Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

Line 319:

*** 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".

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".<br/>

As such, topics usually avoid repetition and anaphora, acting much like folders where different paper sheets (= the sentences) are contained, e.g. ''nāmñė mæn švai chlouvānumi maichleyuiti, jariāmaile lilašąt, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu haloe līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti gṇyāvirė'' - "talking about nāmñai<ref>A kind of tropical seal, iconic and sacred in Chlouvānem culture.</ref>, [they're] animals of the Southern [part of the] Chlouvānem lands, [they] live in seawater but sometimes [they can be found] in tidal lakes too, and another name for their cubs is "līlas". From this [name] comes the name of the capital, Līlasuṃghāṇa."

===Noun phrase===

@@ Line 319: / Line 319: @@
 *** 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".
+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".<br/>
+As such, topics usually avoid repetition and anaphora, acting much like folders where different paper sheets (= the sentences) are contained, e.g. ''nāmñė mæn švai chlouvānumi maichleyuiti, jariāmaile lilašąt, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu haloe līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti gṇyāvirė'' - "talking about nāmñai<ref>A kind of tropical seal, iconic and sacred in Chlouvānem culture.</ref>, [they're] animals of the Southern [part of the] Chlouvānem lands, [they] live in seawater but sometimes [they can be found] in tidal lakes too, and another name for their cubs is "līlas". From this [name] comes the name of the capital, Līlasuṃghāṇa."
 ===Noun phrase===