Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

Line 391:

The ''topic-comment'' structure of Chlouvānem sentences is an analysis that derives from the fact that, in normal speech, the subject always comes first in the sentence except for unmarked topics, or temporal complements topicalized through word order, as in:

: ''flære prājamne lili ~~lārvājuṣui~~ māṃṣu.''

: ''flære prājamne lili lārvājuṣom māṃṣu.''

: yesterday. evening-LOC.SG. 1SG.DIR. temple-DAT.SG. go.MONODIR.PAST-IND.1S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT.

: Yesterday [in the] evening I went to the temple.

Line 404:

* ''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 tadadrā 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".

** ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā sama lili yąlusŏ'' "[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 yąlusŏ'' 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.

*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąlusŏ'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąlusŏ'', 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 mišitьsŏ, 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".

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 lilašęn, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe 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."

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 maichleyutei, jariāmaile lilašęn, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe 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."

Finally, certain sentences act as answers for different questions due to different implications depending on whether there's an explicit topic or not:

* ''lili mæn lunai tadarė'' "I'm preparing tea", topicalized, clearly answers a question like ''yananū ejulā darire?'' "what's going on here?".

* ''lili lunāyu ~~taçadaru~~'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu ~~taçadarė~~?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".

* ''lili lunāyu tasŏdaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu tasŏdarė?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".

* With a question like ''yananū sąi darė?'' "what are you doing?", both become synonyms as they introduce the new topic ''lili'' (due to the previous one being ''yananū?'' because of patient-trigger voice); the same question in agent-trigger voice, ''sāmi yananūyu ~~dariça~~?'', would be answered with the non-topicalized form.

* With a question like ''yananū sąi darė?'' "what are you doing?", both become synonyms as they introduce the new topic ''lili'' (due to the previous one being ''yananū?'' because of patient-trigger voice); the same question in agent-trigger voice, ''sāmi yananūyu darisŏ?'', would be answered with the non-topicalized form.

===Noun phrase===

@@ Line 391: / Line 391: @@
 The ''topic-comment'' structure of Chlouvānem sentences is an analysis that derives from the fact that, in normal speech, the subject always comes first in the sentence except for unmarked topics, or temporal complements topicalized through word order, as in:
-: ''flære prājamne lili lārvājuṣui māṃṣu.''
+: ''flære prājamne lili lārvājuṣom māṃṣu.''
 : yesterday. evening-<small>LOC.SG</small>. <small>1SG.DIR</small>. temple-<small>DAT.SG</small>. go.<small>MONODIR.PAST-IND.1S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.
 : Yesterday [in the] evening I went to the temple.
@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 * ''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 tadadrā 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".
+** ''rūdakis mæn tadadrā sama lili yąlusŏ'' "[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 yąlusŏ'' 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.
+*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąlusŏ'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąlusŏ'', 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 mišitьsŏ, 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".
-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 lilašęn, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe 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."
+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 maichleyutei, jariāmaile lilašęn, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe 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."
 Finally, certain sentences act as answers for different questions due to different implications depending on whether there's an explicit topic or not:
 * ''lili mæn lunai tadarė'' "I'm preparing tea", topicalized, clearly answers a question like ''yananū ejulā darire?'' "what's going on here?".
-* ''lili lunāyu taçadaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu taçadarė?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".
+* ''lili lunāyu tasŏdaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu tasŏdarė?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".
-* With a question like ''yananū sąi darė?'' "what are you doing?", both become synonyms as they introduce the new topic ''lili'' (due to the previous one being ''yananū?'' because of patient-trigger voice); the same question in agent-trigger voice, ''sāmi yananūyu dariça?'', would be answered with the non-topicalized form.
+* With a question like ''yananū sąi darė?'' "what are you doing?", both become synonyms as they introduce the new topic ''lili'' (due to the previous one being ''yananū?'' because of patient-trigger voice); the same question in agent-trigger voice, ''sāmi yananūyu darisŏ?'', would be answered with the non-topicalized form.
 ===Noun phrase===