Re: Introducing Myself

On Monday 17 September 2001 13:43, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Rune Haugseng <haugrune@...>:
>
> Welcome Rune,
>
> I'm sure you're gonna feel okay here.
Thanks!

>
> >       Kenirbuvai Kemata.
> >       kenir-bu-v-ai Kemata
> >       speak-Ps-1p-Masc Kemata
> >       I (male) am speaking Kemata.
>
> Interesting. So pronoun affixes are all composed of two parts: person and
> gender?
Yes, but it's not grammatical gender, it's more like English. Kemata
pronouns distinguish masculine/feminine/neuter/unspecified/plural. In
addition, direct object pronouns add -t, while indirect object
pronouns don't attach to the verb. So "I am speaking it" would be
"kenirbuvairot", r-o-t being 3rd person-neuter-object. There are some
other suffixes too, like "-ni", which forms reflexive pronouns.

> And can the gender affix be omitted if it is irrelevant or is it
> mandatory?
It can't be omitted, but as mentioned above there is one for
"unspecified gender" (-u, I think).


>
> >       Beri avai, dalvai daikdar.
> >       beri-0 a-v-ai, dal-v-ai daik-dar.
> >       think-AO S-1p-Masc, be(AO)-1p-Masc this-for.
> >       I think, therefore I am.
>
> Interesting. So pronouns are formed of a part indicating function in the
> clause (the a- in avai), and the second part is identical to the one found
> in conjugated verbs. Am I correct?
Yes, pronouns exist in two forms, one which attaches to the verb and
one which is a seperate word. The seperate form starts with a- for
subjects, e- for direct objects and i- for indirect objects. "To him"
would thus be irait, indirect object - 3rd person - masculine -
object.

> If so, then it looks kind of like my conlang Azak which to form
> pronouns uses the meaningless root n- followed by the same pronoun
> affixes found in conjugation. Also, why isn't the verb in this
> sentence conjugated like in the previous sentences (it would be
> berivai, I guess)? Does it have to do with the fact that the verb is
> in aorist tense?
Yes, the aorist tense never takes any suffixes, it's just the bare
stem of the verb.

> > AO   - aorist tense (I'm not sure whether this is the right word for
> >        it. The aorist is used for statements where time doesn't really
> >        apply.)
>
> Correct use, although in this meaning the aorist is technically an aspect,
> if it's part of a system where it contrast with present, past and whatever
> else, then it can be called tense (Occam's razor :)) ).
That's probably the situation in Kemata, but I have to admit I'm not
quite sure what these aspects are.

>
> > DSgN - definite singular article, normal form (there's also a "unique"
> >        form (seen in Raidoti, "the world" - raido normally means
> >        "house" or "home"), as well as forms signifying negation)
>
> Does the "unique" form always trigger meaning changes like this one?
No, that's probably the exception. It normally just means a unique or
special instance of the noun - to take a bad example, if the Kematians
were Christians, they might use "nezerti" for "the Lord", using the
unique form.

>And I would also like to see how the negative articles work.
The idea is basically that, instead of marking negation on the verb
(or with an adverb), it is marked on nouns and pronouns. So "he didn't
go" would literally be "no-he went", marking the negation on "he". (I
can't give any better examples right now, as I don't remember the
negative articles.)

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

Reply