Re: "To Be" In Silindion, Observations

> >      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!'
 Well, at least it's homophonous in the present tense.
The actual root is <*ay->, which became <*ay-a-> in
the present (with a present thematic vowel -a-). This
became <ëa->. In other tenses the verb is just <ë>
like in the past: <ië-> (with a slightly strange
augment).

> 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)
Awesome, I really like this. I had a short sketch
similar to this a little while ago, I believe I posted
it to the list.

> > 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_.
Oh yes, I see, well this would be:
 vor i nilli "The lord exists"  (H.S)
 më  i nilli "The lord exists"  (L.S)



> > 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.
>
Hm, no. I may have described it badly. What I meant
was that the essive verb means "it is the" or "it is
DEF X". The existential verb means "there is a" (most
commonly) or "X exists".


> 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').
In some circumstances yes. The existential verb is
"there is a" or "X exists" a much more indefinite
statement than something using the essive which is
like "it is the X", much more definite. However, as my
the following example shows, the existential can be
used a definite, although much less frequently.

 më i nilli "the lord exists"


But you're essentially right.
And you're also right in saying this is a long post,
but it's a good discussion. I'm looking into the
various relativizing possibilities right now, so, I'll
keep the list posted :)

 ~elliott



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com

Replies