![baca buku kho ping hoo baca buku kho ping hoo](https://www.tionghoa.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Patung-Dewi-Kwan-Im-Kho-Ping-Hoo-640x312.jpg)
The only decent treatment of pun is found in Asmah (2014: 188-192), which ignores the syntactic functions of pun but mentions its four meanings under the names persamaan, waktu, kepastian and tolak ansur or tokokan.ĦThe major function of pun, according to these textbooks, is to mark emphasis (it is pun’s only function according to TBBBI and TBD). Pun is not treated in Grangé (2015, despite two allusions, pp. 126, 194-5). Steinhauer (2005) has the merit of not mentioning emphasis pun is described (in sections 17.8, pp. 441-3 19.10, pp. 511-3 and 20.18, pp. 574-6) as mainly concessive and sometimes comparative. The defective treatment of pun in the two official grammars is reflected in the comparative book of Hasan Alwi (2013), which contains no specific paragraph on pun and reports no particular difference in its use in Indonesian and Malaysia, while the opposite is amply demonstrated below.ĥLombard (1977) has a very short paragraph on pun, in which two of its meanings are exemplified. According to the official Malaysian grammar ( Tatabahasa Dewan, 2010) pun has only one function, to put emphasis on a phrase, which again is most incorrect. In the official Indonesian grammar ( Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia, 1988: 248) the (minimalist) paragraph on pun starts with this statement: “The particle pun is only used in declarative clauses” ( Partikel pun hanya dipakai dalam kalimat berita), which is equally incorrect. This statement is twice incorrect: pun does not always follow the subject of a clause pun does not always act to emphasise it-far from it. Whatever its function, pun always follows the subject of the clause and acts to emphasise it.” (Sneddon et al., 2010: 237). It can also act like a linking adjunct, as discussed in section 2.222. Let’s see how pun is described in the seven main textbooks presently available.ĤThe major English language grammar of Indonesian gives this basic definition of pun: “Particle pun acts as a focusing adjunct in some of its functions. Many people-linguists or plain locutors of Indonesian and Malaysian-have the feeling that the functions and meanings of pun are clear and well known. This standpoint may have to be justified though. This article aims to provide an exhaustive analysis of pun, which could be useful for future textbooks. Paradoxically, Stevens & Schmidgall-Tellings’s bilingual dictionary (2004) gives a better analysis of pun than some grammars.ģThis work on pun was undertaken following the finding that pun was treated not only inadequately but incorrectly in existing textbooks. It is also the case with some modern ones, particularly the two official standard books Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia (1993) and Tatabahasa Dewan (2008).
![baca buku kho ping hoo baca buku kho ping hoo](https://images.tokopedia.net/img/cache/500-square/product-1/2020/8/7/1054818/1054818_b5011be5-ac9c-48bc-a242-f04a3096b1ec_1548_1548.jpg)
The oldest grammars (Werndly, Marsden, Favre, Ophuijsen, and even Fokker and Mees) say virtually nothing about pun. It transpires that the analysis of the functions and meanings of pun depends largely on the intuition and impressions of the various authors. But the result is a treatment that is insufficient or even neglectful and often misleading. Pun is only one particle in the system of Malaysian-Indonesian grammar and one understands that it cannot receive more than a summary treatment in handbooks. The differences between modern and classical Malay are not only of frequency but of function too. 1This article aims to analyse the functions and values of the particle pun in modern Indonesian and Malaysian, using quantitative evidence based on a corpus built for this purpose.ĢThe particle pun is much less used in modern language than it was in ancient literature.