Re: Gevey (Part 1): Verbs - long
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 27, 2000, 14:25|
En réponse à Rik Roots <rikroots@...>:
> > Strange "modes" and "voices". But I am quite a lover of strange
> > terminologies so It's okay by me :) .
> Please note that I use grammatical terms "loosely" in my description
> of Gevey - mainly because I won't let my obvious ignorance of
> linguistic terminology get in the way of my vision :->
No need for justification, I do the same as you. You should see the terminology
I use with Tjá-tsáñ...
> I don't think of them being obsessively cultural (though of course it
> goes on). They do like to know where they stand in a conversation or
> story - who is doing what to whom, and whether the actions they are
> trying to achieve/avoid are achievable/avoidable...
I can see that :)) .
> Emphatic aspects
> There are five emphatic aspect adverbs, which are used to emphasise
> or negate the action of a verb:
> nana - corresponding to never
> na - corresponding to not
> pae - corresponding to uncertainty
> she - giving a positive emphasis to the action of the verb
> shise - giving an emphatic emphasis to the action of the verb
Wow! very neat! I've never thought about it!
> Conditional aspects
> There are a large number of conditional aspect adverbs. The more
> commonly used ones include:
> haz - would: a conditional desire
> klov - could: a conditional ability or permissability
> gaz - should: a conditional obligation
> man - must: an imperative
> san - must: an imploration or pleading
> tuum - ought to: an obligation
> hon - must: a strong promise
> nezh - will: a desire (not future tense)
> seg - may: a conditional possibility
> tog - might: a weak conditional possibility
> godh - shall: a promise (not future tense)
> trev - can: a permissability
> shiv - ought to: a possibility or liklihood
> stav - can: an emphatic belief
> brav - can: an ability or belief
> (there are more elegant ways of conveying such information, but this
> system seems to work - I'm after utility rather than beauty with this
I find it rather beautiful! Nice idea.
> > Does it mean that intransitive verbs can take an object anyway, with
> > the help of a preposition, like French so-called "indirect
> > transitive verbs" (like "penser à": to think about)? If so, then
> > it's a strange way of defining intransitive, but I like it :) .
> This is my disgraceful misuse of grammatical terminology tripping you
> up. Sorry.
Don't be, I like it :) .
> Gevey speakers divide the world of verbs into two types - those that
> need a preposition to work, and those that never take a preposition.
> All verbs in Gevey can act on a direct object. Your example is spot
Interesting. So you mean that for a verb like "to go", the phrase "to the pool"
would be considered like an object of the verb? That's what I do In Chasmäöcho
> Apologies again. There is no "passive voice" in Gevey. I meant
> "incidental voice" (which until a couple of weeks ago I was calling
> "passive voice", but that was stretching the grammatical lexicon
> beyond its endurance so I changed it)
:)). What's the use of the incidental voice?
> I am currently working on producing a native grammar for Gevey ie
> a set of Gevey words I can use in the grammatal description of the
> language in place of the standard English/Latin lexicon. This will
> then allow me to create a definitive grammar, with a terminology annex
> which will be a lot easier to update when I realise that I am using
> technical terms incorrectly. I don't want to have to keep on
> correcting the whole grammar every time I realise my terminology is
> misleading. Strangely enough, I'm using theatrical terms (actor,
> chorus, prop, stage) to render the grammatical ideas into Gevey, so
> maybe the locals do have an artistic view of their lives and language,
> after all :->
That would be nice! :) . I'm not fond of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but I do
think that sometimes grammatical features must be backed up by cultural