Re: Grammatical Summary of Kemata

On Thursday 13 December 2001 21:33, Rune Haugseng wrote:
> No, that's just the past tense of ankil, kill. The past active
> participle would be ankilta; the sentence might then be something like
> "Anerle ahankilta.", but I'm not sure that's completely
> grammatical. It could be another way to do passives, though - if I use
> "wer" as a grammatical adverb meaning "cause", you could even
> distinguish "I killed the animal" from "The animal was killed by me"
> as
I can't imagine that anyone else cares, but I like to get things
right: I should've used the past PASSIVE participle, ankiltam, and the
object null pronoun, at - "Anerle atankiltam.".

>
> Ankilavai anerle.
> ankil-ha-v-ai aner-le
> kill-Pt-1p-M  animal-DSgN
>
> vs.
>
> Tal wervai anerle atankilat.
atankiltam
> tal wer-v-ai   aner-le     a-t-ankil-(a)t
a-t-ankil-tam
> was cause-1p-M animal-DSgN 0-O-kill-PAP
0-O-kill-PPP

-------------
Rune Haugseng