Re: Saprutum Dialects

"Pavel A. da Mek" <pavel.adamek@...> wrote :
Re: Saprutum Dialects

kam@CARROT.CLARA.NET wrote:
> conculture background for this language (where and when it was spoken)?
I won't go into that now, but briefly unspecified Atlantic islands, from
ancient times until ... well maybe they're still out there. I mean, you
don't think I'm inventing all this do you?

>> Cf. Arabic "huwa" - 'he'; "hiya" - 'she'
>> The initial "h" here could correspond to your "#e-" definitive,
>> but why is it used for feminine words?
> Influenced by Mekhtyish substratum. Because the Mekhtyish
> masculine -u- stems were translated by "we-" prefix and
> animate -i- stems were translated by "ye-" prefix, for
> feminine -a- stems was added prefix with "#",
> which was considered as semivowel form of "a".
Do you have a grammar of Mekhtyish?
In Saprutum, I think, the glottal stop first filled the hiatus between
the two /a/ vowels in -a?a(m). /h/ was probably substituted by populations
that otherwise tended to drop the /?/, and the voiceless variety made
the break between the two vowels clearer. If the /h/ had been original,
then as you say it would probably have been the voiced /#/ paralleling
the /w/ and /y/ in -iyi(m) and -uwu(m).


> (BTW, there is another Semitic language in this sprachbund.
> Besides the Semitic feminine sufix "-at",
> it developed masculine "-ut", animate "-it" and inanimate "-ot".)
This would cause much confusion with the collective number if that also
exits.

In Sap. there is potential confusion in the acc. between the collective
number of a noun, and a derivate in -at-. Quite probably both come from
the Semitic feminine affix, which could originally have signified something
like "one member of a group", or "one animal in a herd". Stress can help
distinguish the two, as the affix -at- can take the accent, whereas the
collective ending -ata(m) is always unstressed. (In the native script the
ending is written with a composite character, whereas the affix ought to
be written out in full).
E.g. dabram, dabrum, dabrim "word" (acc., nom. & gen./dat.)
in the plural :
dabra?am, dabruwum, dabriyim "(separate individual) words"
in the collective number :
dabr-atam, dabr-utum, dabr-itim "a mass of words, verbiage"

Derived noun in -at
dabrat-am, dabrat-um, dabrat-im "a citation, a short speech etc"
which forms its plural :
dabrata?am, dabratuwum, dabratiyim "citations, speeches"
and I suppose you could also form a collective :
dabratatam, dabratutum, dabratitim "an anthology of speeches etc"

Compounds:
>>> kalbu.#animum - a sheep-dog;   [noun + derived adjective]
>>> kalbu-#anmim - a sheep's dog   [noun + noun in genitive]
>>> kalbu-?admim is a person's dog,  [lit. "a dog of a person"]
>>> kalbu.?adimum is a werwolf!!    [lit. "humanoid dog"]
>>
>> "kalbu.?adimum" is a dog trained to catch men ...
hmm, a bloodhound. I don't at present know the exact idiom that would be
used, but I'd guess "man-seeking dog" :
"kalbu_lezwadi_?admiyim" lit. "a dog for (the) hunting of people"
or perhaps just a "people hunter" : zawwudu_?admi(yi)m, in full :
zawwudu.kalibu_?admiyim : "a canine hunter of people"

>>> a werwolf is "?admu.kalbum". [not strictly grammatical IMHO]
>> In this last one you're using a noun (kalbum) as an adjective.
>> when a noun functions as an adjective it is marked in some way.
> IMHO there are four types of adjectives:
> 1) "apposition" adjective, which means "the one who is an ...",
> (root used as noun: CaCC-)
This one just doesn't ring true. "the man who is a dog" would be
"we?admam xehu kalbam" which might abbreviate to "we?adma.xekalibam"
where the relative xe- is prefixed to the derived adj. as though it
were a preposition.

> 2) "genitive" adjective,
> which means "the one who has some connection with an ...",
> (internal genitive = adjective derived from noun: CaCiC-)
It's difficult to know a priori the exact meaning of an adj. formed in
the way. The basic sense is probably "closely associated with" or
"permanently endowed with the qualities of"

> 3) "possesive" adjective, which means "the one who belongs to an ...",
> (genitive: CaCCi-)   [OK]
> 4) "preposition" adjective, which means
> 4.1) "the one who is similar to an ...", (keCaCiC-)
> 4.2) "the one who is in an ...", (beCaCiC-)
... the one who has (recently) come from in "me-"
Generally these forms suggest a temporary or superficial connection
rather than permanent inherent qualities.

>> "?admu.kalibum" - 'a doggy person',
>> a person having dog-like qualities (Caliban???).
> But IMHO a person having dog-like qualities is "?admu.kekalibum",
> (paradigm: "kalbu.ke#animum" - a sheepish dog)
Well there's a degree of semantic overlap, but "?admu.kekalibum"
is a man who's looks or behaves a bit like a dog in some way, but
"?admu.kalibum" is a person having a fundamental canine nature.

> while "?admu.kalibum" is a man attending dogs
> (or selling them or having another job with them).
That would probably be "man of dogs" : "?admu_kalbiyim"

> (paradigm: kalbu.#animum - a sheep-dog)
Hmm, I'm beginning to regret this example, "kalbu.le#animun" might have
been better, "a dog for sheep"

> I supose that "?admu.#animum" is a shepherd,
"?admu.le#animum" or "?admu_#anmiyim" (man of sheep) maybe
> but if definite, then simply "we[l]#animum" probably suffices, [yes]
> unless we want to point out that it is not some non-human person,
> for example a god or an extraterrestrial:
> "welahu.#animum" the divine shepherd,
we?ilahu.le#animum - "the shepherd god";
we?ilahu.#animum - "the divine sheep???"

> "wek?adimu.#animum" the shepherd who is an humanoid,
It would be the other way about "wel#animu.(ke)?adimum"
> while "ye[l]#animum" is a general term for:
> 1) "yekalbu.[le]#animum" the sheepdog,
> 2) "yek?adimu.#animum" the shepherd who is an android
"yel#animu.ke?adimum" (= man-like shepherd)
> 3) "yerabtu.[le]#animum" the robotic shepherd,
> although "zerabtu.[le]#animum" can be used
> for the for the less advanced models of robotic shepherds.
Which prompts the question :
Ye#lamuwu-ma #anima.bari?atam rabtu.?adimuwum ?
"Do androids dream (of) electric sheep" (original title of "Blade Runner")

>>> "kalbu.?adimum" is a dog trained to catch men,
> but thinking about it, it could mean
> "domestic dog, dog living with men".
Yes, but "kalbu.bayitum" - 'household dog' is clearer.

>> Note also "benu.kalbayum" -- a 'wolf-child',
> I can not understand what means the -ay- here.
It forms an adjective of origin from a noun. Most commonly used for the
names of nations, tribes, families etc.
e.g. Rawmam - Rome; Rawmayam - Roman, a Roman person or thing.
You could also use a prepositional adjective such as ?adma.meRawinam
- a "from-Rome" person. But this would imply someone who'd just come
from Rome or who was distinguished by having visited or lived in Rome,
whereas (?adma.)Rawmayam would be a Roman by birth, or a Roman citizen.

>> Rawmulam benu.kalbayam yezam! -- Romulus was born of dogs!
> Why accusative?
Having read a recent post to this list, I think Sap. is technically an
"active" language (neither "accusative" nor "ergative"). The "nominative"
case in -u(m) is used for the subject of both transitive and intransitive
verbs, but not with forms of "to be" (expressed or implied). The
"accusitive" -a(m) form ought therefore to be used with stative verbs,
although in practise usuage seems to have been mixed. This is an area I've
still to investigate in detail. The usual way of equating two nouns is to
place them in apposition to one another, both equally stressed and both
in the "accusitive" or unmarked case, generally with mimmation. A
pronoun referring to the first noun is frequently added for emphasis.

BTW I should have written :
"Rawmulam benna.kalbayam yezam!"
BN is one of a small class of irregular roots (XM "name" is another) that
have no real stem vowel, [e] being added where necessary and stress falling
irregularly on the case ending. When the "e" is inserted the n usually
germinates before the accent (but not otherwise) e.g.
bennam - "child"; kebnim - "like a child"; lewbennim - "to the child".
I also forget to use the correct (in this case acc.) vowel before the
suffixed adjective. Native speakers also made this mistake, it was
frequently condemned by the grammarians.

>      Pavel
Thanks again,

Keith