Volume 16 Issue 1 (2018) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.484 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. Similative and
Equative Constructions in Japhug
Guillaume Jacques CRLAO-CNRS-INALCO This paper
documents equative, similative, comparative and
superlative constructions on the basis of a corpus of narratives. It reveals a
previously unsuspected wealth of constructions: no less than three main types
of superlatives, and four types of equatives are attested, some including
additional subtypes. Introduction
This
paper[1]deals with equative and similative
constructions in Japhug. It comprises five sections. First,
I present general information on the Japhug language
and its morphosyntax. Second, I provide an account of degree, comparative and
superlative constructions, which have similarities, and even overlap with,
equative constructions. Third, I discuss similative
constructions and how they relate to the equative constructions presented in
section 4. Fourth, I describe the four types of equative constructions in Japhug. Fifth, I show some data on property equative
constructions, which are not normally used in Japhug
but have been collected using a novel method of elicitation. 1. Background Japhug is a Gyalrong
language (Trans-Himalayan, Gyalrongic; see Sun 2000
and Jacques & Michaud 2011 for more information on the classification
of this language) spoken in Mbarkham county, Rngaba prefecture, Sichuan province (China), by less than
10000 speakers.[2] Japhug and other Gyalrongic
languages are polysynthetic, with a very rich and irregular morphology, and are
highly head-marking (Jacques 2013b, Sun
2014), unlike some better known
Trans-Himalayan languages such as Chinese or Burmese. In
this section, I discuss four topics of Japhug
morphosyntax that are relevant to the description of the constructions studied
in the paper: the definition of the word class ‘adjective’ in Japhug, general information on grammatical relations,
orientation prefixes and possessive prefixes. In
Japhug, adjectives are a sub-class of stative verbs.
They are conjugated and take TAM and person indexes for one argument. They can
be distinguished from other stative verbs, like copulas, existential verbs and
some modal auxiliaries by the fact that the tropative
derivation can be applied to them (Jacques
2013a). In
Japhug, it is possible to build a transitive verb
meaning ‘to find X, to consider as X’ out of any adjective by means of the nɤ- prefix, as mpɕɤr ‘be
beautiful’ nɤ-mpɕɤr
‘find X beautiful’ or ɕqraʁ
‘be intelligent’ nɤ-ɕqraʁ
‘find X intelligent’.
This
derivation cannot be applied to copulas or existential verbs.[3] 1.2.
Flagging and person indexation
A
conjugated verb form without overt arguments is the minimal complete sentence
in Japhug, and grammatical relations are mainly
expressed by person indexation, which includes up to two arguments following a
direct/inverse system (on which see Sun
& Shidanluo 2002,
Jacques 2010,
Gong 2014). Overt
noun phrases take case markers such as the ergative/instrument kɯ, the genitive ɣɯ and the dative
ɯ-ɕki. There
are no prepositions. Comitative adverbs are built by means of a prefix and are
in the process of being grammaticalized as a quasi-case marker (Jacques 2017). 1.3. Orientation prefixes
All
finite verb forms, except the factual non-past, require an orientation prefix
(Table 1). Motion verbs and concrete action verbs
are compatible with all prefixes, but most verbs can only take one or two
orientation prefixes. For those verbs, the possible orientations are lexically
specified; for instance ndza ‘eat’ and tsʰi ‘drink’ take
the ‘up’ and ‘towards east’ orientations respectively; ‘eat’ can also appear
with the ‘downstream’ orientation in the case of meat-eating animals.
Table 1.
Orientation prefixes in Japhug Rgyalrong Some
particular constructions however can override the lexically selected
orientation and impose a specific one; this is the case of one of the
superlative constructions described in this paper (section 2.3.3). 1.4. Possessive prefixes
Nouns
and nominalized verb forms can take a series of possessive prefixes related to
the pronouns, as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2. Pronouns
and possessive suffixes The
degree nominals, which are used in many of the constructions described in this
paper (sections 2.1.2, 4.2 and 5)
are derived from adjectives by prefixing the nominalizing prefix tɯ- (also used to make action nominals) together with a
possessive prefix coreferent with the subject. 2. Related constructions
Before
presenting equative constructions, I provide a brief account of three types of
related constructions: degree, comparative and superlative, some of which
present commonalities with the constructions described in section 4. 2.1. Degree
construction
The
degree of an adjectival predicate can be expressed in two ways, either with a degree
adverb, or using the nominalized degree construction. 2.1.1. Degree adverb
The
degree adverb construction is very common cross-linguistically; it involves the
adverb wuma
‘really, very’ (often with the emphatic marker ʑo), which can appear either
close to the adjective (as in 2) or separated
from the verb by a noun phrase as in (3).
Although
wuma
‘really, very’ is borrowed from Tibetan ŋo.ma
‘true, real’, this word is not used in this way in Tibetan languages as far as
I know, and despite the deep typological and lexical influence of Tibetan on Japhug, the expression of degree in Tibetan uses unrelated
constructions (Simon & Hill 2015). 2.1.2. Nominalized degree construction
Another
construction expressing degree in Japhug involves
nominalizing the adjectives by means of the nominalization prefix tɯ- and adding a
possessive prefix coreferent with the subject (see
section 1.4), as in the form ɯ-tɯ-tɕur‘its
(degree of) sourness’ in example (4),
followed by a predicate expressing the degree such as saχaʁ ‘be extremely’ in this
example. Other possible predicates include tɕʰom ‘be too much’ or naχtɕɯɣ ‘be identical’; in the latter case it becomes an
equative construction (see section 4.2).
As shown in (5), the degree nominal (ɯ-tɯ-tɕur ‘its (degree of) sourness’) can be followed by the
marker[4] kɯ and a full
clause describing the degree of the property described by the adjective (‘so X
that Y’).
This
construction is common in Japhug (Jacques 2016b:
8) and attested in other Rgyalrong languages such as Tshobdun (Sun 2006: 911). 2.2. Comparative
The
comparative construction in Japhug can be illustrated
by example (6): the standard is marked
by the postposition sɤz
‘than’ specifically used in this construction, and the comparee
is marked by the ergative kɯ. In comparative constructions, it is common for ergative
or instrumental markers to be used with the standard, but this use on the comparee is unexpected (Jacques
2016b).
2.3. Superlative
There
are no less than three constructions expressing superlative meaning in Japhug: a degree adverb meaning ‘most’, a possessed subject
participle (‘Y is the X one of ...’) and a relative clause with a negative
existential verb (‘There is no X one like Y’). 2.3.1. Degree adverb
The degree adverb superlative with stu most’ is a
familiar construction, illustrated by example (7)
with an adjective in finite form (factual non-past).
The
form -ŋgɯz
is the irregular fusion of the relator noun -ŋgɯ ‘inside’ and the locative zɯ (it is thus a
particular case of locative superlative construction, also found in many
languages, e.g. Kambaata in this volume, Treis to appear). Most
examples of this construction appear however with adjectives in subject
participle form,[5] prefixed with kɯ- as kɯ-ŋɤn ‘the
evil/terrible one’ in (8).
It
is also possible to find this construction with oblique participles, as in (9), the only such example in the corpus.
2.3.2. Possessed
participle
Another
possibility to express superlative meaning is with an adjective in participial
form with a third plural possessive marker, as in (10).
This construction is less common,
and mainly occurs with the adjectives mpɕɤr ‘be beautiful’ and mna ‘be well’. 2.3.3. Relative clause
A
more idiomatic way of expressing superlative meaning in Japhug is by means of a negative existential verb combined with a relative clause
(indicated between square brackets in the following examples) and an adjunct
with the participial form of fse ‘be in this way, be like (this)’, as in (11). This construction is a particular use of
the equative construction described in section 4.1.[6]
This
construction is potentially ambiguous (kɯ-sɤɣmu me can be interpreted as meaning both ‘it is the
most dreadful’ or ‘there is nothing dreadful’), and when the relative clause
contains a finite main verb (when the relativized element is the object, the
semi-object or the goal see Jacques 2016c), it is possible in some cases to use orientation
prefixes to disambiguate. In example (12),
the verbs tso
‘understand’ and sɯz
‘know’ in the superlative construction take the ‘up’ prefix tu- instead of the expected
‘towards east’ (ku-tso
ipfv:east-understand
‘he understands’) and ‘down’ (pjɯ-sɯz ipfv:down-
know ‘he knows’) prefixes that they respectively select to build most tenses
(see section 1.3). With
the ‘up’ prefix tu-
as in (12), only the superlative interpretation
is possible, while with the ‘down’ prefix pjɯ- as in (13)
the superlative interpretation is excluded, and only the negative existential
one is found. I
interpret this difference as a matter of semantic scope. In (12), the adjunct nɯ kɯ-fse ‘like that’ is outside of the
scope of the negation, and the negation applies to the minimal relative clauses[7] tu-tso-a ‘(that)
I understand’ and tu-sɯz-a ‘(that)
I know’ (‘[there is nothing that I understand/know] like that’) exclusively.
With
the ‘down’ prefix pjɯ-
on sɯz
‘know’ as in (13), the scope of the
negation is different: it applies to the whole constituent indicated between
square brackets (‘there is nothing like that that I know’).
This
contrast cannot however be generalized to all verbs; more research is necessary
to ascertain the extent, and the functional explanation for this puzzling
phenomenon. 3. Similative
In
Japhug, the main similative
construction involves the verbs fse ‘be like (this)’ (intransitive stative) and stu
‘do (this) way, do like (this)’ (transitive). These verbs can occur in a serial
verb construction, having the same core arguments and TAM values as the main
verb, as illustrated by (14) (TAM:
imperfective; Person: 3pl à 1sg) and (15)
(TAM: factual non-past; Person:1sg). It is possible to insert a linker between
the two verbs of the serial construction, as in
example (14).
The
standard (the demonstrative pronouns kɯki in (14), and ki in (15)) cannot be indexed on the verb. The verb stu ‘do (this)
way, do like (this)’ is thus secundative
ditransitive, taking the standard as its theme. The
equative construction in fse
‘be like (this)’ (section 4.1) is a
particular case of this serial verb construction, when the main verb is an
adjective. With
dynamic verbs, the standard is almost always a demonstrative as in (14) and (15)
above. Exceptions include 16, where the
standard is the noun tɯrme ‘man’. In this example,
the verb fse
‘be like (this)’ takes the sensory form (with the ɲɯ- prefix), while the main verb
is in a periphrastic sensory form, combining the verb in the imperfective (tu-ndze ‘it
eats’) with an auxiliary in the sensory form.
4. Entity equative
This
section discusses the entity equative constructions, i.e. constructions
expressing that two entities have a property in equal degree (‘X is as Y as
Z’). It differs from the parameter equative, treated in section 5, expressing that the same entity has two
properties in equal degree (‘X is a Y as he is Z’). In the following, I adopt
the terminology proposed by Haspelmath
& Buchholz (1998), as illustrated by the English example (17).
There
are no less than four distinct constructions expressing argument equative
meanings in Japhug. 4.1. fse ‘be like’ One
equative construction is built with the verb fse ‘be like (this)’ (or more
rarely naχtɕɯɣ
‘be identical’ and afsuja
‘be of the same size’). The verb fse ‘be like (this)’ is stative, but
takes two arguments (respectively the comparee and
the standard). Since it is syntactically linked to the standard, it is analyzed
here as the standard marker rather than as the parameter marker. Both
the standard marker fse
‘be like (this)’ and the parameter can appear in finite form, sharing TAM and
person marking as in (18). This is in fact a particular
case of the serial verb construction used to express similative
(see section 3). Such examples with
finite verb forms are rare in the corpus.
The
verb naχtɕɯɣ
‘be identical’ used a similar construction requires in addition the comitative cʰo on the
standard, as shown by example (19).
The
equative construction in fse
‘be like (this)’ is more commonly used in attributive equative clauses. Both fse ‘be like
(this)’ and the adjective (the parameter) are in participial form in (20), forming a relative clause with the comparee as the relativized element. The superlative
construction studied in section 2.3.3 is
essentially a particular use of such relativized equative sentences.
These
constructions do not require a parameter marker, though adverbs fsɯfse
‘completely identical’ can serve as an emphatic parameter marker, as in (18). A
similar equative construction is attested in the Kyomkyo
dialect of Situ Rgyalrong (Prins 2011: 238), though with the standard marker
expressed by the participial form of the Tibetan loanword ndʐa ‘be like’ instead of the
native root corresponding to Japhug fse ‘be like (this)’. This equative construction
corresponds to Haspelmath et al.’s (2017) type 1
(Only equative standard-marker). 4.2. Nominalized degree construction
This
construction is a particular case of the Nominalized Degree Construction presented
in section 2.1.2. It is by far the
most common way of expressing equative meaning in Japhug.
It has three slightly different variants. In
the first construction (corresponding to Haspelmath’s (to appear) type 5 – Primary reach equative
unified), the comparee and the standard are included
in a noun phrase, with the comitative marker cʰo (and its longer variant cʰondɤre) serving
as the standard marker between them.[8] This
noun phrase is followed by an adjective (the parameter) in degree nominal form
(prefixed with tɯ-)
and a possessive prefix (in dual or plural) coreferent
with the preceding noun phrase. This nominalized verb and the preceding noun
phrase form a larger noun phrase that is the subject of the adjective naχtɕɯɣ ‘be
identical’ (the parameter marker)[9] in
finite form, as in (21) and (22).
In
the second construction,[10]
the nominalized parameter takes a possessive prefix only coreferent
with the comparee, and the standard together with the
comitative (the standard marker) follows the parameter, as in (23).
In
the third construction, the parameter takes a third person singular possessive
prefix, and the two comparees are indicated by person
indexation on the verb. In (24), the
standard and the comparee are the speaker and the
addressee; they are not expressed by overt pronouns, but
are rather indexed on the verb by the suffix -tɕi.
4.3. Possessed noun
The
possessed noun[11]ɯ-fsu ‘of the same size as’ can be used
as the standard marker in a construction of Haspelmath et al.’s (2017) type 1 like the one
discussed in section 4.1.11.[12]
The parameter cannot be expressed in this construction.
This
construction is relatively marginal in Japhug. In the
Cogtse dialect of Situ Rgyalrong,
a similar construction is reported (Lín 1993: 377). 4.4. Denominal adjectives
Japhug has a denominal prefix arɯ-/ɤrɯ- deriving
adjectives meaning ‘like X’ out of nouns. I have no examples from narratives,
but it spontaneously occurs in conversation in examples such as (26) (which I heard as I was correcting the
transcription of a story with my main informant), in a construction combining
the degree nominal (2.1.2) with the sentence
final particle nɯ
used to express surprise. Example (27)
illustrates the same form with a non-denominal adjective.
The
more elaborated sentence (28) was given
as an explanation for (26).
This
unusual equative construction is productive, since it can be applied to nouns
from Tibetan or Chinese. It does not fit in any of Haspelmath
et al.’s (2017) six types of
equative constructions, but resembles the “similative
adjective” derivation in -lágan in Saami (Ylikoski
to appear: 5.1). There are three main
differences between the Japhug construction and its
Saami equivalent.
5. Property equative
Property
equative constructions (‘X is as Y as he is Z’) do not occur in the Japhug corpus. This meaning can however be expressed in
this language. In order to limit the effect of elicitation, the following
procedure was undertaken. I first wrote a Japhug translation
of Perrault’s story Riquet à la Houppe which contains many examples of
property equative sentences. The translation was then corrected with my main
informant sentence by sentence. Then, she was asked to retell the story (in six
episodes of 3 to 5 minutes) using her own words. Property
equatives, e.g. ‘X is as stupid as s/he is beautiful’ (a sentence occurring
several times in the story), can be expressed in Japhug
in three distinct ways. First, the possessed noun ɯ-fsu ‘of the same size as’ (used in the
argument equative construction, section 4.3),
follows a degree nominal derived from the first adjective; the second adjective
takes a finite form.
Second,
two adjectives in degree nominal form, the first followed by the comitative
postposition cʰo,
are subject of the verb afsuja
‘be of the same size’. This construction is the equivalent of the argument
equative construction in section 4.2.
Third,
it is possible to express the same meaning with a correlative construction, as
in (31). This construction however may be a
calque from Chinese and is of lesser interest to the study of Japhug grammar.
6. Conclusion
This
paper documents various constructions in Japhug, some
of which have never been described previously. Japhug
presents a rich array of equative constructions, some of the garden variety type,
but others, like the relative clause superlative (in particular the use of the
‘up’ orientation prefix, see section 2.3.3)
and the denominal equative (section 4.4),
appear quite unusual and isolated at least areally. Despite
the lexical influence of Tibetan languages on Japhug,
and the fact that some of the constructions described in this paper involve
Tibetan borrowings (see sections 2.1.1 and 4.2), none of them appear to be calqued from
their Tibetan equivalents. References
Gong, Xun. 2014. Personal
agreement system of Zbu rGyalrong
(Ngyaltsu variety). Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1). 44–60. Gorshenin, Maksym. 2012.
The crosslinguistics of the superlative. In Cornelia
Stroh (ed.), Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte 31,
55–160. Bochum: Bockmeyer. Haspelmath, Martin & Oda
Buchholz. 1998. Equative and similative constructions
in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera
(ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the
Languages of Europe, 277–334. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin and the
Leipzig Equative Constructions Team. 2017. Equative constructions in world-wide
perspective. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and Equative
Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 9-32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jacques,
Guillaume. 2008. 嘉絨語研究 Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū
(Study on the Rgyalrong language). Beijing: Minzu chubanshe. Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1). 127–157. Jacques, Guillaume. 2013a. Applicative and tropative derivations in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics
of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36(2). 1–13. Jacques,
Guillaume. 2013b. Harmonization and disharmonization
of affix ordering and basic word order. Linguistic
Typology 17(2). 187–217. Jacques, Guillaume. 2014. Clause linking in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37(2).
263–327. Jacques, Guillaume. 2015. Dictionnaire Japhug-Chinois-Français,
version 1.0. Paris: Projet
HimalCo. http://himalco.huma-num.fr/. Jacques, Guillaume. 2016a. Complementation in Japhug. Linguistics
of the Tibeto Burman Area 39(2). 222–281. Jacques,
Guillaume. 2016b. From ergative to comparee marker:
multiple reanalyses and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33(1). 1–30. Jacques,
Guillaume. 2016c. Subjects, objects and relativization
in Japhug. Journal
of Chinese Linguistics 44(1). 1–28. Jacques, Guillaume. 2017. The origin of comitative
adverbs in Japhug. In Walter Bisang
& Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Unity and Diversity in Grammaticalization Scenarios, 31–44. Berlin:
Language Science Press. Jacques,
Guillaume & Alexis Michaud. 2011. Approaching the historical phonology of
three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na
and Laze. Diachronica 28(4). 468–498. Lín, Xiàngróng (林向榮). 1993. Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū 嘉戎語研究 [A
study on the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan
minzu chubanshe. Michailovsky, Boyd, Martine Mazaudon,
Alexis Michaud, Séverine Guillaume, Alexandre
François & Evangelia Adamou. 2014. Documenting
and researching endangered languages: the Pangloss Collection. Language Documentation and Conservation 8.
119–135. Prins, Marielle. 2011. A Web of Relations: A Grammar of rGyalrong Jiaomuzu (Kyom-kyo) Dialects: Leiden University dissertation. Simon, Camille & Nathan W. Hill. 2015. Tibetan. In
Nicola Grandi & Livia Körtvélyessy
(eds.), Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative
Morphology, 381–388. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sun,
Jackson T.-S. 2000. Parallelisms in the Verb Morphology of Sidaba
rGyalrong and Lavrung in rGyalrongic. Language
and Linguistics 1(1). 161–190. Sun,
Jackson T.-S. 2003. Caodeng rGyalrong.
In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 490–502.
London: Routledge. Sun,
Jackson T.-S. 2006. 草登嘉戎語的關係句 Caodeng Jiarongyu
de guanxiju (Relative clauses in the Tshobdun language). Language & Linguistics 7(4). 905–933. Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2014. Sino-Tibetan: Rgyalrong. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol
Štekauer (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 630–650. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Sun,
Jackson T.-S. & Shidanluo. 2002. Caodeng Jiarongyu yu rentong dengdi
xiangguan de yufa xianxiang 草登嘉戎語與「認同等第」相關的語法現象 (Empathy Hierarchy in Caodeng rGyalrong grammar). Language and Linguistics 3(1). 79–99. Treis,
Yvonne. this volume. Comparison in Kambaata:
Superiority, Equality and Similarity. Linguistic
Discovery 16.1:65-101. Ylikoski, Jussi. 2017.
Similarity, equality and the like in North Saami. In Yvonne Treis
& Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative
and Equative Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 259-290. Amsterdam:
Benjamins. [1] I would like to thank Graham Thurgood, Yvonne Treis, Brigitte Pakendorf and one anonymous reviewer for useful comments on this paper. Glosses follow the Leipzig glossing rules. Other abbreviations used here include: auto spontaneous-autobenefactive, cisloc cislocative, fact factual/assumptive, genr generic, ifr inferential evidential, inv inverse, link linker, sens sensory evidential, sfr sentence final particle, transloc translocative, trop tropative. Chinese borrowings in Japhug are indicated in pinyin between chevrons. The examples are taken from a corpus that is progressively being made available on the Pangloss archive (Michailovsky et al. 2014, http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/ pangloss/corpus/list_rsc.php?lg=Japhug). This research was funded by the HimalCo project (ANR-12-CORP-0006) and is related to the research strand LR-4.11 ‘‘Automatic Paradigm Generation and Language Description’’ of the Labex EFL (funded by the ANR/CGI). [2] Previous work on this language
includes a grammar (Jacques 2008), a dictionary (Jacques 2015), and a series of
articles on specific grammatical topics (see for instance Jacques 2013b, 2014,
2016c). [3]
The verb maʁ ‘not be’ has
a tropative form nɤɣ-maʁ ‘consider to be
unjustified’, which however derives from its secondary meaning ‘be incorrect’. [4]
This marker
is formally identical, and historically related to, the ergative kɯ; see Jacques (2016b)
for a more detailed discussion. [5] For an account of participial forms and a
definition of subjects and objects in Japhug, see
Jacques (2016c,a). See also Sun (2003, 2014) with a
slightly different terminology on Tshobdun and other Rgyalrong languages. [6] No construction exactly identical
to the Japhug one is found in Gorshenin’s
(2012) survey of superlatives, though it is close to the type described in his
section 3.2.5. [7] In Japhug
finite clauses without any relativizer can be used to
built object relative clauses, see Jacques (2016c). [8] In this
construction, since the comparee and the standard are
included in the same constituent, only the context allows to distinguish
between the two. In this example, we know that the βʑar bird is the standard since this
sentence is taken from a text describing the qalekɯtsʰi bird. This illustrates
the fact that in equative constructions, since standard and comparee
are identical with respect to a particular parameter, exchanging their order
has no impact on the truth value of the sentence, unlike in the case of other
comparative constructions. [9] The adjective naχtɕɯɣ ‘be
identical’ is a denominal verb derived from the non-attested form *χtɕɯɣ borrowed
from the Tibetan numeral gtɕig
‘one’. [10] This construction
is very rare, only two examples are found in the corpus. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||