Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

Line 307:

* ''liliā ñæltah mæn yąloe lilie ulguta'' - My sister, I bought the food [for her]. (1SG.GEN. sister.DIR.SG. TOPIC. food.DIR.SG. 1SG.ERG. buy.PERF-3SG.EXTERIOR.PATIENT.)

====Use of the topic====

The '''topic''' is explicitely marked with ''mæn'' if it does not coincide with the subject and does not have any syntactical role in the sentence. Some common structures where explicit topics are always used rank among the most basic sentences:

* ''lili mæn ekāṃlahīlah fliven'' "I am 21 (Chlouvānem age)/20 years old (English age)"<ref>Chlouvānem age reckoning counts the number of the ongoing year, not how many years have passed - thus a newborn is in its first year, and a 20-years-old is in its twenty-first year.</ref>, glossed: 1SG.DIR. TOPIC. twentyfirst.PARROT.DIR.SG. go.MONODIR-IND.PRES.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT.

* ''lili mæn ñæltadi undau'' "I have two sisters", glossed 1SG.DIR. TOPIC. sister-DIR.DUAL. be-IND.PRES.3D.EXTERIOR.PATIENT. — the verb "to have" is always translated by this construction.

* ''lili mæn kite domani teitė [uñyāt]'' "in my house there are eight rooms", glossed 1SG.DIR. TOPIC. house-LOC.SG. room-.GEN.SG. eight. [be-IND.PRES.3P.EXTERIOR.PATIENT.]

Two different topics are also commonly used in contrasts:

* ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā lili mæn yąlė'' "[my] husband has cooked, but I eat" - husband.DIR.SG.TOPIC. prepare.IND.PERF.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT. 1SG.DIR. TOPIC. eat-IND.PRES.1S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT. Note how neither "husband" nor "I" agree with the verbs, and note how different formulations change meanings:

** ''rūdakis mæn tęvis tatadrā lili mæn yąlė'' - main interpretation: "as for the husband, he [=someone else, could be the husband's husband] has cooked for him, but it is me who eats" // other possible interpretation: "as for the husband, he [=as before] has cooked him, but it is me who eats / and I eat him [=either of them]".

** ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā sama lili yąluça'' "[my] husband has cooked, and I eat" - unlike in the sentence where "lili" is the topic, here it's explicit that the husband cooked for the speaker. The sentence ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąluça'' may be interpreted with the same meaning, but the topics are different: with the previous one, the conversation is supposed to continue about the husband; in the second one, it's all about the speaker. Note that the agent-trigger voice in the second verb is of vital importance: the sentence ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąlu'' means "it is me my husband has cooked, and [now] he eats me".

*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąluça'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąluça'', but the latter is a plain neutral statement.

Topics also mark context: as a good example, the Chlouvānem translation of Schleicher's fable begins as: ''yanekai mæn bhadvęs udvī leilam voltām mišitьça, ūtarnu cūllu khulьsusu, spragnyu ūtrau dumbhasusu no, lilu kimęe dumbhasusu no''. Here "horses" is the topic and has no syntactical role in the sentence, as the subject is the agent ''voltām'' (sheep) and the three objects are the patients ''khulьsusah'' (the pulling one) and two different ''dumbhasusah'' (the carrying one). The topic makes it clear that these latter are nouns referring to horses - it would still be grammatical to use [...] ''khulьsusu yaneku, spragnyu ūtrau dumbhasusu yaneku no, lilu kimęe dumbhasusu yaneku no'', but the sentence would sound strange to Chlouvānem ears - compare the possible English translation "[...] a sheep saw one horse that was pulling a heavy wagon, one horse that was carrying a big load, and one horse that was carrying a man quickly".

===Noun phrase===

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 * ''liliā ñæltah mæn yąloe lilie ulguta'' - My sister, I bought the food [for her]. (<small>1SG.GEN</small>. sister.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. food.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. buy.<small>PERF</small>-<small>3SG.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.)
+====Use of the topic====
 The '''topic''' is explicitely marked with ''mæn'' if it does not coincide with the subject and does not have any syntactical role in the sentence. Some common structures where explicit topics are always used rank among the most basic sentences:
 * ''lili mæn ekāṃlahīlah fliven'' "I am 21 (Chlouvānem age)/20 years old (English age)"<ref>Chlouvānem age reckoning counts the number of the ongoing year, not how many years have passed - thus a newborn is in its first year, and a 20-years-old is in its twenty-first year.</ref>, glossed: <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. twentyfirst.<small>PARROT.DIR.SG</small>. go.<small>MONODIR-IND.PRES.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.
 * ''lili mæn ñæltadi undau'' "I have two sisters", glossed <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. sister-<small>DIR.DUAL</small>. be-<small>IND.PRES.3D.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. — the verb "to have" is always translated by this construction.
 * ''lili mæn kite domani teitė [uñyāt]'' "in my house there are eight rooms", glossed <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. house-<small>LOC.SG</small>. room-<small>.GEN.SG</small>. eight. [be-<small>IND.PRES.3P.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.]
+Two different topics are also commonly used in contrasts:
+* ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā lili mæn yąlė'' "[my] husband has cooked, but I eat" - husband.<small>DIR.SG</small>.<small>TOPIC</small>. prepare<small>.IND.PERF.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. eat-<small>IND.PRES.1S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. <br/>Note how neither "husband" nor "I" agree with the verbs, and note how different formulations change meanings:
+** ''rūdakis mæn tęvis tatadrā lili mæn yąlė'' - main interpretation: "as for the husband, he [=someone else, could be the husband's husband] has cooked for him, but it is me who eats" // other possible interpretation: "as for the husband, he [=as before] has cooked him, but it is me who eats / and I eat him [=either of them]".
+** ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā sama lili yąluça'' "[my] husband has cooked, and I eat" - unlike in the sentence where "lili" is the topic, here it's explicit that the husband cooked for the speaker. The sentence ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąluça'' may be interpreted with the same meaning, but the topics are different: with the previous one, the conversation is supposed to continue about the husband; in the second one, it's all about the speaker. Note that the agent-trigger voice in the second verb is of vital importance: the sentence ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąlu'' means "it is me my husband has cooked, and [now] he eats me".
+*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąluça'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąluça'', but the latter is a plain neutral statement.
+Topics also mark context: as a good example, the Chlouvānem translation of Schleicher's fable begins as: ''yanekai mæn bhadvęs udvī leilam voltām mišitьça, ūtarnu cūllu khulьsusu, spragnyu ūtrau dumbhasusu no, lilu kimęe dumbhasusu no''. Here "horses" is the topic and has no syntactical role in the sentence, as the subject is the agent ''voltām'' (sheep) and the three objects are the patients ''khulьsusah'' (the pulling one) and two different ''dumbhasusah'' (the carrying one). The topic makes it clear that these latter are nouns referring to horses - it would still be grammatical to use [...] ''khulьsusu yaneku, spragnyu ūtrau dumbhasusu yaneku no, lilu kimęe dumbhasusu yaneku no'', but the sentence would sound strange to Chlouvānem ears - compare the possible English translation "[...] a sheep saw one horse that was pulling a heavy wagon, one horse that was carrying a big load, and one horse that was carrying a man quickly".
 ===Noun phrase===