zompist bboard

WE ARE MOVING - see Ephemera
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:10 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Some more verses from another song. I indicate the mutations I explained last page (lenition, nasal and mixed mutation).

I Blan en-engwasan, digabed valeghen,
[i.'blan ɛ.nɛ.'ŋwa.san di.'ga.bed va.'lɛ:n]
the plan(+len) of-invasion(+mix), deceive-VbN evil(+len),
The plan of invasion, an evil deception,

fengir han min air edh-righen negher
['fɛŋ.giɾ han min ajr ɛ.'ðɾi.ɛn nɛ:ɾ]
made-3P-PAST it-ACC in-the altar-PL of-kingdom(+mix) black
was made in the halls of the dark kingdom

na fortha ybint, na niga hyn il
[na 'fɔɾ.θa 'y.bint na 'ni.ga hyn il]
to steal-INF riches-PL-3PLPOSS to slay-INF them-ACC-M all-PL
to steal their riches, to slay them all,

na fegi hyn ghyna an new now
[na 'fɛ.gi hyn 'y.na a.'n:ɛw now]
to make-INF them-ACC-M kneel-INF for god(+nas) new
to make them kneel for a new god.

I Ghardh escedant i chyvin dhyrvil
[jaɾð ɛs.'kɛ.dant i.'çyvin 'ðyɾ.vil]
the guard wake-up-PAST the man-PL(+nas) sleeping-PL(+len)
The guard woke up the sleeping men

med i hun e-gurn e-mruns.
[med i.'hun ɛ.'guɾn ɛ.'mruns]
with the sound(+len) of-horn(+mix) of-bronze(+mix)
with the sound of a bronze horn.

I Unaveg ia gwin gerchior
['ju.na.vɛg ja gwin 'gɛɾ.çjoɾ]
the enemy already come-3S-PRES close-COMP(+len)
The enemy is getting closer,

ed paral levidh nain assalth!
[ɛ 'pa.ɾal 'lɛ.við najn as.'salθ]
so prepare-PL-IMP 2PL-REF for-the assault
so brace yourselves for assault!

Med phaith mi venint, niganner chuven aech
[med fajθ mi 'vɛ.nint ni.'ga.n:ɛɾ 'çu.vɛn aɛç]
with sword-PL in hand-PL-3PLPOSS(+len) kill-3P-PAST man(+len) each
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man

i aund engwedhi dirrint haint.
[jawnd ɛ.'ŋwɛ.ði 'di.rint hajnt]
REL dare-3S-PAST invade-INF land-PL-3PLPOSS(lent) holy-PL(+len)
who dared to invade their sacred lands.

Cemin e-'withuir althar min nuth,
['kɛ.min e.'wi.θyɾ al.θaɾ min nuθ]
song-PL of-victory(+mix) rise-PL-PRES in-the night
Victory songs are rising in the night,

dhegel furthent ar gurdhaghent umurthel el.
['ðɛ.gɛl 'fuɾ.θɛnt a guɾ.'ða.ɛnt u.'muɾ.θɛl ɛl]
saying(+len) strength-3PLPOSS and might-3PLPOSS immortal all
telling all of their undying strength and might.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:43 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Eandil wrote:
There are only two remaining mutations: occlusive mutation and liquid mutation, and these do mirror real sound changes. I'll describe them next post and the contexts in which they happen.


Occlusive mutation

There is basically as much to say about this as there was to say about the sound change. It happens after an occlusive consonant, which is usually lost in the process or assimilated. It happens after occlusive prefixes (these are usual because many Latin ones were: ab-, ad-, sub-, ob-, etc.) and after prepositions ending (formerly) in an occlusive (that's why med with triggers lenition, it must come from something like *mite): sob another word for under, this one is Latin, ob because of, ed out of. Examples:

pardh > e phardh (out of father)
pri- > e phri-
plow > e phlow
taur > e thaur
trun > e thrun
curdh > e churdh
claw > e chlaw
crodhar > e chrodhar

bow > e bow
blanc > e blanc
brew > e brew
duf > e duf
dragan > e dragan
gef > e gef
glach > e glach
grath > e grath
gwen > e gwen

mardh > e mardh
nached > e nached

favail > ef favail
phen > eph phen
them > eth them
chul > ech chul

surur > es surur
huven > e chuven
hwoled > e 'woled

lebedh > ed lebedh
lhubed > e thlubedh
rasan > ed rasan
rheved > e threved


Liquid mutation

You can probably guess by this point. It mimics liquid sound changes and it's triggered by prepositions or prefixes ending in a liquid consonant (r, l), like or over or ennir bewteen. Examples:

pardh > or phardh (over father)
pri- > or phri-
plow > or phlow
taur > or thaur
trun > or thrun
curdh > or churdh
claw > or chlaw
crodhar > or chrodhar

bow > or vow
blanc > or vlanc
brew > or vrew
duf > or dhuf
dragan > or dhragan
gef > or 'ef
glach > or 'lach
grath > or 'rath
gwen > or 'wen

mardh > or vardh
nached > or nached

favail > or favail
phen > or phen
them > or them
chul > or chul

surur > or surur
huven > or chuven
hwoled > or chwoled

lebedh > or lebedh
lhubed > or 'lubedh
rasan > or rasan
rheved > or 'reved


This is all the material devised for mutations, which mimics Sindarin. I think it fits pretty wel as an evolution of Latin phonology. Now on to something different: the pronominal system.

Pronouns

Subject pronouns: ni (I), ci (you sg.), so/se/sa (he, she, it), me (we), le (you pl./formal), sy/si/sai (they, varying as singular).

Rarely used, but they exist. Verbs already express person grammatically (we'll see this later). However, if the pronoun is made explicit, this will change.

Emphatic pronouns: im (I), ech (you sg.), e(st) (he, she, it).

Same as above for the verb thing. These are used when you want to emphasize, hence their name. They're usually, but not restricted to, subjects.

Object pronouns: nin (me), gen/gin(you), hon/hen/han(him, her, it), ven/vin (us), le(n) (you), hyn/hin/hain (them), in (3 person reflexive sg. and plural).

Used for objects, both direct and indirect. Syntax will reveal their function. Normal unmarked word order is the opposite as in English: *Mary gives a book me for Mary gives me a book: Mair dhuna lever nin. Mary gives it: Mair dhuna han.

Notice I've already given these forms lenited, since, by their very nature, grammatical mutation will never let these happen unlenited.

Dative contractions (prep. an + object pron.): enni (or emphatic anim) (for me), achen (or emph. anech) (for you sg.), asson/assen/assan (or emph. anest) (for him/her/it), amen (for us), allen (for you), essyn/essin/essain (for them), anin (for + 3 person reflexive singular and plural)

These are used to disambiguate indirect objects. The order is the one just described.

Genitive pronouns: nin (mine), cin (yours sg.), tin (3 person sg.), min (ours), le (yours pl.), tin (3 person pl.), in (3 person reflexive sg. and pl.)

Not used a lot, but they exist, used to emphasize possession and work as normal determinants, placed after their head nouns: levir nin (books of mine, my books)

Possessive endings: -n (my), -g/-ch (your), -d (his/her/it) -m (our), -l (your), -nt (their), -s (3 reflex)

These often trigger root changes having to do with the evolution of the language. They also add one syllable, by the help of the vowel -e- (pl. -i-), changing plural patterns as well.

pardh : padrem (our father)
pairdh : pedrim (our parents)
ylch: yglich (your eyes)

Be careful with the reflexives: So med genis = So med gain in: "He with his (own) dogs", but So med genid = So med gain din: "He with his/her (somebody else's) dogs". The same goes for plural: Sy med gedis = Sy med gaid in: "They with their (own) cats", but Sy med gedint = Sy med gaid din: "They with their (somebody else's) cats" or even Sy med gedid: "They with his/her cats".

Don't use the article with possessives, be it suffixes or as independent words.

If I've forgotten something I'll mention it later. Next topic will finally be verbs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:01 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
On to verbal morphology:

Verbs

There are two main conjugation classes: a-verbs or derived verbs (the last is a Sindarin term), which I've related to the Latin first conjugation (-o/-are); and i-verbs or basic verbs (the Sindarin terms), which I've related to the rest of Latin conjugations (-eo/-ere, -o/-ere, -io/-ere, -io/-ire).

I already gave the rules to end up with the useable verbal roots: for the a-verbs, it should end in -a; for the rest, in a consonant. (For example, ava- for to love and hav- for to have).

Verbs indicate tense and number, but not mood or aspect (adverbs should help on that, or other particles). Person is also indicated by means of suffixes closely related to noun possessive suffixes. Among the non-finite forms, there is an infinitive, a verbal noun, and two participles: active and passive. The active participle can act as a gerund. Of all these, only the passive participle should form a plural.

a-verbs

ava-

Infinitive: ava to love
Verbal noun: avad loving, love (n.)
Active participle: avol loving, lover (Latinism avant also happens).
Passive participle: avannen pl. evennin loved

Now I'll give the finite forms in order: 1S, 2S, 3S, 1PL, 2PL, 3PL (Note that 3S and 3PL are also impersonal S and PL, repectively). In parentheses I give the less-preferred forms.

Present tense: avon, avach (or avog), ava, avam, aval, avar I love, you love...
Past tense: avannen, avanneg/avannech, avant, avannem, avannel, avanner. I loved, you loved...
Future tense: avathon, avathach (or avathog), avatha, avatham, avathal, avathar I'll love, you'll love...
Conditional tense: avathannen, avathanneg/avathannech, avathant, avathannem, avathannel, avathanner I'd love, you'd love...

Conditional tense is my own extrapolation, it doesn't even exist or is hinted at in Sindarin.

i-verbs

Note: these verbs undergo i-mutation in many of their forms, because of the linking vowel -i- (hence their name).

hav-

Infinitive: hevi to have
Verbal noun: haved a possession, a having
Active participle: havel having, possessor
Passive participle: hammen* had, possessed

*This is going to be explained in the past tense.

Present tense: hevin, hevig/hevich, haf**, hevim, hevil, hevir I have, you have... ** final <f> is /v/ and [v]. Merely orthographical.
Future tense: hevithon, hevithach (or hevithog), hevitha, hevitham, hevithal, hevithar I'll have, you'll have...
Conditional tense: hevithannen, hevithanneg/hevithannech, hevithannem, hevithannel, hevithanner I'd have, you'd have...

Past tense.

Past tense in i-verbs or "primitive" verbs is made by means of n-infixion, generally nasal infixion, if possible. The past participle is like the first person of the past simple, only that with -en rather than -in (it's plural would be equal).

This consists on inserting a nasal before the final, single consonant of the verb's root. However, this is not a modern development, this presumably happened in the proto-language as well. Consequently, we'll see changes that work as if the nasal infixion operated back then and not now, undergoing the historical changes. On with examples:

-Labial roots:

sab- < *sape- to know, past tense: samp (samm-) < *sampe knew
hav- < *habe- to have, past tense: hamb (hamm-) < *hambe had
iv- < *eme- to buy, past tense: im (im-) < *emme bought

So the past tense of hav- was: hemmin, hemmig/hemmich, hamb, hemmim, hemmil, hemmir. I had, you had, ...

-Dental roots:

pid- < *pete- to ask for, past tense: pint (pinn-) < *pente asked for
cadh- < *cade- to fall, past tense: cand (cann-) < *cande fell
can- < *cane- to sing, past tense: cann (cann-) < *canne sang

As you can see, this mechanism can produce mergers in the past tense.

-Velar roots:

deg-- < *dice- to say, past tense: denc* (deng-) < *dince said
agh-- < *age- to perform, past tense: ang (ang-) < *ange performed

plow- < *plogwe- to rain, past tense: plung (plungw-) < *plongwe rained

*I was wrong spelling **deng before, denc is the correct form.

As you can see, phonology and diachronics make a great part of the language.

--

I'm not sure of how to continue from here. I welcome any suggestions in case somebody is interested in a particular part of the grammar or syntax.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:05 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Oh, I forgot to include L-stems. There the n-infixion, producing *-nl-, develops into -ll- (that's the importance of double L).

So the past tense of gwol (he wants) is gwoll (he wanted).

In case n-infixion can't be carried out because there would result a very complicate cluster, there's an alternative ending -ent mirroring first conjugation's -ant (it treats endings the same way the other one does, as well). For example, nach (he is born) makes its past as nachent (he was born).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:32 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Eandil wrote:
Oh, I forgot to include L-stems. There the n-infixion, producing *-nl-, develops into -ll- (that's the importance of double L).

So the past tense of gwol (he wants) is gwoll (he wanted).

In case n-infixion can't be carried out because there would result a very complicate cluster, there's an alternative ending -ent mirroring first conjugation's -ant (it treats endings the same way the other one does, as well). For example, nach (he is born) makes its past as nachent (he was born).

What would the word have been, had it used en-infixion instead (I just added a word ending in [ɧn̥] to my own language, so I wanted to see if you consider ‹chn› to be a cluster "very complicated" to pronounce for your conpeople).

_________________
Online dictionary for my conlang Vanga: http://royalrailway.com/tungumaalMiin/Vanga/

#undef FEMALE

I'd love for you to try my game out! Here's the forum thread about it:
http://zbb.spinnwebe.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36688

Of an Ernst'ian one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:48 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Skomakar'n wrote:
What would the word have been, had it used en-infixion instead (I just added a word ending in [ɧn̥] to my own language, so I wanted to see if you consider ‹chn› to be a cluster "very complicated" to pronounce for your conpeople).


**nanch?, but that's not the reason. Nach /nax/ [naç] is supposed to come from earlier *nasc- [nask], and **nansc was not allowed either.

There's no conpeople. This language is supposed to be an adaptation of Latin to something Sindarinish (all abstract), and in some aspects I prefer respecting Sindarin phonology than Sindarin grammar, if I can extrapolate. In Sindarin there's no such thing as *nch, and that's the real reason I avoid it (not that I can't pronounce /nx/, I do it everyday in Spanish). I don't find /xn/ particularly hard either, but it just didn't fit with what I was aiming for here.

If you want to refer to Tolkien, you can't be guided by ease of pronounciation, since for example in Quenya he erased all b, d, g; and those are even less "hard" to pronounce.

I have to admit I made an exception with some final -nth and -ndh, which don't happen in Sindarin either, but helped me a lot to adapt morphology, precisely because of their rare to null occurrence (and well, also personal aesthetics).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:25 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
Do you want some texts to translate from Latin? It might be a way for you to figure out what parts of the grammar you should present next.

I have Wheelock's Latin at home, and the Sententiae Antiquae might be a good translation source.

_________________
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:44 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Bristel wrote:
Do you want some texts to translate from Latin? It might be a way for you to figure out what parts of the grammar you should present next.

I have Wheelock's Latin at home, and the Sententiae Antiquae might be a good translation source.


Maybe, but it's not so much that I haven't worked the parts out (I got a bit of everything in my mind), it's rather the order in which I should present them (i.e., nominal clauses, relative clauses, etc.).

As for texts from Latin I'm not so sure, since I'm not using Latin syntax. I usually translate from English so I can create neologisms unbiased (if I do it from Spanish, for example, I may be influenced by the etymology).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:02 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Eandil wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What would the word have been, had it used en-infixion instead (I just added a word ending in [ɧn̥] to my own language, so I wanted to see if you consider ‹chn› to be a cluster "very complicated" to pronounce for your conpeople).


**nanch?, but that's not the reason. Nach /nax/ [naç] is supposed to come from earlier *nasc- [nask], and **nansc was not allowed either.

There's no conpeople. This language is supposed to be an adaptation of Latin to something Sindarinish (all abstract), and in some aspects I prefer respecting Sindarin phonology than Sindarin grammar, if I can extrapolate. In Sindarin there's no such thing as *nch, and that's the real reason I avoid it (not that I can't pronounce /nx/, I do it everyday in Spanish). I don't find /xn/ particularly hard either, but it just didn't fit with what I was aiming for here.

If you want to refer to Tolkien, you can't be guided by ease of pronounciation, since for example in Quenya he erased all b, d, g; and those are even less "hard" to pronounce.

I have to admit I made an exception with some final -nth and -ndh, which don't happen in Sindarin either, but helped me a lot to adapt morphology, precisely because of their rare to null occurrence (and well, also personal aesthetics).

Ah. Oops. Sorry for my ignorance and misunderstanding.

_________________
Online dictionary for my conlang Vanga: http://royalrailway.com/tungumaalMiin/Vanga/

#undef FEMALE

I'd love for you to try my game out! Here's the forum thread about it:
http://zbb.spinnwebe.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36688

Of an Ernst'ian one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:05 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
I like that English inspired neologisms are present.

I guess I'd vote for nominal clauses, then relative clauses.

_________________
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:39 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Skomakar'n wrote:
Ah. Oops. Sorry for my ignorance and misunderstanding.


Heh, don't be :P. You're certainly not expected to read all the pages in a thread if you want to comment. Oh, by the way, in Spanish I do say /nx/ but as [nh], now that I think about it. It's a dialectal thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:39 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Bristel wrote:
I like that English inspired neologisms are present.

I do that a lot. For example, for "first born" I took the roots primus and natus (I didn't treat natus as a participle, but as an adjective), and put them together: *primnatus > prennad

Bristel wrote:
I guess I'd vote for nominal clauses, then relative clauses.

Yea that's alright. I'll check other people's grammars around, and zompist's LCK again so that I can see how they order it too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:33 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 127
Location: second to the right and straight on till morning
Much of the grammar is based on Sindarin, if I recall correctly. You could base the order of your description on the Sindarin grammar from Ardalambion.
Or any language really, but that one would probably make more sense to use as a guide because it would deal with more of the same things.

_________________
I get a big kick out of playing my own language game–it’s a unique thrill only conlangers know.
- J Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:55 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 430
This seems to be going very well. However, could you please write some general explanation for your orthography, sound changes and mutations? They all seem fairly confusing.

_________________
Přemysl wrote:
Kereb wrote:
they are nerdissimus inter nerdes


Oh god, we truly are nerdy. My first instinct was "why didn't he just use sunt and have it all in Latin?".


Languages I speak fluently
English, עברית

Languages I am studying
العربية, 日本語

Conlangs
Athonian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:46 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
blank stare II wrote:
Much of the grammar is based on Sindarin, if I recall correctly. You could base the order of your description on the Sindarin grammar from Ardalambion.
Or any language really, but that one would probably make more sense to use as a guide because it would deal with more of the same things.


It would, but remember that Sindarin is an incomplete language. If you go to Ardalambion, they won't describe any complex sentence (you may not even find a word for "but"), no relative clauses, no nominal clauses, no adverbial clauses, no linkers, no connectors, no syntax, etc. And they don't describe it because Tolkien presumably hasn't made it, or because it's not available to us from his published papers. In fact, it's this limitation that made me want to do this, to have an useable thing.

Mr. Z wrote:
This seems to be going very well. However, could you please write some general explanation for your orthography, sound changes and mutations? They all seem fairly confusing.


Thank you, but could you be more specific? Mutations and sound changes are all I have described so far almost (plus plural formation and verbal conjugation)! As for the orthography, I believe I gave it as I gave sound changes. Anyway, it's (almost) straightforward:

<p t c b d g> /p t k b d g/
<ph/f th ch bh/v dh gh> /f θ x v ð ɣ/ <gh> is merely etymological, realized as [] and provoking hiatuses (but it's not a glottal stop). /x/ is usually [ç], specially before front vowels.
<h s l r> /h s l r/
<i> plus vowel /j/ as in iowen /'jɔ.wɛn/ young.
<gw w> /gw w/
<a e i o u y> /a ɛ i ɔ u y/ <e> and <o> tend to be more closed [e] [o] if unstressed. /a/ may be [ɑ]
<ae ai au ei oe ui> /aɛ aj aw ej ɔɛ ui/ [æ aj o: aj œ y:]

Spelling of <ph>/<f> and <bh>/<v> depend on the etymology. For example, <bh> is usually written for the occlusive sound change of /b/ to /v/: arbh for tree (< *arbu < arbos, -ris), <v> elsewhere. <f> comes from original <f>, <ph> comes from the mutations of <p> to /f/ (through /ph/), mainly.

Also, word-final /v/ that you would spell <v> is actually spelled <f> (yes, /v/, even [v]). This is from Tolkien, I don't know why. I guess aesthetics.

I use ' when I ellide something (like <gh> []), make an hiatus, and when in certain mutation, but the ultimate reason is that something has been ellided too.

The first posts explain the sound changes from Latin, the remaining ones until the one on top of this page contain information on the mutations. If there's anything else you miss, however, just let me know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:14 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 2085
Location: Spain
Ok, I'm going to attempt to describe syntax. I apologize in advance if I forget something, since I'll do this a bit chaotic.

General unmarked word order is SVO. For example:

I lob gab i geru.
ART wolf seize-PR ART deer
The wolf hunts the deer.

If you want to emphasize the direct object, you can front it making the word order OVS. In this, since it's going to be definite, you drop the article. By doing this, you can differentiate between:

Geru gab i lob.
(+len.)deer seize-PR the wolf.
As for the deer, the wolf hunts it. (The wolf hunts the deer.)

Ceru gab i lob. (rare, but grammatical)
deer seize-PR the wolf.
A deer hunts the wolf. (rare, but grammatical)

since a direct object always undergoes grammatical lenition where the subject doesn't. With the singular article, this is neutralized (since it lenites); but as long as it is omitted, there's a distinction for nouns which have distinct lenited forms. In other situations, you'll have to make use of context, poetic word order OSV
(Geru i lob gab.), or pronouns to specify it's the object. For example:

Lob so 'wedh.
wolf he see-PR.
A wolf sees.

Lob hon 'wedh.
wolf him see-PR
Somebody sees the wolf (As for the wolf, somebody sees it).

(Yes, the wolf is being treated as an animate male. The lenited form of lob is lob too.)

Since there isn't a proper passive, these strategies above can help emphasize direct objects.

Silladen is pro-drop; in fact, it's "pro-abhorrent". You almost always indicate the subject pronoun in the verb, with an ending, and if you want to emphasize you got emphatic pronouns:

Clavon nin Iohan.
call-PR-1S me Iohan
My name is Iohan.

Im glava nin Iohan.
I-emph call-PR me Iohan
As for me, my name is Iohan.

Direct and indirect object pronouns are almost always differentiated by syntax, as in English, since the "dative clusters" are emphatic, the only one in common use being enni (to me). Normal nouns are introduced by the dative preposition an "for, to". Normal sentence order is SVDI. Both direct and indirect objects undergo lenition (if no other mutation is present).

Imin dhad gin.
buy-PS-1S present (+len.)you
I bought you a present.

Imin han am Mair.
buy-PS-1S it for Mary
I bought it for Mary.

Imin han enni.
buy-PS-1S it for-me
I bought it for myself.

However, if the IO is short and the DO is long, SVID is tolerated:

Dunant hen i gest i-fluir.
give-PS her ART basket ART-flower-PL
He gave her the basket of flowers.

The IO is fronted as many other elements in the sentence; just put it in the front and separate it from the sentence with a comma, replacing it later with a pronoun or omitting it altogether:

Am Mair, dunant hen i gest i-fluir.
for Mary, give-PS her ART basket ART-flower-PL
He gave her the basket of flowers.
As for Mary, he gave her the basket of flowers.

Intransitive verbs work like the above but without all the complications for direct objects. Normally adverbs and the rest of complements are placed after the verb (lenited if directly after) and after the major complements (IO, DO, etc.) Word order is less strict with this and we can also place them before the verb for emphasis..

Gwedhin nain gewithad.
go-PR-1S to-the city
I go to the city.

Gwennin chir.
go-PS-1S (+len.)yesterday
I went yesterday.

Hir gwennin.
yesterday go-PS-1S
Yesterday I went.

Attributive sentences are formed with or without a copula. The copula is na (past nant or ne), which works as an a-verb. The attribute is, as a norm, unlenited, specially copula-less.

I ber vun.
ART boy (+len)good
The good boy. (noun phrase)

I ber bun. or I ber na bun.
ART boy (be-PR)good
The boy is good.

I believe these are the key points for now.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group