and as pe after a consonant-final one ; . no page Deverbal and Denominal Noun Derivation (Lexical Nominalizer Morphology)
14. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar presents the same associative reading . no page Nominal Number: Transnumerality, -utar, and the Locus of Plurality
15. No agreement morphology links a modifier to its head; modification is juxtapositional throughout ; ; . no page The Structure of the Noun Phrase
16. The two-construction distinction is documented in all major descriptive and pedagogical accounts ; ; . no page The Alienable/Inalienable Split and Possessive Classification
17. The pedagogical grammar of presents the consonant-final class under the label 'belonging form' and treats -ihi as the default suffix, consistent with the ③-1 analysis. no page Morphophonology of the Affiliative Suffix and Echo/Copy Vowels
18. The same paradigm is presented in the Ijäs (2023) learner grammar under the label "possessive prefixes", with the A-set identity made explicit for learners . no page Adnominal Possession: Double Marking and the Appositive Construction
19. The Ijäs pedagogical grammar covers the core nea forms alongside the deictic series . no page Demonstratives, Anaphora, and Definiteness
20. The same analysis underlies Ijäs's pedagogical treatment , which presents the locative construction as a possessed-noun-plus-particle sequence. no page Relational and Spatial (Locative) Nouns and Their Possessed Forms
21. The pedagogical grammar by Ijäs places some members of the class in its postposition section alongside case particles — a pragmatic descriptive choice that reflects the adpositional function these forms serve for learners. no page Relational and Spatial (Locative) Nouns and Their Possessed Forms
22. Ijäs 2023 presents the same two-class organization . no page Postpositions, Local Case, Motion Events, Comitative, and Instrumental
23. The subtractive structure is complex to produce and rare in classical oral texts , and the pedagogical grammar of teaches both the vigesimal and a simplified decimal alternative, reflecting classroom practice. no page The Vigesimal Numeral System
24. Ijäs's classroom image of verb pockets, filled before and more obligatorily than free pronouns or full noun phrases, names the same head-marking fact for learners . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
25. Tense is absent as an inflectional category: a bare verb form is read as past, present, or future from context, temporal adverbs, or discourse sequencing ; ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
26. There is no separate adjective class; meanings rendered by English or Japanese adjectives are intransitive verbs, and a stative reading ordinarily carries an inchoative one — Ijäs presents hure as both 'be red' and 'become red', matching Nakagawa's poro 'be big; become big' and the imperative evidence Shibatani adduces for the verbal status of quality predicates ; ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
27. Person marking is obligatory while independent pronouns are optional, so the language is consistently pro-dropping and verb-final ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
28. Ijäs's learner grammar reaches the same architecture through the contrast of verb pockets and external slots: the arguments are cross-referenced on the verb first, and a bare clause such as numan hekaci cep koyki presents both participants as bare noun phrases with an unmarked third-person verb . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
29. Nakagawa and Bugaeva and Kobayashi use the numeric labels 0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-argument verb precisely to keep the noun-phrase count apart from the person-affix fact of intransitive versus transitive; Satō, Tamura, and Ijäs keep the traditional intransitive/transitive/ditransitive terms ; ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
30. Ijäs presents these as avalent verbs with the same examples, including the analysis of sir- 'surroundings' and a non-free me- 'cold' . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
31. Where the contributing element is itself a free noun, the analysis is genuinely open: Ijäs treats apto as 'it rains' as a single avalent unit, but Nakagawa leaves it undecided, since apto 'rain' is an autonomous noun and the string may be a two-word clause ; ‹contested›. no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
32. The same root that gives a weather predicate often has an intransitive counterpart that does take a subject — climatic mean 'it is cold' beside experiential merayke 'feel cold' — a contrast Ijäs marks and Nakagawa lays out as a paired paradigm ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
33. Number in Hokkaido Ainu sits on the verb, not the noun: nouns are number-neutral and read as singular or plural by context — Ijäs notes that cep 'fish' may be either — while a minority of verbs have distinct singular and plural stems ; . no page The Verb Word and Its Position-Class Template
34. Ijäs's Lessons 2 and 3 introduce the same inventory for learners as avalent, intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive verbs, and present Hokkaido Ainu as a pro-drop, verb-final, head-marking language whose verb has argument "pockets" that are filled before, and more obligatorily than, any external noun-phrase "slot" . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
35. Two background conditions stated in the same lessons frame the classification: verb forms carry no tense inflection, and nouns are number-neutral unless plurality is supplied lexically or by context, so that cep 'fish' may be read as singular or plural ; ; . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
36. Ijäs illustrates the ordinary transitive frame with a third-person subject and a third-person object: neither is segmentally marked, yet the two bare noun phrases fill the A and O positions of a two-place verb . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
37. Ijäs groups the same predicates as avalent and notes that descriptive meanings belong to the verbal system, since Hokkaido Ainu has no adjective class distinct from verbs and a stative verb such as hure 'be red' carries the inchoative reading 'become red' as well ; ; . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
38. Where the contributing element is itself a free noun the analysis is open: Ijäs treats apto as 'it rains' as a single avalent unit, whereas Nakagawa leaves it undecided, since apto 'rain' is an autonomous noun and the string may be a two-word subject-plus-verb clause ; ‹contested›. no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
39. Ijäs presents the ditransitive frame as subject, indirect object, and direct object, with the recipient placed before the theme . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
40. Ijäs's zero sign for the unmarked third person is compatible with either side if it is read as the absence of an overt segment . no page Transitivity, Valence Classes, and Ambitransitivity
41. Ijäs's learner grammar states the same architecture for the classroom: nouns do not inflect for number, and a subset of verbs have distinct singular and plural forms, set out in her Lesson 9 . no page Verbal Number: Suppletive Stems and the Pluractional -pa
42. The direct frame somo V places the negator before the whole person-marked verb and does not split a person prefix from the stem ; . no page Light Verbs, Pro-Verbs, and the Auxiliary-Verb Construction
43. Shibatani analyses these as subject-incorporation, and Ijäs teaches them as avalent weather verbs ; . no page Light Verbs, Pro-Verbs, and the Auxiliary-Verb Construction
44. ; ; . no page Light Verbs, Pro-Verbs, and the Auxiliary-Verb Construction
45. ; ; . no page Light Verbs, Pro-Verbs, and the Auxiliary-Verb Construction
46. ; . no page Light Verbs, Pro-Verbs, and the Auxiliary-Verb Construction
47. Her zero-place, one-place, two-place, and three-place classes correspond to Nakagawa's N-place inventory, Satō's argument-slot count, and the Handbook valency chapter ; ; . no page Denominal and Deverbal Verb Derivation
48. Ijäs gives the learner formulation: yields moyre-no 'slowly' . no page The Adverbializer -no and Adverb Formation from Verbs
49. Ijäs explicitly records poronno as the correct output and excludes the regularized *porono ‹consensus›. no page The Adverbializer -no and Adverb Formation from Verbs
50. Ijäs identifies the same two uses of no and presents a further conditioning factor: she describes it as the choice when the linked clauses share a subject, with wa favoured when they do not . no page The Adverbializer -no and Adverb Formation from Verbs
51. Satō and Tamura write these forms with a hyphen; the learner grammar of Ijäs does likewise, stating the hyphen is a teaching convention rather than a pronunciation symbol . no page First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
52. Ijäs introduces ku= early as the obligatory subject marker on both transitive and intransitive verbs, presenting it before the optional independent pronoun and treating the pronoun as emphatic or clarifying rather than grammatically required . no page First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
53. An idiosyncratic note in Ijäs's phonetic guidance specifies that initial i retains the fuller form and that careful Saru speech may realise the u vowel before other vowels; these are L2-oriented observations about pronunciation and do not affect the morphological alternation . no page First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
54. Ijäs presents the bare-en= situation to learners as a predictable rule: when the 1SG participant is in O position and the subject is second or third person, the verb shows only en=, with the subject inferred from context . no page First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
55. Ijäs flags this ambiguity explicitly in her fifth lesson as a diagnostic for learners . no page First- and Second-Person Singular Affixes (ku=/en=, e=/e=)
56. Ijäs's learner grammar writes the exclusive markers as ci-, -as, and un-, with hyphens used as a teaching convention rather than a phonological boundary symbol . no page First-Person Plural and the Clusivity Question (ci=/=as, un=)
57. The online learner grammar by Ijäs introduces e= in Lesson 2 as the second-person singular index on intransitive verbs; the plural counterpart is deferred . no page The eci= Portmanteau (1A→2O) and Second-Person Plural Syncretism
58. Lesson 5 then presents eci= as the marker for a first-person singular agent acting on a second-person singular object, and e= as the second-person singular object form with a third-person agent . no page The eci= Portmanteau (1A→2O) and Second-Person Plural Syncretism
59. Ijäs notes that second-person neutrality creates an interpretive ambiguity: a predicate carrying e= alongside a third-person participant can be read with the addressee as either agent or object unless additional context fixes the role . no page The eci= Portmanteau (1A→2O) and Second-Person Plural Syncretism
60. Ijäs writes e- and eci- with a hyphen and notes that equal signs are also in common use ; the forms in this chapter are normalized accordingly. no page The eci= Portmanteau (1A→2O) and Second-Person Plural Syncretism
61. Ijäs's Lesson 5 introduces the O set through an "object markers" frame: the English object pronoun corresponds to a verbal prefix on the Ainu finite verb, so that "me" and "you" map onto en= and e= respectively . no page Object Indexing: Monotransitive and Ditransitive Clauses
62. Ijäs notes this as one of the practically challenging features of the O set for learners of Saru . no page Object Indexing: Monotransitive and Ditransitive Clauses
63. Ijäs's learner grammar illustrates the same generic-human value, glossing a=nu as 'people hear (it)' in a lesson on perceptible sounds . no page The Indefinite/Fourth Person: Forms, Reference, and Agent-Defocusing
64. Ijäs's online pedagogical grammar documents several present-day address strategies for L2 learners, including plural-stem imperatives with the final particle as a routine polite request, and the use of and as address terms for non-relatives . no page Honorific and Logophoric Uses of the Fourth Person
65. Ijäs's online pedagogical grammar presents the same left-right ordering for L2 learners, grouping person indexes as the verb's obligatory argument positions and treating noun phrases as optional outer constituents . no page The Personal-Affix Template: Position Classes and Affix Ordering
66. Ijäs's learner grammar states the same split: intransitive plural follows S, transitive plural ordinarily follows O or the action . no page Person–Number Interactions and Plural Agreement
67. Ijäs treats weather expressions as avalent and places ambient forms in that category; Nakagawa agrees on the category but leaves apto as 'rain falls' analytically uncertain, since apto 'rain' is an autonomous noun that can function as a subject in other constructions ; ‹contested›. no page The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
68. Her Lesson 2 states that intransitive verbs take one argument and Lesson 3 that transitives take two; these arity classes align with Nakagawa's zero/one/two/three-place distinctions and Satō's valence discussion ; ; . no page The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
69. Her Lesson 9 account of i- as an antipassive filling the object position with a generic 'thing/place' meaning aligns in substance with the Bugaeva line; Satō uses a derivational-prefix label without the term 'antipassive' ; ; ‹contested›. no page The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
70. Her Lesson 3 formulation that the indirect object falls between subject and object in ditransitives is a pedagogical word-order simplification; Nakagawa's ditransitive examples show no fixed order for the two non-subject noun phrases ; ‹contested›. no page The Split-Intransitive (Active–Stative) Core
71. Ijäs's learner grammar presents the same operational generalization for L2 learners: a finite verb obligatorily indexes its non-third participants while third-person arguments surface as bare noun phrases . no page Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
72. Nakagawa's three-place-verb examples show that the two object phrases and the subject are not locked in a single linear order ; . no page Tripartite, Nominative-Accusative, and the Central Alignment Debate
73. Ijäs’s learner image of argument “pockets” on the verb beside external “slots” renders the same head-marking intuition ; her terms are pedagogical and her example sentences constructed ‹consensus›. no page Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
74. Ijäs’s Lesson 9 statement that -re “turns intransitive verbs into transitive verbs” gives the right entry intuition but states no allomorphy and conflates causation with transitivization ; ‹consensus›. no page Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
75. Satō’s textbook treats the identical prefix as a derivational i- ‘people, someone’ and uses no antipassive label ; ; ; ‹contested›. no page Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
76. Ijäs’s Lesson 9 gloss ‘mutually, each other’ captures the core reciprocal ‹consensus›. no page Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
77. Valency morphology also interacts with verbal number, since what a plural stem or the plural -pa tracks depends on transitivity: an intransitive plural tracks subject number, a transitive plural tracks object or event number ; ‹consensus›. no page Valency, Voice, and Noun Incorporation: Overview
78. Ijäs's Lesson 9 formulation that -re "simply turns intransitive verbs into transitive verbs" is a workable approximation for the basic indirect causative; it omits the allomorphic detail, the permissive reading, the causativization of transitives, and the direct-causative uses ‹consensus›. no page The Morphological Causative -re / -e / -te
79. Ijäs's Lesson 9 states that -re 'turns intransitive verbs into transitive verbs', which captures the right intuition for the valency-increasing set as a whole but supplies no allomorphy and does not distinguish -ka, -ke, or the lexical forming-suffix pairs as separate sub-types ‹consensus› no page The Transitivizer -ka and Lexical Valency Pairs
80. Her accompanying claim that the indirect object falls between subject and direct object in a fixed position is a pedagogical simplification: Nakagawa's data show the two objects of a ditransitive in variable order ; ‹consensus›. no page Causee Marking, Ditransitive and Double Causatives
81. Ijäs's learner grammar does not treat -yar; Lesson 9 on special verb forms discusses the causative, reciprocal, and antipassive but covers only -re among the causative types . no page The Permissive/Sociative Causative -yar
82. Ijäs's learner grammar surveys transitive and derived forms but does not extend to the applicative prefixes in the banked lessons; the pedagogical description is in Satō's Lesson 31 ; . no page The Applicative System: Overview and the Preverb-vs-Applicative Debate
83. The learner grammar of includes ekoyayirayke among its ditransitive examples (Lesson 3). no page The ko- Applicative
84. Ijäs describes o / oma as a 'special locative-transitive' in which the subject is the thing placed and the object is the place, and identifies the causative form as the means of adding an external putter to the argument frame ‹consensus›. no page The o- Applicative
85. Ijäs's Basic Lessons 3 and 9 do not cover applicative stacking or the feeding relations; the lessons treat i- and -re as independent operations without addressing their combination with applicatives or with relativization . no page Applicative Stacking, Ordering, and the Feeding of Relativization
86. Ijäs's learner grammar also uses the antipassive label; her characterization — the prefix 'takes the place of the object and fills it with a generic meaning of thing/place' — renders Bugaeva's substance accurately ‹contested›. no page The Antipassive / Detransitive i-
87. Ijäs's learner lessons (L3 and L9) do not cover the reflexive prefixes, as she addresses them in later material . no page The Reflexive yay-
88. The learner grammar of (Lesson 9-10) also lists (from ) as a standard reciprocal, and gives the pair / ; both are confirmed by the primary sources ‹consensus› no page The Reciprocal u-
89. Ijäs's learner grammar does not treat the passive question or the ci- middle . no page Middle, Anticausative, and the (Non-)Passive Question
90. Ijäs's Lesson 3 introduces the two-argument transitive frame with the constructed example numan hekaci cep koyki 'the boy caught some fish' , the phrasal form of the root that appears incorporated as cep-koyki above. no page Object (Patient) Noun Incorporation
91. The prefix is analysed as an antipassive on syntactic, semantic, and discourse grounds by Bugaeva (2021), and labelled accordingly by Nakagawa (2024: 190–192) and Ijäs (Lesson 9) ; . no page Oblique Incorporation and the Syntactic-vs-Lexicalist Debate
92. captures the same pattern pedagogically, describing the verb as having obligatory "pockets" for its arguments and the overt NP as redundant: "you would need to convey the same information twice but that would be very uneconomical." no page Argument Realization: Affix Indexing and Free NP Order
93. The pedagogical grammar of likewise describes Ainu as SOV and explains apparent flexibility by appeal to the zero third-person marker, such that "if we put the linguists' zero mark (Ø) in our example sentence … the word order indeed is correct." This framing is pedagogically effective but does not engage the evidence for genuine order freedom. no page Pro-Drop, (Non)configurationality, and the Pronominal-Argument Debate
94. Ijäs treats the construction as a standard conditional antecedent in her pedagogical grammar, noting that the copula in the conditional takes the same transitive-subject person indexes as in the declarative . no page Oblique and Adjunct Syntax; Verbless and Presentational Clauses
95. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar covers the copula in its treatment of basic clause types . no page The Copula ne and Predicate-Nominal Clauses
96. The pedagogical grammar of likewise introduces kor as the canonical possession verb. no page Predicative Possession: kor, Existential Possession, and isam
97. The etymological decomposition of isam as i- (antipassive) + root *sam is ‹speculative› and is proposed independently by and by (lesson 9); see for fuller discussion. no page TAM, Evidentiality, and Negation on Nonverbal Predicates
98. Ijäs teaches the same rule for relative clauses generally: the modifying verb phrase precedes the head, there is no relative pronoun, and an oblique head keeps the postposition fronted within the clause . no page The Nominalizers -p/-pe and -i/-hi (Participant, Event, Place, Fact)
99. ; . no page The Nominalizers -p/-pe and -i/-hi (Participant, Event, Place, Fact)
100. Ijäs observes that usi-headed compound nouns — such as ipeusi 'restaurant' (lit. 'eating-place') — are historical RC nominalizations, and that usi-words require no relational noun or before movement-case postpositions ‹consensus›. no page Lexical-Head and Formal-Noun Nominalization (kur, uske, ruwe/hawe/siri/humi)
101. Ijäs's observation that usi-words such as ipeusi 'restaurant' ('eating-place') descend historically from RC structures aligns with Bugaeva's Stage II account and with Shibatani's finding that -p(e), -i, -ike, and -kur function as both phrasal and lexical nominalizers ; ; ‹consensus›. no page Lexical-Head and Formal-Noun Nominalization (kur, uske, ruwe/hawe/siri/humi)
102. Ijäs reports the same absence and explicitly withholds constructed examples for these positions . no page Relative Clauses: The Gap Strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy
103. Ijäs's English-language grammar guide covers relative clauses in Lesson 11 . no page Relative Clauses: The Gap Strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy
104. Her inability to locate attested examples of ablative wa(no) or mutative ne as RC heads is shared by all sources read here; the forms she cautiously suggests for these positions should not be treated as established ‹corpus-suggested›. no page Relative Clauses: The Gap Strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy
105. Ijäs observes that place nouns such as derive historically from headless relative clauses with as the head, and that lexicalized usi-type nouns need no accompanying relational noun when used synchronically, unlike the productive headless-RC construction ; . no page Headless, Internally-Headed, and Noun-Modifying Clause Analyses
106. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar covers relative clauses and the formal-noun nominalizer system in Lesson 11 — the material banked for this grammar's nominalization domain — but her treatment of direct and indirect speech falls in a separate lesson not yet incorporated here . no page Quotative Complementation and Reported Speech (sekor)
107. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar introduces relative clauses and notes that formal nouns such as uske 'place/time' are best understood as nouns that have historically originated from relative-clause constructions, without committing to a formal analysis of the biclausal-vs-monoclausal debate . no page Nominalized Complements and Control/Raising
108. The lexical material of these frames comes from the suppletive singular/plural verb pairs that Ijäs's Lesson 9 catalogues as special verb forms — a/rok 'sit', an/oka 'exist', ek/arki 'come', arpa/paye 'go' ; . no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
109. Ijäs glosses it 'be going to, intend to, plan to', matching Nakagawa and Satō, but her pedagogical orthography writes kusune as one word; the analysis followed here is the conjunction kusu plus the copula ne, with the one-word spelling kept as a teaching convention and carrying no separate morphological claim ; ; . no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
110. Ijäs's Lesson 9 records a repeated a ... a pattern as prolonged continuity; this is the reduplicated perfective with an iterative value, and the full account of a, its reduplication, and aan is given in ; ‹corpus-confirmed›. no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
111. Ijäs gives the same range — 'must have' on a past event, 'probably' on a future one — and adds an etymology from a verb 'be trustworthy'; no source read for this account confirms that derivation, and it is best left as her own suggestion ‹speculative›. no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
112. Ijäs treats easkay and eaykap correctly as a lexical positive–negative pair ; ‹consensus›. no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
113. Ijäs's command lesson matches these points and warns explicitly against the second-person subject affix ‹consensus›. no page Tense, Aspect, Mood, and Modality: Overview
114. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar covers the same set under 'be going to, intend to, plan to', correctly grouping them as modal rather than tense, and observes that nankor with a future-oriented proposition yields a probability reading . no page Tenselessness and the Time-Reference System
115. The segmentation of kusu ne as the conjunction kusu plus the copula ne — rather than a single morpheme — is followed here in preference to the one-word pedagogical spelling kusune ; ; . no page Tenselessness and the Time-Reference System
116. The two are in strict complementary distribution by the number of the controlling argument ; ; ‹consensus›. no page The Existential-Aspect System: kor an Progressive and wa an Resultative-Perfect
117. Ijäs catalogues an/oka as one of several suppletive pairs — alongside a/rok 'sit', ek/arki 'come', and arpa/paye 'go' — whose number suppletion extends into grammaticalized contexts ; ‹consensus›. no page The Existential-Aspect System: kor an Progressive and wa an Resultative-Perfect
118. Ijäs's Lesson 9 catalogues the a / rok suppletive pair as a morphological special form alongside ek / arki 'come' and an / oka 'exist', without connecting the pair directly to the grammaticalized auxiliary . no page The Perfective/Anterior Particle a (a, a…a, aan)
119. Ijäs records an a … a pattern glossed 'verb and verb (prolonged continuity)' but does not connect it to the auxiliary ; the connection is established by Nakagawa's glossed corpus examples ‹corpus-confirmed›. no page The Perfective/Anterior Particle a (a, a…a, aan)
120. Ijäs, in her Lesson 9, treats prolonged continuity without connecting the pattern to the auxiliary a; the correspondence is established by Nakagawa ; ‹corpus-confirmed›. no page Phasal, Iterative, and Habitual Aspect
121. The adverbial particle softens the command into a polite reminder, and the preverbal adverb (and its dialect equivalents) converts any imperative into a prohibitive ; ; . no page Imperative and Prohibitive (Directive Mood)
122. All carry the second-person subject prefix, which distinguishes them formally from the bare-stem imperative ; . no page Imperative and Prohibitive (Directive Mood)
123. The indirect-directive constructions — yak pirka, nankor na, and their kin — carry the second-person subject prefix as their own diagnostic property, setting them formally apart from the direct imperative and connecting them to the deontic modality system of ; ‹consensus›. no page Imperative and Prohibitive (Directive Mood)
124. Ijäs's pedagogical guide carries a hortative clause in its own title: a=eyaypakasnu ro 'let us study [Ainu]', in which the fourth-person transitive agent prefix a= heads an inclusive proposition and ro expresses the invitation ‹corpus-confirmed›. no page Hortative, Optative, and Cohortative
125. The desiderative construction handles one of the core functions that infinitival complements serve in other languages . no page The Desiderative rusuy
126. The relationship is lexical: inability is encoded in eaykap as a separate form, and negating easkay with somo does not produce the same value ; ‹consensus›. no page Abilitative easkay / eaykap (Ability and Possibility)
127. Ijäs illustrates the distinction in a constructed example : no page Abilitative easkay / eaykap (Ability and Possibility)
128. Ability and inability are lexicalized in separate words rather than derived by negating a single base, and the same holds for the experiential pair amkir / eramiskari ; ‹consensus›. no page Abilitative easkay / eaykap (Ability and Possibility)
129. These four expressions cover advice, negative advice, permission, and futility ; . no page Deontic Necessity and Obligation (kuni ne, kus ne)
130. Ijäs presents the same range for kus(u) ne — 'be going to, intend to, plan to' — and the analysis adopted here keeps the two-morpheme segmentation (conjunction kusu + copula ne) against her pedagogical one-word spelling kusune ‹consensus›. no page Deontic Necessity and Obligation (kuni ne, kus ne)
131. The construction iteki … kus ne na extends the prohibitive adverb iteki into the mitigated-prohibition frame, producing 'be careful not to V'; Nakagawa provides an attested example and Ijäs's rendering iteki e=eyruska kus ne na hani! matches it ; ‹consensus›. no page Deontic Necessity and Obligation (kuni ne, kus ne)
132. With a second-person subject and the sentence-final particle na, nankor shifts from probability to a softened expectation or indirect command — 「〜だろうよ」 — functioning as a milder alternative to the bare imperative ; . no page Epistemic Modality, Dubitative, Intentive, and Irrealis
133. Ijäs (Lesson 10) proposes that the modal nankor derives from a lexical verb nankor 'be trustworthy', but marks this derivation as probable rather than established ‹speculative›. no page Epistemic Modality, Dubitative, Intentive, and Irrealis
134. Ijäs writes the sequence as a single orthographic word, kusune, and tags it AUX or PRT-FIN; the analysis followed here retains the two-morpheme parse — conjunction kusu plus copula ne — treating the one-word spelling as a pedagogical convention rather than a morphological claim ; . no page Epistemic Modality, Dubitative, Intentive, and Irrealis
135. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar presents the system under the evidentiality framing without adopting any of the specific theoretical positions above . no page The Nominalization-plus-Copula Evidential Schema
136. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar treats humi ne under the evidential framing without adjudicating the analytical disputes discussed in . no page humi ne — the Non-Visual Sensory Evidential
137. The pedagogical grammar presents the evidential nominalizers alongside perfective and mirative auxiliaries without foregrounding the structural distinction between them. no page Mirativity, Evidential Scope, and Grammaticalization to Sentence-Final Particles
138. Ijäs presents the same architecture for learners: copular ‘A is not B’ is A B somo ne, agreeing with Satō’s paradigm and Nakagawa’s ordering description ; ; . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
139. Ijäs gives learners the same warning against splitting the personal affix from its stem with the negator . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
140. Ijäs’s pedagogical account agrees, describing ki as a dummy ‘do’ verb filling the slot that somo cannot occupy on its own . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
141. Nakagawa finds no clear semantic contrast between the preverbal frame and the somo ki frame, and likewise no special meaning in the presence or absence of ka ; Ijäs treats the longer construction as broadly exchangeable with plain somo . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
142. ; . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
143. Ijäs presents ka somo ne as the more emphatic equative negation, glossing ka ‘also, even, at all’ . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
144. ; . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
145. Dal Corso’s Sakhalin-focused comparative work links somo and isam to an older negative-existential root *sam, deriving somo from a form like *samno and isam from antipassive i- on that root; Ijäs reaches the same speculation for isam, marking it as conjectural ; . no page Standard Clausal Negation with somo
146. Ijäs groups the same items as ‘lexically negated verbs’, pairing an/oka with isam and kor with sak . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
147. Ijäs proposes a semantic division: isam denotes complete absence or disappearance, while somo an is used where an keeps its broader value ‘live, be located’, and can additionally mark an absurd or impossible existence . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
148. Ijäs presents isam and sak as the normal negatives wherever such a paired verb exists, so that somo plus the positive counterpart is ‘not usually possible’ . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
149. Bugaeva identifies sak as the lexical negative of kor ‘have’ , and Ijäs gives the same pair . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
150. Ijäs extends the observation to lexical negatives such as sak and isam . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
151. Ijäs independently reaches essentially the same segmentation, i- plus a lost transitive sam* ‘something is not located’, and explicitly labels it speculation . no page Negative Existential and Possessive: isam
152. Easkay is e-askay, the applicative e- on askay ‘be skilled’, and eaykap is e-aykap, the same prefix on aykap ‘be unskilful’ ; ; . no page Negative Predicates of Ability and Cognition
153. The strengthening that Ijäs assigns to the slot pedagogically is the ordinary scalar contribution of ka, not a separate negative morphology . no page Negative Predicates of Ability and Cognition
154. Ijäs's pedagogical contrast between experiential knowledge and understanding follows this same source split ‹consensus›. no page Negative Predicates of Ability and Cognition
155. Ijäs states the rule categorically: where a lexical negative exists, somo plus the positive verb is not normally possible, so that one says k=erampewtek and not *somo k=eraman . no page Negative Predicates of Ability and Cognition
156. Ijäs lists lexical opposites such as eese ‘agree’ / kopan ‘refuse’ and pa ‘find’ / turaynu ‘lose’, which remain ordinary verbs and take somo in the normal way . no page Negative Predicates of Ability and Cognition
157. Ijäs presents the longer construction as emphatic and broadly exchangeable with plain somo, glossing ka ‘also, even, at all’ . no page Negative-Polarity Indefinites and the Scope of Negation
158. The copular negation NP (ka) somo ne uses the same focus particle with the copula ne as its host, and Ijäs treats ka somo ne as the more emphatic way of saying ‘A is not B’ ; : no page Negative-Polarity Indefinites and the Scope of Negation
159. Constructed teaching examples in Ijäs use the same scalar logic, placing oar under somo for ‘completely not, absolutely not’; these illustrate an attested pattern but are not corpus evidence . no page Negative-Polarity Indefinites and the Scope of Negation
160. A plain verb is the most direct command; iteki followed by yan with a plural verb stem addresses a plural or respected hearer; iteki with hani softens the directive ; ; . no page The Prohibitive Subsystem: iteki and Negative Directives
161. Ijäs formulates the classroom rule as ‘do Y without doing X’: the prohibited predicate is linked with no and the following predicate carries the positive directive . no page The Prohibitive Subsystem: iteki and Negative Directives
162. The division follows the boundary between propositional negation and negative directive force; the illustrating sentence is constructed in Ijäs’s pedagogical text . no page The Prohibitive Subsystem: iteki and Negative Directives
163. Wa is the sequential linker, the ablative case particle, and a sentence-final emphatic; kor is a linker and the transitive verb ‘have’; kusu is a causal/purpose linker, a free ‘therefore’, and part of the intention auxiliary kusu ne; no is a linker and the adverb-forming suffix -no ; . no page Clause Linkage in Ainu: Typology and Inventory
164. In Saru and Chitose it frames a direct quote with a verb of speaking or thinking, names entities in the pattern X sekor a=ye ‘call it X’, and frames cries and mimetic sound, its history transparent in ‘say’ plus ‘while’ ; . no page Clause Linkage in Ainu: Typology and Inventory
165. The free connective adverb orowa(no) 'and then, from there after' can follow a wa-marked clause to make the sequential boundary more prominent ; . no page Sequential wa and Clause Chaining
166. The particle easir 'only then, at that point' frequently follows ayne to mark the delay before the outcome ; . no page Sequential wa and Clause Chaining
167. The form wa covers at least three distinct grammatical entries, kept apart by position and syntactic host rather than by form ; . no page Sequential wa and Clause Chaining
168. The simultaneity particle provides a direct test: it takes different-subject complements without restriction, as in Saru ku=horipi kor en=nukar 'she looked at me while I danced' , corroborated by an oral-literature example in Satō . no page The hine/akusu Contrast and Switch-Reference-Like Linkage
169. Ijäs offers the pedagogical heuristic that negated clauses take no when the two predicates share a subject and wa when they do not . no page The hine/akusu Contrast and Switch-Reference-Like Linkage
170. The same segment is also the transitive verb 'have, possess', creating a three-way collision of forms that both Nakagawa and Ijäs flag explicitly ; . no page Simultaneous kor 'while' and Overlapping-Event Clauses
171. Satō demonstrates this with an example where the speaking subjects (mother and father) are distinct from the entity that acts in the matrix clause ; Ijäs makes the same observation, citing a Tamura example where the dancer and the looker are different persons : no page Simultaneous kor 'while' and Overlapping-Event Clauses
172. , the adversative conjunctive particle, is formed as kor 'when' + ka 'even' = 'even when (X, nevertheless Y)' ; . no page Simultaneous kor 'while' and Overlapping-Event Clauses
173. , the quotative complementizer, is analysed as se 'say, make a sound' + kor 'while' = 'while saying / while making the sound of …', with the simultaneous value of kor still transparent in the etymology ; . no page Simultaneous kor 'while' and Overlapping-Event Clauses
174. The particle can also head a sentence independently, with the anaphoric reading 'in that case, then', a free-standing use that marks its partial grammaticalization beyond the strictly bound conditional ; . no page Conditional, Temporal, and Concessive Clauses
175. The particle carries two distinct conjunctive uses — simultaneity ('〜しながら') and a habitual or general-causation conditional ('〜するたびに / 〜すると') — that are sometimes indistinguishable in context ; . no page Conditional, Temporal, and Concessive Clauses
176. Yakka pirka licenses an action for the addressee ('you may X'); yakka wen withholds that license ('you may not X') ; . no page Conditional, Temporal, and Concessive Clauses
177. The etymology is the same construction-type as yakka: conditional plus scalar — literally 'even when' — pointing to an original conditional reading that has shifted entirely toward counter-expectation ; . no page Conditional, Temporal, and Concessive Clauses
178. Hi kusu is the formal-noun construction hi ('the fact/time of') + kusu and similarly carries reason only ; . no page Causal and Purpose Clauses (kusu)
179. The sequential particle wa signals that the preceding event is completed and its result-state is in force; kusu then marks that actualized event as the cause of the main clause ; . no page Causal and Purpose Clauses (kusu)
180. Ijäs teaches the phonologically reduced form kusne alongside the fuller kusu ne, reflecting reduction in everyday speech . no page Causal and Purpose Clauses (kusu)
181. Ijäs, following Nakagawa, presents the gloss 'because / so / in order to' as a single continuum and identifies motion-verb clustering as the most reliable purpose-cue in text . no page Causal and Purpose Clauses (kusu)
182. Ijäs notes orowa as a sequence-emphasiser that can follow wa in a compound linking phrase . no page Tail-Head Linkage and Narrative Clause Cohesion
183. Ijäs correctly describes Ainu reference tracking as a discourse-pragmatic matter without positing a switch-reference system, noting the topic particle and the person-form contrast without conflating them with morphological switch-reference . no page Reference Tracking and Argument Continuity
184. Ijäs's online pedagogical grammar gives a learner-oriented account of the same functions . no page Topic and Focus Marking: anak(ne), patek, and ka
185. Ijäs's lesson on adnominal clauses presents the same pre-head gap strategy without treating the copular focus function explicitly . no page Cleft, Pseudocleft, and Nominalization-Based Focus
186. Ijäs's pedagogical grammar title a-eyaypakasnu ro 'let us learn [it]' illustrates the hortative in natural use (see below). no page The Sentence-Final Particle System and Illocutionary Force
187. A pedagogical overview of question formation is in . no page Interrogative Strategies, Question Particles, and Evidential Questions
188. For the pedagogical grammar, Ijäs likewise addresses Hokkaido speech norms without specifying gendered SFP contrasts . no page Gendered Speech and Pragmatic Registers
189. Ijäs introduces the most frequent outputs in her pedagogical grammar ; the phonological details of the suffix, the relationship to the variant , and the depictive and resultative readings of -no adverbials belong to . no page Adverbs, Degree Words, and Comparison Strategies
190. The following table synthesizes the forms attested in the best-documented Hokkaido varieties, drawing on Nakagawa and Tamura for Saru ; , and the pedagogical grammar of Ijäs for the broader revitalization inventory . no page Interjections, Response Words, Ideophones, and Sound Symbolism
191. is the pan-Hokkaido greeting formula in the modern documentary record and is the form standard in revitalization pedagogy ; . no page Interjections, Response Words, Ideophones, and Sound Symbolism
192. The Ijäs pedagogical grammar () does not present a systematic genre taxonomy and is focused on spoken, conversational Ainu rather than the verse tradition. no page The Oral-Literature Genre System and Its Grammatical Signatures
193. presents both sekor hawean and sekor a=ye as the two standard quotative frames in her pedagogical grammar. no page First-Person Narration, the Logophoric Fourth Person, and Reported Discourse
194. Ijäs addresses the SA–HA affiliative alternation in pedagogical terms, making the base-consonant restoration accessible to learners encountering ‹SA› citation forms for the first time. no page The Final-h Problem and Its Sakhalin Vowel-Length Reflex
195. The Saru–Chitose instantiation of this type is the baseline described by and the system treated in . no page Hokkaido Dialect Microvariation: Phonology and Morphosyntax
196. Vovin observes that "it is silently assumed that there are no Ainu loanwords in Japanese" and acknowledges the absence of any comprehensive study; the same observation is echoed in Ijäs's typological overview of the language . no page Ainu Loanwords and Toponymy in Japanese