Common use of Comparison Clause in Contracts

Comparison. Yhere are three instances of subclauses in a metaphorical comparison where a sub- junctive is used. In the English translation, it is necessary to express the fact that the comparison clause is not actual with a were-conditional. Normally, such irreal clauses are formed with the optative in Yocharian, so that it is surprising to find a subjunctive instead. However, the interpretation is beyond doubt and so we are forced to add this category to the use of the Yocharian A subjunctive. It is striking to note that in the first case, the main clause is even past, whereas the subjunctive is normally not used in past contexts (the same is true of A 12a1, not cited here, but see . .1 , p 21 ). In the second example, the main clause is a general present. Apparently, the tense of the main clause did not affect the finite verb of the comparison clause – a clear relative tense feature (see footnote 11). Yhe structure of the second example is a bit more complicated, the first two subjunctives tā? being part of concessive subclauses; the finite verb of the main clause is päZPä?. A12b2- tämne ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ pra?țaṇ päZPāZ tāP mäṇtne ?pänso so DEM DEM moment see:SBJ.GER be: SG.PRY like sleep:INS PZiso sne wāsPZune Pesār śiśäP tā? lie:PRY.PYC without motion Kesara lion be: SG.SBJ ‘At that moment it looked like it were a motionless Kesara lion, lying asleep.’ oo tā? penu (wra)[a ]som arämpātso PaPnu ZPātsi Pāswe Pnānmune be: SG.SBJ also being figure:INS provided see:INF lovely wisdom ats mā tā?-äṇ täpreṇ ats päZPä? mäṇ(tne) [a4] tsePe?i just not be: SG.SBJ- SG.SUFF then just look: SG.PRS like fashioned pePe?i pat arämpāt tā? painted or figure be: SG.SBJ ‘Even if a being is provided with a [beautiful] figure [and] lovely to look at, [but] it has no wisdom, then it looks exactly like it were a fashioned or painted figure.’ o1 299 Geng and Klimkeit (1988: 1 6-1 7). oo ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ (1944: 15).