Lemizh: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lemizh (view source)

Revision as of 18:27, 19 May 2022

1,716 bytes added ,  19 May 2022
Dependent clauses etc.
(Tense; copyedit)
(Dependent clauses etc.)
Line 127: Line 127:
* ''wèx. -e-'' denotes the inner nominative, so this word means "a sender of speaking" or "a speaker".
* ''wèx. -e-'' denotes the inner nominative, so this word means "a sender of speaking" or "a speaker".
* ''àrdh. ∅–dh'' (having a zero prestem) is the stem for "eat", ''-ar-'' denotes the inner locative: "a place of eating".
* ''àrdh. ∅–dh'' (having a zero prestem) is the stem for "eat", ''-ar-'' denotes the inner locative: "a place of eating".
The customary [[w:Lemma (morphology)|citation form]] of a word is the one with inner factive.
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Primary cases and their descriptors
|+ Primary cases and their descriptors
Line 156: Line 158:
* a qualitative case formed by adding ''m'', with the descriptor ''the basis of comparison for the source (sink, place, etc.)'': ''wèmx.'' informally translates as "someone like a speaker".
* a qualitative case formed by adding ''m'', with the descriptor ''the basis of comparison for the source (sink, place, etc.)'': ''wèmx.'' informally translates as "someone like a speaker".


===The flow of the plot===
===The plot===
Every action denoted by a stem is considered a flow of information that comes from a source (sender), transports a content, and reaches a sink (a recipient). The terms "sender" and "recipient" may be more familiar, but "source" and "sink" are more accurate in not necessarily meaning living beings.
Every action denoted by a stem is considered a flow of information that comes from a source (sender), transports a content, and reaches a sink (a recipient). The terms "sender" and "recipient" may be more familiar, but "source" and "sink" are more accurate in not necessarily meaning living beings.


Line 382: Line 384:


Both sentences claim that the sender of speaking is the recipient of helping. The equation is ''wèx.'' = ''lìzhw.'', the speaker = the one being helped.
Both sentences claim that the sender of speaking is the recipient of helping. The equation is ''wèx.'' = ''lìzhw.'', the speaker = the one being helped.
This example also illustrates that any object in a Lemizh sentence can be omitted  (here the nominative "someone") as none of the Rules prescribes which objects have to be included. In fact, anything not helpful for understanding a sentence should be left out.


'''Rule Four. An instance of a word stem designates a specific action.'''
'''Rule Four. An instance of a word stem designates a specific action.'''
Line 397: Line 397:
'''Rule Six. A missing object is equivalent to the absence of information about its descriptor.'''
'''Rule Six. A missing object is equivalent to the absence of information about its descriptor.'''


Above sentences do not have, for example, locative objects, so Rule Five cannot place a restriction on the place of giving. Because of Rule Six, this does not mean there are no restrictions on the location, but only that this kind of information has not been included in the sentence (for example, because the speaker does not know about it, considers it irrelevent, or assumes the listener already knows or – perhaps most importantly – can infer it).
Above sentences do not have, for example, locative objects, so Rule Five cannot place a restriction on the place of giving. Because of Rule Six, this does not mean there are no restrictions on the location, but only that this kind of information has not been included in the sentence (for example, because the speaker does not know about it, considers it irrelevant, assumes that the listener already knows or – perhaps most importantly – that the listener can infer it). In fact, everything not useful for understanding a sentence should be omitted to save the listener processing effort. (See the inversion example above, which omits the nominative "someone".)


Rules Five and Six imply that every instance of a word has exactly one action (which, however, need not be contiguous), one sender (which can consist of several people), and so on: Five excludes additional senders if one nominative object is already present, and Six gives meaning to missing objects, establishing them as an integral part of Lemizh sentence grammar.
Rules Five and Six imply that every instance of a word has exactly one action (which, however, need not be contiguous), one sender (which can consist of several people), and so on: Five excludes additional senders if one nominative object is already present, and Six gives meaning to missing objects, establishing them as an integral part of Lemizh sentence grammar.
Line 499: Line 499:


===Dependent clauses===
===Dependent clauses===
Non-finite and conjunctional clauses …
Non-finite and conjunctional clauses employ the same principles as above:
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 2A:second level, agentive; 3:third level
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 2A:second level, agentive; 3:third level
|láxt föpysryfè dày dwywỳ lusỳi.
|láxt föpysryfè dày dwywỳ lusỳi.
|want-FACT-1 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2A give-'''FACT'''-ACC-2 bottle-ACC-ACC-3 Lucy-ACC-DAT-3.
|want-FACT-1 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-2A give-'''FACT'''-ACC-2 bottle-ACC-ACC-3 Lucy-ACC-DAT-3.
|''Father Christmas wants '''to give Lucy a bottle'''.''}}
|''Father Christmas wants '''to give Lucy a bottle'''.'' ("Father Christmas" is omitted from the dependent clause per Rule Six.)}}


The difference between English gerund clauses and finite that-clauses roughly translates into a difference between an inner factive (''action'') and an inner affirmative (''fact'').
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 3:third level; 3A:third level, agentive
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 3:third level; 3A:third level, agentive
|dmàt tryxkì dáe föpysryfè dwywỳ lusỳi.
|dmàt tryxkì dáe föpysryfè dwywỳ lusỳi.
|see-FACT-1 beaver-ACC-DAT-2 give-'''FACT'''-NOM-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-3A bottle-ACC-ACC-3 Lucy-ACC-DAT-3.
|see-FACT-1 beaver-ACC-DAT-2 give-'''FACT'''-NOM-2 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-3A bottle-ACC-ACC-3 Lucy-ACC-DAT-3.
|''The beaver sees [the action of] '''Father Christmas giving Lucy a bottle'''.''}}
|''The beaver sees [the action of] '''Father Christmas giving Lucy a bottle'''.'' (The dependent clause could also be in the accusative to focus on the optical information transmitted to the beaver.)}}


{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; AFF:affirmative case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 3:third level; 3A:third level, agentive
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; AFF:affirmative case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 3:third level; 3A:third level, agentive
Line 515: Line 516:
|''The beaver sees [the fact of] '''Father Christmas giving Lucy a bottle'''. The beaver sees '''that''' Father Christmas gives Lucy a bottle.''}}
|''The beaver sees [the fact of] '''Father Christmas giving Lucy a bottle'''. The beaver sees '''that''' Father Christmas gives Lucy a bottle.''}}


…
Some examples of dependent clauses translating into objects in various cases:
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level
|fngà kshngày.
|try-FACT-1 shout-FACT-'''ACC'''-2.
|''[She] tried to shout [but this was difficult because of her sore throat].''}}
 
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; 1:first level; 2:second level
|fngà kshngàu.
|try-FACT-1 shout-FACT-'''INS'''-2.
|''[She] tried shouting [as he hadn't heard her when she had spoken quietly].'' (Shouting is the means of trying.)}}
 
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=FACT:factive case; PSU:persuasive case; 1:first level; 2:second level; 3:third level; 4:fourth level
|pàf làxtöl dmàty föpysrỳfe.
|stand-FACT-1 want-FACT-'''PSU'''-2 see-FACT-ACC-3 {Father Christmas}-ACC-NOM-4.
|''[He] stood up because [he] wanted to see Father Christmas.''}}
 
Relative clauses are structurally identical to (extended) attributive participles as described above; they are brackets: ''a bird which sings to a sad child at night = a bird singing to a sad child at night''. This is also true of clauses with relative adverbs:
{{Interlinear|indent=3|display-messages=no|ablist=1:first level; 2:second level; 3A:third level, agentive
|ngỳw gangáry lỳbe.
|valley-ACC-1 sing-LOC-ACC-2 flower-ACC-NOM-3A.
|''a valley, the place of the singing of flowers = a valley where flowers sing''}}


Relative clauses are structurally identical to (extended) attributive participles as described above: ''a bird which sings to a sad child at night = a bird singing to a sad child at night''.
Adverbially used clauses …


===Predicative===
===Predicative===
Anypodetos
78

edits

Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/271756"

Navigation menu