140,341
edits
User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic (view source)
Revision as of 21:35, 29 December 2022
, 29 December 2022→Verbs
m (→Verbs) |
|||
| Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
Their forms have become more similar to each other due to analogy. | Their forms have become more similar to each other due to analogy. | ||
Knench maintains a distinction between independent and dependent forms for finite verbs, like Old Irish. The independent forms come from the Ancient Knench waw-consecutive. Using a preverb such as ''lu'' 'not', ''veə'' '( | Knench maintains a distinction between independent and dependent forms for finite verbs, like Old Irish. The independent forms come from the Ancient Knench waw-consecutive. Using a preverb such as ''lu'' 'not', ''veə'' '(interrogative form of present marker ''ri'')', ''xaž'' 'relativizer', or ''śu'' 'I'm sure that...' (from the infinitive absolute *3aśū of *3aśō 'to do'; generalized from ''*3aśū ja3śiju'' 'he will indeed do') requires the dependent form. Dependent past forms and future forms are formally identical to independent future forms and past forms, respectively, except for ''luð'' 'to be'. | ||
Even verbs with finite forms are defective verbs, since finite forms are always perfective (except forms of ''luð''). To express the imperfective with these verbs, you still have to use the copula + bə + VN construction. The negator ''lu'' only negates finite verbs. | Even verbs with finite forms are defective verbs, since finite forms are always perfective (except forms of ''luð''). To express the imperfective with these verbs, you still have to use the copula + bə + VN construction. The negator ''lu'' only negates finite verbs. | ||