Re: past tense formation

Dan Jones wrote:

> In my new conlang, Denanan, I have something of a problem.
>
> Denanan is descended from Dweinasen (like Rhêndrin, in fact it's Rhêndrin's
> western neighbor) and in Dweinasen the past tense is differentiated from the
> present only by a change of final vowel: aninka "you give", aninko "you
> gave". In Denanan a, e and o coalesce into a, so they both become "aninka".
> I've sorted out a pretty basic way of forming the past tense for transitive
> sentances (in fact I stole it from Hindi), I put the subject in the
> instrumental, the object in the nominative and use the past participle:
>
> Karyan cas'alá makar cas'alinta.
> carpenter-nom story-acc boy-dat tell-pres-3s.
> The carpenter tells the story to the boy.
>
> Karyano cas'al makar cas'alayan.
> carpenter-inst story-nom boy-dat tell-ppt.
> The carpenter told the story to the boy.
> -or-
> By the carpenter the story to the boy was told.
>
> This is fine for transitive phrases, but what about intransitive?
>
> S'annah anninta.
> bread-nom burn-pres-3s
> The bread burns.
>
> But in the past:
>
> S'annah annayan.
> Bread-nom burn-ppt
> The bread burnt.
>
> which doesn't sound right.
Why not?  Anticipating the question at the end of your message:  Yes, Hindi is
ergative in the past tense, and yes, you have unwittingly invented what is known
as a "split-ergative" system (ergative-absolutive in the past tense,
nominative-accusative in the present tense).  This kind of split-ergative
system, though rare, is found all over the world.  The Indo-Aryan languages have
it, as does Georgian, and (IIRC) some Mayan languages.

If you intend to follow the Hindi pattern right through, then the subject should
remain in the nominative in intransitives.  I don't see anything wrong with what
you have above (present and past tense are distinguishable by the form of the
verb).


> Not only that, certain verbs are intransative yet
> take an object (I know, this is confusing). For instance, dali "to go" does
> not take an accusative object, it takes the preposition ya and the dative:
>
> Yañanay ya tálanar dalita.
> man-pl-nom to mountain-dat go-pres-3p.
> The men go to the mountain.
That's not really a good use of the term "object".  It would probably be better
to say that the verb "go" selects a "prepositional complement".


> -but-
>
> Yañanayo tálan dalayan.
> man-pl-inst mountain-nom go-ppt.
> The mountain by the men was gone.
>
> It makes no sense. Any suggestions?
What's wrong with keeping the subject in the nominative: "Yananay ya talanar
dalayan".  That's how natlangs with similar systems would do it.  "Man" is the
subject of an intransitive verb, so it will stay in the nominative in the past
tense, rather than being recast in the instrumental.

I think you have a very elegant system.  No need to change it.  :-)

Matt.