To say "it's stopped raining" in Tobarese, the most direct translation that I have so far is:
- quwiyadzálumīt
[ʔʊwɪjɐˈd͡zɐlʊmɪːt]
q<uw><iy><adz>álum-ī-t
rain<PRF><INCEP><NEG>-SBJ.RANK5-be.moment
It has stopped raining.
Rather than a specific morpheme for "stop", "cease", you just say <iy><adz>, literally "begin not to". You could regard this as a morpheme on its own meaning "cease" because the negative infix is otherwise generally stressed: <ádz> and this is optional with the sequence <iy><adz>.
The equivalent of a dummy subject is generally
-īt, most literally meaning "time" or "moment" ... the moment has stopped raining. It's not
time as in a abstract temporal expanse, what a clock measures, "how much time?" — that would be
-ittót or, more poetically,
-uttót — but rather "time" as in a temporal location of an event or the temporal expanse of a longer event, a moment, a duration.
E.g. with the base
máš meaning "be what?",
mášīt, with this dummy subject meaning, can be used as a way to say "What's up?", "What's going on?", or, with the literal meaning of
t it can also be used as a way to say "when?" (although the subject-predicate reversal of that,
timmáš, is how that's usually expressed). By contrast,
mášittót is the much more philosophical question "What is time?
"
It could also be done with the existential root
y(án) in the predicate and
-iqqálum "rain" in the subject position.
- Yuwiyadzániqqálum.
[jʊwɪjɐˈd͡zɐnɪˌʔːɐlʊm]
y<uw><iy><adz>án-ī-qálum
exist<PRF><INCEP><NEG>-SBJ.RANK5-rain
There has ceased to be rain.
The rain has ceased to exist.
The difference between these two structures is not really about a noun/verb distinction (
to rain vs
(some) rain) as both of these structures are available for any lexical item. The structure with
y(án) tends to be a bit more about static situations and
-īt for processes that are relatively temporary. For example:
- Y(án)ittšqén.
y(án)-ī-tšqén
exist-SBJ.R5-be.people.PEJ
Ew, there are people (in existence).
Ew, people exist.
- Tšqénīt.
tšqén-ī-t
be.people.PEJ-SBJ.R5-be.moment
Ew, there are people (at the moment).
"Ew, it's peopling."
To say "No, it's still raining, you start with a word for "no",
kq(a) [k’(ɐ)] or
dziā [d͡z(j)æː] and use the continuative infix <omb> to say "still".
- Dziā, qombálumīt.
[d͡z(j)æː | ʔɔˈmbɐlʊmɪːt]
dz-iā | q<omb>álum-ī-t
be.NEG-SR/PROP rain<continue>-SBJ.R5-be.moment
No, it's still raining.
You could use the progressive aspect marker
<ay> as well:
qayombálumīt but it's facultative rather than obligatory, so generally unnecessary.
___________________________
And to go with the most direct translation of my interpretation of the original English sentence:
It stopped raining.
- Qiziyadzálumīt.
q<iz><iy><adz>álum-ī-t
rain<PST><INCEP><NEG>-R5-be.moment
It stopped raining.
Without any surrounding temporal context, the most appropriate response to this would be:
- Timmáš?
t-ī-má-š
be.moment-R5-be.what-POL
When?
It's still raining /
Qombálumīt doesn't contradict this because the simple past, in my dialect of English, and the past tense marker <iz> indicate that we're talking about a past event without any associated claim about the present. It did indeed stop raining many times in the past, but which one of those times are you talking about? I find the disappearance of this distinction in American English pretty weird.
(To be clear, I don't mean linguistically weird. I know that distinction gets lost very easily and in central-western Europe, it's generally been lost in favour of the present perfect — so why not in favour of the simple past? I mean weird as in, kind of jarring to me as it clashes with my internal grammar and sounds distinctly non-native to me even though native speakers of North American Englishes regularly do this.)
___________________________
(Is there a way to indent here without adding a bullet point?)