Re: Grammatical Summary of Kemata
| From: | Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 19:14 |
|---|
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 15:25, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...>:
> > I don't expect anyone on the list will remember me - I posted a few
> > times earlier this autumn (or fall, if you prefer), but I've been
> > horribly busy at school since then - no time for conlanging at
> > all. Nevertheless, I've managed to write a sort of "grammatical
> > summary" of my conlang Kemata.
>
> Well, your name looks familiar to me at least.
>
> > The consonants are also standard European. R is trilled. N is /N/
> > before k or g. T, p and k are aspirated at the beginning of words
> > (hey, I didn't even know what aspiration was when I started this
> > language - just be happy u is no longer the Norwegian half-rounded i
> >
> > :-) ).
>
> Why? it would have been funny :))) . You're sure you don't want to
> reinclude it as a sixth vowel? (maybe written 'y', would be possible
> :)) )
I don't think so, it's really too late to mess up the phonology. I do
have another language where I could put it in, though, if I ever get
round to reworking it...
>
> > Class II verbs are of the form CVCV, and form the tenses by changing
> > their vowels, e.g.:
> >
> > Stem hana, write
> > Aorist hain
> > Past hane, wrote
> > Present hana, is writing
> > Future hani, will write
> > Before hena, (has written, had written)
> > After hina
>
> Funny, for the Class I verbs the aorist is the basic form, while for the
> Class II verbs it's the present. Or does it work only with this verb?
> Anyway, I find it nice...
I hadn't even noticed that before. Oh well, I guess the Kematians will
just have to live with it :-)
> > Verbs can also take one of six modal suffixes (I'm not at all sure
> > whether
> > these are actually moods.).
>
> Well, they actually are IMHO. I can even give them a name that will make
> them look more like moods :))) .
Thanks - it's always nice to have a funny latinate word for things :-)
> >
> > -ne, (want to)
>
> Desiderative.
>
> > -wi, (should)
>
> Subjunctive, or maybe conditional like in French. Though I'm not sure.
>
> > -zai, (must), used when someone has *chosen* to do something
> > -hu, (must), used when someone is *forced* to do something, or there
> > is no choice in the matter
>
> I must say I'm blocked on these ones. Necessitive? Why is "jussive" popping
> up in my mind?
>
> > -ma, (can)
>
> Capacitive.
>
> > -koi, (hope to)
>
> Optative (though optative is more "I wish to").
I thought subjunctive meant "wish" and optative "hope", or the other
way around.
>
> > The suffix -ni makes a pronoun reflexive (or reciprocal (if that is
> > actually the word that describes "each other")).
>
> It is.
> > This has two uses:
> > - to not say something known from context
> >
> > A Kematian waiter might, for instance, say:
> > I nul abu atnul?
> > i nul a-b-u a-t-nul
> > - question S-2p-? -DO-which,
> > for "What would you like to order?", everything being known already
> > (I don't think it would be very polite, though).
>
> Or maybe very polite, for a society which considers that asking people to
> actually do a specific action they're expected to do is impolite (taking
> your example, in a restaurant, when people have not eaten yet and stopped
> reading the menus, it would be considered impolite to ask them what they
> want to *order*, since they're obviously ready for it, so instead of using
> the verb *order*, you use the special word instead - using the verb would
> be like repeating the obvious, and it could be considered rude -).
Of course - when it comes to what is polite and what is not, there's
no need for it to make any sense :-)
>
> > - to indicate voice:
> >
> > Ankila a anerle.
> > ankil-ha a aner-le
> > kill-Pt - animal-DSgN
> > The animal was killed.
> >
> > (This isn't exactly like voice, of course - you can't differentiate
> > between "I killed the animal" and "The animal was killed by me".)
>
> Maybe it's just a kind of copula (after all, all copulae don't need to be
> verbs, in some languages they are prepositions or pronouns). If you could
> use it with other adjectives, it would be a good indication of that.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here: what adjective are
you talking about? Also, I don't think I've quite understood what a
copula is - I thought it was just something like "to be".
> > A noun (except names and such) always has an article suffixed to it.
> >
> > The articles are:
> > Singular Plural
> > Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite
> > Normal form -le -ne -zu -su
> > Unique form -ti -pi -la -ho
> > Normal negative form -ha -no -ro -vai
> > Unique negative form -wu -re -ko -li
> >
> > The unique articles denote that the noun as a unique specimen of its
> > kind (or several of them). The unique form of a word sometimes has an
> > idiomatic meaning, such as "raidole", the house, vs. "Raidoti", the
> > world, or "nezerne", a lord, vs. "nezerpi", a king.
>
> I remembered a discussion about that a few months ago. So you see, somebody
> remembered your presence :)) .
Well, that's nice :-)
>
> > Beinuna kaldodaikle.
> > beinun-ha kaldo-daik-le.
> > man-DSgNNeg place-this-DSgN.
> > The man isn't there. (The copula can usually be left out.)
>
> Your language could have also more than one copula: one which can usually
> be left out between two nouns, and the kind of null pronoun to use between
> a noun and an adjective (after all, they are two different kinds of
> sentences, one definitive or spatial, and one qualificative. So it's not
> strange that they would be constructed differently). What do you think of
> it?
I like the term null pronoun; I think I'll steal it. The null pronoun
would be used in a sentence like that,
Beinuna aberis.
beinun-ha a-beris.
man-DSgNNeg 0-red
The man isn't red.
but I've no idea whether that makes it a copula. I've always
thought of it as a normal sentence with some form of "dal" left out at
the beginning.
>
> > Possessives are formed by one of the following suffixes:
> > Normal form (owner) Reverse form (owned)
> > Normal possession -no -ki
> > Association -ndu -wai
> > "Possession" through -zik -val
> > having made something
> > Composition (i.e. what -nut -kar
> > something is composed
> > of)
>
> Interesting, a language which can mark both the "genitive" and the
> "construct". I wonder if there are any example in real life...
Can't help you there, I'm afraid.
> > An adjective can be suffixed to its noun if it has not been
> > declined; only one adjective can be suffixed per noun. Otherwise the
> > adjective follows the noun.
>
> That is nearly the exact sentence I have to describe adjectives in
> Itakian :))) .
Great minds think alike - or maybe it's not-so-great ones :-)
>
> > Comparison of adjectives:
> >
> > Positive: keimas, many, much beris, red
> > keimasin, quite a few/? berisin, a little red
>
> Maybe simply a few, a little, it seems to fit more with the meaning with
> the adjective beris.
It was probably just a bad idea to use that adjective - it doesn't
quite fit all the forms, and I couldn't come up with a good English
equivalent of that one.
>
> > keimasinor, quite many/much berisinor, quite red
> > keimasindo, very many/much berisindo, very red
> > Comparative: keimasor, more berisor, redder
> > keimasorin, a little/few more berisorin, a little redder
> > keimasoror, somewhat more berisoror, quite redder
> > keimasorto, many more berisorto, much redder
> > Superlative: keimasto, most beristo, reddest
> > keimastoin, almost most beristoin, almost reddest
> > keimastor, more-or-less most beristor, more-or-less
> > reddest
> > keimastoto, most of all beristoto, reddest of all
> > ?: keimasene, too many berisene, too red
> > keimasuri, not many enough berisuri, not red enough
>
> I've seen the term "excessive" which in my opinion gives quite the correct
> meaning.
Good, I'll use that then.
>
> > Some grammatical adverbs are:
> > tem - begin to (incohative?)
>
> I think the right spelling is "inchoactive", but for the rest it's
>okay.
Oh well, can't get everything right :-)
>
> > a - (used to hold suffixes for aorist verbs)
> > keta - if
>
> "if" is a "grammatical adverb"? Interesting. It reminds me of my conlang
> Moten, where "if" is one of the "tenses" of the verb :))) .
>
> > ze - imperative
> > ra - again (repetitive)
> > nul - question
> > nib - present
> > hew - past
> > dal - future
> > (The last three are usually used with verbs in the "before" and
> > "after" tenses)
>
> Why would they be used for? The meaning of the "before" and "after" tense
> (in one conlang of mine, I called them anterior and posterior) is enough,
> given that the principal clause is present.
They would be used to disambiguate, if the tense wasn't clear from
context. I like "anterior" and "posterior", too - you've definite
given me a lot of terminology here.
>
> > Conjunctions follow the verbs in their clauses (I'm actually thinking
> > of making them function as grammatical adverbs):
>
> Well, you already did with "if" :)) .
Yeah, but that could just be a special case :-)
> > Relative clauses are indicated by putting a personal pronoun before
> > the verb of the clause:
> >
> > Beinunle arai kenira daik
> > beinun-le a-r-ai kenir-ha daik
> > man-DSgN S-3p-M speak-Pt this
> > The man, who said this
>
> IIRC, the origin of the relative pronouns in Germanic languages is
> equivalent, except that they used the demonstrative pronouns. That's why
> for instance in Dutch, the relative pronouns die and dat are identical to
> demonstrative pronouns.
Really? You wouldn't happen to know why the German ones are almost all
the same as the articles, too?
-------------
Rune Haugseng
Replies