Page 1 of 2

The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 28 Feb 2013 22:59
by Chagen
Somewhat of a complex sentence, this'll test your language's method of forming relative clauses and possible participles.

:eng: The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

:con: Pazmat:
Sunuibor Bentiz Wevōsc cjidim ixsunuovam malf na Weviri Vanpezri eovam.
sell-PTCPL.FUT.TRANS food 1PL-LOC be.3SG.NEU-DEON NEG-sell-PTCPL.INTRANS with-reason REL 1PL.POSS-ABSOL cook-person-ABSOL go-PTCPL.INTRANS
(Lit. "The food that was going to be sold by us should be un-sellable with the reason that our cook-person [is] gone)

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 01 Mar 2013 02:23
by Khemehekis
Ooh, good one!

Before I translate it, though, I'll need to know what "gone" means. Does it mean the chef is dead, or simply that the chef is away?

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 01 Mar 2013 05:36
by Chagen
It merely means "away". Notice that the Pazmat translation uses a participle form of "eya" ("to go/walk")

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 01 Mar 2013 10:46
by DanH34
:eng: (Changing 'to sell' to 'to eat').
The food that we were going to eat cannot be eaten because our cook is gone.

:con: Zidhgebzhail
nent h[eb]ef zvilk gEntanotsh-hyn [by] har-Entanoips hong nentoz-zvaek upjom lIn-hyn.
nent-Ø h[eb]ef z-v-il-k g-Enta-n-o-tsh-hyn [b-y] Ø-Enta-n-oi-ps h-ong nent-oz-Ø-z-v-ae-k up-jom Ø-l-I-n-hyn.
food-ABS.SG.M.TOP SWITCH-REFERENT_[ABS.INAN]>ACC 3-1-ERG-PL.M PST-eat-SIMPLE-REALIS-INTENT-FOC [3.INAN-ABS.SG.M] PASSIVE-PRS-eat-SIMPLE-NEG_REALIS-ABILITY REL-CAUSATIVE food-man-ABS.SG.M-3-1-GEN-PL.M.TOP here-ABLATIVE.SG.M PRS-PRFT-go-SIMPLE-FOC
Food that we were going to eat, [it] cannot be eaten as a result of our cook-man has gone from here.

Elements in [square brackets] would only be required in the most formal usages.

Edit: Correcting errors caused by mental timeslips.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 01 Mar 2013 11:55
by ol bofosh
That is a good one. For a moment I thought Alahithian wouldn't do it, but...

Gelakurt fothel pa mamaj tha um tetoy erina gelakur pa nep shum zhutef fiyto.
/ge.ˈɭa.ˈkuɾt ˈfo.ʈeɭ pa ˈma.maɖʐ ʈa um ˈte.toj e.ˈɾi.ɳa ge.ˈla.kuɾ pa ɳep ʂum ˈʐu.tef ˈfij.to/
gelakur-t foth;el pa mama;j tha um tetoy erina gelakur pa nep shum zhutef fiy-t-o
sell-PRS-NEG ably;NEG DEF food;PL PASS 1PL.INC to.intend previously to.sell CONJ cause 1PL.POSS cook leave-PST-PRF
(lit. food (that) we intend previously to sell cannot be sold because our cook has left)

That's a double passive. The subject mamaj coming after the verb makes it a passive "The food can't be sold". Mamaj is followed by a relative clause marked with tha, which makes it passive.

Compare:
Mamaj um gelakur = food that sells us
Mamaj tha um gelakur = food that we sell

Tense marking is not allowed in relative clauses.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 01 Mar 2013 19:29
by atman
Atlantika

Alfitos osin epasfolhezme folhestin dedine, gar mes magiros yapobense.
/'alfitos 'ɔsin ˌepasfo'ʎezme fo'ʎestin de'dine gar mes 'magiros japo'bɛnse/
food that-ACC PAST-PROSPECTIVE-sell-1PL sell-INF-ACC not-can-3SG, because our cook PAST-away-go-3SG
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 02 Mar 2013 10:09
by Xing
|maː puːlu poːa miːe tewa teːpe miːe e paːŋi taː mia paː muːŋu|
/ma puːlu poːa miːe tewa teːpe miːe e paːŋi ta miapaːmuːŋu/
[mʲa ˈpuː.lu ˈpo̞ː.a ˈmʲiː.e̞ ˌtʲewa ˌtʲe.pʲeˈmʲiː.e̞ː ˈpʲaː.ŋɨ tʲa ˌmʲi.aˌpʲaːˈmuːŋ]

Ma pulu poa mie tewa telemie, e pangi ta miapamungu mai.
so can.NEG sell food PURP sale, PRS away SG cook 1p
"So the food for sale can't be sold, our cook being away"

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 02 Mar 2013 11:23
by Lao Kou
Image Géarthnuns

Vaçte cha ömstens makhmalan lö menkadiz sho, va glomaps la, chanat makhlama lé nzhí shath sho, bat shath hekalokh.
['vaɕtɛ tʃa 'ømstɛ̃s max'malan 'lø mɛn'kadɪz 'ʃo, va 'glomaps 'la, 'tʃanat max'lama 'le n'ʒi 'ʃaθ ʃo, bat 'ʃaθ hɛ'kalox]
because DEF cook-NOM our-NOM AUX.PERF go.away PTCL, DEF food-NOM.NEG AUX.PRES, REL-ACC 1PL-NOM AUX.PAST ADV sell PTCL, PTCL.PASS sell can-CONCL
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 09:35
by Khemehekis
Kankonian:

Seshui azid wir tzemauosen os wahazas tzemauiz daz seshit ad wir as mose.
food that_(obj.) 1pl sell-FUT-PST NEG be_able_to-PRS sell-PAS because chef to 1pl PRS away

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 14:44
by H.Á.
:con: Næniusk

Vøgoménit noidak éstata súdi énaeltu ak súdiučuv ésti vøgoniu.
[ʋœ̀.jʊ.mɛæ̯.nít nʌ̀.ðɐk ɛ̀æ̯s.ta.tʰá sʊ̀u̯.d̠ʲ‿ɛæ̯.nǽl.tʏ ɑk sʊ̀u̯.ʑʏ.tʃ͡ʰʉʋ ɛ̀æ̯s.ti ʋœ̀.jʊ.n̠ʲú]
cook-(1.PL.POSS)-ABS be_away-SG-3 REL-CAUS sell.INF NEG-can.INF PART sell-FUT.1.PL-PROG REL-ACC food-ACC
vøgomén-it-0 noid-0-k ésta-ta súdi é-æltu ak súdi-uč-uv ésta-i vøgoni-u

= The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 16:37
by Omzinesý
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Pílterékja kàrta, gapùj káhtu teréhku kèn, thùhurù géhšymèrni.
pi-´-l-terek-ja kàrta ga-pùj ø-kaht-u tere<h>k<u> kèn t<h>ur-hu-` ge-h-ševmerni
PERFV-FUT-NEC-sell-NEG.EGOPH food.ABS GEN-NMLZ.ABS EVID-plan-POSIT.EGOPH we <CAUS>leave-ACTNOM-FOC GEN-CAUS-cook
Lit: (one) will not be able to sell the food, whose selling we are planning, because of cook's leaving.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 19:44
by MrKrov
:con: Pakbum:
ŋam som tʰol zuj jap ŋam re zuj xaws bos-pik ŋam ɣel
1 NEG can sell food 1 want sell because cook 1 go
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 21:43
by Jackk
:con: Chudihr

aŗeim ienfal tenuchal da pigute eno meaŗmisuŗ kúa fenucheis.
/aɻeim ienɸal tenuxal da pigute eno meaɻmiθuɻ kʷa ɸenuxeiθ/
[aʐɛjm jɛ̃ːɸaɫ ts͡enuɣaɫ də piɣutə ɛnɔ mjɑɻmiθuə kʷa βənuɣɛjθ]
aŗ<e-i>m i-e.nf-al ten-uch-al da p<i>g-ut-e eno me-aŗm-isuŗ kúa fen-uch-eis
food<DEF-ACC> SUBD-pl.want-1s.PERF hold-INV-INF NEG buy<pl>-ABIL-3p.IMP because.of make-food-PROF 1s.GEN come-INV-3s.PERF
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 17:39
by Visinoid
:fra:
La nourriture que nous allions vendre (ne) peut pas être vendue parce que/puisque notre cuisinier est parti.
[la nu.ʁi.ty:ʁ kə nu a.ljɔ̃ vɑ̃:dʁ nə pø pa ɛ:tχ vɑ̃:.dy paʁ.sə kə nɔtχ kɥi.zi.nje ɛ paʁ.ti]
the.FEM food that we go.PAST.IMPER sold.INF (NEG1) can.PRES NEG2 be.INF sold.PAST.PART.FEM because our cook be.PRES go.PAST.PART
:qbc:
La bouffe qu'on allait vend' peut pas êt' vendue parce que not' cuisinier est parti.
[la bʊf kɔ̃ a.lɛ vɑ̃͡ʊ̃n pø pɑ a͡ɛt vɑ̃͡ʊ̃.dzy pas.kə nɑt kɥi.zi.nje e paχ.tsi]

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 13:03
by prettydragoon
:con: Rireinutire

:eng: The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.
me kakimu añamu rohata nakikisiva· rohata hopokasevo· siñi meno añeya marapa yakave:
me kaki.mu aña.mu roha.ta na.ki.kisi.va roha.ta hopo.ka.se.vo siñi me.no añeya mara.pa ya.ka.ve
1P.NOM which.ACC food.ACC sell.INF intend.PST.SBJV.SENS sell.INF can.PRS.NEG.INFER because 1P.GEN cook.NOM away.ESS be.PRS.HSY
We cannot sell the food that we were going to sell because our cook is away.

I'm pleased I was able to use all three evidentials in this sentence:
SENS - the speaker has direct knowledge they were going to sell this food
INFER - she figures the food can't now be sold
HSY - the cook is gone, but the speaker didn't see or hear her leave

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 16:07
by Lambuzhao
:con: Iveriki -
Image

[hi t̪r̪o̞.fi: po̞:.liz̪.me̞͂.ni hyps hĩ:my an d̪y͂.nu:.t̪a]
[po̞:.lɛ̞jz̪.θɛ̞j gɐɾ hy ma.gwæ:j hĩ:my e̞.βaj.sɛ̞ɾ ]

DEF.F.NOM.SG nourishment-NOM.SG sell-FUT.PASS.PTCP.F.NOM.SG PRP 1PL.GEN NEG can-PRS.3SG sell-PRS.PASS.INF CNJ DEF.M.NOM.SG cook-NOM.SG 1PL.GEN <AOR>go<AOR>3SG

**NB - I will probably change this. The phrase about the chef smacks of a Genitive Absolute.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 07 Mar 2013 17:22
by Lambuzhao
:con: Rozwi -

Zurveslivu ieneu œxyutošu, nu boyine done~qetl tōθ za θowo seliruzaine wa qutlēne.
[zuɾ.βes.ɫi.vʊ jẽ.nɛʊ ʊɐqʃ.ʝu.tɔ.ʃʊ| nu: bɔ.jĩ.ne dɔ̃.nɛ.qe.tɫ to:θ zɒ θɔ.wo se.li.ru:.zɒj.ne wɒ qu.tɬɛ̃:.ne]
cook<NMLZ>LOC.SG depart-PST.PTCP.LOC.SG NEG can-PRS.1PL INF=sell DEF.ACC.SG food-ACC.SG REL.INAN.ACC.SG sell-IMPFT.1PL CNJ sell<SBJV>NONPRS.1PL
With our chef gone, we cannot sell the food that we wanted to sell.

Zurveslivoa ieneu œxyutošoa, nu boyine done~qetl tōθ za θowo seliruzaine wa qutlēne.
[zuɾ.βes.ɫi.vʊɐ jẽ.nɛʊ ʊɐqʃ.ʝu.tɔ.ʃʊɐ| nu: bɔ.jĩ.ne dɔ̃.nɛ.qe.tɫ to:θ zɒ θɔ.wo se.li.ru:.zɒj.ne wɒ qu.tɬɛ̃:.ne]
cook<NMLZ>ABL.SG depart-PST.PTCP.ABL.SG NEG can-PRS.1PL INF=sell DEF.ACC.SG food-ACC.SG REL.INAN.ACC.SG sell-IMPFT.1PL CNJ sell<SBJV>NONPRS.1PL
With our chef gone, we cannot sell the food that we wanted to sell.



Zurvesliv ieneu œxyutos nu bæk done~qetl tōθ za θowo seliruzaine wa qutlēne.
[zuɾ.βes.ɫiv jẽ.nɛʊ ʊɐqʃ.ʝu.tɔs| nu: bæk dɔ̃.nɛ.qe.tɫ to:θ zɒ θɔ.wo se.li.ru:.zɒj.ne wɒ qu.tɬɛ̃:.ne]
Our chef, who left, cannot sell the food that we wanted to sell.


Some observations about this interesting challenge:

1) This just does not sound right in Rozwi. Having “food” be the subject\topic of the main clause this way, with people dancing all around it. It sounds too much like the food is (unable to be) selling itself. A speaker of Rozwi would say: “Someone (the cook, us) should be doing the selling!” It’s not impossible to say it Rozwi, and I did originally translate it with passive infinitives, impersonal subject, etc. It just doesn’t “feel” right. I imagine that Rozwi is more of an agent-driven language.

2) I have no preference (yet) in using a Locative Absolute or an Ablative Absolutein Rozwi. Both exist wild and free, in their constructed habitat.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 08 Mar 2013 10:30
by atman
Lambuzhao wrote:2) I have no preference (yet) in using a Locative Absolute or an Ablative Absolutein Rozwi. Both exist wild and free, in their constructed habitat.
You could use both! Or maybe a few more, like Atlantika does: I use (when I remember that such constructions exist) the locative absolute for temporal clauses, the causal absolute for causal clauses, the instrumental absolute for conditional clauses and so on.

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 28 Aug 2013 18:02
by zyx3166
Roguel:
The food that we were going to sell can't be sold because our cook is gone.
Nifixkiramnake jentec nifpetdisekimat paskepkorut cataceknedra.
sell-begin.to-PROG-1PL-ATTR food sell-PASS-POT-3SG-NEG cook-AGENT-1PL.GEN go-PFV-3SG-because

Re: The food that we were going to sell

Posted: 28 Aug 2013 20:46
by Sangfroidish
Ei pánisso, das svu te samecer, samecethä thé, thrine ioge ai quinent.
[ɛj ˈpɑn.ɪsːɒ ðɑs sʋu tɛ ˈsɑm.ɜg.ɜr ˈsɑm.ɜg.ɜθ.æ θɛː ˈθr̥in.ɜ ˈjɔɣ.ɜ ɑj ˈcwin.ɜn̥t]
ART.DEF.IN food-ACC that 1.PL.INCL 3.SG.IN.ACC sell-COND sell-POT-NEG null.argument reason-ABL leave ART.DEF.AN cook-AGT
The food that we would be going to sell* cannot be sold, because the cook left.

*I'm aware this is nowhere near grammatical in English, but I can't think how to translate it back in a way that makes sense in English and retains the meaning of the original Vorýntel. :v