Re: Auxiliary verbs

This thread has helped me solve a problem I've had for a while with
Kasshian (formerly known as Uatakassi - still it's *native* name, though
spelled Watakasshi in my new romanization)

Auxiliaries attach to their verb as affixes, or, more properly,
incorporate the main verb as a prefix.  Anyways, the word for "not" is
an independent particle, _fel_, following the inflected verb.  Now, the
problem that arises is that, since the verb and the auxiliary are a
single unit, and _fel_ is an independent particle, it must follow,
whichever part is intended to be negated.  So, I wasn't sure how to
distinguish, e.g., "I don't want to go" vs. "I want to not go".

Oops, bad example.  There are distinct (but related) verbs for "want to"
and "want to not".  Let's go with "afraid to", then.  It would be
impossible to distinguish "I am not afraid to go" and "I am afraid to
not go"

I've figured it out now.  The normal construction is interpreted as
negating the auxiliary.

Zabakaisoç fel
Zaba-kais-u-ç           fel
Go  -fear-I-NonPunctual not
I am not afraid to go

To negate the verb itself, one uses an additional auxiliary, _das_,
which historically is derived from a verb meaning "to lack" (related to
the modern verb _dakas_ "to ignore"), hence:

Zabadaskaisoç
Zaba-das-kais-u-ç
Go  -not-fear-I-NonPunctual
I am afraid to not go

Historically "I am afraid to lack going"

Das is only used with other auxiliaries.  To say simply "I do not go/I
am not going", one says
Zabauç fel
Zaba-u-ç          fel
Go  -I-NonPuntual Not

*Zabadasoç would be ungrammatical

Reply