Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: ODD VERB FORM (WAS: Llirine: introduction and phonology)

From:Josh Roth <fuscian@...>
Date:Tuesday, December 4, 2001, 7:16
In a message dated 12/3/01 6:33:28 PM, alrivera@ALUMNI.SOUTHERN.EDU writes:

>I do, however, get the idea that a language might use a "conjunction pronoun" >form there which would only fit in sentences like this where it attaches >to both >verbs. Is there any such thing? > > *Muke!
I'm still figuring Kar Marinam out, but I think it would inflect the pronoun for both roles, which is something like what you're describing: gòlem dhÿnma dhrúlem husi kr`y. I.FS touch ASSC.AP-FS see I.SR "I see him touch me" "dhrú" is the Agent-Patient form of the Animate-Singular-Specific-Casual pronoun (which could be translated as "he"), and -lem is the focus/theme (FS) case ending for animate specific nouns. SR stands for "senser," a form used rather than the patient for unvolitional sensing. (I haven't figured out any verb specifics like tense, aspect, etc., so the above are just the bare forms.) Hmm... the sentence above is if "see" is viewed as a dynamic verb - if it's stative (and I'm still iffy on exact definitions for these - "see" seems to be a state and an action), then it's a little more complicated. "husi" must be expressed as an adjective instead of a verb, which might be something like "husihu" - which would then split up around the pronoun. Then the object (or focus, really), is expressed AFTER the first part of the adjective, which goes in the construct form and triggers a mutation in the first word after it.... husiner kòlem dhÿnma dhrúlem kr`yhu. see-CON I.FS touch ASSC.AP-FS I.SR-see Or the construct form might even reverse that whole clause: husiner shurúlem dhÿnma gòlem kr`yhu. And it might be a rule that if the subject of a sentence has only an adjective, and not a verb, it must be in the trigger form, which would give: husir`yner shurúlem dhÿnma gòlem mágöhu. (this is getting long .. and still no verbal morphology) something like that.... ANYWAY the point about the noun being doubly inflected still stands. :-) Josh Roth http://members.aol.com/fuscian/eloshtan.html