On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:53:29 -0400, Rob Haden <magwich78@...> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:40:43 -0700, Jeff Jones <jsjonesmiami@...>
wrote:
>
> >13. mofkanhak
> > I saw you there.
>
> _mo-_: 2(sg/pl) transitive object?
yes
> This does not mesh with your earlier implicit rules, whereby _-tz(i)_
> denoted a 1pl object (i.e. a *suffix*, not a prefix).
>
> _-ha_: distal locative suffix ("there")
yes
> >14. akkanfa tuperu
> > The dogs see.
>
> _-fa_: 3pl transitive subject
>
> >15. kanfa mamatz
> > Our mother is seen.
>
> Okay, now _-fa_ looks like a passive suffix.
It does delete the agent/perceiver/possessor.
> If so, then sentence #14 should be "The dogs are seen", not "The dogs
> see".
The |ad| prefix hasn't been taken into account.
> _-tz(i)_: 1pl possessive suffix (when added to a noun)
yes
> >16. fetxa mamak pakanhakwe peru
> > My mother wanted to see dogs there.
>
> _-k(o)_: 1sg possessive suffix
yes
> >17. koftlasli
> > He gave me them.
>
> _ko-_: 1sg indirect object? yes
> _tla_: give yes
> _-sli_: 3pl transitive object? see below
>
> >18. kenfotla patta Hwan
> > Juan wanted to give us potatoes.
>
> Err... you're confusing your own grammar rules. It should be:
This entry is indeed messed up. In typing them up, I got the text from one
entry with the translation from another. Assuming the correct English
is "Juan gave us potatoes", either
tziftla patta Hwan
or
kenfotla patta Hwan
is valid. But since patta is inanimate, the order might be flexible, so that
> Tzifotla Hwan patta.
is permissible.
> >19. pitlaxili peru
> > They'll give them to a dog.
>
> Alright, so indefinite number is unmarked.
>
> _-xili_: This seems to be glossed as "them", but note the different suffix
> _-sli_ above, with the *same* verb.
Note that #17 has "he" and #19 has "they".
> >20. etxak patlam peru Hwan
> > I want you to give Juan a dog.
>
> This sentence is ambiguous, since _peru Hwan_ could also mean "Juan's
> dog". I suggest you revise it.
|peru| can't directly take a possessor, only words like |mama| or "hand",
so "Juan's dog" would have to be |peru (something) Hwan|.
> >I hope I haven't made any mistakes this time. There's at least one
> >morpheme with two forms.
>
> Shouldn't you know your own language best? :)
Yes, but that doesn't mean I know it _well_. It's a brand new language and
I've only started to fill in the details. BTW thanks for taking part in
this.
Jeff
>
>- Rob
>=========================================================================