Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

Line 445:

These theoretical meanings may be translated into practice as this: the '''past''' is most commonly used to express something that happened in the past and does not influence the present, or it is not meaningful to the time of the action.

: ''tammikeika flære lį ~~yųlausŏ~~.''

: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaunilь.''

: train_station.DIR.SG. yesterday. 1SG.ERG. eat-IND.PAST.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT.

: Yesterday I ate at the station.

: ''palias jāyim ~~juniritь~~.''

: ''palias jāyim juniro.''

: face.DIR.SG. girl.DIR.SG. paint-IND.PAST.3S.INTERIOR.

: The girl painted her [own] face.

In an appropriate context, however, the same verb form can carry an imperfective meaning:

: ''tammikeika flære lį ~~yųlausŏ~~ væse, nanā tammi ~~taflunitь~~.''

: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaunilь væse, nanā tammi tadāmo.''

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

: Yesterday I ate at the station.

: ''jāyim mæn palias ~~juniritь~~, mbu ~~nenichladirėti~~ meinei ~~muṣkemālchitь~~.''

: ''jāyim mæn palias juniro, mbu nenichladireti meinei muṣkemālcho.''

: girl.DIR.SG. TOPIC. face.DIR.SG. paint-IND.PAST.3S.INTERIOR. , but. hurry-SUBJ.IMPF.3S.INTERIOR. mother-ERG.SG. ask-INF-run.MULTID-IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR.

: The girl was painting her [own] face, but her mother kept asking her to hurry.

Generally this imperfective meaning is assumed by other words in the sentence, usually ''væse'' (while), but commonly also ''mbu'' (but) with a related sentence understood to be imperfective. Out of context, imperfective past is usually expressed with an analytic construction:

: ''tammikeika flære lį ~~yųlasusąsŏ~~ mos.''

: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlasusąnilь mos.''

: train_station.DIR.SG. yesterday. 1SG.ERG. eat-PART.PRES.EXTERIOR-PARROT.DIR-AGENT. be.IND.PAST.1S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR.

: Yesterday I was eating at the station.

The main use of the '''perfect''' is expressing something that happened in the past but is still impacting the present; this is a difference very similar to the one between simple past and present perfect in English, and as such the perfect is usually translated that way. Compare, for example:

: ''palias jāyim ~~juniritь~~'' - “the girl painted her [own] face”. Past tense here expresses a generic action: the girl may have painted her face ten years or five minutes ago, but that is irrelevant to the situation. In this particular sentence, the girl’s face may be understood to have now been cleaned, or that she may have cleaned and painted her face again many times - but, actually, whether she did or didn’t is now irrelevant. The actual time when she did it only becomes relevant if it is expressed (e.g. ''palias jāyim flære juniritь'' “the girl painted her [own] face yesterday”) and then it is understood that her face isn’t painted anymore.

: ''palias jāyim juniro'' - “the girl painted her [own] face”. Past tense here expresses a generic action: the girl may have painted her face ten years or five minutes ago, but that is irrelevant to the situation. In this particular sentence, the girl’s face may be understood to have now been cleaned, or that she may have cleaned and painted her face again many times - but, actually, whether she did or didn’t is now irrelevant. The actual time when she did it only becomes relevant if it is expressed (e.g. ''palias jāyim flære juniritь'' “the girl painted her [own] face yesterday”) and then it is understood that her face isn’t painted anymore.

: ''palias jāyim ujunirā'' - “the girl has painted her [own] face”. Perfect “tense” here focusses not on the action, but on its result. The girl finished painting her face, and it may be seen that her face is still painted - when she did is still irrelevant, but it happened sufficiently close in time that the result of that action may still be seen.

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 dašajildo'' - “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 viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu ~~pepeithnādām~~ ša''.

: ''flære dašejilda'' - *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 dašejilda līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu pepeithnāyou 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 483:

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 ~~uyųlaṃsŏ~~, utiya nanā tammi ~~taflunitь~~''.

: ''tammikeika flære lį uyųlaṃnilь, utiya nanā tammi tadāmo''.

: 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 ~~uyųlaṃsŏ~~, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''

: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃnilь, 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.

Line 495:

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.

: ''dašajildo 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.

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

Both the past and the perfect are independent from verbal aspect:

: ''marte ~~mīmīšviyitь~~ kite ~~lįnitь~~ no'' - "(s)he kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] remained at home" ((s)he has since gone out of home).

: ''marte mīmīšviyo kite lįno no'' - "(s)he kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] remained at home" ((s)he has since gone out of home).

: ''marte mīšimīšveya kite ilįna no'' - "(s)he has kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] she has remained at home" (actual meaning dependent on a broader context, e.g. ''āñjulā ~~tatatsŏpepeithnaiṣyes~~'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatāpeithake'' (''ta-tad-peith-'') "to find (frequentative)")).

: ''marte mīšimīšveya kite ilįna no'' - "(s)he has kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] she has remained at home" (actual meaning dependent on a broader context, e.g. ''āñjulā tatadnilьpepeithnaiṣyes'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatāpeithake'' (''ta-tad-peith-'') "to find (frequentative)")).

====Positional verbs====

@@ Line 445: / Line 445: @@
 These theoretical meanings may be translated into practice as this: the '''past''' is most commonly used to express something that happened in the past and does not influence the present, or it is not meaningful to the time of the action.
-: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlausŏ.''
+: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaunilь.''
 : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PAST.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>.
 : Yesterday I ate at the station.
-: ''palias jāyim juniritь.''
+: ''palias jāyim juniro.''
 : face.<small>DIR.SG</small>. girl.<small>DIR.SG</small>. paint-<small>IND.PAST.3S.INTERIOR</small>.
 : The girl painted her [own] face.
 In an appropriate context, however, the same verb form can carry an imperfective meaning:
-: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlausŏ væse, nanā tammi taflunitь.''
+: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaunilь væse, nanā tammi tadāmo.''
 : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PAST.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. while. , that.<small>DIR.PARROT</small>. train.<small>DIR.SG</small>. arrive-<small>IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>
 : Yesterday I ate at the station.
-: ''jāyim mæn palias juniritь, mbu nenichladirėti meinei muṣkemālchitь.''
+: ''jāyim mæn palias juniro, mbu nenichladireti meinei muṣkemālcho.''
 : girl.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. face.<small>DIR.SG</small>. paint-<small>IND.PAST.3S.INTERIOR</small>. , but. hurry-<small>SUBJ.IMPF.3S.INTERIOR</small>. mother-<small>ERG.SG</small>. ask-<small>INF</small>-run.<small>MULTID-IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>.
 : The girl was painting her [own] face, but her mother kept asking her to hurry.
 Generally this imperfective meaning is assumed by other words in the sentence, usually ''væse'' (while), but commonly also ''mbu'' (but) with a related sentence understood to be imperfective. Out of context, imperfective past is usually expressed with an analytic construction:
-: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlasusąsŏ mos.''
+: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlasusąnilь mos.''
 : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>PART.PRES.EXTERIOR-PARROT.DIR-AGENT</small>. be.<small>IND.PAST.1S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>.
 : Yesterday I was eating at the station.
 The main use of the '''perfect''' is expressing something that happened in the past but is still impacting the present; this is a difference very similar to the one between simple past and present perfect in English, and as such the perfect is usually translated that way. Compare, for example:
-: ''palias jāyim juniritь'' - “the girl painted her [own] face”. Past tense here expresses a generic action: the girl may have painted her face ten years or five minutes ago, but that is irrelevant to the situation. In this particular sentence, the girl’s face may be understood to have now been cleaned, or that she may have cleaned and painted her face again many times - but, actually, whether she did or didn’t is now irrelevant. The actual time when she did it only becomes relevant if it is expressed (e.g. ''palias jāyim flære juniritь'' “the girl painted her [own] face yesterday”) and then it is understood that her face isn’t painted anymore.
+: ''palias jāyim juniro'' - “the girl painted her [own] face”. Past tense here expresses a generic action: the girl may have painted her face ten years or five minutes ago, but that is irrelevant to the situation. In this particular sentence, the girl’s face may be understood to have now been cleaned, or that she may have cleaned and painted her face again many times - but, actually, whether she did or didn’t is now irrelevant. The actual time when she did it only becomes relevant if it is expressed (e.g. ''palias jāyim flære juniritь'' “the girl painted her [own] face yesterday”) and then it is understood that her face isn’t painted anymore.
 : ''palias jāyim ujunirā'' - “the girl has painted her [own] face”. Perfect “tense” here focusses not on the action, but on its result. The girl finished painting her face, and it may be seen that her face is still painted - when she did is still irrelevant, but it happened sufficiently close in time that the result of that action may still be seen.
 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 dašajildo'' - “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 viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu pepeithnādām ša''.
+: ''flære dašejilda'' - *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 dašejilda līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no, āñjulā gu pepeithnāyou 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 483: / Line 483: @@
 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 uyųlaṃsŏ, utiya nanā tammi taflunitь''.
+: ''tammikeika flære lį uyųlaṃnilь, utiya nanā tammi tadāmo''.
 : 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 uyųlaṃsŏ, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''
+: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃnilь, 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.
@@ Line 495: / Line 495: @@
 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.
+: ''dašajildo 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.
+: ''dašejilda līlta viṣeheṣṭvirā no'' - “it has rained, and the path has collapsed”. Perfect “tense”: the path is not walkable due to it having collapsed.
 Both the past and the perfect are independent from verbal aspect:
-: ''marte mīmīšviyitь kite lįnitь no'' - "(s)he kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] remained at home" ((s)he has since gone out of home).
+: ''marte mīmīšviyo kite lįno no'' - "(s)he kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] remained at home" ((s)he has since gone out of home).
-: ''marte mīšimīšveya kite ilįna no'' - "(s)he has kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] she has remained at home" (actual meaning dependent on a broader context, e.g. ''āñjulā tatatsŏpepeithnaiṣyes'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatāpeithake'' (''ta-tad-peith-'') "to find (frequentative)")).
+: ''marte mīšimīšveya kite ilįna no'' - "(s)he has kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] she has remained at home" (actual meaning dependent on a broader context, e.g. ''āñjulā tatadnilьpepeithnaiṣyes'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatāpeithake'' (''ta-tad-peith-'') "to find (frequentative)")).
 ====Positional verbs====