Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions

114 bytes removed ,  17 June 2017
m
Line 399: Line 399:
The '''subject''' - whatever agrees with the verb - is usually the topic, but there can be another explicitely stated topic (denoted by the particle ''mæn'') which gets precedence on the subject (triggered by the verb), as in the third of the following examples:
The '''subject''' - whatever agrees with the verb - is usually the topic, but there can be another explicitely stated topic (denoted by the particle ''mæn'') which gets precedence on the subject (triggered by the verb), as in the third of the following examples:
* ''yąloe lį ulguta'' - The food has been bought by me. (food.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. buy.<small>PERF</small>-<small>3SG.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.)
* ''yąloe lį ulguta'' - The food has been bought by me. (food.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. buy.<small>PERF</small>-<small>3SG.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.)
* ''lili yąlenu ulgutaṃnilь'' - I have bought food. (<small>1SG.DIR</small>. food-<small>ACC.SG</small>. buy.<small>PERF</small>-<small>1SG.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>.)
* ''lili yąlenu ulgutaṃte'' - I have bought food. (<small>1SG.DIR</small>. food-<small>ACC.SG</small>. buy.<small>PERF</small>-<small>1SG.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>.)
* ''liliā ñæltah mæn yąloe lį 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>.)
* ''liliā ñæltah mæn yąloe lį 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>.)


Line 416: Line 416:
* ''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 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 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 yąlunilь'' "[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 yąlunilь'' 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 yąlute'' "[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 yąlute'' 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 yąlunilь'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąlunilь'', but the latter is a plain neutral statement.
*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn rūdakei tadadrā sama yąlute'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili rūdakei takædadrā sama yąlute'', 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 mišonilь, 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 mišote, 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 maichleyutei, jariāmaile lilah, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe gṇyāvire'' - "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 lilah, nūšmiya mušigėrisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas væl. nenėhu līlasuṃghāṇa ga camimarti haloe gṇyāvire'' - "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."
Line 425: Line 425:
Finally, certain sentences act as answers for different questions due to different implications depending on whether there's an explicit topic or not:
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 mæn lunai tadarė'' "I'm preparing tea", topicalized, clearly answers a question like ''yananū ejulā darire?'' "what's going on here?".
* ''lili lunāyu tanilьdaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu tanilьdarė?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".
* ''lili lunāyu tatedaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu tatedarė?'' "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 darinilь?'', 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 darite?'', would be answered with the non-topicalized form.


===Noun phrase===
===Noun phrase===
Line 448: Line 448:
* ''saminat tamiā ḍhuvah'' — having been a child <small>(lit. "as a former child", "from being a child")</small>, (s)he remembers that.
* ''saminat tamiā ḍhuvah'' — having been a child <small>(lit. "as a former child", "from being a child")</small>, (s)he remembers that.
* ''lūlunimartyęs nunūt dældāt tarliru'' — being from Lūlunimarta, I understand that language. Note that ''nunūt dældāt'' here is exessive case but only because it's an argument of the verb ''tṛlake'', without implying tense.
* ''lūlunimartyęs nunūt dældāt tarliru'' — being from Lūlunimarta, I understand that language. Note that ''nunūt dældāt'' here is exessive case but only because it's an argument of the verb ''tṛlake'', without implying tense.
* ''bunān samin pa maišildennilь'' — as he's going to be a father <small>(lit. "as a will-be-father")</small>, he's learning about children.
* ''bunān samin pa maišildente'' — as he's going to be a father <small>(lit. "as a will-be-father")</small>, he's learning about children.
Note that, like for participles, tense is relative to the main verb.
Note that, like for participles, tense is relative to the main verb.


Line 479: Line 479:


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.
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 yųlaunilь.''
: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaute.''
: train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PAST.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>.
: 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.
: Yesterday I ate at the station.
Line 488: Line 488:


In an appropriate context, however, the same verb form can carry an imperfective meaning:
In an appropriate context, however, the same verb form can carry an imperfective meaning:
: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaunilь væse, nanā tammi tadāmo.''
: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlaute 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>
: 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.
: Yesterday I ate at the station.
Line 497: Line 497:


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:
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 yųlasusąnilь mos.''
: ''tammikeika flære lį yųlasusąte 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>.
: 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.
: Yesterday I was eating at the station.
Line 517: Line 517:


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:
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 uyųlaṃnilь, utiya nanā tammi tadāmo''.
: ''tammikeika flære lį uyųlaṃte, 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>.
: 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.
: I had [already] eaten at the station yesterday when the train arrived.


: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃnilь, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''
: ''tammikeika lį uyųlaṃte, 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>.
: 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.
: I will have [already] eaten at the station when the train arrives.
Line 534: Line 534:
Both the past and the perfect are independent from verbal aspect:
Both the past and the perfect are independent from verbal aspect:
: ''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 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 tatadnilьpepeithnaiṣyes'' "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 tatantepepeithnaiṣyes'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatāpeithake'' (''ta-tad-peith-'') "to find (frequentative)")).


====The optative mood====
====The optative mood====
Line 543: Line 543:
: ''pū glidemæh āñjulā jeivau!'' "if only I had been there!"
: ''pū glidemæh āñjulā jeivau!'' "if only I had been there!"
: ''samin nanea domane gu tiaineran ša.'' "the kids shouldn't stay in that room."
: ''samin nanea domane gu tiaineran ša.'' "the kids shouldn't stay in that room."
: ''yąlenų ānat kārvātiu valtfårsadreininilь.'' "after a meal you ought to burn <small>(lit. "to turn on")</small> incense<ref>Burning incense after meals is a common tradition across most of the Chlouvānem world.</ref>."
: ''yąlenų ānat kārvātiu valtfårsadreinite.'' "after a meal you ought to burn <small>(lit. "to turn on")</small> incense<ref>Burning incense after meals is a common tradition across most of the Chlouvānem world.</ref>."
: ''lālis yacė nami, tamaireinildṛši spa.'' "please sit down."
: ''lālis yacė nami, tamaireinildṛši spa.'' "please sit down."


====The subjunctive mood====
====The subjunctive mood====
The subjunctive mood has a variety of uses, most commonly when followed or introduced by a certain particle. The bare subjunctive, however, has a supine meaning:
The subjunctive mood has a variety of uses, most commonly when followed or introduced by a certain particle. The bare subjunctive, however, has a supine meaning:
: ''šunilitieldā, yaivei tamišīti.'' "it has been put there for everybody to look at it."
: ''šuteitieldā, yaivei tamišīti.'' "it has been put there for everybody to look at it."
: ''luvāmom dāmo yambrānu lgutītinilь.'' "(s)he went to the market to buy pears."
: ''luvāmom dāmo yambrānu lgutītite.'' "(s)he went to the market to buy pears."
Some verbs, such as ''nīdhyuʔake'' (to call for), usually require the subjunctive:
Some verbs, such as ''nīdhyuʔake'' (to call for), usually require the subjunctive:
: ''nīnilьdhyuʔo karthāgo bīdrīti.'' "(s)he called for Carthage to be destroyed."
: ''nītedhyuʔo karthāgo bīdrīti.'' "(s)he called for Carthage to be destroyed."
The verbs for "to study" (''pāṭṭaruke'', ''pāṭṭarudṛke'', ''kaminairīveke'') and "to learn" (interior forms of ''mišake''; ''nairīveke'') only need a supine-meaning subjunctive when they mean "in order to know something, in order to be able to". With the meaning "in order to become something", a noun in translative case is used:
The verbs for "to study" (''pāṭṭaruke'', ''pāṭṭarudṛke'', ''kaminairīveke'') and "to learn" (interior forms of ''mišake''; ''nairīveke'') only need a supine-meaning subjunctive when they mean "in order to know something, in order to be able to". With the meaning "in order to become something", a noun in translative case is used:
: ''fildenī āndṛke munatiam ejulā kaminairīveyu.'' "I study here in order to be able to create games."
: ''fildenī āndṛke munatiam ejulā kaminairīveyu.'' "I study here in order to be able to create games."
Line 559: Line 559:
: ''tami jilde maunalieh.'' "we know how to do it."
: ''tami jilde maunalieh.'' "we know how to do it."
: ''yakaliyātamei āndrīti elena.'' "it has been chosen to have it built by Your honorable company."
: ''yakaliyātamei āndrīti elena.'' "it has been chosen to have it built by Your honorable company."
: ''tami šubīdṛke lenanājanilь.'' "we decided to tear it down."
: ''tami šubīdṛke lenanājate.'' "we decided to tear it down."


====Positional verbs====
====Positional verbs====
Line 611: Line 611:
| Facing; towards ('''pid-''') || pindiāke || pidmirte || pidukte
| Facing; towards ('''pid-''') || pindiāke || pidmirte || pidukte
|-
|-
| Facing inside; near the center; <small>''mot.:'' convergent</small> ('''nilь-''') || nilьtiāke || nilьmirte || niliukte
| Facing inside; near the center; <small>''mot.:'' convergent</small> ('''nalь-''') || nalьtiāke || nalьmirte || naliukte
|-
|-
| Facing outside; far from the center; <small>''mot.:'' divergent</small> ('''vād-''') || vāndiāke || vādmirte || vādukte
| Facing outside; far from the center; <small>''mot.:'' divergent</small> ('''vād-''') || vāndiāke || vādmirte || vādukte
Line 638: Line 638:


The morphologically easiest is to simply attach the positional prefix in front of the verb and express that position with the locative, so for example we have:
The morphologically easiest is to simply attach the positional prefix in front of the verb and express that position with the locative, so for example we have:
: ''lilea domane nanilьyašu'' "I read in my room".
: ''lilea domane nateyašu'' "I read in my room".
: ''lilea domane nanilьkillieh'' "we talk in my room".
: ''lilea domane natekillieh'' "we talk in my room".


However, while always correct, there may be some ambiguities because of the use of positional prefixes as derivational ones: the latter example shows one of these ambiguities, as ''nakulke'' means both "to talk (in somewhere)" and "to begin to talk/speak". Another strategy, correct but more proper in formal writings than in speech, is to use the appropriate positional verb as a homofocal adverbial. This has the advantage of showing the type of position:
However, while always correct, there may be some ambiguities because of the use of positional prefixes as derivational ones: the latter example shows one of these ambiguities, as ''nakulke'' means both "to talk (in somewhere)" and "to begin to talk/speak". Another strategy, correct but more proper in formal writings than in speech, is to use the appropriate positional verb as a homofocal adverbial. This has the advantage of showing the type of position:
: ''lilea domane nañollie yašunilь'' "I read while laying in my room" (note that "to lay in one's room" idiomatically means "to lay on the bed").
: ''lilea domane nañollie yašute'' "I read while laying in my room" (note that "to lay in one's room" idiomatically means "to lay on the bed").
: ''lilea domane namerlie killięnilь'' "we talk while sitting in my room".
: ''lilea domane namerlie killięte'' "we talk while sitting in my room".


The third, and most colloquial strategy, is to put the position as the derived noun (in ''-timas'' / ''-mirtas'' / ''-utis'') in the locative and the location in the genitive:
The third, and most colloquial strategy, is to put the position as the derived noun (in ''-timas'' / ''-mirtas'' / ''-utis'') in the locative and the location in the genitive:
: ''liliai domani nañutie yašunilь'' "I read while laying in my room" (lit. "in a sitting position in the inside of my room").
: ''liliai domani nañutie yašute'' "I read while laying in my room" (lit. "in a sitting position in the inside of my room").
: ''liliai domani namirte killięnilь'' "we talk while sitting in my room".
: ''liliai domani namirte killięte'' "we talk while sitting in my room".


Note that some locations are often expressed with the last one anyway, especially if they're idiomatic — a notable example being ''yųljavyī ūtime/ūmirte'' "standing/sitting in the kitchen", as ''yųljavyāh'' originally meant "fire for [cooking] food" and while it later was extended to "kitchen" the location is still expressed as such ("in the kitchen" = "near the fire").
Note that some locations are often expressed with the last one anyway, especially if they're idiomatic — a notable example being ''yųljavyī ūtime/ūmirte'' "standing/sitting in the kitchen", as ''yųljavyāh'' originally meant "fire for [cooking] food" and while it later was extended to "kitchen" the location is still expressed as such ("in the kitchen" = "near the fire").
Line 713: Line 713:
* Gnomic or potential meanings:
* Gnomic or potential meanings:
:: ''gūṇai mordhīran'' - birds [can] fly.
:: ''gūṇai mordhīran'' - birds [can] fly.
:: ''spragnyæh lalāruṇai pāmveh lilu en nanū dårbhīrannilь'' - large lalāruṇai can carry more than three people.
:: ''spragnyæh lalāruṇai pāmveh lilu en nanū dårbhīrante'' - large lalāruṇai can carry more than three people.
* (in the past or perfect) completed movements: movement to a place and then returning back.
* (in the past or perfect) completed movements: movement to a place and then returning back.
:: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mordho'' - my older sister went to Galiākina by plane [and came back].
:: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mordho'' - my older sister went to Galiākina by plane [and came back].
Line 721: Line 721:
In auxiliary constructions, monodirectional verbs are never used as habituals (infinitive + ''ñeaʔake''), while multidirectional ones are never used as progressives (p.part + ''gyake''):
In auxiliary constructions, monodirectional verbs are never used as habituals (infinitive + ''ñeaʔake''), while multidirectional ones are never used as progressives (p.part + ''gyake''):
: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mordhakeñeaʔo'' - my older sister regularly went to Galiākina by plane.
: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mordhakeñeaʔo'' - my older sister regularly went to Galiākina by plane.
: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mugdhyąnilь moe'' - my older sister was flying to Galiākina.
: ''liliā buneya galiākinom mugdhyąte moe'' - my older sister was flying to Galiākina.


====Origin prefixes====
====Origin prefixes====
Line 826: Line 826:
|}
|}


Note that the sense of "to wear" is most usually translated with patient-trigger voice - e.g. ''pāṇḍah jūnekah tę kamikyāyė'' "(s)he wears white robes" - while "to put on" with agent-trigger voice ''pāṇḍu jūneku kaminilьkyāyė'' "(s)he puts/is putting on white robes".
Note that the sense of "to wear" is most usually translated with patient-trigger voice - e.g. ''pāṇḍah jūnekah tę kamikyāyė'' "(s)he wears white robes" - while "to put on" with agent-trigger voice ''pāṇḍu jūneku kamitekyāyė'' "(s)he puts/is putting on white robes".


A few more specific verbs exist, like for example the pair ''kamilāṇṭake''/''kįlalāṇṭake'', used for putting on/taking off a ''lāṇṭepenai'' (colloquially just ''penai''), a kind of net made of Calemerian juta (''lāriṭa'') usually worn by adolescent girls (traditionally it was worn by unmarried women) with "cotton" hair (''bhadvausiñe'', or how Chlouvānem people call "Afro-textured hair").
A few more specific verbs exist, like for example the pair ''kamilāṇṭake''/''kįlalāṇṭake'', used for putting on/taking off a ''lāṇṭepenai'' (colloquially just ''penai''), a kind of net made of Calemerian juta (''lāriṭa'') usually worn by adolescent girls (traditionally it was worn by unmarried women) with "cotton" hair (''bhadvausiñe'', or how Chlouvānem people call "Afro-textured hair").
Line 834: Line 834:


: ''lilei '''priemęlьcāh''' fluta'' - the bag which has been given back by the person
: ''lilei '''priemęlьcāh''' fluta'' - the bag which has been given back by the person
: ''fluta '''priniliemęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person who has given back the bag
: ''fluta '''pritėmęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person who has given back the bag
: ''fluta dhurvāneiti '''prikevemęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person for whose benefit the bag has been given back to the police
: ''fluta dhurvāneiti '''prikevemęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person for whose benefit the bag has been given back to the police
: ''fluta ītulom '''prituremęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person for whose misfortune the bag has been given back to the thief
: ''fluta ītulom '''prituremęlьcāh''' lila'' - the person for whose misfortune the bag has been given back to the thief
Line 845: Line 845:


: ''flutu demie maihei '''priūsyemęllīse''' lila hånyadaikah moe.'' - the person, having been given back the bag by his/her own daughter, was happy.
: ''flutu demie maihei '''priūsyemęllīse''' lila hånyadaikah moe.'' - the person, having been given back the bag by his/her own daughter, was happy.
: ''ālīce '''guṃslūte''' liliā pamih uyūṭarau rileyonilь.'' - my finger, having been cut that way, needed an operation.
: ''ālīce '''guṃslūte''' liliā pamih uyūṭarau rileyote.'' - my finger, having been cut that way, needed an operation.
: ''panaʔetatimu læmilāṇe arūppumei '''ilaklīsetū''' læmьlila menire pifreṣṭasyiṣya.'' - the driver, being disadvantaged as (his/her) championship rival has taken pole position, will have to take some risks tomorrow.
: ''panaʔetatimu læmilāṇe arūppumei '''ilaklīsetū''' læmьlila menire pifreṣṭasyiṣya.'' - the driver, being disadvantaged as (his/her) championship rival has taken pole position, will have to take some risks tomorrow.


Line 860: Line 860:


In a free relative clause, the correlative structure is the most common one, with sentences such as:
In a free relative clause, the correlative structure is the most common one, with sentences such as:
: ''tejāmiau mešunilь nanāt gu tarliru ša''.
: ''tejāmiau mešute nanāt gu tarliru ša''.
: which_thing.<small>REL-ACC</small>. see-<small>IND.PRES.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. that-<small>EXESS</small>. <small>NEG</small>- know-<small>IND.PRES.1S.INTERIOR</small>. -<small>NEG</small>.
: which_thing.<small>REL-ACC</small>. see-<small>IND.PRES.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. that-<small>EXESS</small>. <small>NEG</small>- know-<small>IND.PRES.1S.INTERIOR</small>. -<small>NEG</small>.
: I don’t know/understand what I see.
: I don’t know/understand what I see.
Line 869: Line 869:
: When my sister takes the plane to Līlekhaitė, I will go with her to the airport.
: When my sister takes the plane to Līlekhaitė, I will go with her to the airport.


: ''tami tėmena tū kulonilь ātmena gu tarliru ša''.
: ''tami tėmena tū kulote ātmena gu tarliru ša''.
: <small>2S.DIR</small>. why.<small>REL</small>. <small>3S.ACC</small>. say-<small>IND.AOR.3S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. that_reason. <small>NEG</small>- know-<small>IND.PRES.1S.INTERIOR</small>. -<small>NEG</small>.
: <small>2S.DIR</small>. why.<small>REL</small>. <small>3S.ACC</small>. say-<small>IND.AOR.3S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. that_reason. <small>NEG</small>- know-<small>IND.PRES.1S.INTERIOR</small>. -<small>NEG</small>.
: I don’t know why (s)he said it.
: I don’t know why (s)he said it.
Line 877: Line 877:


Real sentences are those where the sentence expresses an implication that is always true. These sentences are generally in the indicative mood; note that in real, just like in hypothetical, sentences, ''mārim'' (then) is optionally used in order to introduce the second clause:
Real sentences are those where the sentence expresses an implication that is always true. These sentences are generally in the indicative mood; note that in real, just like in hypothetical, sentences, ''mārim'' (then) is optionally used in order to introduce the second clause:
: ''pū nāmvinilь (mārim) tåh ryukaši.'' "if you hit him/her/it, you hurt him/her/it."
: ''pū nāmvite (mārim) tåh ryukaši.'' "if you hit him/her/it, you hurt him/her/it."
: ''pū yañšu udhyuʔesnilь tafluniṣya.'' "if you have called her [honorific], she will come."
: ''pū yañšu udhyuʔeste tafluniṣya.'' "if you have called her [honorific], she will come."


Hypothetical sentences are those where the result may be or might have been true if the condition gets/would have been fulfilled. There are two main possibilities:

Hypothetical sentences are those where the result may be or might have been true if the condition gets/would have been fulfilled. There are two main possibilities:

* Present conditions, where the condition either might be fulfilled or just can't at all. They are similar in structure to real sentences with present tense conditions, but, if the condition is fulfillable, they differ in the fact that the condition, is not likely to happen, or is used as a warning. The condition (''pū-clause'') is always in the imperfective subjunctive; the second clause may be in the indicative (carrying an implicate result) or in the subjunctive (implying a wish):
* Present conditions, where the condition either might be fulfilled or just can't at all. They are similar in structure to real sentences with present tense conditions, but, if the condition is fulfillable, they differ in the fact that the condition, is not likely to happen, or is used as a warning. The condition (''pū-clause'') is always in the imperfective subjunctive; the second clause may be in the indicative (carrying an implicate result) or in the subjunctive (implying a wish):
: ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gīti samvaru kitu lgutevitaṃnilь.'' "if I had more of money, I'd buy (perf. aspect) a bigger house."
: ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gīti samvaru kitu lgutevitaṃte.'' "if I had more of money, I'd buy (perf. aspect) a bigger house."
: ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gīti chloucæm lilatiam.'' "if I had more money, I'd live (impf. aspect) better."
: ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gīti chloucæm lilatiam.'' "if I had more money, I'd live (impf. aspect) better."
: ''pū nanū pāṭṭarudrīderi nanū tṛliriṣyari/tṛlirdia.'' "if you two study more, you two would know/understand more." Note that in such a sentence there's no difference between using a future (e.g. ''tṛliriṣyari'' here) or a present indicative (''tṛlirdia'' here).

: ''pū nanū pāṭṭarudrīderi nanū tṛliriṣyari/tṛlirdia.'' "if you two study more, you two would know/understand more." Note that in such a sentence there's no difference between using a future (e.g. ''tṛliriṣyari'' here) or a present indicative (''tṛlirdia'' here).

: ''pū liliā bunā gėrisa gīti tami liliā bunā gu gīti ša.'' "if my father were a lake, he wouldn't be my father."
: ''pū liliā bunā gėrisa gīti tami liliā bunā gu gīti ša.'' "if my father were a lake, he wouldn't be my father."
* Unfulfillable past conditions, where the condition could have been fulfilled in the past but wasn't. The ''pū-''clause is always in perfective subjunctive, while the other may be either imperfective or perfective depending on the meaning.
* Unfulfillable past conditions, where the condition could have been fulfilled in the past but wasn't. The ''pū-''clause is always in perfective subjunctive, while the other may be either imperfective or perfective depending on the meaning.
: ''mei tati pū kulevitaṃnilь yaiva gātarah gīti.'' "if I had said 'yes', everything would be different (now)."
: ''mei tati pū kulevitaṃte yaiva gātarah gīti.'' "if I had said 'yes', everything would be different (now)."
: ''mei tati pū kulevitaṃnilь tami gu nagyevite ša.'' "if I had said 'yes', that wouldn't have happened."
: ''mei tati pū kulevitaṃte tami gu nagyevite ša.'' "if I had said 'yes', that wouldn't have happened."


==Vocabulary==
==Vocabulary==
8,622

edits