Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

Line 429:

The Chlouvānem perfect, however, has a broader use than the English one, compare:

: ''flære dašoritь'' - “yesterday it rained”. Past tense, implied meaning is that there’s nothing that may indicate that yesterday it rained, or it doesn’t influence the speaker in any way.

: ''flære adašora'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni adašora līlta ~~viṣeheṣṭva~~ no, āñjulā gu pepeithnādām ša''.

: ''flære adašora'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni adašora līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu pepeithnādām ša''.

Note that the “impact on the present” meaning and the use of evidentials are independent from each other. Using a first inferential, for example, does not change the implications given by the use of perfect or past, though the actual interpretation is often heavily dependent from context:

Line 437:

: ''palias jāyim junirittimū'' - “apparently, the girl painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Past tense: as before, but while she, or something she did, had made the speaker believe she had already painted her face at least once in the past, the way she’s doing it makes think that she probably never did.

: ''palias jāyim ujuniritenamū'' - “apparently, the girl has painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Perfect “tense”: as before; highly dependent on context. For example, there are face painting colours out of place, but it’s unlikely she did paint her face - e.g. it may not be a logical time to do it, or too little colour seems to have been used.

The Chlouvānem perfect is however also used where English would use ''past perfect'' or ''future perfect'', as the “impact on the present” is understood to be on the time the main action in the sentence takes place, thus something that happened earlier is considered to have an impact on it:

: ''tammikeika flære lį uyųlaṃça, utiya nanā tammi taflunitь''.

: train_station.DIR.SG. yesterday. 1SG.ERG. eat-IND.PERF.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT. , then. that.DIR.PARROT. train.DIR.SG. arrive-IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR.

: I had [already] eaten at the station yesterday when the train arrived.

: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃça, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''

: train_station.DIR.SG. 1SG.ERG. eat-IND.PERF.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT. , then. that.DIR.PARROT. train.DIR.SG. arrive-IND.FUT.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR.

: I will have [already] eaten at the station when the train arrives.

Note that in the latter example, English uses future perfect and present simple respectively, while Chlouvānem uses perfect and future; the future in the second clause is necessary to give the future perfect meaning to the first one.

Still, note that out of context both pluperfect and future perfect may be expressed analytically, by using the perfect participle plus the past or future tense of ''gyake'' (to be).

A notable exception to this use is with so-called “chained actions”, when the second one is a direct consequence of the first and the first one is usually still ongoing; the second one is therefore only a momentane happening inside the broader context of the first, and thus the choice between present and past is once again dependent on the impact on the present. Note that in such cases the two verbs are usually connected with ''no'' instead of ''sama''. Compare:

: ''dašoritь līlta vīheṣṭviritь no'' - “it rained, and the path collapsed”. Past tense: the path has since been repaired and it is walkable.

: ''adašora līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no'' - “it has rained, and the path has collapsed”. Perfect “tense”: the path is not walkable due to it having collapsed.

====Positional verbs====

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 The Chlouvānem perfect, however, has a broader use than the English one, compare:
 : ''flære dašoritь'' - “yesterday it rained”. Past tense, implied meaning is that there’s nothing that may indicate that yesterday it rained, or it doesn’t influence the speaker in any way.
-: ''flære adašora'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni adašora līlta viṣeheṣṭva no, āñjulā gu pepeithnādām ša''.
+: ''flære adašora'' - *yesterday it has rained. Perfect tense; while wrong in English, this construction is possible - and, in fact, is frequently heard - though it often only makes sense in a broader context. For example, in a sentence like “yesterday it rained and the path collapsed, so we [two] can’t walk there”, English uses both times a simple past, while Chlouvānem uses the perfect, as the path is still not walkable due to the rain: ''flære menni adašora līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu pepeithnādām ša''.
 Note that the “impact on the present” meaning and the use of evidentials are independent from each other. Using a first inferential, for example, does not change the implications given by the use of perfect or past, though the actual interpretation is often heavily dependent from context:
@@ Line 437: / Line 437: @@
 : ''palias jāyim junirittimū'' - “apparently, the girl painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Past tense: as before, but while she, or something she did, had made the speaker believe she had already painted her face at least once in the past, the way she’s doing it makes think that she probably never did.
 : ''palias jāyim ujuniritenamū'' - “apparently, the girl has painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Perfect “tense”: as before; highly dependent on context. For example, there are face painting colours out of place, but it’s unlikely she did paint her face - e.g. it may not be a logical time to do it, or too little colour seems to have been used.
+The Chlouvānem perfect is however also used where English would use ''past perfect'' or ''future perfect'', as the “impact on the present” is understood to be on the time the main action in the sentence takes place, thus something that happened earlier is considered to have an impact on it:
+: ''tammikeika flære lį uyųlaṃça, utiya nanā tammi taflunitь''.
+: train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PERF.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. , then. that.<small>DIR.PARROT</small>. train.<small>DIR.SG</small>. arrive-<small>IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>.
+: I had [already] eaten at the station yesterday when the train arrived.
+: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃça, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''
+: train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PERF.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. , then. that.<small>DIR.PARROT</small>. train.<small>DIR.SG</small>. arrive-<small>IND.FUT.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>.
+: I will have [already] eaten at the station when the train arrives.
+Note that in the latter example, English uses future perfect and present simple respectively, while Chlouvānem uses perfect and future; the future in the second clause is necessary to give the future perfect meaning to the first one.<br/>
+Still, note that out of context both pluperfect and future perfect may be expressed analytically, by using the perfect participle plus the past or future tense of ''gyake'' (to be).
+A notable exception to this use is with so-called “chained actions”, when the second one is a direct consequence of the first and the first one is usually still ongoing; the second one is therefore only a momentane happening inside the broader context of the first, and thus the choice between present and past is once again dependent on the impact on the present. Note that in such cases the two verbs are usually connected with ''no'' instead of ''sama''. Compare:
+: ''dašoritь līlta vīheṣṭviritь no'' - “it rained, and the path collapsed”. Past tense: the path has since been repaired and it is walkable.
+: ''adašora līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no'' - “it has rained, and the path has collapsed”. Perfect “tense”: the path is not walkable due to it having collapsed.
 ====Positional verbs====