Zevy notes (Now playing: Vocatives)
Zevy notes (Now playing: Vocatives)
Hello! I'll be using this thread to share regular posts on different aspects of my conlang Zevy. Here we go!
Table of contents
Instrumental verbs
Exploring how Zevy wields the instrumental case on verbs to signal outcomes · 9 min read
Linking words
Exploring Zevy's two most critical connectors · 13 minute read
Basic syntax trees
Some not-too-rigorous generative grammar on Zevy phrase structure · 5 minute read
Possession
Exploring how Zevy forms possessive phrases · 12 minute read
Vocatives
Exploring how Zevy forms terms of address · 10 min read
Glossing guide
1 : first person
1s : first person singular
1p : first person plural
2 : second person
3 : third person
ABL : ablative case (e.g. "from", "away from")
ABS : absolutive case
AGR : agreement
COM : comitative case (e.g. "with", "and", "alongside")
ERG : ergative case
DAT : dative case (e.g. "to", "towards", "for")
FUT : future tense
IMM : imminent (modifies tense)
IMP : imperative mood
INST : instrumental case (e.g. "with", "using", "by")
INT : interrogative pronoun (e.g. "what")
LOC : locative case (e.g. "in", "at")
NEG : negative marker (e.g. "not")
POSS : possessive
PRS : present tense
PST : past tense
RSMP : resumptive pronoun
SUBE : subessive case (e.g. "under")
SUPE : superessive case (e.g. "on")
TOP : topic marker
Table of contents
Instrumental verbs
Exploring how Zevy wields the instrumental case on verbs to signal outcomes · 9 min read
Linking words
Exploring Zevy's two most critical connectors · 13 minute read
Basic syntax trees
Some not-too-rigorous generative grammar on Zevy phrase structure · 5 minute read
Possession
Exploring how Zevy forms possessive phrases · 12 minute read
Vocatives
Exploring how Zevy forms terms of address · 10 min read
Glossing guide
1 : first person
1s : first person singular
1p : first person plural
2 : second person
3 : third person
ABL : ablative case (e.g. "from", "away from")
ABS : absolutive case
AGR : agreement
COM : comitative case (e.g. "with", "and", "alongside")
ERG : ergative case
DAT : dative case (e.g. "to", "towards", "for")
FUT : future tense
IMM : imminent (modifies tense)
IMP : imperative mood
INST : instrumental case (e.g. "with", "using", "by")
INT : interrogative pronoun (e.g. "what")
LOC : locative case (e.g. "in", "at")
NEG : negative marker (e.g. "not")
POSS : possessive
PRS : present tense
PST : past tense
RSMP : resumptive pronoun
SUBE : subessive case (e.g. "under")
SUPE : superessive case (e.g. "on")
TOP : topic marker
Last edited by Sevly on 02 Sep 2022 04:24, edited 12 times in total.
Re: Zevy notes
Instrumental verbs
Exploring how Zevy wields the instrumental case on verbs to signal outcomes · 9 min read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with it's original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
In Zevy, the term "instrumental verb" applies to a set of verbs which can be used in the following two different ways: they can either be the main verb of a clause, or they can modify the main verb of the clause by use of the instrumental case.
Verbs which follow this pattern include:
Nouns which follow this pattern include:
To understand these, let's start by looking at the verbs, which can be used in two different forms. We'll use the example of the verb mot "need", keeping in mind that this pattern applies to all of the verbs above.
Consider a scene where two siblings, Eurevi and Kamo, are at the beach. Eurevi sees a stand selling vurtsan, a smoothie-like mix of blended and solid fruit that's the perfect thing to hit the spot on a hot day. Mouth watering, he kicks off the following exchange:
Eurevi says:
For Eurevi, the item in need was a thing (the mixfruit) which might suggest that this position must be occupied by a noun. But note that if we want to indicate an action that's needed, rather than a physical thing, we can also swap in a verb:
Kamo continues:
So taking in both examples above, we note that we can say Vurtsan mu mot si me "I need a smoothie", or Eu mu mot si me "I need to leave". Both illustrate the first form in which instrumental verbs can be used: as the main verb, towards the end of the clause. Straightforward enough!
▾ Adding another approach ▾
Let's now look at the second way that verbs like this can be used. In the second form, mot is no longer the main verb. Instead, it comes at the beginning of the clause and is followed by the instrumental case marker su. The action that's needed, which in this case must be a verb, appears near the end of the clause.
With this in mind, let's compare the two forms:
first form
▾ Adding time ▾
As we dig in further, we'll see that our choices aren't always so freespirited. If we want to translate a sentence like "I needed to leave" or "I will need to leave", then the choice between the two forms becomes much more important.
Consider the past tense. In the examples below, we see that though the surface level meanings remain the same, they differ significantly in their implication:
first form
first form
At the beach, Eurevi tries to take advantage of this:
Eurevi insists:
▾ Jumping back to the present ▾
Let's return to the present tense. Recall that we illustrated the two possible forms as Eu mu mot si me and Mot su, eu si det. The first form ends with the present tense marker me, while the second ends with the imperative mood marker det. But that imperative marker isn't the only way we can go.
It turns out that we can make the same distinction we made in the past and present tense by replacing that imperative mood marker with either the present tense marker, me, or the imminent present tense marker, mant:
second form + imperative
And so in this way, speakers using instrumental verbs have a full set of tools for indicating the expected outcome of their pronouncements. Indeed, constructions like the examples above are very common in Zevy writing and speech, so being aware of both their literal and implicit meanings is critical to understanding Zevy in practice.
▾ Other examples ▾
Here are some examples with a few of the other verbs that follow this pattern:
verb + second form
noun + second form
Exploring how Zevy wields the instrumental case on verbs to signal outcomes · 9 min read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with it's original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
In Zevy, the term "instrumental verb" applies to a set of verbs which can be used in the following two different ways: they can either be the main verb of a clause, or they can modify the main verb of the clause by use of the instrumental case.
Verbs which follow this pattern include:
- mot "need"
- murst "want"
- zeen "try"
- ema "say"
- er "think"
- esa "believe"
- heri "guess"
Nouns which follow this pattern include:
- geen "hope"
- gesa "appearance"
- apoken "duty"
To understand these, let's start by looking at the verbs, which can be used in two different forms. We'll use the example of the verb mot "need", keeping in mind that this pattern applies to all of the verbs above.
Consider a scene where two siblings, Eurevi and Kamo, are at the beach. Eurevi sees a stand selling vurtsan, a smoothie-like mix of blended and solid fruit that's the perfect thing to hit the spot on a hot day. Mouth watering, he kicks off the following exchange:
Eurevi says:
-
¡Vurtsan mu mot si me!
[ˈburθsã m̩ moh z me]
mixfruit ABS need be.1 PRS
I need a smoothie!
-
Dut me en.
[ˈduθ me jẽ]
house LOC have
⦗We⦘ have ⦗that⦘ at home.
For Eurevi, the item in need was a thing (the mixfruit) which might suggest that this position must be occupied by a noun. But note that if we want to indicate an action that's needed, rather than a physical thing, we can also swap in a verb:
Kamo continues:
-
Uttemu, eu mu mot si me deses.
[htemʊ, ˈjeo m̩ moh z me ˈdes]
besides, leave ABS need be.1 PRS 1p
Besides, we need to leave.
So taking in both examples above, we note that we can say Vurtsan mu mot si me "I need a smoothie", or Eu mu mot si me "I need to leave". Both illustrate the first form in which instrumental verbs can be used: as the main verb, towards the end of the clause. Straightforward enough!
▾ Adding another approach ▾
Let's now look at the second way that verbs like this can be used. In the second form, mot is no longer the main verb. Instead, it comes at the beginning of the clause and is followed by the instrumental case marker su. The action that's needed, which in this case must be a verb, appears near the end of the clause.
With this in mind, let's compare the two forms:
first form
-
Eu mu mot si me.
[ˈjeo m̩ moh z me]
leave ABS need be.1 PRS
I need to leave.
-
Mot su, eu si det.
[moθ sə ˈjeo z deh]
need INST, leave be.1 IMP
I need to leave.
- "leave" is the main verb
- "need" is introduced by the preposition "by"
- eu "leave" is the main verb
- mot "need" is introduced by the instrumental case marker su
▾ Adding time ▾
As we dig in further, we'll see that our choices aren't always so freespirited. If we want to translate a sentence like "I needed to leave" or "I will need to leave", then the choice between the two forms becomes much more important.
Consider the past tense. In the examples below, we see that though the surface level meanings remain the same, they differ significantly in their implication:
first form
-
Eu mu mot si ti.
[ˈjeo m̩ moh z ti]
leave ABS need be.1 PST
I needed to leave. (But did I do so?)
-
Mot su, eu si ti.
[moθ sə ˈjeo z ti]
need INST, leave be.1 PST
I needed to leave. (And I did.)
first form
-
Eu mu mot si te.
['jeo m̩ moh z tje]
leave ABS need be.1 FUT
I'll need to leave. (But will I do so?)
-
Mot su, eu si te.
[moθ sə ˈjeo z tje]
need INST, leave be.1 FUT
I'll need to leave. (And I will.)
- In the past tense, the literal translation of Mot su, eu si ti is "By need, I left." The fact that the speaker did, in fact, leave, is presented straightforwardly.
- In the future tense, the translation of Mot su, eu si te is "By need, I will leave." The fact of leaving is clear; the need is the motivator.
- In contrast, in the form that place mot at the end of the clause, the fact of needing is made clear, but the result of it is not.
At the beach, Eurevi tries to take advantage of this:
Eurevi insists:
-
¡Ve, mot su, utni en si te!
[ˈba ˈmoθ sə ˈhʊɲ jẽ z tje]
no, need INST, that=COM have be.1 FUT
No, by need, I will have one!
-
Edati te mertmirati.
[ˈjedatsitsˈmerθmirats]
technique DAT award
Nice try.
▾ Jumping back to the present ▾
Let's return to the present tense. Recall that we illustrated the two possible forms as Eu mu mot si me and Mot su, eu si det. The first form ends with the present tense marker me, while the second ends with the imperative mood marker det. But that imperative marker isn't the only way we can go.
It turns out that we can make the same distinction we made in the past and present tense by replacing that imperative mood marker with either the present tense marker, me, or the imminent present tense marker, mant:
second form + imperative
-
Mot su, eu si det.
[moθ sə 'jeo z deh]
need INST, leave be.1 IMP
By need, I ought leave. → I need to leave. (But will I?)
-
Mot su, eu si mant.
[moθ sə ˈjeo z mãh]
need INST, leave be.1 PRS.IMM
By need, I'm about to leave. → Leaving, have to! (Getting ready to leave)
-
Mot su, eu si me.
[moθ sə ˈjeo z me]
need INST, leave be.1 PRS
By need, I'm leaving. → Leaving, have to! (In the process of leaving)
And so in this way, speakers using instrumental verbs have a full set of tools for indicating the expected outcome of their pronouncements. Indeed, constructions like the examples above are very common in Zevy writing and speech, so being aware of both their literal and implicit meanings is critical to understanding Zevy in practice.
▾ Other examples ▾
Here are some examples with a few of the other verbs that follow this pattern:
verb + second form
-
Daadi mu, murst su, mantseu me, mata te at hi te.
[daz mə ˈmwəs sə ˈmãseo me ˈmata ts a j tse]
kid TOP, want INST, today LOC, park DAT go be.3 PRS
The kid wants to go to the park today. (and probably will)
-
Eesen me zui ni en mu zeen hi det.
[ˈjezə me zəi ɲ jẽ m̩ 'ʑeə j deh]
match LOC victory COM have ABS try be.3 IMP
Try to win the match. (no pressure)
-
Zeen su, eesen me zui ni en si mant.
[ʑeə sə 'jezə me zəi ɲ ˈjẽ z mãh]
try INST, match LOC victory COM have be.1 PRS.IMM
We're trying to win the match right now. (duh)
-
Sopu te at mu ema hi ti datiis.
[ˈsopʊ ts a m̩ jemə j ti ˈdas]
party DAT go ABS speak be.3 PST that:person
They said they're coming to the party. (but who knows)
-
Utenen me ema su, sopu te at si te.
[ˈhunəme jemə sə ˈsopʊ ts a z tje]
before LOC speak INST, party DAT go be.1 FUT
I already said I'm coming to the party. (So stop asking!)
noun + second form
-
Geen su, eesen me zui ni en si det.
[geə sə ˈjezə me zəi ɲ ˈjẽ z deh]
hope INST, match LOC victory COM have be.3 IMP
I hope we win this match.
-
Utdou, gesa su, amat ni en si te.
[hdəu ˈgesə sə 'wamaθ ɲ̩ jẽ z tje]
that:despite, appearance INST, loss COM have be.3 FUT
But it seems (likely) we will lose.
-
Utte, apoken su, mtemu at si mant.
[htse ˈwapken sə ˈmtem a z mãh]
that:to, duty INST, above_now go be.3 PRS.IMM
So we need to do better now.
Last edited by Sevly on 26 Aug 2022 04:05, edited 2 times in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
I actually really like this feature. Reminds me of Indonesian, e.g.
Dia ber-kata kalau kamu mau pergi.
3SG have-say COMPL you want go
'He said that you want to leave.'
Kata-nya kamu mau pergi.
say-3SG.POSS you want leave
'People say you want to leave.'
but also,
Kamu kayak mau pergi.
you like want go
You seem like you want to leave.
Kayak-nya kamu mau pergi.
like-3SG.POSS you want go
It seems like you want to leave.
Dia ber-kata kalau kamu mau pergi.
3SG have-say COMPL you want go
'He said that you want to leave.'
Kata-nya kamu mau pergi.
say-3SG.POSS you want leave
'People say you want to leave.'
but also,
Kamu kayak mau pergi.
you like want go
You seem like you want to leave.
Kayak-nya kamu mau pergi.
like-3SG.POSS you want go
It seems like you want to leave.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Ooo neat, super cool to see the natlang example. Thanks for reading and sharing that!
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Sevly! Great to see you still around. I was actually thinking of you a few months back (well, more specifically, of the little web-app-page-thing you made to let us play a board game I'd invented).
Gorgiously illustrated post!
I'm afraid I don't think I understand. In two ways. I didn't think I had any problem with your presentation, except that I don't know what that "be.1" is doing in each example (and then suddenly a "be.3" for some reason, in an imperative of all things!). Or what the absolutives and imperatives are doing, really. Perhaps you could... well, I guess you've glossed, but... break down the gloss somehow and explain how an example sentence actually works syntactically and what all of the words are doing in it?
The other thing is that I must be misunderstanding something because I don't see the Indonesian example as being the same sort of thing that I thought you were doing. You seem to be using the instrumental case to create a clause or phrase indicating a modality, whereas Indonesian seems to be using a possessive construction to create the equivalent of an impersonal verb. What am I missing?
[although ironically English - well, old-fashioned English - can do both(ish) with one construction. Where you gloss "need INST leave be.1 IMP", Old-Fashioned English (OFE) has "need-POSS I leave" (where the verb may as well be imperative if you want, since the imperative isn't marked). That is, "needs I leave", or more often "I needs leave". (more often supplemented by a more generic modal, "needs will", or increasingly "needs must", and now distinctly old-fashioned even then. But the same construction still occurs idiomatically to create an impersonal modal: "needs must", or more poetically "needs must when the devil drives" - 'must' is an impersonal verb, as the speaker is saying that somebody must do something but not specifying who.]
Gorgiously illustrated post!
I'm afraid I don't think I understand. In two ways. I didn't think I had any problem with your presentation, except that I don't know what that "be.1" is doing in each example (and then suddenly a "be.3" for some reason, in an imperative of all things!). Or what the absolutives and imperatives are doing, really. Perhaps you could... well, I guess you've glossed, but... break down the gloss somehow and explain how an example sentence actually works syntactically and what all of the words are doing in it?
The other thing is that I must be misunderstanding something because I don't see the Indonesian example as being the same sort of thing that I thought you were doing. You seem to be using the instrumental case to create a clause or phrase indicating a modality, whereas Indonesian seems to be using a possessive construction to create the equivalent of an impersonal verb. What am I missing?
[although ironically English - well, old-fashioned English - can do both(ish) with one construction. Where you gloss "need INST leave be.1 IMP", Old-Fashioned English (OFE) has "need-POSS I leave" (where the verb may as well be imperative if you want, since the imperative isn't marked). That is, "needs I leave", or more often "I needs leave". (more often supplemented by a more generic modal, "needs will", or increasingly "needs must", and now distinctly old-fashioned even then. But the same construction still occurs idiomatically to create an impersonal modal: "needs must", or more poetically "needs must when the devil drives" - 'must' is an impersonal verb, as the speaker is saying that somebody must do something but not specifying who.]
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Hi Sal! *waves*
Ahhhh yes I've thought of that too! Sadly the website is down now but I've been feeling like I might try my hand at a third version of that web app one of these days. (You know what they say, third try's the charm.)
Ty ty
Mmm, indeed indeed. One of the problems of my style of conlanging is that I like to jump straight into the tidbits I find most interesting which can make it a bit of a puzzle to put together the entire picture. I do plan on doing a proper "Intro to Zevy" in the next month or so which will explain sentence structure from the ground up, and then eventually get around to explaining the sound system (you know, that "phonology" thing that everyone is always talking about), but I'll likely throw up a few more targeted posts first. But yes, fair critique of this parachute-you-in style.Salmoneus wrote: ↑25 May 2022 01:21I'm afraid I don't think I understand. In two ways. I didn't think I had any problem with your presentation, except that I don't know what that "be.1" is doing in each example (and then suddenly a "be.3" for some reason, in an imperative of all things!). Or what the absolutives and imperatives are doing, really. Perhaps you could... well, I guess you've glossed, but... break down the gloss somehow and explain how an example sentence actually works syntactically and what all of the words are doing in it?
Yeah I don't think the Indonesian example is the same either, I took it more as "this is something I was reminded of when reading this" as opposed to "this is something that has the exact same mechanic". I would say your description of what the Zevy and Indonesian examples are doing is accurate.Salmoneus wrote: ↑25 May 2022 01:21The other thing is that I must be misunderstanding something because I don't see the Indonesian example as being the same sort of thing that I thought you were doing. You seem to be using the instrumental case to create a clause or phrase indicating a modality, whereas Indonesian seems to be using a possessive construction to create the equivalent of an impersonal verb. What am I missing?
Ahhhh I've heard "needs must" before but never truly understood where it came from, very interesting
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Linking words
Exploring Zevy's two most critical connectors · 13 minute read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with its original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
The words hi and si are derived from the Middle Zevy verb root -i-, which was productive as the copula "to be" and as an auxiliary used in certain aspects. Apart from having irregularities in its conjugation, it fell squarely in line with other verbs of the time with respect to its properties.
In Modern Zevy, however, the question of whether the descendant forms hi or si are best analyzed as verbs or as something else entirely is a tricky one. To figure out how to gloss these, let's go over their properties, using "?" as a placeholder in the gloss for now.
▾ Property 1 ▾
They can occur on their own to link a subject to its predicate adjective or noun. The predicate comes first, then hi or si, and then the subject last:
▾ Property 2 ▾
The choice between the two depends solely on whether we have a first person subject, i.e. whether the subject includes the speaker or not. When the subject includes the speaker, use si; otherwise, use hi:
▾ Property 3 ▾
They are often followed by me, ti, or te, which precede the subject and mark the following handful of semantic roles:
Time
▾ Property 4 ▾
Though me, ti, and te occur most frequently, we can in fact fill this slot with any case marker or postposition:
Simile
▾ Property 5 ▾
When followed by the postposition ni "with" (also known as the comitative case marker), things get extra wonky: the entire construction takes on an idiomatic sense similar to that of "to have":
▾ Property 6 ▾
When we don't have a postposition or case marker, the subject is mandatory. When we do, the subject can be dropped whenever it is recoverable from context:
▾ Property 7 ▾
When we take the construction that we saw in Property 3, we find that we can place a verb root like met "happen" or bet "read" in place of the noun and the sentences remain valid:
present
present
▾ Property 8 ▾
Just as for the sentences in Property 6, we can drop the subject. Unlike the sentences Property 1, we cannot drop the marker, which is now perhaps best described as a tense marker:
present
present
▾ Analysis ▾
Given the behaviour described in the points above, what is the best description for si and hi? Overall, they seem to be doing pretty light work. Clearly, they continue to act as copulas, as they link subjects to their predicates. Next, they link verb roots to their tense markers. Finally, they distinguish the first person from other persons. That's about it.
Because of this, there are two approaches which are popular for glossing these words in Zevy linguistics:
gloss as copula with person agreement
▾ Other copulas ▾
A final note that si and hi are only a subset of the copulas in Modern Zevy. Though they are the simplest ways to link a predicate to its subject, they can only operate in the present tense and simple aspect (though they do span a gamut of moods). So, for all other tenses and aspects, Zevy relies on an additional set of linking words which are fully verb-like:
perfect aspect
back to table of contents
Exploring Zevy's two most critical connectors · 13 minute read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with its original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
The words hi and si are derived from the Middle Zevy verb root -i-, which was productive as the copula "to be" and as an auxiliary used in certain aspects. Apart from having irregularities in its conjugation, it fell squarely in line with other verbs of the time with respect to its properties.
In Modern Zevy, however, the question of whether the descendant forms hi or si are best analyzed as verbs or as something else entirely is a tricky one. To figure out how to gloss these, let's go over their properties, using "?" as a placeholder in the gloss for now.
▾ Property 1 ▾
They can occur on their own to link a subject to its predicate adjective or noun. The predicate comes first, then hi or si, and then the subject last:
-
Hat hi utdut.
[ˈhah ji huduh]
tall ? that=house
That house is tall.
-
Kisi si dit.
[ˈkizi z dih]
doctor ? 1s
I am a doctor.
▾ Property 2 ▾
The choice between the two depends solely on whether we have a first person subject, i.e. whether the subject includes the speaker or not. When the subject includes the speaker, use si; otherwise, use hi:
-
Kisi si dit. Kisi si deses.
[ˈkizi z ˈdih ‖ ˈkizi z ˈdes]
doctor ? 1s. doctor ? 1p
I am a doctor. We are doctors.
-
Kisi hi dovund. Kisi hi donimen.
[ˈkizi j ˈdovð ‖ ˈkizi j ˈdommə]
doctor ? 2:friend. doctor ? 2:sir
You, friend, are a doctor. You, sir, a doctor.
-
Kisi hi datiis. Kisi hi ditau.
[ˈkizi j ˈdas ‖ ˈkizi j ˈditəu]
doctor ? that:person. doctor ? 1sPOSS-son
That person is a doctor. My son is a doctor.
▾ Property 3 ▾
They are often followed by me, ti, or te, which precede the subject and mark the following handful of semantic roles:
Time
-
Seudi hi me meti.
[ˈɕeozi j me ˈmets]
morning ? LOC show
The show is in the morning.
-
Dut si me deses.
[ˈduh zi me ˈdes]
house ? LOC 1p
We are in the house.
-
Taba hi ti zeti.
[ˈtabə j ti ˈzets]
city ? ABL visitor
The visitor is from the city.
-
Teke si te dit.
[ˈteke z tje ˈdih]
country ? DAT 1s
I am ⦗going⦘ to the country.
-
Dovuindi hi te mant mendi.
[dwəĩzi j tse ˈmãh mẽz]
you friend ? DAT current gift
This gift is for you.
▾ Property 4 ▾
Though me, ti, and te occur most frequently, we can in fact fill this slot with any case marker or postposition:
Simile
-
Mizien hi u doteken.
[ˈmiʑjə j wu ˈdotekə]
ocean ? like 2=color
This color of yours is like the ocean.
-
Vetai ane anen hi tide dideten.
[ˈbetəi waɲe wanə j tiz ˈdidetə]
solid foundation ? because of 1sPOSS-success
My success is because of a solid foundation.
▾ Property 5 ▾
When followed by the postposition ni "with" (also known as the comitative case marker), things get extra wonky: the entire construction takes on an idiomatic sense similar to that of "to have":
-
Mendi hi ni tattiis.
[ˈmẽzi j ɲi ˈtas]
gift ? COM child
The child has a gift. literally → "is with a gift"
-
Koru hi ni dut.
[ˈkoru j ɲi ˈduh]
window ? COM house
The house has a window. literally → "is with a window"
-
Ttemu kepoi si ni deses.
[ˈtstem kepəi z ɲi ˈdes]
above all crew ? COM 1p
We have the best friends. literally → "are with a crew above all"
▾ Property 6 ▾
When we don't have a postposition or case marker, the subject is mandatory. When we do, the subject can be dropped whenever it is recoverable from context:
-
Seudi hi me. Dut si me.
[ˈɕeozi j me ‖ ˈduh zi me]
morning ? LOC. house ? LOC
⦗It⦘ is in the morning. ⦗We⦘ are in the house.
-
Taba hi ti. Teke si te
[ˈtabə j ti ‖ teke z tje]
city ? ABL. country ? DAT
⦗They⦘ are from the city. ⦗I⦘ am ⦗going⦘ to the country.
-
Dovuind hi te. Mizien hi u. Vetai ane anen hi tide.
[ˈdwəĩz ji tse ‖ ˈmiʑjə j wu ‖ ˈbetəi waɲe wanə j tiz]
you friend ? DAT. ocean ? like. solid foundation ? because of
⦗It⦘ is for you. ⦗It⦘ is like the ocean. ⦗It⦘ is because of a solid foundation.
-
Mendi hi ni. Koru hi ni. Ttemu kepoi si ni.
[ˈmẽzi j ɲi ‖ ˈkoru j ɲi ‖ ˈtstem kepəi z ɲi]
gift ? COM. window ? COM. above all crew ? COM
⦗They⦘ have a gift. ⦗It⦘ has a window. ⦗We⦘ have the best friends.
-
Hat hi.
_ tall ?
⦗It⦘ is tall.
-
Hat hi da.
[ˈhah ji ˈda]
_ tall ? that
It is tall.
▾ Property 7 ▾
When we take the construction that we saw in Property 3, we find that we can place a verb root like met "happen" or bet "read" in place of the noun and the sentences remain valid:
-
Seudi hi me meti.
[ˈɕeozi j me ˈmets]
morning ? LOC show
The show is in the morning.
-
Met hi me meti.
[ˈmeh ji me ˈmets]
happen ? LOC show
The show is happening. literally → "is in happen"
-
Dut si me deses.
[ˈduh zi me ˈdes]
house ? LOC 1p
We are in the house.
-
Bet si me deses.
[ˈbeh zi me ˈdes]
read ? LOC 1p
We are reading. literally → "are in read"
present
-
Met hi me meti.
[ˈmeh ji me ˈmets]
happen ? LOC show
The show is happening. literally → "is in happen"
-
Met hi ti meti.
[ˈmeh ji ti ˈmets]
happen ? ABL show
The show happened. literally → "is from happen"
-
Met hi te meti.
[ˈmeh ji tse ˈmets]
happen ? DAT show
The show will happen. literally → "is to happen"
present
-
Bet si me deses.
[ˈbeh zi me ˈdes]
read ? LOC 1p
We are reading. literally → "are in read"
-
Bet si ti deses.
[ˈbeh zi ti ˈdes]
read ? ABL 1p
We read. literally → "are from read"
-
Bet si te deses.
[ˈbeh zi tse ˈdes]
read ? DAT 1p
We will read. literally → "are to read"
▾ Property 8 ▾
Just as for the sentences in Property 6, we can drop the subject. Unlike the sentences Property 1, we cannot drop the marker, which is now perhaps best described as a tense marker:
present
-
Met hi me.
[ˈmeh ji me]
happen ? LOC→PRS
⦗It⦘ is happening.
-
Met hi ti.
[ˈmeh ji ti]
happen ? ABL→PST
⦗It⦘ happened.
-
Met hi te.
[ˈmeh ji tse]
happen ? DAT→FUT
⦗It⦘ will happen.
-
Met hi meti.
_ happen ? show
The show ??? happen.
present
-
Bet si me.
[ˈbeh zi me]
read ? LOC→PRS
⦗We⦘ are reading.
-
Bet si ti.
[ˈbeh zi ti]
read ? ABL→PST
⦗We⦘ read.
-
Bet si te.
[ˈbeh zi tse]
read ? DAT→FUT
⦗We⦘ will read.
-
Bet si deses.
_ read ? 1p
We ??? read.
▾ Analysis ▾
Given the behaviour described in the points above, what is the best description for si and hi? Overall, they seem to be doing pretty light work. Clearly, they continue to act as copulas, as they link subjects to their predicates. Next, they link verb roots to their tense markers. Finally, they distinguish the first person from other persons. That's about it.
Because of this, there are two approaches which are popular for glossing these words in Zevy linguistics:
gloss as copula with person agreement
-
Met hi te meti.
[ˈmeh ji tse ˈmets]
happen be.3 FUT show
The show will happen.
-
Met hi te meti.
[ˈmeh ji tse ˈmets]
happen SBJ.AGR.3 FUT show
The show will happen.
-
Vund hi te meti.
[ˈbũð ji tse ˈmets]
friend be.3 DAT show
The show is for a friend.
-
Bet hi te.
[ˈbeh ji tse]
read be.N1 FUT
⦗You/they/she/he/it⦘ will read.
-
Bethite.
[ˈbehjitse]
read-3-FUT
⦗You/they/she/he/it⦘ will read.
-
Hat hi disurau.
[ˈhah ji ˈdisurəu]
tall be-3-PRS 1sPOSS-daughter
My daughter is tall.
-
Bet hi te naka?
[ˈbehjitse ˈnakə]
Will the teacher read?
-
Ema si te dit.
[ˈjemə z tje ˈdih]
I will speak.
-
Veha hi te dovund.
[ˈbeɣə j tse ˈdovð]
You, friend, will sing.
▾ Other copulas ▾
A final note that si and hi are only a subset of the copulas in Modern Zevy. Though they are the simplest ways to link a predicate to its subject, they can only operate in the present tense and simple aspect (though they do span a gamut of moods). So, for all other tenses and aspects, Zevy relies on an additional set of linking words which are fully verb-like:
- dee "stand"
- isi "sit"
- mii "lie"
perfect aspect
-
Nes hi me meti. → Nes ti isi hi me meti.
[ˈnes ji me ˈmets → ˈnes t jiɕi j me ˈmets]
start be.3 PRS show → start ABL/PST sit be.3 PRS show
The show starts. → The show has started. literally → "sits started" or "is in sit from start"
-
Nes hi ti meti. → Nes me isi hi ti meti.
[ˈnes ji ti ˈmets → ˈnes me jiɕi j ti ˈmets]
start be.3 PST show → start LOC/PRS sit be.3 PST show
The show started. → The show was starting. literally → "sat starting" or "is from sit in start"
back to table of contents
Last edited by Sevly on 26 Aug 2022 04:06, edited 2 times in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Sorry, I forgot a crucial example.Sevly wrote: ↑28 May 2022 22:13
Yeah I don't think the Indonesian example is the same either, I took it more as "this is something I was reminded of when reading this" as opposed to "this is something that has the exact same mechanic". I would say your description of what the Zevy and Indonesian examples are doing is accurate.Salmoneus wrote: ↑25 May 2022 01:21The other thing is that I must be misunderstanding something because I don't see the Indonesian example as being the same sort of thing that I thought you were doing. You seem to be using the instrumental case to create a clause or phrase indicating a modality, whereas Indonesian seems to be using a possessive construction to create the equivalent of an impersonal verb. What am I missing?
Saya harus mandi.
1SG must take.a.shower
I must/should take a shower
Harus-nya saya mandi.
must-3SG.POSS 1SG take.a.shower
I should take a shower.
So, Indonesian can also encode modality in this way. I was thinking that 3SG.POSS and INSTR mark sentential adjuncts in the respective language, but I might be wrong.
I was wondering why the copula comes in between the first noun (phrase) and the case markers here. I was expecting the case marker to go with the noun phrase it belongs to. This looks very mysterious, in a good way.Sevly wrote: ↑30 May 2022 05:30
▾ Property 3 ▾
They are often followed by me, ti, or te, which precede the subject and mark the following handful of semantic roles:
TimeLocation
- Seudi hi me meti.
[ˈɕeozi j me ˈmets]
morning ? LOC show
The show is in the morning.Source
- Dut si me deses.
[ˈduh zi me ˈdes]
house ? LOC 1p
We are in the house.Destination
- Taba hi ti zeti.
[ˈtabə j ti ˈzets]
city ? ABL visitor
The visitor is from the city.Beneficiary
- Teke si te dit.
[ˈteke z tje ˈdih]
country ? DAT 1s
I am ⦗going⦘ to the country.
- Dovuindi hi te mant mendi.
[dwəĩzi j tse ˈmãh mẽz]
you friend ? DAT current gift
This gift is for you.
▾ Property 4 ▾
Though me, ti, and te occur most frequently, we can in fact fill this slot with any case marker or postposition:
SimileCause
- Mizien hi u doteken.
[ˈmiʑjə j wu ˈdotekə]
ocean ? like 2=color
This color of yours is like the ocean.
- Vetai ane anen hi tide dideten.
[ˈbetəi waɲe wanə j tiz ˈdidetə]
solid foundation ? because of 1sPOSS-success
My success is because of a solid foundation.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Linking words)
The only way I can make sense of it in terms of human languages is that it's VS with clefting and these are all like English "it is" constructions, just with no overt marking of this:
Dut si me deses.
house COP in us
[it is] the house [that] we are in
Mizien hi u doteken.
ocean COP alike colour
[it is] the ocean [that] the colour is like
Met hi me meti.
happening COP in show
[it is] happening that the show is in
[to make that last one more idiomatic, picture an Irish person saying "it's in happening that the show is"...]
I don't think it's helpful to call 'happening' here a verb, since it's acting just like a noun.
Obviously the construction is reminiscent of austronesian alignment (with the 'prepositions' being voice markers on the copula), but I don't think that would be realistic as such, since you'd need as many voices as prepositions. And that wouldn't explain the aspectual uses.
Whereas an 'Irish' solution - verbal nouns, clefting, extensive use of prepositions to denote non-prepositional things - kind of explains everything, I think?
Dut si me deses.
house COP in us
[it is] the house [that] we are in
Mizien hi u doteken.
ocean COP alike colour
[it is] the ocean [that] the colour is like
Met hi me meti.
happening COP in show
[it is] happening that the show is in
[to make that last one more idiomatic, picture an Irish person saying "it's in happening that the show is"...]
I don't think it's helpful to call 'happening' here a verb, since it's acting just like a noun.
Obviously the construction is reminiscent of austronesian alignment (with the 'prepositions' being voice markers on the copula), but I don't think that would be realistic as such, since you'd need as many voices as prepositions. And that wouldn't explain the aspectual uses.
Whereas an 'Irish' solution - verbal nouns, clefting, extensive use of prepositions to denote non-prepositional things - kind of explains everything, I think?
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Instrumental verbs)
Ah, this contrast is quite similar indeed. "I must take a shower" vs "Its need I take a shower." I would be curious to learn more if these are semantically equivalent or if they have different connotations, and how those differences play out, so I might do some more reading here.Creyeditor wrote: ↑31 May 2022 00:11 Saya harus mandi.
1SG must take.a.shower
I must/should take a shower
Harus-nya saya mandi.
must-3SG.POSS 1SG take.a.shower
I should take a shower.
Creyeditor wrote: ↑31 May 2022 00:11I was wondering why the copula comes in between the first noun (phrase) and the case markers here. I was expecting the case marker to go with the noun phrase it belongs to. This looks very mysterious, in a good way.
First, lemme say that "mysterious, in a good way" is a wonderful compliment. Second, the 'Irish' solution is quite neat. And with respect to both, I really appreciate your comments and insights since I'm a big fan of a conlanging approach where I treat it as if I'm a field linguist trying to figure out what's going on in this wonky data we've run into. So thank you!
From a Doylist perspective, it's perhaps worth noting that Zevy started it's life as an attempt to create a "verbless" language. Since then I've become much less interested in defining it as such, but it remains the case that its "verbs" are not particularly syntactically different than its nouns.
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Linking words)
Sumeri famously puts all case endings in one word. Somali also has all the adpositions of the clause before the verb. So, I don't see the discontinuity of NPs such a problem and unnaturalistic that it should have some complicated syntactic analysis.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Linking words)
You're assuming that Somali and "Sumeri", whatever that is (a Papuan language? But in any case, if 'case endings' are all in one word, and not attached to their nouns, then by definition they aren't 'case endings') don't also have complicated syntax. In reality, Somali at least has very complicated syntactic analysis, because it's a very unusual language.
What Somali does is effectively polysynthesis, with big verb complexes that encode the entire structure of the sentence, and that don't actually require any nouns: effectively, the verbal complex has pronominal argument incorporation, with the actual noun phrases that the pronominal clitics corefer with not only being superfluous, but in some accounts not even being part of the same clause when present (but rather being parallel to topic-extracting constructions in English: so, rather than "I ate the spaghetti", it's "I ate it - the spaghetti"); these noun phrases aren't controlled by syntactic rules, at least on the sentence level, and can occur before or after the verb or in any order.
But six things should be borne in mind:
- as I said about voice/focus constructions in Austronesian, adpositional clitics in Somali are not unlimited, but are instead severely restricted to only four options (is it a coincidence that this is the limit in most Austronesian languages as well?).
- actual adpositional relations instead occur outside of the verbal complex as in a normal language, though diachronically they take the form of possessive constructions with locative nouns rather than of unanalysable adpositional particles
- the "adpositions" inside the verbal complex are NOT unattached to the pronouns they govern - instead, the pronouns are also incorporated, adjacent to the adpositions as expected, and even fusing with them; 'bare' adpositions do occur, but only with some third-person referents, and this could be explained as there being a zero-pronoun for some third persons depending on the discourse structure
- while it might seem ad hoc to resort to this, it must be remembered that discourse structure is The Big Thing about Somali: I don't know the details of when an overt third person pronoun is needed and when it is dropped (/uses a zero form), but Somali goes to obsessive lengths to overtly mark known and new information, with multiple focusing constructions, constructions only used when all referents are predictable, AND topicalisation constructions as well.
- on top of this, Somali has complicated patterns of agreement and anti-agreement, which both help make the sentence structure clear and might be related to pronoun dropping and the production of 'bare' adpositions
- finally, in addition to the 'adpositions' embedded with pronouns in the verbal complex, AND the locative nouns used adpositionally outside the verbal complex, AND role-sensitive patterns of focusing, topicalisation an agreement, we should of course note that Somali ALSO has actual noun cases marked by tone on the full noun itself (albeit only two of them).
So, to sum up: yes, Somali does some weird things; but no, that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up in the air and say "anything can go anywhere, there's no point trying to explain things". In reality, some of the weird things Somali does make OTHER weird things it does LESS weird, and some things probably wouldn't happen in Somali if those other things didn't also happen; and as a result there has been, in technical terms, a metric shit-ton of "complicated syntactic analysis" of exactly what Somali does and when and how and why.
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Linking words)
This is Sevly's thread so I don't think we should go to very philosophical discussions here.Salmoneus wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022 17:40
You're assuming that Somali and "Sumeri", whatever that is (a Papuan language? But in any case, if 'case endings' are all in one word, and not attached to their nouns, then by definition they aren't 'case endings') don't also have complicated syntax. In reality, Somali at least has very complicated syntactic analysis, because it's a very unusual language.
What Somali does is effectively polysynthesis, with big verb complexes that encode the entire structure of the sentence, and that don't actually require any nouns: effectively, the verbal complex has pronominal argument incorporation, with the actual noun phrases that the pronominal clitics corefer with not only being superfluous, but in some accounts not even being part of the same clause when present (but rather being parallel to topic-extracting constructions in English: so, rather than "I ate the spaghetti", it's "I ate it - the spaghetti"); these noun phrases aren't controlled by syntactic rules, at least on the sentence level, and can occur before or after the verb or in any order.
You can well make those analysis for Somali. I'm just saying the things can be described in a much easier way. All scientific theories are just instrumental means for understanding and forecasting things, not truths. Syntax theories are probably the most instrumental ones.
I am not assuming they do not have complicated syntax. I'm just saying you don't have to (if you don't want to) have such a complicated analyses for it. You can also just say that the PPs are discontinuous.
I mean Sumerian. It does funny things with genitives. (I'm not sure if it's just a writing convention, though.)
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Linking words)
back to table of contents
On this note, here's what my analysis of Zevy sentence structure has been in a loose generative grammar. First, I posit that its sentences are headed by a tense phrase which, in the simplest sentences, goes empty:
Zevy is generally head-final, and postpositions follow their complements. However, the tense slot prefers to be filled rather than empty, and the topmost postposition of the predicate can be (in fact, must be) raised to fill this slot:
The postposition on its own does not carry tense, but it can "borrow" tense from its complement noun phrase, if and only if that noun phrase carries tense. (This is another way of saying, if it's complement is a verbal noun):
Adjectives can also carry tense:
But true nouns cannot:
back to table of contents
On this note, here's what my analysis of Zevy sentence structure has been in a loose generative grammar. First, I posit that its sentences are headed by a tense phrase which, in the simplest sentences, goes empty:
Zevy is generally head-final, and postpositions follow their complements. However, the tense slot prefers to be filled rather than empty, and the topmost postposition of the predicate can be (in fact, must be) raised to fill this slot:
The postposition on its own does not carry tense, but it can "borrow" tense from its complement noun phrase, if and only if that noun phrase carries tense. (This is another way of saying, if it's complement is a verbal noun):
Adjectives can also carry tense:
But true nouns cannot:
back to table of contents
Last edited by Sevly on 26 Aug 2022 04:05, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Basic syntax trees)
I hope I didn't kill this thread. It's still interesting.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Basic syntax trees)
The syntactic analyses is interesting in being unexpected, because instead of starting from V-preposition-O-S and clefting the subject (as Sal suggested), you start from O-postposition-V-S and move the postposition to an intermediate position. Of course, reading mostly Minimalist Programm stuff, I am just not used to rightwards specifiers and rightwards movement. Anyway, building up expectations and not fulfilling them is kind of what makes this conlang interesting.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Basic syntax trees)
Not at all! Thank you for your comments, I appreciate hearing different perspectives. I've just been away due to a busy summer, one part COVID (ugh), the other part travel (yay!)
Thank you! I admit I may be straining certain boundaries of plausibility, very likely so in my analyses, but at least in the underlying data I like to think that this is exactly what makes language fun.Creyeditor wrote: ↑22 Jun 2022 14:56 The syntactic analyses is interesting in being unexpected, because instead of starting from V-preposition-O-S and clefting the subject (as Sal suggested), you start from O-postposition-V-S and move the postposition to an intermediate position. Of course, reading mostly Minimalist Programm stuff, I am just not used to rightwards specifiers and rightwards movement. Anyway, building up expectations and not fulfilling them is kind of what makes this conlang interesting.
And now, on to the next post:
Possession
Exploring how Zevy forms possessive phrases · 12 minute read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with its original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
Zevy has two primary ways of indicating possesion:
- The first is through the possessive prefixes di- "my", a- "your", and des- "our"
- The second is through the dative case, i.e. dit te "to me", dote "to you", and deses te "to us"
- The first way is that a thing can be possessed inalienably, meaning that it cannot be separated from its owner. An example of this is a body part: a hand is always someone's hand. Another example is a kinship terms: a sibling is always someone's sibling
- The second way is that a thing can be possessed alienably, meaning that it may be owned by one person at one time and then separated from it's first owner and owned by another person, or no one at all, at another time. An example of this would be a home, a pen, an idea, and so on
▾ Inalienable possession ▾
In Zevy, inalienably possessed items are often not marked for possession at all. Since the item must be possessed by someone, the owner is automatically inferred even when it hasn't been mentioned directly:
-
Dose me, baro te mu zo si ti.
[ˈdoɕe me ˈbaro tsem̩ ˈzo z ti]
mirror LOC, face DAT SUPE look be.1 PST
I looked at ⦗my⦘ face in the mirror.
-
Dose me, deren baro te mu zo si ti.
[ˈdoɕe me ˈderə baro tsem̩ ˈzo z ti]
mirror LOC, other face DAT SUPE look be.1 PST
I looked at another face in the mirror.
-
ades
[-- ˈwades]
-- 2.POSS-hand
your hand
-
dibaro
[-- ˈdibaro]
-- 1s.POSS-face
my face
-
desoken
[-- ˈdezokə]
-- 1p.POSS-sister
our sister
-
dote des
[-- ˈdots̩ des]
-- 2-DAT hand
your hand (incorrect)
-
dit te baro
[-- ˈdiθ ts̩ baro]
-- 1s DAT face
my face (incorrect)
-
deses te oken
[-- ˈdes ts̩ wokə]
-- 1p DAT sister
our sister (incorrect)
Tome says:
-
Soret su, ahoki mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə ˈwawoxi m̩ waɣi j deh]
teacher INST, 2POSS-ear ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch your ear.
-
Soret su, hoki mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə woxi m̩ waɣi j deh]
teacher INST, ear ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch ⦗your⦘ ear.
▾ Modifying inalienably possessed nouns ▾
An important extension is that depending on which of the two strategies is chosen above, there are different rules for what to do when the noun has another modifier such as an adjective. If the inalienably possessed noun was not marked, then the modifier appears in its usual location before the noun:
-
Gevan oken te nist mu men.
[ˈgeβə wokə ts̩ ˈnism̩mẽ]
older sister DAT trust ABS put
I trust my older sister.
-
Aoken gevan te nist mu men.
[ˈwawokə ˈgeβə ts̩ ˈnism̩mẽ]
2POSS-sister older DAT trust ABS put
I trust your older sister.
-
Aoken dit te ardon mu ema ti ha te nist mu men.
[ˈwawokə ˈdiθ ts̩ wardõ m̩ jemə h ha ts̩ ˈnism̩mẽ]
2POSS-sister 1s DAT promise ABS speak PST RSMP DAT trust ABS put
I trust the sister of yours who made me a promise.
-
Aoken dit te ardon mu ema ti ha te nist mu men.
[ˈwawokə ˈdiθ ts̩ wardõ m̩ jemə h ha ts̩ ˈnism̩mẽ]
I trust your sister the one who made me a promise.
-
Aoken gevan te nist mu men.
[ˈwawokə ˈgeβə ts̩ ˈnism̩mẽ]
2POSS-sister older_one DAT trust ABS put
I trust your sister ⦗the⦘ older ⦗one⦘.
Tome says:
-
Soret su, ahoki deren mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə ˈwawoxi ˈderə m̩ ˈwaɣi j deh]
teacher INST, 2POSS-ear other ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch your other ear.
-
Soret su, ahogaki mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə ˈwawoxi m̩ waɣi j deh]
teach INST, 2POSS-right_ear ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch your right ear.
▾ Alienable possession ▾
Let's jump now to alienable possessions. This is the more common type, as it simply means that the object could be possessed at one moment and then not possessed the next. "My face" is always my face, but "my book" today could be "your book" tomorrow.
First, it's worth noting that there are cases where Zevy also leaves alienable possession implied rather than explicit. This occurs less commonly than for inalienable possession, but it can be triggered quite reliably by certain phrases such as ttemu tere "favorite":
-
Ttemu tere teva mu, deu?
[ˈtstem̩tere teβə m̩ ˈzeo]
favorite book TOP, what
What's ⦗your⦘ favorite book?
Again, though, we have the option of explicitly marking the possessor. For alienable possessions, we can use either the prefix form or the dative form, and the choice between the two is entirely stylistic.
Tome chooses to use the dative form:
Tome says:
-
Soret su, dote iizo mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə ˈdots̩ jizo m̩ waɣi j deh]
teacher INST, 2=DAT belt ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch your belt.
Tome could have said:
-
Soret su, aiizo mu agi hi det.
[ˈsoreθ sə ˈwajizo m̩ waɣi j deh]
teacher INST, 2POSS-belt ABS touch be.3 IMP
Teacher says, touch your belt.
▾ Modifying alienably possessed nouns ▾
The freedom of choice we had before goes away when the noun is modified. As with the inalienably possessed nouns we saw above, Zevy does not allow a noun marked with a possessive prefix to take another modifier. However, unlike inalienably possessed nouns, which must work around this using apposition, alienably possessed nouns have the option of using the dative case, and that's exactly what they do:
-
Hat teva mu, deu hi me?
[ˈhaθ teβə m̩ ˈzeo j me]
long book TOP, what be.3 LOC
Where is the long book?
-
Hat ateva mu, deu hi me?
[-- ˈhaθ wateβə m̩ ˈzeo j me]
-- long 2.POSS-book TOP, what be.3 LOC
(ungrammatical)
-
Ateva hat mu, deu hi me?
[-- ˈwateβə haθ m̩ ˈzeo j me]
-- 2.POSS-book long TOP, what be.3 LOC
(grammatical, but stilted/formal/poetic)
-
Dote hat teva mu, deu hi me?
[ˈdots̩ haθ teβə m̩ ˈzeo j me]
2=DAT long book TOP, what be.3 LOC
Where is your long book?
▾ Third person possession ▾
When the possessor is another noun, or any of the third person pronominals, then the possessive is always formed through the dative. Compare and contrast:
-
Dibaro te mu zo hi det. not → " Dit te baro"
[ˈdibaro tsem̩ ˈzo j deh -- -- -- --]
1s.POSS-face DAT SUPE look be.3 IMP
Look at my face.
-
Datiis te baro te mu zo hi det.
[ˈdas ts̩ baro tsem̩ ˈzo j deh]
that:person DAT face DAT SUPE look be.3 IMP
Look at their face.
-
Zeti te baro te mu zo hi det.
[ˈzetsi ts̩ baro tsem̩ ˈzo j deh]
viewer DAT face DAT SUPE look be.3 IMP
Look at the viewer's face.
back to table of contents
Last edited by Sevly on 26 Aug 2022 22:58, edited 1 time in total.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Possession)
I like how the case particles almost act like some kind of 'light noun'.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Zevy notes (Now playing: Possession)
Ooo could you share more on what you mean by this? I'm not sure I quite understand.Creyeditor wrote: ↑26 Aug 2022 15:23 I like how the case particles almost act like some kind of 'light noun'.
And next up...
Vocatives
Exploring how Zevy forms terms of address · 10 minute read · back to table of contents
Note: You can read this post with its original formatting over at the Zevy wordbook here, or you can read the inline version below.
The vocative is a way of identifying the person whom one is speaking or writing to. In Zevy, there are two prefixes which are commonly used to do this:
- do- for the second person
- dese- for the first person plural
As seen from the examples, the pronunciation of the morpheme to which these prefixes attach is often reduced.
▾ How they're used ▾
Strictly speaking, these aren't simply vocative forms but are rather noun phrases that act as pronouns. By another name, we call them pronominals.
As such, they can appear anywhere in a sentence:
if someone asks:
-
Deu mu, mata te at?
[ˈzeo m̩ ˈmatə ts a]
INT ABS, park DAT go
Who is going to the park?
-
Dovund mu at.
[ˈdovð m a]
2:friend ABS go
You, friend, are going.
-
Dan ha me, dovund tedu rese mu mu moema.
[dã ˈha me ˈdovð tjed reze m̩ m̩ ’mojmə]
COMP RSMP LOC 2:friend at house of arrive ABS ABS IMP-say
Tell me when you get home, friend.
-
Vedesetritiis te make mu vemet hi me utnaka.
[ˈβedezetris ts̩ ˈmake m̩ βemeh ji me ˈhnakə]
NEG-1p-student DAT respect ABS NEG.AGR-put be.2 PRS teacher
The teacher doesn't respect us students.
▾ How they compare to third person forms ▾
Similar pronominals exist in the third person, formed using the following:
- da "that"
- ut "previous"
- ne "next"
one student asks:
-
Danaka ti zo hi me?
[ˈdanakə h zo j me]
that-teacher ABL see be.2 PRS
Do you see that teacher? ⦗over there⦘
-
Det, utnaka mu, deu?
[ˈdeh ˈhnakə m̩ ˈzeo]
yes previous-teacher TOP INT
Yes, what about that teacher? ⦗that you just mentioned⦘
-
Utnaka mu, nenaka temu hat: avaven!
[ˈhnakə m̩ ˈɲenakə tem̩ hah ˈwaβaβə]
previous-teacher TOP next-teacher above tall 2POSS-father
That teacher is taller than this teacher ⦗that I'm about to mention⦘: your dad!
-
Utnaka te det.
[ˈhnakə ts̩ deh]
previous-teacher DAT good
Good for them.
▾ Their other extensions ▾
It turns out that do- and dese- can be used in several other ways. In fact, these prefixes are so overloaded that we're just might have to watch out for power failures as we explain all the work they have to do....
Jokes aside, here wo go!
▾ The transient possessive ▾
In the notes on Possession, we talked about how Zevy expresses ownership; here, we revisit a variation of that. But to explain, let's go back in time and observe that the prefix do- is actually derived from the demonstrative do "this", which is the partner to da "that". As such, the historical meaning of phrases like dovund and donaka is simply "this friend" and "this teacher". Only over time did they come to be used as second-person terms of address.
This semantic drift has lead to the following intermediate meaning which appears when do- is used with inanimate objects. Here, the vocative interpretation makes little sense, as one would be unlikely to talk to an object. Instead, when used with inanimate objects, do- refers to something that is either physically close to the listener, or logically associated with them. For example:
-
Doteva mu men hi det donaka?
[ˈdoteβə m̩ mẽ j deh ˈdonakə]
2-book ABS give be.3 IMP 2-teacher
⦗Could you please⦘ give me that book ⦗near you⦘, teacher?
-
Doteva mu men hi det donaka?
⦗Could you please⦘ give me your book, teacher?
-
Azoi mu ini hi det dotritiis.
[ˈwazəi m̩ jiɲi j deh ˈdotris]
2POSS-sight ABS open be.3 IMP 2-student
Open your eyes, student.
▾ A note on politeness ▾
Note how in English, politeness is marked through indirection, using phrases like "Would you please." Those words don't appear in the original Zevy text. Instead, I've added them to the dynamic translation to reflect the politeness that Zevy conveys through other means.
First, intonation is critical: polite imperatives are coupled with the same rising intonation as questions, indicated in writing with the question mark. This parallels how English also uses questions rather than commands for politeness, though again Zevy has no additional auxiliaries.
Second, the choice of pronominal is crucial: the use of donaka in the original Zevy sentence is the mandatory polite form of "you" in this sentence, even if an idiomatic English translation might also simply be "Could you please give me that book near you?" in the context of a student speaking to a teacher. In phrases like these, the pronominal must be carefully selected to signal the speaker's stance towards the listener, and respect for the relationship between them.
▾ Vocatives vs. possession in the first person ▾
We saw above how in the second person, do- blurs the line between vocatives, demonstratives, and possession. This doesn't occur in the first person, however, where the pronominal and the possessive are instead distinct.
Here, dese- is strictly used for the pronominal, i.e. "we X" or "us X", while the related form des- is used for the possessive, "our X". These are derived from the same historical form, literally differing only in the addition or omission of an epethentic vowel. For example:
vocative:
-
Desetritiis mu tri hi det!
[ˈdezetris m̩ tri j deh]
1p-student ABS teach be.3 IMP
Teach us students!
-
Destritiis mu tri hi det!
[ˈdestris m̩ tri j deh]
1p.POSS-student ABS teach be.3 IMP
Teach our students!
▾ The temporal vocative ▾
Finally, there is one more neat way in which these prefixes can be used. Consider the following examples:
-
Desetesnei me dee.
[ˈdezetesɲəi me deje]
1p-patience LOC stand
Stand in the patient us.
-
Doku me isi.
[ˈdoku me jiɕ]
2-quiet LOC sit
Sit in the quiet you.
- do- or dese-,
- then some noun or adjective
- then the locative me
- then an auxiliary verb, either dee "stand" or isi "sit"
As a result, the examples above can be translated as follows:
-
Desetesnei me dee.
Stand in the patient us. → Let's be patient for a moment.
-
Doku me isi.
Sit in the quiet you. → Be quiet for a while.
Note that the examples above are interpreted in the imperative even though there is no mood marker. This is the default, but not the only possibility, as the temporal vocative can be explicitly marked for other combinations of tense, aspect, and mood. For example:
-
Naka mu tri mu nes me, deseku me isi si te.
[ˈnakə m̩ tri m̩ nes me ˈdezeku me ˌjiɕi z tje]
teacher ABS teach ABS start LOC, 1p-quiet LOC sit be.1 FUT
When the teacher starts talking, we will be quiet for a while. literally → "We will sit in the quiet us."
-
Dotesnei me dee ti isi hi me?
[ˈdotesɲei me deje h jiɕi j me]
2-patience LOC stand ABL sit be.3 PRS
Have you just been patient? literally → "Do you sit from standing in the patient you?"
back to table of contents