Banin Tenses, verbal and nominal
|From:||Luís Henrique <luisb@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, January 10, 2001, 19:49|
Uhm, I messed my yesterday posting on Banin.
I inverted the textual/contextual issue. It should read
>Back to nouns tense inflection, I believe it is just sintatical, because
>they refer to what they call "TEXTUAL" tense of the verb. They say their
>verbs have two "layers" of tense, "textual" and "contextual" - that isthe
>reason their verbal tenses have always a double name:
Neutral (CONTEXTUAL) on present (TEXTUAL): luazus - falls, uses to fall
Nik Taylor proposes it could have evolved as:
>I could see that system developing from a contraction
>of auxiliaries, as if we were to say "Ada'll fall" in English.
Let's see... there are six different endings for Banin nouns, three masculine
and three feminine. And their tense flection looks quite regular:
Present Past Future
-a flora floras florar* (faith)
-is delis (delus) delir* (love)
-in canvin canvins canvir* (people, ethnic group)
-ai florai* florais* florair* (religion)
-el delel* delels* deler* (love affair)
-an canvan* canvans* (canvur)* (nation, country)
(I marked with * the forms in which the last sillable is stressed; in the
others, it is the next-to-last.)
And it seems that it could really have been a contraction of a form -s to
form the past and a form -r to form the future, though the words between
brackets (delus and canvur) would not be very well explained by this.
If Nik is right, it must have evolved from a less-free-word-order language
than it is now (the aux particle should be always placed after the "subject"
noun) - is that possible? Indo-european evolution, to what I know, is just
the opposite, from very free-word-order languages to very strict-word-order
languages (I suppose it is the case for Chinese, too?).
Hope 'youl' have some ideas...
http://www.zipmail.com.br O e-mail que vai aonde você está.