Ngolu / Iliaqu
Please don't compare the vocab with that of Wena /Ngehu. I shamelessly reuse vocabulary in various conlangs without any kind of system. They don't exist in the same universe.
Ngolu is a bit syntactically over the top, I think. I gave it a lot of ways to restructure sentences for extra flexibility, but sometimes I feel there are too many ways. Here's a bunch of different possibilities with subtle differences in meaning, if at all.
1) More or less direct translation. Can also mean "to the house".
Ha bio hu vu / uas exi mala.
Do you want to go/come to the house? / Do you want to go/come home.
Code: Select all
ha bio hu vu / ua -s exi mala
Q want go/come NOM.2S.ICS / NOM.2S.ACS-E DAT.3S.DEF.INAN house
[VP_____________] [NOM....................] [DAT.................]
2) With the destination incorporated into the predicate. The nominal
exi (≈ article, "to the") can optionally be incorporated into the predicate too, but for this to happen, it needs to be marked with the copula/verbaliser
g- /ŋ/ which allows it to sit within the verbal phrase prevents it from ending the verbal phrase and starting a new adjunct. Without the
gexi, the
mala could be taken to be definite or indefinite, specific or non-specific, but
gexi's inclusion emphasises its definiteness.
Ha bio hu (gexi) mala vu / ua?
Do you want to go/come home? / Do you want to go/come to a (the) house.
Code: Select all
ha bio hu (g- exi ) mala vu / ua
Q want go/come (VB-DAT.3S.DEF.INAN) house NOM.2S.ICS / NOM.2S.ACS
[VP__________________________________________] [NOM..................]
- Note that this sentence would also be grammatical with exi instead of gexi, but it is a highly marked word order because the nominative adjunct vu or ua here is "unfilled" (light, represented only by a single nominal) and the heavier filled dative adjunct exi mala would ordinarily come after it.) Simply having a long predicate phrase at the beginning of the sentence is not so marked, but even then, it can be split, with any adjunct being placed inside it somewhere and then the resumption of the predicate is marked with the predicate prefix i-, which basically allows for fronting or partial fronting of topics or light adjuncts and backing of excessively heavy verb phrases or parts of them (particularly of relative clauses within the verb phrase, which are just about always backed).
- Also note that the presence of gexi within the verb phrase makes hu "go/come" redundant, as a verbalised dative nominal can be used as a verb of motion (i.e. gexi "go to it", gexi mala "go to the house"). Hu "go/come to" does tend to emphasise the perfectiveness of a motion as opposed to the imperfective mia "be on the way to", but gexi would probably be interpreted as perfective anyway, so ... still redundant.
3) Probably the most compact and precise form is with the derivational prefix
e- added to
mala.
E- almost certainly has the same origin as the dative case marker on nominals, but it's derivational when added to a verbal (
mala = NOM is a house) to get another verbal (
emala = NOM goes home).
Emala specifically means "go/come home" and not just "go/come to any old house".
Ha bios emala vu / ua?
Do you want to go/come home?
Code: Select all
ha bio -s emala vu / ua
Q want-E go/come.home NOM.2S.ICS / NOM.2S.ACS
[VP____________________] [NOM....................]
Any of the above forms can be rearranged with any and/or all of the adjuncts fronted to the beginning or between any two words in the predicate phrase, any non-initial part of the predicate is marked with the
i- prefix. E.g. instead of
Ha bios emala ua?, any of the following could be used depending on wherever you feel like dropping the subject:
(1)
Ua iha bios emala?
Ua is very, conspicuously fronted and probably understood as a topic, such as when contrastic different people. I've just said what I want, but do
you want to go home?
(2)
Ha ua ibios emala?
I think this order is mostly used to draw attention to the fact that this is a question and it's aimed at you. "Hey, do you want to go home?"
Ha bio ua iemala?
I think this order emphasises that I'm really asking you what you want. It's up to you.
Thinking about it, I think the fronted element is a bit topicalised and also places emphasis on the immediately preceding part of the predicate phrase. I guess the result of all of this shifting around is that intonation is less likely to be used for emphasising different things and that's good because I'm already out of my depth with the simple and regular tone system, so I can just focus on making sure I pronounce/imagine the tones right.
And somehow I've managed to write the most on probably the most syntactically undemanding translation challenge.