Avalang da dum

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
Post Reply
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

OK. I'm trying something radically different from my previous attempts at conlanging, altho a lot of core concepts are still drawn from older stuff. I will provide no phonology. No concrete words. Only glosses. This is a grammar sketch so far.

Summary

Language heavily peeled down.
  • Lexical binary animacy ~ active-stative language.
  • Strict OVS order.
  • Adjectives are verbs.
  • No cases but verbs that function similarly.
  • No articles.
  • No proper copula.
  • No number except a collective suffix.
  • Three-way "temporodeixis" encoding both temporal and spatial deixis in one (neutral, proximal and distal). Pronouns only make the distinction in third person
    and there only proximal vs. distal is contrasted; lack of pronoun is taken to be neutral.
  • Person is not obligatory but can be expressed enclitically or with full pronouns for emphasis.
  • Morphological distinction (marked on verb) between transitive/intransitive, relative/non-relative, telic/atelic and volitional/non-volitional.
  • Possessive marker on possessum. Possessor unmarked.
  • Light noun-incorporation with special forms for some incorporated nouns?
  • Some nouns like 'hand' are inalienable and always marked possessive when not incorporated.
  • Flexible interrogative and negative markers — the latter can even form negative pronouns.

Examples

Strict OVS and explicit transitivity means word order changes for passives

{apple throw-TR man}
'the man threw an apple'

{throw-TR man}
'the man threw it'

{man throw-TR}
"(someone) threw the man"
= 'the man was thrown'


Subject pronouns can only be phrase-final enclitics or full pronouns for emphasis

{throw-TR=INT=2}
'did you throw it?'

{throw-TR=INT 2}
'did you throw it?'

Note that as the language is pro-drop, context can suffice and any pronoun can be dropped:

{throw-TR=INT}
'did (you*) throw it?'

* Or someone else, depending on context.


Lack of case and conjunctions introduce "case-like verbs" used by chaining phrases together with nothing in between

The strict OVS order disambiguates object from subject.

{apple throw-TR man} (and*) {sea face(-TR**)}
"the man threw an apple facing the sea"
= 'the man threw an apple into the sea'

* There is no word here, but just to make the gloss clearer.
** Not sure if these words should take the transitive marker.

There will be at least locative "occupy", lative "face", instrumental "use" and elative opposite of "face".


Possession marked on possessum. Possessor follows unmarked. Enclitic pronouns may be used

{apple-POSS man}
'the man's apple'

{apple-POSS=1}
'my apple'

{apple-POSS 1}
'my apple'

Lack of copula means these may also mean 'it is my apple', 'I have an apple' and the like.


Relativisation using a suffix

{{apple throw-TR-REL} man}
'the man who threw an apple'

{apple-POSS {throw-TR-REL man}}
"the apple of the man who threw it"
= 'the apple that was thrown by the man'


Negative pronouns:

{NEG=1}
'it wasn't me'


Generally happily derivational language with a bunch of suffixes, some with particular meanings in certain contexts

{throw-POT man}
'the man can throw'
'the man is good at throwing'

Throw in itself is actually the causative of 'fly', so the true gloss of the previous sentences would actually be this:

{apple fly-CAUS-TR man}
"the man made the apple fly (through the air)"
= 'the man threw the apple'

The relative suffix doubles as an agent marker:

{throw-REL}
= "it is the one who throws"
'thrower*'

* Perhaps 'pitcher' in a baseball game?


Volition marked

There is a suffix to mark non-volition (unmarked verbs are volitional by default). Thus we can make the throwing accidental:

{apple throw-TR-NVL* man}
'the man dropped the apple (by accident)'

* Might make these morphemes come in the opposite order. Not sure yet.


No number except a collective suffix

{water/sea}
'the sea*'

* Also a given name.

{water/sea-COLL}
'the waters*'

* A placename.


Lexical animacy

Nouns are inherently animate or inanimate. Apple is inanimate. Man is animate. Inanimates can never be subjects of transitive verbs. Thus word order becomes freer for inanimates:

{apple eat-TR} and {eat-TR apple} both mean '(someone) ate an apple' or 'an apple was eaten'.

This does not work for animates, where word order is strict.


Adjectives as verbs

Adjectives are intransitive verbs.

{red-NTR apple}
'the apple is red'

{red-NTR man}
'the man is red'

No difference between animates or inanimates here as you can see. Relativisation may also be used:

{red-NTR-REL apple}
'the red apple'
'the apple which is red'


Telicity also marked morphologically

{apple eat-TR-ATL}
'was eating the apple'

{apple eat-TR-TL}
'ate the apple'

AND MORE STUFF PROBABLY BUT YES.
Last edited by Prinsessa on 29 Jul 2015 15:56, edited 5 times in total.
Darvince
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 82
Joined: 08 Feb 2015 01:51

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Darvince »

This seems to me a very odd and interesting language, especially since its main word order is OVS. Any ideas why this is so? Most of all I like that you're approaching it without doing the phonetics first, since 99.9% of langs just die after a small post on phonology it seems.

why don't you come on irc anymore
CBB forum is of Polandball
My minicity

:usa: Fluent
:esp: C1
:con: Himalian, A1
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Darvince wrote:This seems to me a very odd and interesting language, especially since its main word order is OVS. Any ideas why this is so?
Kinda turned out that way after mainly deciding that at least I wanted VS, and then dabbling with noun incorporation and stuff made it feel natural to put the object there. Plus I think it facilitates parsing when there are "serial phrases" or whatever to call them, like in the example of the man throwing the apple into the sea, with the sea as an object starting off the next phrase with no subject expressed at all.
Darvince wrote:Most of all I like that you're approaching it without doing the phonetics first, since 99.9% of langs just die after a small post on phonology it seems.
True! I'll be honest and say that I've been poking with phonology in the background too, tho. ;p
Darvince wrote:why don't you come on irc anymore
not sure i'm welcome
User avatar
J_from_Holland
sinic
sinic
Posts: 217
Joined: 19 Mar 2015 17:19
Location: On this forum

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by J_from_Holland »

Darvince wrote:99.9% of langs just die after a small post on phonology
That is so true.
A few years, I posted about Bløjhvåtterskyll. That's Barmish nowadays, and it's quite different from back then.
:nld: :mrgreen: | :eng: [:D] | :deu: [:D] | :fra: [:P] | :ell: [:$] | :nor: [:$]
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

The phonology is a somewhat rehashed Vanga phonology anyway. I can tell you a little about the phonotactics.

It's kinda similar to traditional Finnish and Arabic. No initial clusters. No final clusters. Few consonants allowed word-finally. CC generally the biggest cluster permitted, with CCw and CCj probably being the biggest semi-exceptions.

There is no pure length distinction on vowels, but rather monophthongs versus diphthongs and semi-triphthongs, again formed with j/w (initially).

There is a balance system by which the stressed syllable of a word (always the first syllable) must be heavy, meaning it must contain a geminate consonant, a cluster or a diphthong. A diphthong will generally also degeminate a geminate. Historical *a generally turned into [uo] to honour this rule. An exception are monosyllabic words (generally nouns) ending in certain consonants, like , where the consonant is instead pronounced long and the monophthong remains.

Vowel system is probably /a i u/ unless I decide to play more with another system I explored that had vowel harmony with both rounding and fronting and about six vowels in practice.
cntrational
greek
greek
Posts: 661
Joined: 05 Nov 2012 03:59

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by cntrational »

phonology is for wimps

I'll give you a nuyen if you make this a non-audio language.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

cntrational wrote:phonology is for wimps

I'll give you a nuyen if you make this a non-audio language.
sowwwy nut gunna hapn i luv phunulugy 2 mucho
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3021
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by elemtilas »

Darvince wrote:This seems to me a very odd and interesting language, especially since its main word order is OVS. Any ideas why this is so? Most of all I like that you're approaching it without doing the phonetics first, since 99.9% of langs just die after a small post on phonology it seems.
[+1]

Thank Heaven! No Extremely Long Phonology Post!!
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Past me feels targeted. [:'(]
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Another reason the OVS works well:

{{come-REL man} see-TR}
'I saw the man who arrived'

The man is the subject of the first verb because he follows it, but this entire phrase can also be the object of the next verb because it precedes it.
Last edited by Prinsessa on 30 Jul 2015 12:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
J_from_Holland
sinic
sinic
Posts: 217
Joined: 19 Mar 2015 17:19
Location: On this forum

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by J_from_Holland »

Prinsessa wrote:
cntrational wrote:phonology is for wimps

I'll give you a nuyen if you make this a non-audio language.
sowwwy nut gunna hapn i luv phunulugy 2 mucho
:mrgreen: [:D] [:D] [:D] [O.O]
Suggestion: make also a really weird phonology.
Idea for it:
Every word has a CV(CVCVCVCVCVetc.) structure.
so the 1st,3rd,5th etc. letters will always be consonants, 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc. will always be vowels.
So every letter can be used twice.
So the letter g can in the C position represent /g/ and in the V position represent /ä/.
The letter 'q' represents a "hole".

Using this, I made a mini-phonology to translate that sentence [throw-TR man]
throw = /diɲ/
past ending = /uk/
man = /gädu/

<v d o g> /ɲ d k g/
<u ä i> /v g i/

Result: divvkq ggdv.

Do you like this idea?
A few years, I posted about Bløjhvåtterskyll. That's Barmish nowadays, and it's quite different from back then.
:nld: :mrgreen: | :eng: [:D] | :deu: [:D] | :fra: [:P] | :ell: [:$] | :nor: [:$]
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

I've already come too far!

I already know what the words for throw and man are, even tho I didn't present them, haha.

There would be no past ending, tho. The language lacks tense. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. But there's the temporodeixis I mentioned instead.

[throw-TR man] I think would be qannuo mou.

Using CV to be able to reüse letters for both vowels and consonants is a seriously good jokelang idea tho. :p
Last edited by Prinsessa on 03 Nov 2015 10:37, edited 1 time in total.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Tentative sounds put to some of the OP sentences:

has qannuo mou
{apple throw-TR man}
{hars ka<n>t-wa muw}

'the man threw an apple'

qannuonaŋa
{throw-TR=INT=2}
{ka<n>t-wa=na=ŋa}

'did you throw it?'

haṣą mou
{apple-POSS man}
{hars-an muw}

'the man's apple'

has qannou mou
{apple throw-TR-REL man}
{hars ka<n>t-wa-u muw}

'the man who threw an apple'

haṣą qannou mou
{apple {throw-TR-REL man}}
{hars-an {ka<n>t-wa-u muw}}

'the apple that was thrown by the man'

au
{water/sea}
{ap}

'the sea'; a name

appa
{water/sea}
{ap-ha}

'the waters'; a placename

has uo
{apple TL-eat-TR}
{hars Ø-w-wa}

'was eating the apple'

has avva
{apple ATL-eat-TR}
{hars V-w-wa}

'ate the apple'
Last edited by Prinsessa on 02 Aug 2015 20:52, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 511
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Adarain »

This looks neat :) I usually just ignore the conlang threads since they deliver so much information at once that it getd exhausting to read them. This is a nice exception, following :)

Is the third line in your last post's examples supposed to show phonology? If so, why <q> for /k/ and where did the r in apple go?
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Adarain wrote:This looks neat :) I usually just ignore the conlang threads since they deliver so much information at once that it getd exhausting to read them. This is a nice exception, following :)
I tried hard to not make this mistake with my last thread but ended up doing it anyway. Trying even harder this time!
Adarain wrote:Is the third line in your last post's examples supposed to show phonology?
Underlying phonemes, yes. The brackets are not narrow transcription brackets but to separate phrases. (changed to curly braces instead)
Adarain wrote:If so, why <q> for /k/
Like I said, this is a rehashed Vanga phonology and I'm sticking to what I had there: /k/ ranges all the way from palatal to uvular realisations depending on surrounding sounds, and so I find <q> to be the most æsthetically pleasing and frankly most sensible compromise (<q> for [q] and <q> for [c] like Albanian; i.e. "a k with a little bit of a difference").
Adarain wrote:and where did the r in apple go?
Assimilated into the following coronal to form a retroflex, indicated by the underdot. However, retroflexes are not permitted finally, and therefore the unsuffixed form is reduced to a simple .
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Time

Get dat Pinc Llwyd playing and read along.

(I just realised I connect the concept of time to the colour green and this lang's word for it, also meaning wheel, to the colour brown???)

Temporal stuff. I was only really going to be covering a lexical root here, but I might as well briefly describe that morphological "temporodeixis" as well.

Again, this language has no tense. Like many tenseless languages, this means that context and adverbs (or whatever this language will have) help out in determining time.

But there's also the "temporodeixis"; temporal and spatial proximity rolled into one blurry mess. The distinction is threefold: neutral, proximal (near) and distal (far). Especially distal is extra blurry and might refer to past and future alike. This is morphological.

What I really want to talk about is a root, tho. Mostly used verbally in the core sense of 'elapse'. Time passing, that is.

The verb, like certain others (especially of weather like raining and the like), has an implicit animate at the top of the hierarchy as its subject. That means no actual subject (like a noun) is explicitly expressed, but the verb is known to inherently refer to an animate higher than all the others, including humans.

This verb is useful in many contexts. At its simplest:

{elapse-ATL}
'time passed'
'the clock is ticking'
et c.

I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work, but I'm imagining the language might have some sort of benefactive or dative. For lack of my having thought out the details, perhaps we could use the transitive form for now to increase valency by one:

{elapse-TR-ATL}
'it took <someone.DAT> time'

Perhaps verbs could have some augmentative or intensive or frequentative form or whatever:

{elapse-AUG-TR-ATL}
'it took <someone.DAT> a long time'

As this verb is always taken to refer to a high animate it can unambiguously be used as a kind of auxiliary verb or adverb following or preceding a phrase with a different referent (gloss simplified for readability):

{sea occupy woman} {elapse-AUG}
'the woman spent a long time in the seawater'

Perhaps a negative form could be use to express immediate action:

{elapse-NEG} {apple throw-TR}
'immediately ("in no time") the apple was thrown'

And a potential negative to express lack of time:

{elapse-POT-NEG-TR}
'<someone> doesn't have time'

Perhaps a bit of double marking for something like this:

{explain-POT-NEG} {elapse-POT-NEG-TR}
"cannot explain (and/because) there is no time"
= '<someone> doesn't have time to explain'
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

A note on using several case-like verbs together. The OVS order lends it self to a nice pattern where the subject can go in the middle between two such phrases:

{school occupy child} {friend accompany}
'the child was at school with a friend'

The child is explicitly marked as the subject of the first phrase and no subject is marked on the second one, implicitly referring to the same subject as the last phrase.

But it's fine to keep on stacking subjectless phrases without ambiguities as these verbs are interpreted in such a way that it makes sense.

{school enter child} {bus leave} {friend accompany}
'the child entered the school building coming from the bus accompanied by a friend'

But perhaps I will add some marker for that. We'll have to see.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

Transitivity, valency and volition

I did some stuff again. Tentative as always. Will be given as grammatical glosses without conlang words for now.

Read a bunch of stuff yesterday that spurred me into thinking in new ways and felt inspired and today I toyed around with it and came up with the following stuff.

Verb classification

From now on, great attention will be paid to certain core features of verbs.
  • Whether or not they are sort of unaccusative (in English, words like 'die' which take a subject argument even tho the subject isn't actively performing the action of dying), tied closely to the language's concept of volition (whether someone or something is in active control of an action.
  • Whether or not they are inherently transitive (taking an object argument), and in addition whether they are just transitive (one argument in addition to the subject), bitransitive (two), tritransitive (three) and so on.
These factors control the syntax of the verb arguments and what affixes or whatever need to be used in order to increase valency (number of arguments; turning a [mono]transitive verb bitransitive and so on).

Volition / "unaccusative" versus "unergative" verbs

The language is OVS by default. Object-verb-subject. This is the default word order of the verb arguments.

However, in this discussion we will be using different letters: S (subject of an intransitive verb), A (agent/subject of a transitive verb) P (patient/direct object of a transitive verb) and O (indirect object of a transitive verb). V will still mean verb.

Despite the default OVS order, non-volitional, unaccusative verbs put their "subjects" in the object position (before the verb) but take no transitivity marker, which is used in truly transitive (and volitional) verbs.

Thus the word order for volitional verbs is VS but for non-volitional ones SV.

For example, 'fly' is a volitional ("unergative") verb, whereas 'die' is the opposite. They do not order their subjects in the same way.

fly-NTR bird
the bird flew

bird die-NTR
the bird is dead

NTR = intransitive

Note that this only holds true for intransitive verbs.

(Mono)transitivity

The derivation of greater valency depends on the core valency of the verb. So far I cannot think of any situation where the language needs to lower the valency from a verb that is inherently transitive in its most basic form, so I will only be discussing devices for increasing valency. It can be done through noun incorporation, in some cases, tho, which might at the same time actually be a way to achieve more or less higher valency in practice as well.

The simplest way of increasing valency is by adding the transitive marker to an intransitive verb. This generally also gives the verb a causative meaning.

For an intransitive, volitional verb the syntax is VS. For a transitive, volitional verb it is PVA.

Consider again the basic meaning of this inherently intransitive verb:

fly-NTR bird
the bird flew

The derived transitive meaning is more or less causative ('make fly'), but when translating into English, only contexually so:

zeppelin fly-TR person
the person flew the zeppelin (made it fly)

apple fly-TR person
the person threw the apple (made it fly)

TR = transitive

Similarly for the non-volitional 'die':

person die-NTR
the person died

person die-TR (someone)
the person was killed (by <agent here>) (explicitly mentioning the agent is optional)

Bitransitivity

One way bitransitivity can be achieved is by deriving a specific causative stem, using an affix or mutation different from the transitive suffix (which needs to be added in addition to it). In this case, the derived from is unambiguously causative.

When more arguments are added to a verb as its valency increases, the less direct objects are put closer to the verb. As such the syntax for a bitransitive verb is POVA.

1 apple fly-CAUS-TR teacher
the teacher made me throw the apple

soldier child die-CAUS-TR president
the president made the soldier kill the child

parent child hit-CAUS-TR teacher
the teacher made the parent hit the child

CAUS = causative

Tritransitivity

Three objects can be included if a benefactive suffix is added onto the verb, meaning that the action was carried out for the benefactive object. Once again, this new argument will be the closest to the verb out of the object arguments, making the syntax PO1O2VA.

pilot zeppelin king fly-CAUS-TR-BEN passenger
the passenger made the pilot fly the zeppelin for the king

BEN = benefactive

Pseudoquadrutransitivity

Noun incorporation, as mentioned, can be used to squeeze yet another noun in there, tho it doesn't in fact technically actually increase the valency, but leaves it unaltered, which is how we can sneak it into a tritransitive clause, which is probably the true limit in this language.

parent child REFL hand-hit-CAUS-TR-BEN teacher
the teacher made the parent hit the child on the hand for its (the child's) own sake

To transitivitinfinity... and beyond!

Having exhausted our valency-increasing capabilities, if we need to include more objects, it's on to the next clause, using one of the aforementioned case-like verbs.

{parent child REFL hand-hit-CAUS-TR-BEN teacher} {cane hold-TR?*}
the teacher made the parent hit the child on the hand with a cane for its own sake

* Unsure about transitivity in case-like verbs ATM.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 2647
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Avalang da dum

Post by Prinsessa »

The verbal template

Started messing around with this. Tentative with abstract underlying forms and stuff. Some stuff may change meaning, sound or position or be removed entirely. Also, this table is not exhaustive and some other morphemes that may exist are lacking. But just something to start with.

Image

As you can see, affixes and clitics may inhabit every nook and cranny of a verb root. There are proclitics, prefixes, infixes, suffixes and enclitics.


Horizontally and vertically

The second heading describes what the slots generally mean and the rows contain some examples of these. The proclitics and enclitics sort of align with each other to denote a common origin, altho the meaning might differ in different positions (third person objects are unmarked with undifferentiated deixis and the benefactive looks like the third person distal ATM).


Features

Let's have a look at the table from left to right.


Proclitics

These mostly denote direct objects (or benefactives) when they're persons, negative* (nothing; nobody) or interrogative (who; what). Currently I have no plans on indicating number. Person is optional through the use of the above clitics and on some occasions free, full pronouns. Pro-drop language.

I think the reflexive pronoun might also be used together with causatives in order to denote some sort of initiative or translative (becoming something), but I'm not sure yet.

* This one is tentative and may be unnecessary if the verb is already negative itself. We'll have to see.


Prefixes

There is the marker of the continuous aspect (simple is unmarked; i.e. Ø-) which denotes an atelic action.

Next may come a privative marker which negates or inverts the meaning of the verb, similar to English un- and non-.


Root

The root is split up by infixes, including an inherent vowel colour as denoted by the capital V on the left hand part of the root. Roots are made up of literals, a bit like the triconsonantal roots of Semitic languages, tho in this language they tend to be bileteral and have two parts in between which infixes are put.


Infixes

These are inflectional and include the aforementioned temporodeixis which is similar to both tense and deixis at the same time as well as the nasal infix of the subjunctive, or optative.


Suffixes

Suffixes can be grammatical or derivational. Both those referred to as causative markers as well as transitive markers are similar to each other and increase valency. The two causatives listed don't really differ; they're just two alternative and somewhat interchangeable forms (it might be the case that one of them is no longer productive but still very common).

We may also mark that the word is relative.

The obligative or whatever to call it derives from a second verb after the main verb that has become a proper suffix, and denotes that the action denoted by the stem ought to or has to happen.


Enclitics

Finally, enclitics may mark the verb as negative and/or interrogative, and finally enclitics denoting the person of the subject may be added.


Examples

Completely disregarding what the final words would actually look like after processes of phonology are applied, just stringing morphemes together in a gloss-like fashion, using English lexemes in capitals, here are some examples of how the morphemes work.


Random

j=Ø-SEE<j>-a:=ma=na=ŋa
1P=SIMP-see<PROX>-TR=NEG=INT=2P
did you not see me just now?

s=V-N-SEE<Ø>-h-a:
REFL=CONT-PRIV-see<NEUT>-POT*-CAUS-TR
it was making itself invisible

* I know this one wasn't in the table, but it's the potential, denoting the ability of the action denoted by the verb.


Differences

I will now combine the same two verbs using different additional morphemes in order to display how they can modify the meaning.

COME-a TELL-a
come-NTR tell-NTR
(someone) came and told (someone else about something)

COME-a-s TELL-a
come-NTR-OBL tell-NTR
(someone) told (someone else) [that they (the other one) ought ]to come

COME<N>-a TELL-a
come-SUBJ-NTR tell-NTR
(someone) told (someone else) that they (the subject itself) would come
Post Reply