Robert Hailman wrote:
> Well, I translated this into Ajuk, for fun. When I get the chance, I'll
> record it and put it up on... uh... something. I don't have a website
> yet, but this is one more excuse to get one.
>
> A: Odap visenapoki ukhoto elpisoto abrano.
> B: Nomap visenapa!
> A: Duz najaj upoti uzot khinvisenot dorot felden!
> B: O! Khinvisenot upoti, nan?
>
> Interlinear:
> Od -ap visen-ap -ok -i ukh-ot -o elpis-ot-o abran-o.
> 2 -masc. look -masc.-IMP-3 the-in.-ACC small-in.-ACC tree -ACC.
> Look at the small tree!
So the verb agrees in gender with the subject and in number
with the object? That's odd. Or perhaps 3p doesn't distinguish
gender, which would explain the "3". [ Though I'm fairly certain
there is a universal saying that if 1p and 2p shows gender, then
3p does too. ] Or does it have to do with the tree being inanimate?
> Nom-ap visen-ap -a!
> 1 -masc. look -masc.-1
> I see (it)!
Here the agreement is with the subject both in person and gender.
> Just a few things to note: When no case or number is mentioned, assume
> nominative and singular. I originally put place holders ("0") in, and
> while was less ambiguious I suppose, it looked too messy.
Aha! Does this explain my question above?
> Well, that's all for now. Like I said, I'll get it recorded and put it
> up. I can pronounce the last sentance correctly - it seems to be the
> easiest one for me.
I'm waiting... :)
||| daniel
--
<> Kattawiknik pimaktasal! <> daniel.andreasson@telia.com <>
<> Katsayuknik pimak! <> www.geocities.com/conlangus <>