Re: EXERCISE: Meanings of to be

--- Jake X wrote:

> I recently dealt with eradicating "to be" from elanagauo, replacing it with
> one of two different words depending on context. My choice was to use one
> verb for existance and one for equivalence. But there are more meanings, and
> different ways to split it. For those of you who don't stick to the natlang
> definition, what do you use? I made a short exercise.
>
> 1. forming predicate nominative: He IS happy
> 2. equivalence: Today is Wednesday.
> 3. existance: To be, or not to be.
> 4. English use, for creating verb forms: He is walking.
> 5. Numerical equivalence: One plus one is two.
>
> Do you differenciate?
Not as much as the others.

First of all, I must say that I have two groups of languages, both of which are
rather pseudo-natlangs than artlangs.
The first is a small family of three North-Slavic conlangs. They behave mostly
like the other Slavic languages, but I will not go into details right now,
because frankly I don't remember very well. I hope to get back to them later,
but I cannot say when.
The second constitutes a separate group of Indo-European languages. Currently,
there are only Hattic and Askaic, but no doubt there will be a third language
soon. The equivalent of "to be" is "jãz" in Hattic, "jenze" in Askaic. Of
course, both are irregular. My third HatLang, yet to be invented, will probably
partly eliminate the word, due to Russian influence.
Both languages also have an equivalent for "exist": "ušiz" and "vajuze", but
they are used only in those cases when English would use "exist" as well. They
would rather not be used to replace the verb "to be".

In the examples 1 and 2 "jãz" and "jenze" would be used in the very same way
English does.

In the Shakespearian case 3 as well. Can you imagine an actor on stage,
exclaiming: "To exist or not to exist, that's the question"? That is not a
question at all, or, at most, a rhetoric one.
So, in Askaic it will look like: "Askaic: "Jenze ja nai jenze, ku ad' eiku."

I have never thought about example five, but if I have to make it up right now,
I hereby declare that the same verbs "to be" are used, be it in their plural
forms. So, "1+1=2" will be:
Hattic: "sum ha sum sõs zuf"
Askaic: "uins ha uins sauns zo"
In the case of Hattic, this means breaking the VSO rule, but I don't care since
that was not a rule anyway, rather a habit. And I believe VSO would be strange
and sometimes confusing in such cases.

The fourth example is slightly more complicated. In normal cases, like in the
example "he is walking", a simple present tense is used. Only when the speaker
wants to underline the fact, that it happens on this very same moment, or in
some cases when a specific state is expressed rather than an act, the present
active participle could be used, in combination with "to be".

If I may add a sixth example: there are constructions beginning with "there
is". Some languages are highly creative in this respect, like French "il y a"
and German "es gibt".
Polish is funny in this respect. If you want to say, that there is soup, you
simply say: "Jest zupa" (Is soup-NOM). But if there is no soup, you say: "Nie
ma zupy" (Not has soup-GEN). This works only in the present tense, however. In
the past tense, it would be "Nie byl/o zupy" (Not was-NEUT soup-GEN), in the
future tense "Nie be,dzie zupy" (Not will-be soup-GEN).

Hattic is boring from this point of view, since it uses only the verb "jãz".
Askaic, on the other hand, is more exciting, using the passive voice of
"spychuze" (to see). Therefore, the sentence: "There are two parrots in our
house" will look like this:
Hattic: "Ašdaf än umni zõmi zuf papugaf".
Askaic: "Spychurde papugaš zo en zomud uñud". (lit. Two parrots are seen ...).

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply