Another Orthography for Mathias: Applicative and Noun Incorporation

The Examples:

day   ngwee joo  anjy do      nnyiisu
I-NOM  eat  ABS meat with/at dinner
/daj Nwe dZo andZy dO n:jisM/
 "I ate meat for dinner, I am eating meat for dinner"


Oh that's ugly, and potentially confusing since _y_ now is the grapheme for both /y/ and /j/

Applicative processes promote the oblique phrase "do nnyiisu"
to the direct object position, while at the same time, causing the demoted direct
object to be incorporated into the verb:

day   njy-ngwe-ryi  joo nnyisu
I-NOM meat-eat-APPL.ABS dinner
/daj ndZyNwErjI dZo n:jisM/
"I usually eat meat with dinner, I eat meat with dinner"

Also, now that the old direct-object is incorporated, a closer relationship is felt
between it and the verb. So that it means that the "eating of the meat" is
something that is a given, that is, you wouldn't dream of eating anything else,
hence the Habitual/Iteritive aspect associated with these sentences.

Further more, the applicative sentence can be turned into an agent noun itself, if the
copula "da" is added:

day   njy-ngwe-ryi da
I-NOM meat-eat-APPL COPL
"I am a meat-eater/carnivore"

daw    jida       shr    boi
We-NOM look-after ABS-pl child
/daw dZIda S@r bOI/
"We're looking after some kids, we looked after some kids"

dau    bo-jida-ryi
/daw  bOjIdarjI/
We-NOM child-look-after-APPL.
"We have kids, We're raising children"

sh'      mwaoo nyi mw'?
he-NOM  sing DAT who/what
/S@ mwao njI mw@/
"for whom is he singing/did he sing?"

the answer would be:

sh'     mwaoo nyi najy'
he-NOM sing DAT girl
/S@ mwao njI nadZj@/
"he is singing for the girl/he sang for the girl"


WHEREAS the APPLICATIVE/INCORPORATION FORM WOULD BE:

sh'     my-mwao-ryi    joo  mw'?
he-NOM song-sing-APPL ABS what/who
/S@ mymwaOrjI dZo mw@/
"he song-sings what?"
"For whom does he sing (songs)?"

the answer would be:

sh'    my-mwao-ryi    My-hwa    q'joo  Gaoo
he-NOM song-sing-APPL song-bird ADJ-ABS band/troupe
/S@ mymwaOrjI myhwakw@ dZo gao/
"He sings for the "Birdsong Troupe"


(notice the absolutive particle: "joo" is an proclitic, inserting itelf between the
noun and the modifier in Myhwa q'Gaoo)

The first one without the Applicative/Incorporation is just a regular present/past
tense, whereas the Applicative/Incorporation construction creates the feeling
of timelessness, or habituality.

But notice that even though the translation is "He sings for the "Birdsong
Troupe", the meaning is more like "He song-sings the "Birdsong Troupe" and thus
the marking for Myhwa q'Gaoo, is absolutive and not a dative.


Elliott Lash


Kala Tunu  writes:

>Elliott Lash <AL260@...> wrote:
>>>>
>Thanks for listening to this rambling long post..I hope you enjoyed it.
>Elliott Lash
><<<
>(i got some more spare time to spend reading the conlang digest)
>i did enjoy it indeed. THIS is conlanging! Too bad your fonts don't come out
>right though because it makes it pretty difficult to read through. wouldn't you
>like to post examples with plain dumb fonts? (i know they may not prove as
>aesthetically pleasing as you wish, but they would ease my own understanding :-)
>
>RMOC: Tunu only features applicative and it's not as sophisticated: it simply
>suffixes the preposition to the verb to turn the oblique object into a direct
>object:
>
>He says something to me.
>Kama alale kunepichi e kami. (same word order as in english)
>
>He tells me something.
>Kama alale-ny-e kami we kunepichi. (we = optional accusative preposition = "na"
>in Glosa)
>-ny- glues the preposition "e" ("to") to the verb and swaps the word order.
>
>Something is said to me.
>Kunepichi ahailale e kami. (-hai- = passive tag)
>
>*Something is told me.
>Kunepichi ahailalenye kami.
>
>I am told something.
>Kami* ahailale-my-e kunepichi.
>-my- glues the preposition "e" to the verb like -ny- does, but then shows that
>"e" tags the subject "I" (kami), not the object "something" (kunepichi).
>*kami is better politely omitted here because there's no other person referred
>to.
>
>Mathias
>www.geocities.com/kalatunu/index.htm
>