Re: A little entertainment

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Irina Rempt wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Sally Caves wrote:
>
>> >Or 5.  Change the syntax of the subclause.  In Teonaht
>> >it mirrors that of the main clause:
>> >
>>
>> >        Or, even, in some forms of T:
>> >        Il lorfa-vim rinil beto revpomennyve elry ke.
>> >        The she-wolf with-eating-of-the-boy I saw.
>> >        WHEW!
>>
>> Eka-he welham-cam paratahatomtel wehhetim.
>> I-and  wolf-the   boy-eating-LOC saw
>
>
>Both of you, does that mean "I saw the she-wolf that had eaten the
>boy" or "I saw the she-wolf eating the boy"?
It means both and neither; since it makes no aspectual assumptions. If
you want to pick gnittes, you'd have to make two sentences that clear
up when the wolf in question actually dined:

    1. Atatit-he welhas-cas paratar-tam; eka-pe welham-tam wehhetim.
    2. Ffuhatit-he welhas-cas paratar-tam; eka-pe welham-tam wehhetim.

The first means "And had eaten the wolf-NOM the boy-ACC; moreover, I
the wolf-ACC saw." While the second means "And was eating the wolf-NOM
the boy-ACC; moreover I the wolf-ACC saw." The verbs here are
non-aorist and thus rarely met except in (highish) literature.

Atatit is Past Perfect, which calls for reduplication of the root
(at-) and past endings. The wolf had already dined, and was now
working on the after dinner mint.

Ffuhatit is Past Nonperfect, which calls for prefixation of "ffu", a
root originally meaning 'be', and past endings. The wolf was still
working on the Special du Jour.

>
>  vethea     chalun     lea hanea     cronesat
>  wolf-acc-s see-PST-1s REL boy-acc-s eat-PRF-PRS-3s
>
>  "I saw the wolf that had eaten the boy"
>
>implying that the boy had been devoured before I saw the wolf, or
>
>  vethea     chalun     lea hanea     cronat
>  wolf-acc-s see-PST-1s REL boy-acc-s eat-PRS-3s
>
>  "I saw the wolf that ate the boy"
>
>implying that the meal was in progress when I saw it.
In English, those two mean roughly the same thing. For the latter, you
might want "I saw the wolf that was eating the boy."

To me, at least, the difference between "ate" and "had eaten" is one
of distance in time; the former being near in time, the latter being
farther in time - with respect to each other, not "real" time!

>
>On a side note, Valdyan nests relative clauses only when they apply
>to the subject, not when they apply to the object:
These would be replaced by separate clauses in Talarian.

>
>  veth       lea hanea     cronesat       dosta     mustynat
>  wolf-nom-s REL boy-acc-s eat-PRF-PRS-3s dog-acc-s fight-PNC-PRS-3s
>
>  "The wolf that has eaten the boy fights the dog"
Welhas-cas-he paratar-tam atit;     cash-pe   honcu-tohe caret.
nom.s.        acc.s.      past-AOR  nom.pron. dat.s.     pres-AOR

"The wolf the boy ate; (s)he to the dog battles."

>
>but this
>
>  veth       dosta     mustynat         lea hanea     cronesat
>  wolf-nom-s dog-acc-s fight-PNC-PRS-3s REL boy-acc-s eat-PRF-PRS-3s
>
>can only mean
>
>  "The wolf fights the dog that has eaten the boy"
Honcas-cas-he paratar-tam atit; cash-pe welhu-tohe caret.

Just the opposite of the above!: "The dog the boy ate; (s)he to the
wolf battles."

>
>and this is ungrammatical:
>
>* veth       dosta     lea hanea     cronesat       mustynat
>  wolf-nom-s dog-acc-s REL boy-acc-s eat-PRF-PRS-3s fight-PNC-PRS-3s
>
>
>If the antecedent is the object of the relative clause, it's resumed
>by the object pronoun _le_:
>
>  veth       lea dost      le  mustynat     hanea     cronesat
>  wolf-nom-s REL dog-nom-s RES fight-PRS-3s boy-acc-s eat-PRF-PRS-3s
>
>  "The wolf that the dog fights has eaten a/the boy"
Honcus-cas-he welhu-tohe caret; welhas-tas pararahatomtel wasit.

"The dog to the wolf battles; the wolf was at boy-eating.

>
>even when it's also the object of the main clause:
>
>  vethea     chalan     lea dost      le  mustynat
>  wolf-acc-s see-PRS-1s REL dog-nom-s RES fight-PRS-3s
>
>  "I see the wolf that the dog fights"
Carawelhacarahoncu eka-ma wehhemi!

"However, I see the battling-wolf-battling-dog!"

Sometimes the compounding feature turns out nice! Coordinate
substantival stems can be strung along to form a single word. In this
instance, there are two nominal stems, so the resulting word will be
declined in the dual number.

The others (above) can't work this way because they aren't coordinate
with respect to one another (i.e., the wolf and dog aren't in the same
category with respect to dining on boyflesh). Now, if both had eaten a
boy, they'ld be coordinates:

Eka-he carahoncacarawelhu paratahataherusha wehhemi.

"And I see the battling-dog-battling-wolf(n.) boy-feed-having(adj).

A second compound is made of boy and eat with the adjectival suffix
-er that means "having or owning".

Padraic.

>   Irina