Re: "To Be" In Silindion, Observations
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, January 2, 2005, 19:45 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:53:33 -0800,
Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> wrote:
> --- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, that's quite a lot of `to be' verbs!
>
> I guess there's really only one verb, the rest are
> particles or suffixes.
>
> > Old Albic has three verbs that can be translated as
> > `to be'.
> >
> > One of them, _has-_, is an independent stative verb
> > (i.e., it takes
> > objective agreement markers and a subject in the
> > objective case)
> > which is used mainly in sentences like "I am in the
> > city":
> >
> > (1) Haraha amas cararas.
> > has-a-ha am-as caras-as
> > be-PRES-1SG:P the:I-LOC city-LOC
> > `I am in the city.'
>
> This would use the descriptive verb ëa-, in Silindion
> ëasi o i marvi
> ëa-si o i mar-vi
> BE-1s in the city-LOC.
I see. BTW: I notice that your verb is homophonous to Quenya _ëa!_
`it may be!'
> > This verb can be translated into Spanish as _estar_
> > in most cases.
> >
> > The second `to be' verb is actually a suffix _-@s-_
> > which derives
> > a stative verb meaning `to be (an) X' from a noun or
> > adjective:
> >
> > (2) Nderaraha.
> > nder-@s-a-ha
> > man-be-PRES-1SG:P
> > `I am a man.'
> >
> > (3) Crarará am chvanam.
> > cras-@s-a-a a-m chvana-m
> > red-be-PRES-3SG:P the:C-OBJ dog-OBJ
> > `The dog is red.'
> >
> > As can be seen in example (2), the suffix is
> > attached to the short
> > objective stem of the noun if the noun is animate.
>
> I like the phonological alterations and the fact that
> you can add person markers onto the nominal suffix.
> Also, how are your present tense verbs conjugated. Is
> the "-a-" the only present tense marker? In Silindion,
> all vowels can be a present tense marker, depending
> (usually) on the vowel of the root.
The present tense marker is indeed -a-. I have been thinking more
than once to change it to -@- (i.e., a vowel matching the root vowel),
but that would cause problems with verbs with /i/ or /u/ as root
vowels (with /i/, the present indicative would fall together with
the subjunctive, with /u/, with the future tense). However, as I
think about it, -@- perhaps is not such a bad idea, and consistent
with the general phonology of the language, especially as there are
only few verbs with /i/ or /u/ as root vowels, and perhaps none
at all. It would also comply to the persistent ablaut patterns of
the language, according to which @,i,u are the weak grades of a,e,o;
the former occur mainly in affixes and the latter in roots.
But Albic vowel phonology is a matter that is to some degree still
in a matter of flux and requires some second thought.
What regards the conjugation of present tense verbs, the endings are
for stative verbs:
1sg. -aha 1pl. -ehi < *-a-hi
2sg. -acha 2pl. -echi < *-a-chi
3sg. -á < *-a-a 3pl. -ai
And for intransitive active verbs:
1sg. -ama 1pl. -emi < *-a-mi
2sg. -atha 2pl. -ethi < *-a-thi
3sg. -ara < *-a-sa 3pl. -eri < *-a-si
Transitive verbs are conjugated for both subject and object, using
stative endings for the object and active endings for the subject.
Example:
terachama `I see you' (ter-a-cha-ma)
> > Finally, there is an existential verb _an-_, meaning
> > `to exist'.
> >
> > (4) Aná om herom.
> > an-a-a o-m her-o-m
> > exist-PRES-3SG:P the:M-OBJ lord-M-OBJ
> > `The lord exists.'
> >
> > In contrast to _has-_, it corresponds to Spanish
> > _ser_.
>
> This would be expressed with the existential verb:
> më nilli "there is a lord, a lord exists" (L.S)
> vo(r) nilli "ditto" (H.S)
My sentence means `_the_ lord exists'; `_a_ lord exists' would
be _aná herom_.
> > > 2) The essive is used when the predicate noun is
> > the
> > > only element present. That is, when the sentence
> > is of
> > > the form "It = Y" or (colloquially) "He = Y"
> > >
> > > example: id voronye enkëari ihwilda!
> > > "Behold, the victors of the war are
> > coming!"
> > > id voron-ya-i enke-ari i-fil-da
> > > behold victor-pl.-ess. war-gen.
> > conj.-come-ger.
> > > (literally: "Behold, it is the victors of the war
> > > coming")
> > >
> > > The form of the essive is "-i" attached to a noun.
> >
> > This is a case for the verb an- in Old Albic, I
> > think, but I am
> > not sure. Can also be has-, depending on the
> > permanence of the
> > situation.
>
> I rather think that an- corresponds mostly to the
> existential verb, meaning "there is, there exists".
> Where as, this is more of a "it is" or (in colloquial
> speech) "he is" kind of thing.
>
> Like, as in this example:
>
> Yovar menta? What's that?
> yova-r menta
> what-COP. that
>
> Lankeihya. "It's my horse"
> lanka-i-hya
> horse-ESS.-my
>
> As opposed to: më lanka
> "there is a horse, a horse exists"
So the essive verb means `there is a ...', the existential verb,
`... exists'? I see.
> > > 3) The descriptive verb is the most common way of
> > > linking a noun and an adjective. It has the form
> > "ëa-"
> > > in the present, and "ië-" in the past. It takes
> > > regular personal suffixes:
> > > ëasi ëana iesi iena
> > > ëalë ëanta ielë ienta
> > > ëan ëanto/ëantë ië iento/ientë
> > >
> > > examples: ëanto máldëa i voronya
> > > be-3p happy the victor-pl.
> > > "Happy are the victors"
> > >
> > > ëan i rama piva
> > > be-3s the bag red
> > > "The bag is red"
> > >
> > > (These are stylistic and dialectic variations of
> > the
> > > sentences given above)
> >
> > I see the same examples as for the copulative -r.
> > What exactly
> > is the difference in meaning?
>
> As I said, the examples under the copulative are
> stylistic and dialectical. Standard Silindion and most
> dialects and registers use the descriptive verb with
> adjectives.
I see.
> >The Old Albic suffix -@s- turns the noun or
> > adjective it is
> > attached to into a full-fledged stative verb with
> > past tense and
> > everything.
>
> In Silindion, adding a personal suffix onto the
> copulative "-r" results in a colloquial form meaning
> "to have X"
>
> Example: lankassis "I have a horse"
> (in colloquial Low Silindion)
> lanka-r-sis
> horse-cop.-1s.
An interesting bit. Makes sense.
> > Old Albic uses the same copular verbs in relative
> > clauses as in main clauses.
>
> My next job is to describe the full extent of
> Silindion's relative madness.
I am looking forward to that.
> >> 5) The existential verb is used as in English, to
> >> mean "there is/are/were/was" It's form is: ><më>
> "there is"
> >> and <mië> "there was". In High Silindion another
> >> verb is used, of the form: <vo(r)> "there is" and
> > <vusi> "there was"
>
> > What is the semantic difference between this and the
> > essive verb?
>
> I may have cleared this up above, let me know if you
> have further difficulties.
I think I understand. Your second mail also helped clearing it up.
> > I have
> > nothing like that in Old Albic, but an emphatic verb
> > prefix would
> > be nice. Emphatic reduplication, perhaps? I have
> > to think about it.
>
> I'm glad you liked the emphatic verb. I just kind of
> noticed the difference in position yesterday, when I
> wrote it. But it's basically been there floating
> around in my head like that for a while. I think an
> emphatic prefix would be great!
>
>
> Thanks for the praise, I'm glad you enjoyed. I'll try
> to write a little something about relative clauses
> next.
>
> Happy new year!
Same to you!
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:46:06 -0800,
Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> wrote:
> Further clearing up Silindion's existential and essive
> verbs for everyone and especially Jörg Rhiemeier
>
>
> > > 2) The essive is used when the predicate noun is
> > the
> > > only element present. That is, when the sentence
> > is of
> > > the form "It = Y" or (colloquially) "He = Y"
> > >
> > > example: id voronye enkëari ihwilda!
> > > "Behold, the victors of the war are
> > coming!"
> > > id voron-ya-i enke-ari i-fil-da
> > > behold victor-pl.-ess. war-gen.
> > conj.-come-ger.
> > > (literally: "Behold, it is the victors of the war
> > > coming")
> > >
> > > The form of the essive is "-i" attached to a noun.
>
> Notice that the noun with the essive "-i" is definite.
> The essive is most usually used with definite nouns.
> (The "behold" particle kind of makes the phrase
> definite as well as the genitive "of the war"). If the
> existential verb were used:
>
> id më voronya enkëari ihwilda
> "Behold, there are victors of war coming"
>
> the meaning of the sentence changes somewhat.
>
> Contrast: "Behold, the victors of the war are
> coming" (with essive)
> (literally of course: behold, it is victors of war
> coming")
>
> with: "Behold, there are victors of war coming"
> (with existential)
>
> maybe that helps to clear it up also.
I think I understand. If I understand it correctly, it is a matter
of definiteness (`victors of war' vs. `the victors of the war').
Pooh, this has become a rather long post. But this is the kind of
discussion I enjoy and what I subscribed to the list for.
Greetings,
Jörg.
Reply