Re: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and more

Well, you know, Teoh, I'm a great admirer or your inventions, and I love all
things volitive (as opposed to volatile).  :)  If it has a feature that
resembles the volitional in Teonaht, then I cannot doubt that Tatari Faran
will keep me, at least, pleasantly engaged on-line!  :) :) :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:12 PM
Subject: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and
more


> Hey conlangy folks, what's up with all these squabbles that always
> come up in the absence of Tatari Faran posts? Are the AUXLANG folk
> invading us again? ;-)
> Tatari Faran has grown a lot since the last update. I don't even
> remember what exactly has changed since, but anyway, instead of
> inundating the list with an exhaustive coverage, I thought I'd pick
> out a few gems to show off with. So here they are, in no particular
> order:
>
> 1) The lexicon now has 211 entries. Lest you get the wrong idea,
> however, it should be noted that verbs and verb complements are listed
> separately, and I've entered some phonological contractions as
> separate entries to prevent my own confusion in the future.
> Nevertheless, this does show impressively fast growth compared to
> Ebisédian.
>
>
> 2) Ah yes, volition, the eyebrow-raiser in my subject line. ;-)
Indeed.

> I
> found out that due to the nature of Tatari Faran's core case system,
> volitive and involitive meanings of the same verb referent must be
> realized as distinct verbs. For example, in English we use "smell"
> both in the volitive sense "smell this and see" and in the involitive
> sense "I smell something burning". In Tatari Faran, two distinct verbs
> are necessary:
Also, "The garbage smells bad."  How would you express that?

> huena ... hiim [hMna ... hi:m]
> To sniff at something (volitive)
>
> fahun ... uen [fahun ... Mn]
> To smell something (involitive)
Different from Teonaht, right there, in providing different words.

> They are necessarily different because of the core cases that are used
> differently with each verb: for _huena_, the sniffer is marked with
> the originative case:
>
> simani ko  huena huu na  hiim.
> wolf   ORG smell 1sp RCP COMPL
> ["simani kO "hMna hu: na hi:m]
> "The wolf smelled me (sniffed at me)."
>
> For _fahun_, the smeller is marked with the receptive, since the smell
> involuntarily arrived at his/her nose:
>
> huu na  fahun punareis sa  uen.
> 1sp RCP smell stink    CVY COMPL
> [hu: na fa"hun puna4ejsa Mn]
> "I smelt an unpleasant odor."
I may be confirming my recently displayed genius for mathematical analysis
:) in wondering why the verbs need be different if the core case particles
are separate from them.  Is there something about predication in Tatari
Faran that I don't get?  Is it that the verbs themselves, rather than the
subjects, determine the core cases?  But couldn't the same be expressed by
the presence of the case markers used with those verbs (or for those
originaries/receptives)?

huu na huena punareis sa uen?

The "na" would indicate that the smeller/smelling is receptive instead of
originary, right?  Don't get me wrong; I love the distinctions you make here
in these verbs.  It's different.  Maybe I need to revisit Ebisedian.  Is
Tatari Faran a related language?  (Forgive my not picking this up from your
earlier postings.)

> [Sidenote: I don't know whether to translate _simani_ as 'dog' or
> 'wolf', as the inhabitants of Fara keep them as pets. They are
> ferocious enough to be called wolves in the common sense, but they are
> also domesticated somewhat.]
How domesticated?  I have a great fascination for wolves and their basic
undomesticability.  As pups, they can be pets, but not so well as adults.
Domestic dogs are always infantilized.  A grown wolf is in a pack with his
alpha human, a status that is always at risk of being challenged.  I read of
a man who lived with his pet wolf for years, until he became invalided.
Then his wolf turned on him.  He was no longer alpha, and the wolf, ever
competitive, took over.

> More examples of the volitive/involitive split:
>
> juerat ... itu [dzM4at itu] - "to look" (the classic example)
> hamra ... aram [ham4a a4am] - "to see"
This I like; the verbs hamra/aram seem to revolve around the same
consonants.

> kuni ... iti' [kuni iti?] - "to listen to"
> dutan ... inin [dutan inin] - "to hear"
>
> habas ... saa [habas sa:] - "to set on fire"
> fusitas ... sohaa [fusitas sOha:] - "to burn"/"to be burned"
>
> This last pair is interesting, as the originative can be used for
> _fusitas_ as well:
>
> kisa ko  fusitas kin   sa  sohaa.
> fire ORG burn    stick CVY COMPL
> "The fire is burning the stick." (Stick is already burning)
>
> Note the subtle nuance difference when _habas_ is used:
>
> kisa ko  habas  kin   na  saa.
> fire ORG ignite stick RCP COMPL
> "The fire ignited the stick." (Stick was not burning before)
> Or, "the stick caught fire."
Aha!  Now this is the only place where I see a logical use for a different
verb.  In Teonaht, presumably, one could have the same verb for
"sniff/smell" based on volition, but a different verb for "I smell bad, said
the skunk."  This inceptive use is interesting.

> 3) More fun with verb complements: I discovered from my informant that
> verb complements can complement more than just verbs. It's in fact
> commonly used to turn a noun into zero-valent verb:
I obviously need a review of verb complements in your languages, Teoh.

> peira. [pej4a] - rain
> peira ta'an. [pej4a ta?an] - it is raining.
Lovely.  Teonaht, by contrast, has "rain exists" (Tyeel perim), or "rain
falls" (Tyeel kebon-- non-volitional "fall").

> The complement _ta'an_ is also used with other verbs, such as _tapa_
> (to walk), to mean "down to the bottom":
So, in hindsight, "rain down[s]."  Or something like that.

> huu sa  tapa itsan       no  ta'an.
> 1sp CVY walk cinder-cone ORG COMPL
> "I walk down to the bottom of the cinder cone."
>
> More examples:
>
> mubun. [mubun] - night
> mubun murimuun. [mubun mu4imu:n] - it is nighttime.
>
> The complement _murimuun_ has the sense of "enveloping", as seen in
> the following example when it is used as a complement of "to wear":
>
> huu sa  kaja tsunan  da  murimuun.
> 1sp CVY wear garment RCP COMPL
> "I put on the traditional men's garment."
>
> Another usage of _murimuun_:
>
> jiranan. [dzi4anan] - fog
> jiranan murimuun. [dzi4anan mu4imu:n] - it is foggy.
>
> More verb complement examples:
>
> baran. [ba4an] - morning
> baran saan. [ba4an sa:n] - it is morning/daybreak.
What is saan?

> sifan. [sifan] - noon
> sifan ku. [sifan ku] - it is noontime.
>
> jumba. [dzumba] - a rolling earthquake
> jumba tsitsin. [dzumba tsi.tsin] - a rolling earthquake is
> happening.
>
> The complement _tsitsin_ is odd, in the sense that it is also an
> adjective meaning "dizzy".
Makes perfect sense!

Will stop here and get back to work, despite the fascinations of phonology.
BTW, what does /M/ signify, me all ignorant.

snip

> Now, the interesting part: there are some interesting phonological
> processes that happen between adjacent words. Tatari Faran appears to
> dislike syllables that are repeated too often, or overly-similar
> syllables that occur together, so mutations will happen to
> dissimilate them:
>
> a) The receptive case particle _na_ (and _nei_ and _no_) mutates if it
> follows a noun that ends with a similar-sounding syllable. E.g.:
>
> huna + na -> hunan da [hunanda]
> hina + nei -> hinan dei [hinandej]
I lied.  Back at it.  A kind of sandhi?

> b) Absorption:
>
> asusu + sei -> asusei [asusej]
> isi + sa -> isa
> isi + sei -> isei
> isi + so -> iso
These are sound modifications I've considered as well in Teonaht.  I'm a
little sick of all the long words, and I've contemplated a dialect of
Teonaht that shortens some of them by a system I thought I had borrowed from
Irish, but I cannot find it if my life depended on it.  Teonaht is
overwhelmed by the bysyllabic CVCV noun/verb/adjective that ends in /@/:
cona, bita, epa, etc.  I thought of mutating them so that final C and V
switch places: coan, biat, eap, to produce a more diphthongal language.

For words like lorfa, milna, etc., where you have CVCCV, the final "a" would
drop off if the noun is the object or a non-volitional.  So:

    Lorf elry ken, "I saw a wolf," but Ol lorfa-le ke,  "A wolf sighted me."

In fact, I've already adopted that rule.  The other is more radical, and a
component of Menarilihs.

Meanwhile, do you lose your speech if you see a wolf involuntarily, or if
the wolf spies you?

> Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
I agree.

Sally

Reply