Chlouvānem/Morphology: Difference between revisions

Lili21 (talk | contribs)
Lili21 (talk | contribs)
Line 338: Line 338:
The imperative is a defective paradigm, lacking all dual forms — note, though, that some grammarians follow common use and simply list dual forms that are exactly the same as the plural ones. It is formed from the bare root, thus it has the same formation for all verbs. Unlike all other terminations, there are separate agentive and patientive ones (note that agentive ones begin with '''-ь''' and not ''-y''. Causative forms follow the same pattern as non-causative ones, but the stem is the specifically causative one.
The imperative is a defective paradigm, lacking all dual forms — note, though, that some grammarians follow common use and simply list dual forms that are exactly the same as the plural ones. It is formed from the bare root, thus it has the same formation for all verbs. Unlike all other terminations, there are separate agentive and patientive ones (note that agentive ones begin with '''-ь''' and not ''-y''. Causative forms follow the same pattern as non-causative ones, but the stem is the specifically causative one.


Note that, due to the politeness system of Chlouvānem, the imperative is somewhat rare, as other methods are used. The first person imperative is an exception, being often used with the meaning “I/we must”; also used are some forms where clarity is preferred, like ''nakāyu thiatieitte'' "mind the gap".
Note that, due to the politeness system of Chlouvānem, the imperative is somewhat rare, as other methods are used. The first person imperative is an exception, being often used with the meaning “I/we must”; also used are some forms where clarity is preferred, like ''nakāyų thiatia'' "mind the gap".


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"