in the complement clause does/did/will not happen is formed with the negative particle ‘hate’ preceding the particle ‘vo’. With ‘vo’ “introducing” the ‘hate’ particle. This form alters the semantic layer of the negative clause form, conveying an additional pragmatic layer. It has an implication that the speaker would have expected the predication of the complement clause to be truthful, when it is not. The pragmatic layer in this construction is not found in other simple negative forms. ‘Hate’ then functions as a predicate that can take a complement of verbal or nonverbal clause, take a complement clause as its argument or act as the predicate to express that something does not exist through the noun phrase in a nonverbal existential clause. ‘Hate’ cannot be employed in a verb phrase that has been imbued with subject or aspect/mood, despite functioning as a predicate. Example 13 is a verbal clause representing a predicate which will not happen, for instance: the speaker is not going to give the subject 'it' to the object/addressee 'you'. Example 14 is a nonverbal clause, also representing a predicate that does/did/will not happen. Across the world's languages it is generally rare for there to be a negative predicate that can take a complement clause as its argument, but this is not uncommon amongst the Oceanic language family. Possession East Ambae has four different possessive constructions, these are the distinctions between direct and indirect possession, and simplex and complex possession (Hyslop, 2001, p. 165). If the possessor is marked on the possessed noun, this is a direct possessive construction, whereas if the possessor is marked on a relational classifier rather than the possessee, this is an indirect possessive construction. Additionally, a simplex construction, where the possessor is pronominal, a possessive suffix occurs on the possessee or the relevant classifier, while a complex construction is one in which the possessor is represented by a nominal (Hyslop, 2001, p. 166). The table below illustrates the four different possessive constructions. According to Hyslop (2001, p. 167), while it is a morphosyntactic difference between direct and indirect possessive constructions, it is a semantically motivated distinction. In a direct possessive construction, nouns that function as the possessee can be said to be inalienably possessed, which refers to a permanent and inherent connection between the possessor and possessee that is indissoluble. Indirect possessive construction refers to alienable possession, a relationship between two referents of a