TC: Contrastive Focus

[thetha]

This is a very nice example to translate into Yoruba:
(1) John kọ́ ni ó lù Mary, David lù ú.
N NEG=FOC 3 hit N, N hit=3.O

(2) Ìlù kọ́ ni John ṣe ní Mary, ìfẹnukonu ni ó ṣe ní ẹ̀.
hit.N NEG=FOC N do PREP N, kiss.N FOC 3 do PREP 3.DAT

(3) Mary kọ́ ni John lù, ó lù Susan.
N NEG=FOC N hit, 3 hit N

[taylorS]

Future English


Šiduxnvexsür Žon sü Mewi, šivexsür Défd
[ʃidɯ̰ɱvɛ̰ˈsɨɣ ʒɤn sɨˈmœwy ʃivɛ̰ˈsɨx teft]
Ši-duxn-v-ex-sür Žon sü=Mewi ši-v-ex-sür Défd
3SG.A.NOM-NEG-PST.PFV-hit-3SG.A.ACC John ACC=Mary 3SG.A.NOM-PST.PFV-hit-3SG.A.ACC David

Šiduxnvexsür Žon sü Mewi, šivkhehssür.
[ʃidɯ̰ɱvɛ̰ˈsɨɣ ʒɤn sɨˈmœwy ʃifkxɛ̤ˈsːɨx]
Ši-duxn-v-ex-sür Žon sü=Mewi ši-v-khehs-sür
3SG.A.NOM-NEG-PST.PFV-hit-3SG.A.ACC John ACC=Mary 3SG.A.NOM-PST.PFV-kiss-3SG.A.ACC

Šiduxnvexsür Žon sü Mewi, šivexsür sü Südn.
[ʃidɯ̰ɱvɛ̰ˈsɨɣ ʒɤn sɨˈmœwy ʃivɛ̰ˈsɨx sɨ sɨdn̩]
Ši-duxn-v-ex-sür Žon sü=Mewi ši-v-ex-sür sü=Südn
3SG.A.NOM-NEG-PST.PFV-hit-3SG.A.ACC John ACC=Mary 3SG.A.NOM-PST.PFV-hit-3SG.A.ACC ACC=Susan

[Omzinesý]

Contrastive focus is made by positioning the contrastive words to the clause-initial position, which is normally preserved for the non-contrastive topic. I decided to start marking stress with the acute accent. The irrealis mood appears with the negative (and most other modal) particle. In the sentence (3), the verb has the realis mood (indicative aorist), since the hitting was real, though Mary wasn’t the target. It could be said that the negative particle appears after the focused word, but it always appears before the first word in a sentence.

(1)
Jóno mayl Marte phode; Dávïdo phodo.
Jón-o mayl Mar-DVe phod-e Dávïd-o phod-o (accents on Jóna and Dávïda marking contrastive stressing)
John-SPREC.ERG NEG_PARTICLE Mary-SPEC.ACC hit-IRR.PERFVE David-SPEC.ERG hit-AOR
Lit: ‘John hit Mary not; David hit [her].’

(2)
Phóde Marte mayl Jona; bálo.
phód-e Mar-DVe mayl Jon-a bál-o (accents on phóde and bálo marking contrastive stressing)
hit-IRR.PERFVE Mary-SPEC.ACC NEG_PARTICLE John-SPEC.ERG kiss-AOR
Lit. ‘Hit Mary John did not; [he] kissed [her].

(3)
Márte mayl Jona phodo, Cúsänte.
Már-DVe mayl Jon-a phod-o Cúsän-DVe phod-o
Mary-SPEC.ACC NEG_PARTICLE John-SPEC.ERG hit-AOR, Susan-SPEC.ACC
Lit. ‘Mary John didn’t hit, Susan [he did].’

[prettydragoon]

How does your language do the following?

(1) John didn't hit Mary, David did
(2) John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her
(3) John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan

Feel free to substitute appropriate names / NPs for your language.

In Rireinutire, the unmarked statement "Kane didn't hit Misa" goes in the normal SOV order.

Kane Misana orokiseve:
Kane.NOM Misa-PTV hit-PST-NEG-HSY

To emphasize a constituent, it can be moved to the end of the sentence, after the verb. Once there, it is easy to contrast with sika 'but'. And of course, case will identify the constituents: nominative for the subject, accusative or partitive for the object.

Misana orokiseve Kane· sika Riso:
Misa-PTV hit-PST-NEG-HSY Kane.NOM but Riso.NOM
Kane didn't hit Misa, Riso did.

Kane Misana orokiseve· sika amakive:
Kane.NOM Misa-PTV hit-PST-NEG-HSY but kiss-PST-HSY
Kane didn't hit Misa, she kissed her.

Kane orokiseve Misana· sika Sarina:
Kane.NOM hit-PST-NEG-HSY Misa-PTV but Sari-PTV
Kane didn't hit Misa, she hit Sari.

[Omzinesý]

HSY

What does it stand for?

[thetha]

"hearsay", or indirect evidentials.

[prettydragoon]

"hearsay", or indirect evidentials.

Got it in one.

HSY is contrasted with SENS ("sensory" or direct evidential) and INFR ("inferential" or deduced).

[k1234567890y]

Lonmai Luna/Liunan

(1)
alen Djan modo piya alen Mari, alen David tarnas
PND John NEG hit PND Mary, PND David do(tarnas is used to refer the previous verb)

(2)
alen Djan modo piya alen Mari, dala mubo deko
PND John NEG hit PND Mary, 3.SG touch 3.SG(dala refers to the subject, deko refers to the object)

alen Djan modo piya alen Mari, dala mubo alen Mari
PND John NEG hit PND Mary, 3.SG touch PND Mary

(3)
alen Djan modo piya alen Mari, dala piya alen Susan
PND John NEG hit PND Mary, 3.SG touch PND Susan

Nevotak
(1)
zhan nu keb Mari, David keb Mari
John NEG hit Mary, David hit Mary

(2)
zhan nu keb Mari, res rachob Mari
John NEG hit Mary, 3.PRON touch Mary

(3)
zhan nu keb Mari, res keb Susan
John NEG hit Mary, 3.PRON hit Susan

Sakawi
(1)
Djan Mari kitemistekirmes, David Mari kitemistekir
Djan Mari kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, David Mari kit-em-ist-ek-ir
John Mary hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, David Mary hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I

Djan Marini kitemistekirmes, David se kitemistekir
Djan Mari-ni kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, David se kit-em-ist-ek-ir
John Mary-TOP hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, David 3.SG hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I

Djan Marini kitemistekirmes, David kitistekir
Djan Mari-ni kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, David kit-ist-ek-ir
John Mary-TOP hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, David hit-3.SG.A-PST.I

(2)
Djan Mari kitemistekirmes, yaromistakir
Djan Mari kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, yar-om-ist-ak-ir
John Mary hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, touch-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I

(3)
Djan Mari kitemistekirmes, Susan kitemistekir
Djan Mari kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, Susan kit-em-ist-ek-ir
John Mary hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, Susan hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I

Djanani Mari kitemistekirmes, (se) Susan kitemistekir
Djan-ani Mari kit-em-ist-ek-ir-mes, (se) Susan kit-em-ist-ek-ir
John-TOP Mary hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I-NEG, (3.SG) Susan hit-3.SG.P-3.SG.A-PST.I

[Khemehekis]

(1) Os John hake Mary, David hoen.
not John hit-PST Mary David do-PST
John didn't hit Mary, David did

(2) John os haken Mary, bein emptshoven piva.
John not hit-PST Mary boy kiss-PST girl
John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her

(3) John haken os Mary, wan haken Susan.
John hit-PST not Mary, 3sg hit-PST Susan
John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan

[Dormouse559]

Pronouns in marked cases are clitics that attach to the first word of the clause. So for instance, when Dajwiti (David) gets put in the focus position, clause-initial, the third-person accusative pronoun tags along.

As for coordinating the clauses, the coordinated argument must be in an unmarked case in both clauses. That makes coordination possible in the last two sentences by putting the first clause in antipassive voice. However, that strategy is significantly wordier and more complex than plain juxtaposition, so it probably wouldn't occur much, not in sentences just like these.

1)
Şungutu kîki Bari, Dajwitila kîki.
[ʃõnŋotu ˈkiːki ˈbæri ˈdæi̯wetẽlæ ˈkiːki]
John-ERG=NEG hit Mary, David=3SG.ACC hit

2)
Kîkitu Şungu Bari, pussula duwa.
[ˈkiːketu ˈʃõnŋu ˈbɑri ˈposːõlɑ dowɑ]
hit=NEG John-ERG Mary kiss=3SG.ACC 3SG.NOM

Kîkijalitu Şug ja Baritta patişşu pussula.
[ˈkiːkejæ̃letu ˈʃõ ˈʒɑ ˈbɑretːæ ˈpæteʃːu ˈposːõlɑ]
hit-ANTIP=NEG John PRP Mary-LAT rather kiss=3SG.ACC

3)
Baritu kîki Şungu, Sûsanmi kîki duwa.
[ˈbæretu ˈkiːki ˈʃõnŋu ˈsuːsɑ̃nmi ˈkiːki ˈdowɑ]
Mary=NEG hit John-ERG Susan-ACC hit 3SG.NOM

Jatu Baritta kîkijali Şug patişşu Sûsanmi kîki.
[ˈʒætu ˈbɑretːæ ˈkiːkejæ̃li ˈʃõ ˈpɑteʃːu ˈsuːsɑ̃nmi ˈkiːki]
PRP=NEG Mary-LAT hit-ANTIP John rather Susan-ACC hit

[Xing]

How does your language do the following?

(1) John didn't hit Mary, David did
(2) John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her
(3) John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan

Feel free to substitute appropriate names / NPs for your language.

Kuri Yonngu ko mokku a kia Meri, nea Tabi.
NEG.be John PFV hit ERG 3s Mary be David
'It was not John who hit Mary, it was David.'

Ko kuo mokku a Yonngu Meri, ko keika kia.
PFV NEG hit ERG John Mary PFV kiss 3s
'John did not hit Mary, he kissed (her)'

Kuri Meri ko mokku a Yonngu kia, nea Ua.
NEG.be Mary PFV hit hit ERG John 3s be Susan.
'It was not Mary who John kissed, it was Susan.'

[Nortaneous]

(1) John didn't hit Mary, David did
(2) John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her
(3) John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan

Insular Kett:

1)
Neuckom Neyrenn xaleurian, Erraska marey.
[ˈnutskm̩ ˈnøyɾɪʰn̥ hɐˈɫuʑɲ̩, ɪˈʂaskɐ mɐˈɾøy]
Neuckom Neyret=an xa-leuri-eng-ra, Erraska m-arey
Neuckom Neyret=TOP PST-hit-NEG-PFV.PASS, Erraska PST-do

2)
Neuckomon Neyret pei xaleuringet, xabert.
[ˈnutskm̩n̩ ˈnøyɾɪt pi haˈluʑiŋɪt, hɐˈɓeʂt]
Neuckom=an Neyret pei xa-leuri-eng-t, xa-ber-t.
Neuckom=TOP Neyret but PST-hit-NEG-PFV.ACT, PST-kiss-PFV.ACT

3)
Neuckomon Neyret xaleuringet, ain arey Erraska leurit.
[ˈnutskm̩n̩ ˈnøyɾɪt hɐˈluʑiŋɪt, ɐɲ ɐˈɾøy ɪˈʰʂaskɐ ˈluɕtɕ]
Neuckom=an Neyret xa-leuri-eng-t, ai=an arey Erraska leuri-t.
Neuckom=TOP Neyret PST-hit-NEG-PFV.ACT, 3S=TOP MODAL Erraska hit-PFV.ACT

or Neyrenn Neuckom xaleurian, Erraskan arey leurira.

[Täzari]

(I'll be using Lözusötelian names instead of the English ones: Þadeli and Rän - masculine names and Gilde and Enæbe - feminine nemes).

In the case of proper names the distinction in just in the tone of the utterance: contrastive accent falls on the word put into focus but no syntactic or morphological change happens. On the other hand, this is always true when the word put into focus is a verb (below the words stressed contrastively are written in italics):

(1) Þadeli binsætzenæ Gilden, faśt Rän.
þadel-i binsætz-e-næ gild-en faśt rän-Ø
þadeli-NOMms hit.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG gilde-ACCfs be.imper.3ps rän-NOMms

(2) Þadeli binsætzenæ Gilden, mebeþöm.
þadel-i binsætz-e-næ gild-en meb-e-þöm
þadeli-NOMms hit.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG gilde-ACCfs kiss.pres.-3ps.imper.-she.ACC

(3) Þadeli binsætzenæ Gilden, binsætze Enæben.
þadel-i binsætz-e-næ gild-en binsætz-e enæb-en
þadeli-NOMms hit.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG gilde-ACCfs hit.pres.-3ps.imper. enæb-ACCfs

If the word put into focus has the role of subject the main verb can be substituted by the proper form of atta "to be" (here faśt) while the verb is repeated or substituted by the avversative conjunction pe "but" if the word into focus covers the role of a direct or indirect object or of an oblique.

Differently, if we use common nouns instead of proper personal nouns the contrastive accent is backed up by the use of the determinative. Thus, here the difference is also morphological. (the use of the proper form of atta and the repetition or substitution with pe of the notional verb remain)

(1) A dog didn't bite the man, a bear did.
Bel pikrenæ üpyi, faśt iktidi.
bel-Ø pikr-e-næ üp-yi faśt ikt-i-di
dog-NOMs bite.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG man-ACCms be.3ps.imper bear-NOMms-DET.NOMms

(2) A dog didn't bite the man, it scratched him.
Bel pikrenæ üpyi, gkeddeþüm.
bel-Ø pikr-e-næ üp-yi gkedd-e-þüm
dog-NOMs bite.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG man-ACCms scratch.pres.-3ps.imper.-he.ACC

(3) A dog didn't bite the man, it bit the woman.
Bel pikrenæ üpyi, pikre rillenden.
bel-Ø pikr-e-næ üp-yi pikr-e rill-en-den
dog-NOMs bite.pres.-3ps.imper.-NEG man-ACCms bite.pres.-3ps.imper. woman-ACCfs-DET.ACCfs

This is due to fact that determinative cannot be used with proper names.
It could be argued that here too the contrastive accent itself would be enough to put a word into focus, but as a matter of fact if you don't use the determinative the sentence may also sound possible but it would be really really odd or it can be perceived as ungrammatical by some speakers.

[Iyionaku]

Yélian

Mary ciyilacit John cut David.
John ciyilacet Mary, te tao yiyamet.
John ciyilacet Mary cut Susan.


Mary NEG-PST-hit-PAS-3PS.SG John but David
John NEG-PST-hit-ACT-3PS.SG Mary, 3PS.SG.MASC 3PS.SG.FEM.OBL PST-kiss-3PS.SG
John NEG-PST-hit-ACT-3PS.SG Mary but Susan


Utseech

Diken John bašken Mary, ôdech David wars.
John hug Mary diken, tatseech nûsken a i.
John fween diken Mary, ôdech Susan.


NEG John hit-3PS.SG.PST Mary, but David be-3PS.SG.PST-it.ACC
John hit-3PS.SG.PST Mary NEG, instead kiss-3PS.SG.PST 3PS.SG.MASC.NOM 3PS.SG.FEM.ACC
John hit-3PS.SG.PST NEG Mary, but Susan



John didn't hit Mary, David did.
John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her.
John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan.

[Squall]

Xioran
(1) Johan gredoy non Maria, Davi we.
John attack-PST NEG Mary, David yes.

(2) Johan gredoy non Maria, we mwanmun'aw.
John attack-PST NEG Mary, yes kiss-INF.

(3) Johan gredoy non Maria, we Suzana.
John attack-PST NEG Mary, yes Susan.

Inverted negation
(1) Davi gredoy Maria, Johan non.
David attack-PST Mary, Johan NEG.

(2) Johan mwanmun'oy Maria, gredaw non.
John kiss-PST Mary, attack-INF NEG.

(3) Johan gredoy Suzana, non Maria.
John attack-PST Susan, NEG Mary.


Future Xioran
(1) Nen Johan gredoy Maria, we Davi.
NEG John attack-PST Mary, yes David.

(2) Johan nen gredoy Maria, we mwanmun'aw.
John NEG attack-PST Mary, yes kiss-INF.

(3) Johan gredoy nen Maria, we Suzana.
John attack-PST NEG Mary, yes Susan.

[alynnidalar]

Old Azen

Čan Marima ma čapek. David ona.
john mary-ACC not hit-PST.3 david 3SG.ACC
John didn't hit Mary. David did/was the one (that hit her).

Čan Marima ma čapek. O ona agiek.
john mary-ACC not hit-PST.3 3SG.NOM 3SG.ACC kiss-PST.3
John didn't hit Mary. He kissed her.

Čan Marima ma čapek. O Susan čapek.
john mary-ACC not hit-PST.3 3SG.NOM susan-ACC hit-PST.3
John didn't hit Mary. He hit Susan.

[Omzinesý]

Sira

Jonó Mari ro plap. Palóp Debid.
[t͡ʃo'no mariropʰ'lap pʰa'lop de'βit]
John Mary NEG hit. hitter [was] David.
John didn't hit Mary, David did.

Jonó Mari ro plap. Yu szerbis.
[t͡ʃo'no mariropʰ'lap juser'βis]
John Mary NEG hit [He] her mouth.give
John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her.

Jonó ro Mari plap. Pulúp Susan.
[t͡ʃo'no romaripʰ'lap pʰu'lup zu'zan]
John NEG Mary hit The_hit_one [was] Susan
John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan.

[Imralu]

Ngolu:

Ngolu is basically VSO with focus tending to be moved towards the end of the sentence.

Polarity is indicated with kka (glossed: not) and ahe (glossed: yes). In theory, ahe could be thrown into every non-negative part of every sentence, but that would be silly. Positive polarity is only marked contradiction and emphasis.

These words can be used as coordinating conjunctions. All the coordinating conjunctions are shown just for completeness.

Code: Select all

kka  ...  kka  ...    = neither ...  nor ...
ahe  ...  ahe  ...    = both    ...  and ...
kka  ...  ahe  ...    = not     ...  but ...
tehi ...  tehi ...    = either  ...  or  ...  (ie. maybe ... maybe ...)
ha   ...  ha   ...?   =         ...  or  ...? (ie. Q ... Q ...)

Kka and ahe can, on their own, only negate/affirm within verbal phrases. In order to negate/affirm entire arguments, they can either be preceded by lo, which introduces adverbial clauses, or can be changed into their special adverbial forms kku (= lo kka) and lahe (= los ahe). Alternatively, they could appear as the predicates of new sentences, in which case, they would be marked prosodically.

To make it clearer, negative parts of sentences will be in red (for stop) and marked positive parts will be in green (for go).

(1) John didn't hit Mary, David did.

• (A) - negating and affirming whole arguments.
  
  • ttio ji meri kku ju tiono lahe ju tevi
    [tsʼó ʒí meɾí kʼú ʒú tʃonó lahé ʒú teví]
    hit ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary [ADV.not NOM.3s.ICS.DEF John] [ADV.yes NOM.3s.ICS.DEF David]
  (B) - negating and affirming within an argument is slightly more economical but is only possible if both referents can be described by the same nominal. In this case, both John and David are both nominative, third person, singular, definite and inaccessible to the speaker so ju (NOM.3s.ICS.DEF) covers both, which makes it possible.
  
  • ttio ji meri ju kka tionos ahe tevi
    [tsʼó ʒí meɾí ʒú kʼá tʃonó sahé ʒú teví]
    hit ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary NOM.3s.ICS.DEF [not John] [yes David]

(2) John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her.

• (A) In VSO word order.
  
  • kka ttios ahe muatia ju tiono ji meri
    [kʼá tsʼó sahé mwatʃá ʒú tʃonó ʒí meɾí]
    [not hit] [yes kiss] NOM.3s.ICS.DEF John ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary
  (B) Moving the verbal phrase back to emphasise focus, SOV. Predicates (and parts of predicates) which are not initial must be marked by i-.
  
  • ju tiono ji meri ikka ttios ahe muatia
    [ʒú tʃonó ʒí meɾí jkʼá tsʼó sahé mwatʃá]
    NOM.3s.ICS.DEF John ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary PRED-[not hit] [yes kiss]

(3) John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan.

• (A) - negating and affirming whole arguments.
  
  • ttio ju tiono kku ji meri ahe ji zuza
    [tsʼó ʒú tʃonó kʼú ʒí meɾí ahé ʒí zuzá]
    hit NOM.3s.ICS.DEF John [ADV.not ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary] [ADV.yes ACC.3s.ICS.DEF zuza]

And just as a random bonus.

(4) Both John and David both hit and kissed both Mary and Susan.

• • ahe ttios ahe muatia lahe ju tiono lahe ju tevi lahe ji meri lahe ji zuza
    [ahé tsʼó sahé mwatʃá lahé ʒú tʃonó lahé ʒú teví lahé ʒí meɾí lahé ʒí zuzá]
    yes hit yes kiss ADV.yes NOM.3s.ICS.DEF John NOM.3s.ICS.DEF DAVID ADV.yes ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Mary ADV.yes ACC.3s.ICS.DEF Susan
  It is not be possible to be economical and place ahe ... ahe ... within an argument as it is with kka ... ahe .... Ju ahe tionos ahe tevi would mean "the person who is both John and David" rather than simply "both John and David".

In case anyone's wondering, even though I'm not using any other punctuation in the Ngolu examples, the names are in Italics because they're loanwords.

[Nortaneous]

1) Borju zdura mga lu ham Dzabanji Amzha tpkambash.
Borju TOP NEG 3S.ERG but Dzabanji Amzha 3M.T-hit-3F.ABS
Borju didn't hit Amzha; Dzabanji did.

2) Borju Amzha rupkamba, sha tkisish.
Borju Amzha 3M.NEG-hit, and 3M.T-kiss-3F.ABS
Borju didn't hit Amzha; he kissed her.

3) Borju Amzha rupkamba, Lyamgashi dzosh.
Borju Amzha 3M.NEG-hti, Ryamgali 3M.T-do-3F.ABS
Borju didn't hit Amzha; he hit Lyamgashi.

[conlangingftw]

Lancúhea:

(1) Çan í Marí g'umaíl işí chamitá d'umaíl la í Dawí.
[ˈdʒa.ni ˈma.ɾi ˈɡɯ.mel ˈlɪ.ʒi həˈmi.taː ˈðɯ.mel le ˈða.vi]
John PAT Mary PAT-hit-PST;3SGM that-PAT wrong-PRST.but-FEMN hit-PST;3SGM that PAT David
Lit. It was wrong to say that John hit Mary, but (in actuality,) it was David who hit (her).
John didn't hit Mary, David did.

(2) Çan í Marí g'umaíl işí chamitá la í boşaíl.
[ˈdʒa.ni ˈma.ɾi ˈɡɯ.mel ˈlɪ.ʒi həˈmi.taː le ˈbɤ.ʒel]
John PAT Mary PAT-hit-PST;3SGM that-PAT wrong-PRST.but-FEMN that PAT kiss-PST;3SGM.
Lit. It is wrong to say that John hit Mary, but (in actuality,) it was that he kissed (her).
John didn't hit Mary, he kissed her.

(3) Çan í Marí g'umaíl işí chamitá d'umaluła la í Súzan.
[ˈdʒa.ni ˈma.ɾi ˈɡɯ.mel ˈlɪ.ʒi həˈmi.taː dɯməˈlɯ.ʷə le ˈsu.zən]
John PAT Mary PAT-hit-PST;3SGM that-PAT wrong-PRST.but-FEMN hit-PASS;PST;3SGF that PAT Susan
Lit. It is wrong to say that John hit Mary, but (in actuality) it was Susan who was hit.
John didn't hit Mary, he hit Susan.