8,510
edits
Chlouvānem: Difference between revisions
m
→Use of the topic
m (→Vocabulary) |
|||
| Line 480: | Line 480: | ||
Two different topics are also commonly used in contrasts: | Two different topics are also commonly used in contrasts: | ||
* '' | * ''snūṣṭras mæn tadadrā lili mæn yąlē'' "[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: | ||
** '' | ** ''snūṣṭras mæn tēt tadadrā lili mæn yąlē'' - 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]". | ||
** '' | ** ''snūṣṭras 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 snūṣṭrei 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 snūṣṭrei tadadrā sama yąlu'' means "it is me my husband has cooked, and [now] he eats me". | ||
*** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn | *** Another possible interpretation of ''lili mæn snūṣṭrei tadadrā sama yąlute'' is "[my] husband has cooked for me, and now I eat", which is the same as ''lili snūṣṭrei 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 emibe voltām mišekte, ūtarnire cūllu khuliu, sūrṣire ūtrau dumbhivu no, lilu kimęe dumbhivu 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 ''khulias'' (the pulling one) and two different ''dumbhivas'' (the carrying one). The topic makes it clear that these latter are nouns referring to horses - it would still be grammatical to use [...] ''khuliu yaneku, sūrṣire ūtrau dumbhivu yaneku no, lilu kimęe dumbhivu 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 emibe voltām mišekte, ūtarnire cūllu khuliu, sūrṣire ūtrau dumbhivu no, lilu kimęe dumbhivu 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 ''khulias'' (the pulling one) and two different ''dumbhivas'' (the carrying one). The topic makes it clear that these latter are nouns referring to horses - it would still be grammatical to use [...] ''khuliu yaneku, sūrṣire ūtrau dumbhivu yaneku no, lilu kimęe dumbhivu 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". | ||