Re: Personal Conjugation based on Closeness

H.S.Teoh wrote:

> > >        He was walking with his father and another man, and he told him
> > >        that he will visit him again.
> > >
> > >[snip] In Ebisedian, however, this is completely unambiguous:
Very ambiguous in Kash, and it's been bothering me for days.  The
formal/literal translation, with tense markers:

senda yaharansa yam amañi i kaçun liya, i ne yakotasa re ne yatolito cis.
PROG 3/walk/Past with his-father/acc and man/acc other, (and) 3/dat
3/say/Past CONJ 3/dat 3/visit/Fut again.

As it stands, and out of context, the 2nd clause beginning with i 'and'
would suggest strongly that there has been a change of subject. If you
omitted _i_ (as you could), then the subj. of yakotasa would be assumed =
subj. of yaharansa.

In the clause following yakotasa, _re_ definitely indicates change of subj.
Again, if re is omitted, then the subj. of yatolito = subj. of yakotasa (a
sort of serial verb construction), (and may/maynot = subj.yaharan, depending
on the preceding paragraph).

In this second clause, the two ya- subj.markers and the two _ne_'s are
completely ambiguous. To disambiguate (just as in Engl.) you'd have to
repeat the nouns, or use their equiv. of "former, latter" etc.  If one or
another _ne_  was not replaced by a noun, it would be assumed to refer back
to the "he" subj. of yaharansa.  Similarly, any ya- that had no noun (nom.)
supplement. A couple exs.:

(Let A be the subj. of walk, B=father, C=other man)
1.(first clause unchanged), [no i 'and'] yakotasa amayeni re kaçut ya liya
ne yatolito cis.
........and A told B that C would visit A again.

2. (first clause unch.), _i_ amani ne yakotasa (no RE'that') yatolito kaçute
ya liya cis.
....and B told A that B would visit C again.

3. (first clause unch.), i amani ne yakotasa re ya liya ne yatolito cis.
...and B told A that C would visit A again

NB this:
4. ..........i amani ne yakotasa re ya liya _netu_ yatolito cis.
...and B told A that C would visit _B_ ('himself') again.

(Uh-oh, this probably needs work-- what if the verb were lolan 'protect'
instead of 'toli'-- I see the solution, but this post is getting too long,
and me brain hurts.)

Reply