|
|
| Line 469: |
Line 469: |
|
| |
|
| ==Syntax - Kilendarāmita== | | ==Syntax - Kilendarāmita== |
| ===Constituent order===
| | : ''Main article: [[Chlouvānem/Syntax|Chlouvānem syntax]] |
| Like most other Lahob languages, the preferred word order in Chlouvānem is SOV, and the language is almost completely head-final. The word order could however be better defined as ''topic-comment'', but in less common styles it is perfectly possible, thanks to case inflections, to greatly deviate from this standard order.<br/>
| |
| Note that Chlouvānem terminology typically distinguishes topics as ''aplidra caṃginutas'' vs. ''gu aplidra caṃginutas'' (or also ''tadgerenei aplidra caṃginutas'' or ''daradhāve aplidra caṃginutas''), translated here as "explicit topic" and "unmarked topic" (or "voice-marked topic" or "verb-marked topic") respectively. Explicit topic (''aplidra caṃginutas'') is understood as a topic marked by the particle ''mæn''.
| |
|
| |
|
| The '''subject''' - whatever agrees with the verb - is usually the topic, but there can be an explicit topic which gets precedence on the subject (i.e. the "unmarked topic" triggered by the verb), as in the third of the following examples:
| | Chlouvānem is a mostly synthetic, topic-prominent, and almost exclusively head-final language. It has an [[w:Austronesian alignment|Austronesian-type morphosyntactic alignment]] and a topic-comment word order, with OSV or SOV syntax being chosen according to how the topic itself is marked. |
| * ''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 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>.)
| |
| | |
| 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 lārvājuṣom pīdhvu.''
| |
| : yesterday. evening-<small>LOC.SG</small>. <small>1SG.DIR</small>. temple-<small>DAT.SG</small>. go.<small>MULTIDIR.PAST-IND.1S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.
| |
| : Yesterday [in the] evening I went to the temple.
| |
| | |
| ====Use of the topic====
| |
| The '''topic''' is explicitely marked with ''mæn'' if it does not coincide with the subject and does not have any syntactical role in the sentence. Some common structures where explicit topics are always used rank among the most basic sentences:
| |
| * ''lili mæn māmimojendeh liven'' "I am 21 (19<sub>12</sub>, Chlouvānem age)/20 years old (English age)"<ref>Chlouvānem age reckoning counts the number of the ongoing year, not how many years have passed - thus a newborn is in its first year, and a 20-years-old is in its twenty-first year.</ref>, glossed: <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. nineteenth<sub>12</sub>.<small>DIR.SG</small>. go.<small>MONODIR-IND.PRES.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.
| |
| * ''lili mæn ñæltion jali'' "I have two sisters", glossed <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. sister-<small>DIR.DUAL</small>. be-<small>IND.PRES.3D.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. — the verb "to have" is always translated by this construction.
| |
| * ''lili mæn kite dvārmi tītya [jali]'' "in my house there are eight rooms", glossed <small>1SG.DIR</small>. <small>TOPIC</small>. house-<small>LOC.SG</small>. room-<small>.GEN.SG</small>. eight. [be-<small>IND.PRES.3P.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.]
| |
| | |
| 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 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: ''yarḍhmai mæn bhadvęs udvī emibe voltām mišekte, tami ūtarnire cūllu kholegde, tami sūrṣire ūtrau dombhegde no, tami lilu kimęe dombhegde no''. Here "horses" is the topic and has no syntactical role in any of the sentences, as the subject is the agent ''voltām'' (sheep) and the three "objects" seen by the sheep are actually the subjects of the latter three sentences - ''tami ... kholegde'' (the pulling one) and two different ''tami ... dombhegde'' (the carrying one). The topic makes it clear that these latter are nouns referring to horses - it would still be grammatical to use [...] ''kholegde yarḍhmu, sūrṣire ūtrau dombhegde yarḍhmu no, lilu kimęe dombhegde yarḍhmu 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. ''nāmñē mæn švai chlǣvānumi maichleyutei, jariāmaile lilah, soramiya mušigērisilīm tora bu sama ñikumi viṣam haloe līlas vi. nenēhu 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."
| |
| | |
| 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 tadarē'' "I'm preparing tea", topicalized, clearly answers a question like ''yananū ejulā darire?'' "what's going on here?".
| |
| * ''lili lunāyu tatedaru'' "I'm preparing tea" answers ''yavita lunāyu tatedarē?'' "who is preparing tea?", with the meaning of "no one but me is preparing tea".
| |
| * With a question like ''yananū sąi darē?'' "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.
| |
| | |
| ====Definiteness====
| |
| A topicalized argument, whether explicitely marked (i.e. with ''mæn'') or not, is always understood to be definite. On the contrary, this is not the case for non-topic arguments, whose definiteness, in most cases, has to be understood by context (obviously, this does not apply to words that are semantically definite - e.g. pronouns or proper names).<br/>
| |
| Common strategies to mark definiteness are:
| |
| * Simply adding information to the word (e.g. ''luvai'' "(a) market" → ''saṃryojyami lātimi ubgire ṣarivāṃluvai'' "the state department store on the approach to central Saṃryojyam"). Again, some ambiguity may still remain;
| |
| * Using a determiner - distal ''nanā'' "that" is perhaps the most common definiteness marker to resolve ambiguity;
| |
| * Explicitely topicalizing the ambiguous argument (not always possible);
| |
| * A different solution is to mark indefiniteness: this is commonly done by using either ''emibe'' "one" or, in colloquial speech, ''sorasmā'' "some kind of".
| |
| | |
| Chlouvānem as spoken in the area around the mid-course of the Lāmiejāya river (the central Plain: roughly the whole of the diocese of Raharjātia, most of Jolenītra, Daikatorāma, Vādhātorama, and Namapleta, and parts of Mūrajātana, Perelkaša, Ryogiñjātia and far northern Sendakārva) does have a definite article used with non-topicalized arguments, which is actually the repurposed archaic demonstrative ''ami'' (still used as "this" in Archaic Chlouvānem). It declines for case, but not number, mostly following the pronoun declension (that is, exactly as ''tami'' without the initial ''t-'' except for the accusative (''amu'') and ergative (''amye'')).
| |
| | |
| ===Noun phrase===
| |
| ====Non-triggered arguments====
| |
| Non-triggered arguments require a specific case to distinguish their role when they're not triggered by the voice:
| |
| * ''Patient'' → <small>(transitive verbs)</small> accusative case; <small>(intransitive and interior verbs)</small> essive case
| |
| * ''Agent'' → ergative case
| |
| * ''Benefacted'' → direct + '''nali'''
| |
| * ''Antibenefacted'' → direct + '''fras'''
| |
| * ''Location'' → locative case
| |
| * ''Instrument'' → instrumental case
| |
| * ''Dative argument'' → dative case
| |
| | |
| ====Stative cases as nominal tense====
| |
| The three stative cases of Chlouvānem (translative, exessive, essive) express nominal tense in certain situations, most notably in copulative sentence, where the translative case conveys a future meaning and the exessive a past one:
| |
| * ''lili rahēllilan'' — I am a will-be-doctor = I am studying in order to become a doctor
| |
| * ''liliā kaleya mæn gu ninejñairau ša nanū aveṣyotārire lallāmahan camimurkadhānan gīti'' — as for my best friend<ref>''kaleya'' actually is a "spiritual friend", which has a religiously charged meaning</ref>, I could not believe it, that she was the Great Inquisitor-elect <small>(note the use of the highly respectful (not translated) formula "Her Most Excellent Highness, the Great Inquisitor")</small>.
| |
| * ''tami tamiāt šulañšenat'' — he is her former husband.
| |
| | |
| The expression of tense is also notable when the expression of state refers to a cause; this is particularly common with the exessive and essive cases:
| |
| * ''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.
| |
| * ''bunān samin pa maišildete'' — as he's going to be a father <small>(lit. "as a will-be-father")</small>, he's learning about children.
| |
| Note that, tense is relative to the main verb.
| |
| | |
| ====Miscellaneous uses of cases====
| |
| '''Purpose''' may be expressed not only with a subjunctive verb, but also with either a translative or a dative noun.<br/>
Translative case is used generally with a purpose directly affecting the trigger:
| |
| : '''''murkadhānan''' kaminairīveyu.'' "I am studying [in order to become] an Inquisitor."
| |
| : ''tąsь lā '''nadaidanan''' peithegde.'' "(s)he is going out with him/her to get to know him/her."
| |
| Dative case is used generally when the purpose is something else, or is the result of a subsequent (unstated) action:
| |
| : ''maivnaviṣye '''maivasām''' khloyute.'' "I am searching in the dictionary [in order to find] the words."
| |
| : ''kǣɂūvai '''mayābyom''' rāmiāhai.'' "Plums are harvested for wine." (Wine is not the direct result of harvesting, thus dative is used instead of translative).
| |
| | |
| '''Ablative case''' is used in order to state comparisons:
| |
| : ''dāneh '''dulmaidanų''' nanū lalla.'' "Dāneh is taller than Dulmaidana."
| |
| : ''naniā ñæltah '''tąu''' chlǣcæm pūnē.'' "Your sister works better than him/her."
| |
| : ''nenē naviṣya '''yaivų''' nanū ñæñuchlire.'' "This book is the most beautiful." (literally "more beautiful than all")
| |
| | |
| It is also used as reason when it's an abstract noun: | |
| : '''''kairų''' hånyadaikirek.'' "(s)he was happy for love."
| |
| : '''''maidaudių''' ḍūkirek.'' "(s)he died because of his/her ambition."
| |
| | |
| '''Possession''' may be also expressed with the genitive case (topic marking is the most common way, but in some cases this may be needed syntactically; there is a verb ''cārake'' translating as "to have, possess", but it's fairly literary and high-styled). "To be" may or may not be present:
| |
| : '''''kvyāti''' giṣṭarire lalāruṇa (vi)'' "The hero has a young lalāruṇa." (literally "of the hero is the young lalāruṇa (the lalāruṇa that is young)")
| |
| : '''''pogi''' gu cūllanagdha'' "My village does not have a velodrome." (literally "of my village is no velodrome")
| |
| | |
| ===Verb phrase===
| |
| ====Use of tenses: Past vs. Perfect====
| |
| Past and perfect are the two Chlouvānem (morphological) tenses that are used to refer to past actions. Their meanings may be summarized this way:
| |
| * The '''past tense''' always refers to the ''past'', but it isn’t always ''perfective'';
| |
| * The '''perfect “tense”''' is always ''perfective'', but it isn’t always ''past'' - and when it does, it has an ''impact on the present''.
| |
| | |
| 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 lære lį yųlekrā.''
| |
| : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PAST.3S.EXTERIOR-LOC</small>.
| |
| : Yesterday I ate at the station.
| |
| | |
| : ''palias jāyim junirek.''
| |
| : 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 lære lį yųlekrā væse : nanā tammi tadāmek.''
| |
| : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PAST.3S.EXTERIOR-LOC</small>. while. , that.<small>DIR</small>. train.<small>DIR.SG</small>. arrive-<small>IND.PAST.3S.PATIENT.EXTERIOR</small>
| |
| : Yesterday I ate at the station.
| |
| | |
| : ''jāyim mæn palias junirek : ni nenichladirya meinei muṣkemālchek.''
| |
| : 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 lære lį yųlīrā lā ē.''
| |
| : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>SUBJ.IMPF.3S.EXTERIOR-LOC</small>. with. be.<small>IND.PAST.3S.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 junirek'' - “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 lære junirek'' “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:
| |
| : ''lære dašajildek'' - “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.
| |
| : ''lære 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: ''lære menni dašejilda līlta viṣustura no, āñjulā gu pepeithnāyǣ 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:
| |
| : ''palias jāyim juniros'' - “apparently, the girl painted her [own] face”. Past tense: it can be assumed that the girl painted her own face sometime in the past; e.g. the girl is now painting her face, and given the way she does it, it’s reasonable to believe it’s not her first time.
| |
| : ''palias jāyim ujunirṇa'' - “apparently, the girl has painted her [own] face”. Perfect “tense”: it can be assumed that the girl now has a painted face, but the speaker has not seen her; e.g. in her room there are face painting colours open or that look like they’ve been recently used.
| |
| Second inferential changes the speaker’s deduction, but not the implications given by tenses:
| |
| : ''palias jāyim junirākos'' - “apparently, the girl painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Past tense: as before, but while she, or something she did, had made the speaker believe she had already painted her face at least once in the past, the way she’s doing it makes think that she probably never did.
| |
| : ''palias jāyim ujunirāka'' - “apparently, the girl has painted her [own] face, but probably didn’t”. Perfect “tense”: as before; highly dependent on context. For example, there are face painting colours out of place, but it’s unlikely she did paint her face - e.g. it may not be a logical time to do it, or too little colour seems to have been used.
| |
| | |
| 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 lære lį uyųlarā, utiya nanā tammi tadāmek''.
| |
| : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. yesterday. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PERF.3S.EXTERIOR-LOC</small>. , then. that.<small>DIR</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 uyųlarā, utiya nanā tammi tafluniṣya.''
| |
| : train_station.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>1SG.ERG</small>. eat-<small>IND.PERF.3S.EXTERIOR-LOC</small>. , then. that.<small>DIR</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.
| |
| | |
| Note that in the latter example, English uses future perfect and present simple respectively, while Chlouvānem uses perfect and future; the future in the second clause is necessary to give the future perfect meaning to the first one.<br/>
| |
| Still, note that out of context both pluperfect and future perfect may be expressed analytically, by using the perfective subjunctive plus ''lā'' (with) and the past or future tense of ''gyake'' (to be).
| |
| | |
| 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:
| |
| : ''dašajildek līlta vīkṣṭāṭ no'' - “it rained, and the path collapsed”. Past tense: the path has since been repaired and it is walkable.
| |
| : ''dašejilda līlta viṣustura no'' - “it has rained, and the path has collapsed”. Perfect “tense”: the path is not walkable due to it having collapsed.
| |
| An extension of this pattern is seen in that use where the past may imply, with some verbs, the cancellation of the original result through the opposite action, e.g.:
| |
| : ''hāliehulca prāgdeiru vuldate'' - "Hāliehulca (has) opened the window." Here, the perfect implies that the window is still open at the sentence's time (in this case, the present).
| |
| : ''hāliehulca prāgdeiru uldekte'' - "Hāliehulca opened the window." Here, the past implies that the window has since been closed.
| |
| A [[Chlouvānem/Calendar_and_time#Expressing_time_in_Chlouv.C4.81nem|"translative ''sām''"]] (i.e. "for a certain period of time") is typically present whenever the past form is used:
| |
| : ''hāliehulca prāgdeiru māmei railan sām uldekte'' - Hāliehulca opened the window for twelve ''railai'' = ''hāliehulca prāgdeiru vuldate : tū māmei railų nin spṛšekte/aspṛšate'' - "Hāliehulca opened the window, then closed it twelve ''railai'' later". Note that in the latter verb both the past and the perfect may be used freely; in colloquial style this is also possible for the first verb (e.g. ''hāliehulca prāgdeiru uldekte ...''), but this is considered a mistake in more formal contexts, c.f. the alternative translation "Hāliehulca, who had opened the window, ..."
| |
| | |
| Both the past and the perfect can be frequentative:
| |
| : ''marte mīmišviyek kite lįnek no'' - "(s)he kept being seen in the city, and [therefore] remained at home" ((s)he has since gone out of home).
| |
| : ''marte memīšveya 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 tatantefuflonaiṣyes'' "you can find him/her there" (potential agent-trigger future of ''tatatflulke'' (''ta-tad-flun-'') "to find")).
| |
| | |
| In narrative, it is common to use the perfect for a completed action and the (aspectless) past for an action that begins immediately after (examples taken from the excerpt "[[#A_festive_day|A festive day]]", among the example texts on this page):
| |
| : ''naina mæn ～ dvārmom nañamṛca kautepuglek'' - "Naina ran<sub>PERF</sub> into the room [and] woke [us] up<sub>PAST</sub>"
| |
| : ''hālkenīs yanomųvima keikom namṛcñāja'' - "we jumped out<sub>PERF</sub> of the beds [and] ran<sub>PAST</sub> into the yard"
| |
| : ''tainā mæn yanelīsa pārṇami nacu ilakakte nainęs lā ħuldek'' - "Tainā came out<sub>PERF</sub> [of the washing room], got dressed<sub>PERF</sub> for the day, [and] played<sub>PAST</sub> with Naina"
| |
| Compare this other example from the same text where the last two verbs are both in the past because they're ''contemporaneous actions'':
| |
| : ''nilāmulka mæn maildvārmom nañelīsa tainā lili no ṣveye primirtaram ñumirlam'' - "Nilāmulka entered<sub>PERF</sub> the washing room [and] me and Tainā sit<sub>PAST</sub> behind the wall [and] waited<sub>PAST</sub>"
| |
| | |
| ====The optative mood====
| |
| The Chlouvānem optative has two main uses: as an expression for wishes (in exclamations), and as a form roughly corresponding to the English verbs "should" and "ought to". Due to these meanings, it is also a common form of polite imperative.
| |
| | |
| The use of optative forms, given this explanation, is fairly clear; some examples follow.
| |
| : ''tami paṣalīlūye!'' "may (s)he survive!"
| |
| : ''pū glidemæh āñjulā joyau!'' "if only I had been there!"
| |
| : ''samin nanǣ dvārme gu natiauyāhai ša.'' "the kids shouldn't stay in that room."
| |
| : ''yąlenų ānat kārvātiu valdånьdrūyi.'' "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>."
| |
| : ''dauditetilūyi, tamirtatilūyīldri.'' "please sit down."
| |
| | |
| ====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:
| |
| : ''šuteitieldā, yaivei tamišī.'' "it has been put there for everybody to look at it."
| |
| : ''luvāmom dāmek yambrānu lgutētte.'' "(s)he went to the market to buy pears."
| |
| Some verbs, such as ''nīdhyuɂake'' (to call for), usually require the subjunctive:
| |
| : ''nītedhyuɂek karthāgo bīdrī.'' "(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:
| |
| : ''ħildenī āndṛke munati ejulā kaminairīveyu.'' "I study here in order to be able to create games."
| |
| : ''ħildenāndarlilan kaminairīveyu.'' "I study in order to become a game creator."
| |
| | |
| Verbs like ''lelke'' (to choose <small>(stem: ''len-'')</small>), its synonym ''vāgdulke'' <small>(''vād-kul-'')</small>, or ''mulke'' (to know how to <small>(stem: ''mun-'', highest grade ablaut in the present)</small> can use invariably the subjunctive or the infinitive; usually, the subjunctive is used when there is a stated subject that is different from an impersonal phrase:
| |
| : ''tami jilde maunalieh.'' "we know how to do it."
| |
| : ''yakaliyātamei āndrī elena.'' "it has been chosen to have it built by Your honorable company."
| |
| : ''tami šubīdṛke lenanājate.'' "we decided to tear it down."
| |
| | |
| ====Positional and motion verbs====
| |
| ''→ See [[Chlouvānem/Positional and motion verbs|Chlouvānem positional and motion verbs]].''
| |
| | |
| Positional and motion verbs are a semantically and syntactically defined category of Chlouvānem verbs that constitutes one of the most complex parts overall of Chlouvānem grammar, with similar (though often more simplified with time) in all other Lahob languages; the Chlouvānem system is essentially the same as the one reconstructed for Proto-Lahob.
| |
| | |
| Positional verbs (''jalyadaradhūs'', pl. ''jalyadaradhaus'') translate verbs such as "to stay", "to be seated", and "to lie", (as well as their middle and causative forms) with prefixes that are semantically comparable to English prepositions. Motion verbs are more similar to English, being satellite-framed (the satellite, in the Chlouvānem case, being the prefix), but there is an added complexity because motion verbs can be ''monodirectional'' (''tūtugirdaradhūs'', ''-aus'') or ''multidirectional'' (''tailьgirdaradhūs'', ''-aus''), and most verbs come in pairs, each member of a pair being used in different contexts.
| |
| <!-- ====Origin prefixes====
| |
| Positional prefixes are used with motion verbs in order to more specifically state direction; as they get a directional meaning, most of these prefixes also have a corresponding origin prefix:
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! "Lative" prefix !! "Ablative" prefix !! Meaning
| |
| |-
| |
| | ta- || tų- || Generic direction
| |
| |-
| |
| | ān- || yana- || Above
| |
| |-
| |
| | šu- || šer- || Under
| |
| |-
| |
| | khl- || kelь- || In the middle of, together with
| |
| |-
| |
| | gin- || ją- || In a group; among
| |
| |-
| |
| | nī- || ani- || Within inside
| |
| |-
| |
| | ū(b)- || yom- || Near, close
| |
| |-
| |
| | bis- || bara- || Far
| |
| |-
| |
| | tad- || tasi- || Attached to; on an animal
| |
| |-
| |
| | įs- || hos- || Hanging
| |
| |-
| |
| | na(ñ)- || neni- || Inside
| |
| |-
| |
| | kau- || kuvi- || Outside
| |
| |-
| |
| | viṣ- || vyeṣa- || Opposite; somewhere else
| |
| |-
| |
| | kami- || kįla- || Around
| |
| |-
| |
| | prь- || paro- || Behind
| |
| |-
| |
| | mai- || mīram- || In front of
| |
| |-
| |
| | vai- || vea- || In a corner
| |
| |-
| |
| | sāṭ- || ṣlū- || Next to
| |
| |-
| |
| | lā(d)- || lo(d)- || In the center
| |
| |-
| |
| | vyā- || veši- || Left
| |
| |-
| |
| | māha- || mege- || Right
| |
| |-
| |
| | nalь- || <small>(''vād-'')</small> || Convergent, inwards
| |
| |-
| |
| | vād- || <small>(''nalь-'')</small> || Divergent, outwards
| |
| |-
| |
| | be- || ter- || On the surface
| |
| |-
| |
| | gala- || hali- || Through
| |
| |-
| |
| | naš- || rowspan=4 | — || Completely, to the end
| |
| |-
| |
| | paṣ- || Further ahead, beyond
| |
| |-
| |
| | sam- || Towards the next (object/goal)
| |
| |-
| |
| | vod- || Avoiding
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| These verbs have a peculiarity, as all prefixes except for ''ta-''/''tų-'' make the verb transitive but with a default “common” voice: that is, the agent-trigger is not marked on the verb and only case makes it clear:
| |
| : ''jāyim ñariū āṃliven'' “the girl walks up the mountain” (agent-trigger)
| |
| : ''ñariah jāyimei āṃliven'' "the mountain is walked up by the girl" (patient-trigger)
| |
| Other examples are:
| |
| : ''jñūm priliven'' "someone goes behind the tree" (lit. *the tree is being gone behind)
| |
| : ''lālia ñæltah kitu yomfluṃsusah'' "my sister is approaching from home"
| |
| | |
| When there is a prefix expressing relative position and one expressing direction, the most important one is always the one closest to the root; the other one (usually the relative position) is normally expressed with the appropriate case, as in the verb ''vodūmṛcce'' "to run nearer (to something) while avoiding (something else)":
| |
| : ''sāmiā kita nanāt ūnimat vodūbamṛca'' "your house has been approached by running while avoiding that street".
| |
| | |
| Arguments usually change from the non-prefixed forms: for example ''vaske'' (to drive) is transitive and its patient is the means of transport, while the patient of ''khlavaske'' (to go with [by vehicle]) is the person with whom the agent goes.
| |
| | |
| ''ta-''/''tes-'' prefixed verbs are always intransitive, and the transitive forms may be done only by deriving an additional applicative verb (usually mainly a stylistic exercise in poetry), as in ''taflulke'' "to arrive (on foot)" → ''nartaflulke'' "to reach (on foot)":
| |
| : ''jaṃšom taflå'' "I arrive to the party"
| |
| : ''jaṃšā nartaliven'' "the party is [being] reached"
| |
| | |
| =====To wear, put on, take off=====
| |
| Chlouvānem does not have a single verb for "to wear", "to put on", or "to take off" when related to clothing: instead, there are seven different verbs depending on the part of the body for "to wear" and "to put on", and seven more (paired with these) for "to take off".<br/>
| |
| Despite the apparent complexity of such a system, they are completely regular and built in a logical way, with "lative" prefixes for the wear/put on verb and "ablative" for the take off one:
| |
| {| class="wikitable"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Clothing type/body part !! To wear/to put on !! To take off !! Related root
| |
| |-
| |
| | Any clothing bandaged around the body, plus most things worn around the trunk<br/><small>(Most generic verb, but does not cover all other meanings)</small> || kamikyāke || kįlakyāke || ''ukyā'' "trunk"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Shoes, socks, anything else on the feet and/or ankles || kamijunaike || kįlajunaike || ''junai'' "foot"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Head and neck <small>(hats, caps, tiaras, necklaces...)</small> || āṃlāṇṭake || yanalāṇṭake || ''lāṇṭam'' "head"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Hands, wrists <small>(gloves, bracelets...)</small> || kamidhānake || kįladhānake || ''dhāna'' "hand"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Legs (except bandaged-around clothing that also covers the trunk)<br/>Trousers, pants || nampājike || nenipājike || ''pājya'' "leg"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Something with (long) sleeves || āṃsnīrṣmake || yanasnīrṣmake || rowspan=2 | ''snīrṣmas'' "blanket"
| |
| |-
| |
| | Blankets (not worn) || kamisnīrṣmake || kįlasnīrṣmake
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| Note that the sense of "to wear" is most usually translated with patient-trigger voice - e.g. ''pāṇḍire jūnekah tę kamikyāyē'' "(s)he wears white robes" - while "to put on" with agent-trigger voice ''pāṇḍire jūneku kamitekyāyē'' "(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 (''bhadvausīs''<ref>Plural only, shaped on ''pārīs'' (hair).</ref>, or how Chlouvānem people call "Afro-textured hair"). -->
| |
| | |
| ===Relative clauses===
| |
| Chlouvānem relative clauses are nonreduced and work exactly the same way as adjectival verbs do: both clauses are independent. Time, place, and similar things are expressed with a distal correlative (see the [[Chlouvānem/Morphology#Correlatives|table of correlatives]]).<br/>
| |
| The structure is thus as follows:
| |
| : ''nanā jāyim sēyet mešē liliā buneya.''
| |
| : that.<small>DIR</small>. girl.<small>DIR.SG</small>. <small>2S.ERG</small>. see-<small>IND.PRES.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. <small>1S.GEN.</small> older_sister.<small>DIR.SG</small>.
| |
| : That girl you see is my older sister.
| |
| | |
| Other examples:
| |
| : ''mešute gu tarliru ša''.
| |
| : see-<small>IND.PRES.1S.EXTERIOR-AGENT</small>. <small>NEG</small>- know-<small>IND.PRES.1S.INTERIOR</small>. -<small>NEG</small>.
| |
| : I don’t know/understand what I see.
| |
| | |
| : ''liliā ñæltah līlekhaitom tesmudhiṣya ātiya lēyet lairkeikom khlavasiṣya''.
| |
| : <small>1S.GEN</small>. sister.<small>DIR.SG</small>. Līlekhaitē-<small>DAT</small>. depart_with_plane-<small>IND.FUT.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>. then. <small>1S.ERG</small>. airport-<small>DAT.SG</small>. go_with.<small>IND.FUT.3S.EXTERIOR.PATIENT</small>.
| |
| : When my sister takes the plane to Līlekhaitē, I will go with her to the airport.
| |
| | |
| : ''tū kulekte ātmena gu tarliru ša''.
| |
| : <small>3S.ACC</small>. say-<small>IND.PAST.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.
| |
| | |
| The same strategy is used for attributes — ''kamilire pluta'' "blue bag" or "bag that is blue", including participial-like structures such as the following ones:
| |
| | |
| : ''lilei '''priemęlia''' pluta'' - the bag which has been given back by the person (literally: "by the person it has been given back, the bag")
| |
| : ''plutu '''pritēmęlia''' lila'' - the person who has given back the bag
| |
| : ''plutu dhurvāneiti '''prikevemęlia''' lila'' - the person for whose benefit the bag has been given back to the police
| |
| : ''plutu ītulom '''prituremęlia''' lila'' - the person for whose misfortune the bag has been given back to the thief
| |
| : ''håmarṣūvī '''nīpanotē''' pluta'' - the bag in which the keys lie
| |
| : ''plutu '''primbyemęlia''' lila'' - the person who has been given back the bag
| |
| : ''plutua demie maihei '''primbyemęlia''' lila'' - the person who has been given back the bag by his/her own daughter
| |
| : ''ītulu lāṇṭaṃrye lilei '''utugamǣ''' pluta'' - the bag with which the thief has been hit on the head by the person
| |
| This "attributive" construction is very commonly used. In fact, the first example in this section may be more commonly found as ''sēyet mešē jāyim liliā buneya'' (or ''mešite jāyim liliā buneya'').
| |
| | |
| Such constructions can also be used where English uses gerundive constructions:
| |
| | |
| : ''plutu demie maihei '''primbyemęlia''' lila hånyadaikirek.'' - the person, having been given back the bag by his/her own daughter, was happy. (literal rendition: it has been given back the bag by his/her own daughter, the person was happy.)
| |
| : ''ālīce '''guṃsek''' liliā pamih uyūṭarau rileyekte.'' - my finger, having been cut that way, needed an operation.
| |
| : ''panaɂetatimu læmilāṇe arūppumei '''ilakatū''' læmьlila menire pifreṣṭasyiṣya.'' - the driver, being disadvantaged as (his/her) championship rival has taken pole position, will have to take some risks tomorrow.
| |
| | |
| ===Conditional sentences===
| |
| Conditional sentences in Chlouvānem grammar are those generally introduced by the particle '''pū''', meaning "if". There are two general categories of conditional sentences: real and hypothetical.
| |
| | |
| 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 nāmvite (mārim) tåh ryukaši.'' "if you hit him/her/it, you hurt him/her/it."
| |
| : ''pū yamei naikū lāma udhyuɂeste taluniṣya.'' "if you have called Ms. Naikā, 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:
| |
| * 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); some particular meanings always need the subjunctive due to their semantics being incompatible with depicting an "implicate result", e.g. all potential verbs with the meaning of "may". If the condition is impossible, then the second clause is always in the subjunctive:
| |
| : ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gī lališire hāriu lgutētate.'' "if I had more money, I'd buy (perf. aspect) a new carpet."
| |
| : ''lili mæn pū nanū nūlastān gī chlǣcæm lilati.'' "if I had more money, I'd live (impf. aspect) better."
| |
| : ''pū tami tuheiladom kitī āndriṣya.'' "if it were included in the [next] six-year plan, it would be built."
| |
| : ''pū liliā bunā gērisa gī tami liliā bunā gu gī 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.
| |
| : ''mei tati pū kulētate yaiva gātarirya.'' "if I had said 'yes', everything would be different (now)."
| |
| : ''mei tati pū kulētate tami gu najēt ša.'' "if I had said 'yes', that wouldn't have happened."
| |
| | |
| ===Negatives===
| |
| Chlouvānem negates sentences by using the circumfix ''gu(n) ... ša'' on the verb:
| |
| : ''tami loh pṛšcāmvi'' "I like it" → ''tami loh gu pṛšcāmvi ša'' "I do not like it".
| |
| : ''martayinām dvārmu nadāmek'' "Martayinām walked into the room" → ''martayinām dvārmu gu nadāmek ša'' "Martayinām didn't walk into the room".
| |
| : ''ejulā ū'' "I am here" → ''ejulā gun ū ša'' "I am not here".
| |
| | |
| The ''ša'' part of the circumfix is omitted if the verb is attributive:
| |
| : ''ṣveya gun ujunia ša'' "the wall hasn't been painted" → ''gun ujunia ṣveya'' "the wall that hasn't been painted"
| |
| : ''alūs gu kamilire ša'' "the bottle isn't blue" → ''gu kamilire alūs'' "the bottle that isn't blue"
| |
| | |
| Double negatives are not proper in Chlouvānem — negating a sentence with a negative correlative makes it affirmative:
| |
| : ''guvitu mešute'' "I see no one"
| |
| : ''lævitu gu mešute ša'' "I don't see anyone"
| |
| : ''guvitu gu mešute ša'' "I don't see no one" → "I see someone"
| |
| | |
| ===Interrogatives===
| |
| Chlouvānem yes-no questions are formed with the particle ''dam'' at the end of the sentence:
| |
| : ''tami nyoh pṛšcāmvi'' "you like it" → ''tami nyoh pṛšcāmvi dam?'' "do you like it?"
| |
| : ''martayinām dvārmu nadāmek'' "Martayinām walked into the room" → ''martayinām dvārmu nadāmek dam?'' "did Martayinām walk into the room?"
| |
| If the sentence is negative, the ''... ša'' part of the circumfix is omitted:
| |
| : ''ejulā gu vi ša'' "(s)he/it is not here" → ''ejulā gu vi dam?'' "is (s)he/it not here?"
| |
| | |
| Choice questions may be formed with ''dam'' just like yes-no ones, or may be expanded in a form such as "do you X... or do you X?". ''dam'' is only included once, at the end:
| |
| : ''javileh nyęi daudē : grāšatis nyęi daudē mbu dam?'' "do you want apples or persimmons?" (lit. "you want apples, or do you want persimmons?")
| |
| | |
| Non-polar questions are formed by using an interrogative (''ya-'') correlative, without ''dam''. Unlike English, there is no mandatory wh-fronting in Chlouvānem (word order is usually flexible enough to allow all possibilities):
| |
| : ''nenē kita liliau naimū liląrā'' "in this house lives my maternal aunt" → ''nenē kita yavitu liląrā?'' "who lives in this house?"
| |
| : ''jalgudām demiąa praškigin lā luvāyom liven'' "Jalgudām is walking to the store with his two older brothers" → ''jalgudām yavitęs lā luvāyom liven?'' "with whom is Jalgudām walking to the store?"
| |
| | |
| ''nane'' and ''naihā'' are "emphatic particles" used in informal Chlouvānem which work like English tag questions; ''nane'' expects an answer of the same polarity as the question, while ''naihā'' expresses doubt or expectation of a contradictory answer (it can be translated as ", or...?"). ''dam'' is not omitted:
| |
| : ''saṃryojyame lilaši dam nane?'' "you live in Saṃryojyam, don't you?"
| |
| : ''lære dṛk dam naihā?'' "it was done yesterday, or...?"
| |
| | |
| ====Yes and no====
| |
| As far as yes-no answers are concerned, Chlouvānem is an agreement language: the words ''mei'' (yes) and ''go'' (no) have respectively the same and the opposite polarity as the question - translating them as "true" and "false" might give a better idea of how they are used.
| |
| : ''kite vei dam?'' "are you at home?" — ''mei kite ū'' "yes, I'm home" <small>("it's true, I'm home")</small>
| |
| : ''kite gu vei dam?'' "are you not at home?" — ''mei kite gun ū ša'' "yes, I'm not home" <small>("it's true, I'm not home")</small>
| |
| : ''kite vei dam?'' "are you at home" — ''go kite gun ū ša'' "no, I'm not home" <small>("it's false, I'm not home")</small>
| |
| : ''kite gu vei dam?'' "are you not at home?" — ''go kite ū'' "no, I'm home" <small>("it's false, I'm home")</small>
| |
| | |
| ===Quoted speech===
| |
| The English distinction between direct and indirect speech is not present in Chlouvānem; instead, it uses a quotative particle, '''tati''', which follows a quoted sentence; this instance of quoted speech is used basically everywhere English uses indirect speech:
| |
| : ''håltęrįm '''tati''' kulaikate.''
| |
| : They said they were ready. (or, literally: They said "we are ready")
| |
| | |
| : ''dvārme piltu joniegde '''tati''' demiai maihi lāmryāṇom kulekte.''
| |
| : (S)he told his/her daughter's boyfriend/girlfriend that she is painting her face in her room. (… "she paints her face in her room")
| |
| | |
| : ''cāṃkręe, karthāgo bīdardṛsūyē '''tati''' vvlirute.''
| |
| : [[w:Carthago delenda est|Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.]] (literally: "last [but not least], I think: "Carthage must be destroyed")
| |
| | |
| The verb ''tṛlake'' "to know, to understand" simply requires the sentences to be juxtaposed. Note that Chlouvānem uses the natural sequence of tenses:
| |
| : ''galiākinom pūrṣei tarliru.''
| |
| : I know you went to Galiākina.
| |
| | |
| : ''galiākinom pūrṣei tṛlirau.''
| |
| : I knew you had been (= lit.: you went) to Galiākina.
| |
| | |
| Future in the past also uses juxtaposed sentences, with the future meaning being shown by the general future tense:
| |
| : ''galiākinom pūrṣiṣyes gu tṛlirau ša.''
| |
| : I did not know you would have been to Galiākina.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Vocabulary== | | ==Vocabulary== |