Sérhes Kéttw verb questions
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:05 am
(I originally posted this in C&CQ, but right after posting, I realized it's not exactly quick anymore. Originally it was just a question about what sort of alignment this is, but I've been hitting enough walls lately with my horribly limited knowledge of syntax that I ended up having a lot more questions than that.)
I attempted Austronesian alignment in Sérhes Kéttw, but I'm not entirely sure what it is that I ended up with.
Topic marking is obligatory. The verb marks for A/P status of the topic: (ignore the weird phonological processes, metathesis, etc. in the examples)
Nián káibat rákyannenn.
né=an káibat rákyanne-t-n
1S=TOP book read-ACT.PFV-1S
I am reading a book. (although normally the pronoun and topic marker are dropped: Káibat rákyannenn.)
Káibann rákyanneran.
káibat=an rákyanne-ra-n
book=TOP read-PASS.PFV-1S
The book is being read by me.
And perfective/imperfective:
Nián káibatre rákyannengn.
né=an káibat-re rákyanne-ng-n
1S=TOP book-COLL read-ACT.IPFV-1S
I read books.
Káibatrian rákyannercan.
káibat-re=an rákyanne-cera-n
book-COLL=TOP read-PASS.IPFV-1S
I read books. (not sure how to pull this off in English)
And there's a separate set of endings in that slot for imperatives:
Céyan káibatre rákyanneyt!
céy=an káibat-re rákyanne-y-t
2S=TOP book-COLL read-ACT.IMP-2S
Read books!
Káibatrian rákyannesat!
káibat-re=an rákyanne-sa-t
book-COLL=TOP read-PASS.IMP-2S
Read books! (again, not sure how to pull this off in English; I'd translate it as "Read the books!", but that'd take the plural, not the collective)
I'm not sure how I'd handle trivalent verbs, but I'd guess it'd look something like:
Nián káibat láncakcang ḩéungenn.
né=an káibat láncak-cang ḩéung-t-n
1S=TOP book child-DAT give-ACT.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
Káibann láncakcang ḩéungran.
káibat=an láncak-cang ḩéung-ra-n
book=TOP child-DAT give-PASS.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
Láncakcangan káibat ḩéungran.
láncak-cang=an káibat ḩéung-ra-n
child-DAT=TOP book give-PASS.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
The verb template ordering so far is tense mood stem act/pass neg person:
Nián káibat eccarrákyannennan.
né=an káibat et-cal-rákyanne-t-nga-n
1S=TOP book FUT-POT-read-ACT.PFV-NEG-1S
I will probably not read the book.
So, a few questions:
1. What kind of alignment is this? Is it even realistic?
2. How could I make trivalent verbs more interesting? Would it be realistic to have another set of affixes for when the dative (or some other argument besides the agent or patient (?)) is the topic?
3. How realistic would it be to mark the object on the verb also, so even more could be left implicit? Where could that affix go?
4. Is there a better way to write the template ordering?
5. What sort of mood system should I have? (I just added the potential mood because I realized I didn't have any moods yet and I needed one for the example.) The Wikipedia article doesn't list that many moods. I might just steal everything from Finnish, but I'm trying to avoid relying too heavily on European langs.
6. What are some ways that this could handle interrogatives, especially yes-no questions? (I have a three-form system, if it matters.)
7. Are there any stupid mistakes or horribly unrealistic things in this that I've missed so far?
I attempted Austronesian alignment in Sérhes Kéttw, but I'm not entirely sure what it is that I ended up with.
Topic marking is obligatory. The verb marks for A/P status of the topic: (ignore the weird phonological processes, metathesis, etc. in the examples)
Nián káibat rákyannenn.
né=an káibat rákyanne-t-n
1S=TOP book read-ACT.PFV-1S
I am reading a book. (although normally the pronoun and topic marker are dropped: Káibat rákyannenn.)
Káibann rákyanneran.
káibat=an rákyanne-ra-n
book=TOP read-PASS.PFV-1S
The book is being read by me.
And perfective/imperfective:
Nián káibatre rákyannengn.
né=an káibat-re rákyanne-ng-n
1S=TOP book-COLL read-ACT.IPFV-1S
I read books.
Káibatrian rákyannercan.
káibat-re=an rákyanne-cera-n
book-COLL=TOP read-PASS.IPFV-1S
I read books. (not sure how to pull this off in English)
And there's a separate set of endings in that slot for imperatives:
Céyan káibatre rákyanneyt!
céy=an káibat-re rákyanne-y-t
2S=TOP book-COLL read-ACT.IMP-2S
Read books!
Káibatrian rákyannesat!
káibat-re=an rákyanne-sa-t
book-COLL=TOP read-PASS.IMP-2S
Read books! (again, not sure how to pull this off in English; I'd translate it as "Read the books!", but that'd take the plural, not the collective)
I'm not sure how I'd handle trivalent verbs, but I'd guess it'd look something like:
Nián káibat láncakcang ḩéungenn.
né=an káibat láncak-cang ḩéung-t-n
1S=TOP book child-DAT give-ACT.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
Káibann láncakcang ḩéungran.
káibat=an láncak-cang ḩéung-ra-n
book=TOP child-DAT give-PASS.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
Láncakcangan káibat ḩéungran.
láncak-cang=an káibat ḩéung-ra-n
child-DAT=TOP book give-PASS.PFV-1S
I am giving a book to a child.
The verb template ordering so far is tense mood stem act/pass neg person:
Nián káibat eccarrákyannennan.
né=an káibat et-cal-rákyanne-t-nga-n
1S=TOP book FUT-POT-read-ACT.PFV-NEG-1S
I will probably not read the book.
So, a few questions:
1. What kind of alignment is this? Is it even realistic?
2. How could I make trivalent verbs more interesting? Would it be realistic to have another set of affixes for when the dative (or some other argument besides the agent or patient (?)) is the topic?
3. How realistic would it be to mark the object on the verb also, so even more could be left implicit? Where could that affix go?
4. Is there a better way to write the template ordering?
5. What sort of mood system should I have? (I just added the potential mood because I realized I didn't have any moods yet and I needed one for the example.) The Wikipedia article doesn't list that many moods. I might just steal everything from Finnish, but I'm trying to avoid relying too heavily on European langs.
6. What are some ways that this could handle interrogatives, especially yes-no questions? (I have a three-form system, if it matters.)
7. Are there any stupid mistakes or horribly unrealistic things in this that I've missed so far?