Kobardon - Lingua Franca used in Frédauon

[Creyeditor]

So, after years of working on a reference grammar of Kobardon, I thought I'd start a thread on it. Maybe this will motivate me to fill in the gaps, especially when it comes to examples and explanations. Because most gaps are in the syntax part, I will start with this part of the grammar sketch. Some very basic information beforehand. Kobardon is a naturalistic artlang, intended as an in-world equivalent to our Latin *here* and inspired by Swedish, Japanese, Swahili, Latin, and English.

Edit: Note on Romanization
Kobardon romanization is pretty shallow and phonemic. The only differences from IPA concern <i> and <u>, which are used for /j/ and /w/ (if adjacent to vowels) as well as /i/ and /u/, respectively, and pitch accent. Pitch accent is marked by an acute accent on the root syllable for accented roots. Words including accented roots generally have a peaking or rising-falling pitch contour, whereas words with unaccented roots (no acute on the root) have a dipping or falling-rising pitch contour.

Causatives and Resultatives

Causative verbs can be grouped into two categories: simple causatives and complex causatives. Simple causative verbs are transitive verbs derived from the same root as an intransitive verb. This intransitive verb has a basic meaning and the transtive verb has the corresponding causative meaning. An example for a simple causative is given in (2), derived from the intransitive verb in (1).

(1) Azon brádat.
a-zon brád-at
1SG.S-dissappear quiet-SG
'I dissappear quietly.'

(2) Azono brádat.
a-zon-o brád-at
1SG.S-dissappear-3.O quiet-SG
`I make him dissappear quietly.'

Complex causative verbs cannot form a causative on their own. They use a periphrastic construction with the transitive verb apúuo I cause s.th., I bring s.th. about, I make s.th. happen, I trigger s.th.. This strategy is obligatory for a causative construction derived from a transitive verb form, as in the example in (3).

(3) Apúuo debarvor.
a-púu-o de-barv-or.
1SG.S-cause-3.O 3SG.S-love-1.O
`I made him love us.'

Relatedly, resultative constructions are relatively complex. They use an ut-clause with the resulting property or action following the causing action. The ut-clause might contain a copula for certain result states but not for all of them, as shown in the example in (4).

(4) Debamfo ut devuz.
de-bamf-o ut de-vuz
3SG.S-strangle-3.O to 3SG.S-be.dead
`She strangled him dead.'

[DesEsseintes]

Three things:

1) Lovely, simple aesthetic. The hint of Swahili is there and yet it feels very “safe”, which is fitting for a classiclang. (Entirely subjective opinions obviously)

2) I like the nod to Latin by using the word ut. However, your language has no subjunctive I’m guessing from the glosses?

3) de- as the 3sg prefix is lovely; I want to steal it. Are there vowel-initial stems and if so, what happens?

[Creyeditor]

Thank you for your comments.
1) Yes, I also like the 'safe' feeling which might be the reason I have been working on Kobardon more than on my more 'adventurous' conlangs.
2) You are right, no subjunctive. In fact, most tense-aspect-mood information is expressed by adverbs in Kobardon. The only other possiblity is to use action nominalizations instead of embedded clauses, but only in a very limited set of contexts. Oh, and ut is a nod to English, because (i) it is a metathesized version of English to and means to, (ii) it is a preposition, a marker of embedded clauses, and can means (in order) to and (iii) it is both a marker of relative clauses and complement clauses, like English that. Of course, it is also a nod to Latin.
3) Feel free to use it. Still feels Latin to me. The basic idea is that glides [j] and [w] (written as <i> and <u>) occur to resolve vowel hiatus. This gives me lots of nice <ii> and <uu>, which I enjoy. This is actually also the case for example (3). The intransitive form of this verb is apú, the glide only shows up if there is a suffix. Oh, and it also messes a bit with the pitch accent but more on that at some later point.

[Creyeditor]

Cleft sentences

In order to put contrastive focus on a noun phrase or to focus a topic noun phrase, a cleft construction can be used. This includes a definite third person pronoun den that is followed by a relative clause (introduced by ut) and a form of the copula adibo I am something or someone plus the focused noun phrase. These cleft sentences are the only strategy used to focus subjects, as in the example in (5). (5a) provides an example for with a transitive verb, and (5b) with an intransitive verb. Clefting can also (less frequently) be used to focus other constituents like objects and adverbials, as in (6). (6a) shows an object cleft and (6b) shows an adverbial cleft. Adverbials and objects can also be focused by altering the prosodic phrasing and thereby the intonational patterns. This strategy is not available for subjects.

(5) Examples of subject clefts
a. Den, ut dedako vúnda, dedibor nor.
den, ut de-dak-o vúnd-a, de-dib-or nor
3SG.S REL 3SG.S-want-3.O water-INDEF.SG 3SG-COP.NOM-1.O 1SG.O
`I want (some) water. (lit. It, that wants water, is me.)'
b. Den, ut denons, dedibo nonson.
den, ut de-nons, de-dib-o nons-on
3SG.S REL 3SG.S-shine 3SG.S-COP.NOM-3.O sun-DEF.SG
`THE SUN is shining (lit. It, that is shining, is the sun.)'

(6) Examples of clefts involving objects and adverbials
a. Den, ut adako, dedibo vúnda.
den, ut a-dak-o, de-dib-o vúnd-a
3SG.S REL 1SG.S-want-3.O 3SG.S-COP.NOM-3.O water-INDEF.SG
`I want (some) WATER. (lit. It, that I want, is water.)'
b. Den, ut o bivírn, dedibo trúfifon.
den, ut o bi-vírn, de-dib-o trúfif-on
3SG.S REL during 1PL.S-gather 3SG.S-COP.NOM-3.O break-SG.DEF
`We gathered during the BREAK. (lit. It, during which we gathered, was the break.)'

[Creyeditor]

Embedded clauses and Action Nominalizations

Embedded clauses can be instantiated as three seperate constructions. In the first construction, a complement clause is introduced by the particle ut. The verb keeps it inflectional morphology and all arguments and adverbs are present, just as they would be in a non-embedded clause. These complement clauses mostly occur as objects of clause-embedding verbs and only rarely as subjects of verbs. In either case the embedded clause triggers third person (singular) agreement on the verb. Clause-embedding verbs also include modal verbs, like atroso I should do s.th., I must do s.th. (7a), phasal verbs as in (7c), perception verbs as in (7d), and cognitive verbs as in (7e). Neither action nominalizations nor ut-clauses can be separated from the verb by and adverbial.

(7) ut complement clauses
a. Retroso ut redorso.
re-tros-o ut re-durs-o
2SG.S-must-3.O to 2SG.S-leave-3.O
`You should leave him/her.'
b. Abrengo ut adurso.
a-breng-o ut a-durs-o
1SG.S-can-3.O to 1SG.S-leave-3.O
`I am able to leave him/her.'
c. Rekurdo ut redurso.
re-kurd-o ut re-durs-o
2SG.S-keep-3.O to 2SG.S-leave-3.O
`You keep leaving him/her.'
d. Asirbo ut redurso.
a-sirb-o ut re-durs-o
1SG.S-see-3.O to 2SG.S-leave-3.O
`I see you leaving him/her.'
e. Abrinto ut redurso.
a-brint-o ut re-durs-o
1SG.S-know-3.O to 2SG.S-leave-3.O
`I know that you are leaving him/her.'

A similar construction involves the action nominalization infix <ab>. The nominalization can appear as any argument of a verb. The construction consists of the matrix verb embedding the action nominalization, usually in its indefinite singular form and potentially with a possessor prefix. There is an important difference to embdedded clauses with ut. Action nominalizations are non-finite and do not take any core arguments. If they are marked for a possessor, the referent is interpreted as a benefactive oblique or as a causer. An agent cannot be added. As for the semantic of the action itself, both action and event readings are possible. Action nominalizations can only be embedded by phasal and modal verbs. Action nominalizations can only refer to a generalized non-time restricted interpretation of the verb, whereas ut-clauses can additionally refer to a concrete time-restricted instance of an event.

(8) Embedded action nominalization with <ab>
a. Retroso kodabursa.
re-tros-o ko-d<ab>urs-a
2SG.S-must-3.O 1SG.POSS-<NMLZ.ACT>leave-INDEF.SG
`You should leave for my benefit/because of me.'
b. Abrengo kodabursa.
a-breng-o ko-d<ab>urs-a
1SG.S-must-3.O 1SG.POSS-<NMLZ.ACT>leave-INDEF.SG
`I am able to leave for my own benefit/at my own terms.'
b. Rekurdo unidaburso.
re-kurd-o uni-d<ab>urs-a
2SG.S-continue-3.O 3SG.POSS-<nmlz.act>leave-INDEF.SG
`You keep leaving for his benefit/because of him.'

The third construction here are bare clauses. A subset of verbs can embedd an ut-clause and optionally drop the ut. These bare clauses can only occur as the object of psych-verbs, e.g. abrinto I know s.th., I am aware of s.th. in (9).

(9) Abrinto redurso.
a-brint-o re-durs-o.
1.SG.S-know-3.O 2SG.S-leave-3.O
`I know you are leaving him/her.'

Here is a quick summary of embedding verbs and their possible embedded clauses.

• Modal verbs: ut-clause, action nominalization
• Phasal verbs: ut-clause, action nominalization
• Desiderative verbs: ut-clause
• Perception verbs: ut-clause
• Knowledge verbs: bare clause, ut-clause
• Propositional verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause
• Attitude verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause
• Utterance verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause

Edit: Added something on the semantics of action nominalizations, thank to Omzinesý.

[Creyeditor]

This was the section on sentential syntax. How did you all like it? I guess there should be a section on adverbial clauses but maybe these are just to similar to adverbial phrases, idk. In general, clauses can be linked by particles in Kobardon to form complex sentences.

Spoiler:

Let's continue with clausal syntax. Here we go!

---

Passive Voice
The passive voice is marked with the suffix -aba. The allophony of this suffix is described in detail in the morphology section. It can only attach to verbs that have a suffix prefix and no object suffix. The meaning is generally that of the transitive verb derived from the root. The subject, however, takes the role of the object of a normal transitive verb. The `old' subject cannot be reintroduced and is neither implied nor necessarily linked to any extralinguistic context.

(10) Regular passives
a. Rebárvor.
re-bárv-or
2SG.S-give-1.O
`You love me'
b. Abárvaba.
a-bárv-aba
1SG.S-love-PASS
`I am loved.'

Note that some verbs have a potential irregular passive interpretation. Instead of promoting the former subject to object, some oblique is found in the new subject position of the object.

(11) Irregular passives
a. Aiúrzum.
a-iúrz-um
1SG.S-give-2.O
`I give s.th. to you.'
b. Aiúrzaba.
a-iúrz-aba
1SG.S-give-PASS
`I am given s.th.'
c. Deiúrzaba.
de-iúrz-aba
3SG.S-give-PASS
`He/She is given s.th.' or `Something is given to s.o.'

[Creyeditor]

Optative Inversion

In order to form commands and encouragement for action, the order of a subject pronoun and the verb are inverted. The verb occurs before the subject pronoun. No other word can intervene between the two and the object stays in its position that now follows the subject pronoun and is not next to the verb anymore. The form of the verb does not change. These can be used with any subject pronoun of any person or number. With the second person pronouns they are equivalent to imperatives in other languages.

(12) Examples for optative inversion in third and second person.
a. Denonso den pabódaion.
de-nons-o den pabódai-on
3SG.S-shine-3.O 3SG.DEF.S feast-DEF.SG
`May it shine on the feast'
b. Retrúfif ren, atróso ut avídamp.
re-trú<fi>f ren a-trós-o a-vi<da>mp
2SG.S-end<DIM> 2SG.S 1SG.S-must-3.O to 1SG.S-ponder<AUG>
`Hold on, I need to concentrate...'

(13) Syntactic structure of optative inversion

Spoiler:

Optative inversion is only possible with pronouns. Proper names and common nouns cannot be the subject in an inversion. A sentence with an inverted main verb and such a subject is ungrammatical. Instead, the noun or name has to be preposed as a vocative and a anaphoric subject pronoun is inserted that can undergo inversion.

(14) Optatives with vocative nouns
a. Nonson, denonso den pabódaion.
nons-on, de-nons-o den pabódai-on
sun-SG.DEF 3SG.S-shine-3.O 3SG.DEF.S feast-DEF.SG
`May the sun shine on the feast'
b. Frimfon, retrúfif ren, atróso ut avídamp.
frimf-on re-trú<fi>f ren a-trós-o a-vi<da>mp
frimf-SG.DEF 2SG.S-end<DIM> 2SG.S 1SG.S-must-3.O to 1SG.S-ponder<AUG>
`Hold on Frimfon, I need to concentrate...'

[Omzinesý]

• Modal verbs: ut-clause, action nominalization
• Phasal verbs: ut-clause, action nominalization
• Desiderative verbs: ut-clause
• Perception verbs: ut-clause
• Knowledge verbs: bare clause, ut-clause
• Propositional verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause
• Attitude verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause
• Utterance verbs: bare-clause, ut-clause

I like how much you have thought about the syntax. People usually just list complement clauses and ANs and never tell when you use tem.
Btw, is there some minor difference in using one of the two strategies if both a allowed?

[Creyeditor]

Yes, but...
I'm kind of in a difficult situation here. At first, I wanted nominalizations to imply that the agent is different, e.g. I like swim-NMLZ coud mean that you like to watch somebody else swim. I still wanted nominalizations to be super rare though. Then I looked up the typology of deranking and found that the two most likely contexts for deranking, i.e. my nominalizations, are modal and phasal verbs. Now, I find it hard to imagine somebody saying I can swim-NMLZ which is supposed to mean I can [insert verb here] somebody else swim.
Maybe one of you all has an idea on how to solve this? I guess in essence I could still say that these nominalized verbs do not specify the agent so they could be used in such contexts even if they are rare? Maybe? I.am really unssure about this. What do you think?

[Omzinesý]

Yes, but...
I'm kind of in a difficult situation here. At first, I wanted nominalizations to imply that the agent is different, e.g. I like swim-NMLZ coud mean that you like to watch somebody else swim. I still wanted nominalizations to be super rare though. Then I looked up the typology of deranking and found that the two most likely contexts for deranking, i.e. my nominalizations, are modal and phasal verbs. Now, I find it hard to imagine somebody saying I can swim-NMLZ which is supposed to mean I can [insert verb here] somebody else swim.
Maybe one of you all has an idea on how to solve this? I guess in essence I could still say that these nominalized verbs do not specify the agent so they could be used in such contexts even if they are rare? Maybe? I.am really unssure about this. What do you think?

Yes, it is a very rare instance that you say you want X do something but don't say who X is.
But SS is a semantic feature of nonfiniteness and it would be strange if your most nonfinite verb form only appears with DS. If you want ANs to appear with DS only, I think you should have another nonfinite verb form for SS. You don't like infinitives?

[Creyeditor]

The whole idea at the beginning was to go for a Balkan-style no infinitives approach. So I would rather not introduce infinitives. I see your point on DS and I should probably get rid of this. Maybe action nominalizations could be aspectually more restricted and only refer to a specific (potentially prementioned) instance of an event with a clear starting point and endpoint? That would mean that 'I start ut I swim' can mean that I go to the public pool now once a week, whereas 'I start <ab>swim' could not mean that. Instead the latter could only be used if I just jumped into the water. Does that make sense?

[Omzinesý]

The whole idea at the beginning was to go for a Balkan-style no infinitives approach. So I would rather not introduce infinitives. I see your point on DS and I should probably get rid of this. Maybe action nominalizations could be aspectually more restricted and only refer to a specific (potentially prementioned) instance of an event with a clear starting point and endpoint? That would mean that 'I start ut I swim' can mean that I go to the public pool now once a week, whereas 'I start <ab>swim' could not mean that. Instead the latter could only be used if I just jumped into the water. Does that make sense?

Things are appear in space and events appear in time. The idea in nonfiniteness is to make verbs less eventlike.
So, using ANs for something restricted in time and a finite clause for something unrestricted in time still goes against typology.
Though, I cannot say when something is so strange that it is unnatural and when something just is just an exception of a tendency. What does unnatural even mean.
If ANs are always definite, they could maybe OK, I think.

My suggestion is that the use of ANs is syntactically restricted to subjects.
"[Conlanging] is fun."
"I like that I conlang."

If you want to allow it appear in other cases to make it more nounlike, if Kobardon has noun cases, it could appear sporadically in other roles, say, to sound formal and old-fashioned.

[Creyeditor]

I really want to keep the restriction to certain argument/roles for the bare clauses. If verbs are restricted in time, maybe ANs could be restricted to being less restricted in temporal reference if that makes sense? So, 'I start <AN>swim' could only mean that I started going to the public pool on tuesdays, whereas 'I start ut I swim' could also mean I just jumped into the water? That sounds vaguely more plausible to me. Plus it mirrors the English pattern, cf. I started swimming vs. I started to swim. Which is nice because the syntax is explicitly inspired by English. Did I get the general tendency right?

[Omzinesý]

That sounds very good.
My text book of Modern Standard Arabic actually explained the distinction between ANs and complement clauses that way. I don't know if Arabic really does so.

[Creyeditor]

Content questions

Content questions use question words derived from the root uúu. Subjects and objects can be elicited with the noun derived from this root: uúua. Usually, no distinction is made between the two meanings, i.e. there is no difference between animate and inanimate referents. If the distinction has to be made more explicit, the adjectival form uúuar `which' can be used. This form can modify any noun, but is especially frequent with the nouns nigi `person' to signify \textit{who} and pruua `what'.

(15) Subject and object content questions
a. Uúua desónt?
uúu-a de-sónt
who-SG.INDEF 3SG.S-shout
`Who shouted?'
b. Esirbo uúuos et vorvon fridam?
e-sirb-o uúu-os et vorv-on frid-am
2PL.S-see-3.O what-PL.INDEF at lake-DEF.SG yesterday-PL
`What did you see at the lake yesterday?'

The adverbial question word uúuat can either mean `when' or `where'. If the difference is important, the meanings can be differentiated by using the adjectival form uúuar combined with nouns, e.g. féka `place'. Note that these always need a prepositional particle ik in.

(16) Adverbial questions
a. Tradon demirb uúuat póiat?
trad-on de-mirb uúuat pói-at
catbird-DEF.SG 3SG.S-play where-SG. now-SG
`Where is the catbird playing?'
b. Bivírn uúuat?
bi-vírn uúu-at
1PL.S-gather where-SG
`When/Where will we gather?'

If an attributive adjective is questioned, the adjectival form uúuar of the question word is used again. Note that this word cannot be used to question predicative adjectives. It can, however, be used to question quantities. The adjectival question word always follows the noun it modifies and agrees in number and definiteness like any other adjective.

(17) Attributive questions
a. Vírna uúuar desónt?
vírn-a uúu-ar de-sónt
crowd-SG.INDEF which-SG.INDEF 3SG.S-shout
`Which/How many people shouted?'
b. Esirbo drinza uúuar et vorvon fridam?
e-sirb-o drinz-a uúu-ar et vorv-on frid-am?
2PL.S-see-3.O swamp_eel-SG.INDEF which-SG.INDEF at lake-DEF.SG yesterday-PL
`What kind of swamp eel did you see at the lake yesterday?'

The intransitive verb form deuú of the question word is special in that it does not directly correspond to a question word in English. Instead it can be roughly translated as `to do what'. In a simple question, it is used to question verbs and predicative adjectives.

(18) Verbal questions
a. Tradon deuú ik bíngon póiat?
trad-on de-uú ik bíng-on pói-at
catbird-DEF.SG 3SG.S-do_what in rain now-SG
`What is the catbird doing in the rain?'
b. Euú?
e-uú
2PL.S-do_what
`What are you doing?' or `How are you?'

If the intransitive question verb is embedded in an ut-clause, the question can be answered by giving a purpose or a reason. If it is embedded in a clause that is introduced by the particle in, it can only elicit a cause. These uses can be translated into English as `why'.

(19) Questions of cause and purpose
a. Demiio profar ut deuú?
de-mii-o prof-ar ut de-uú
3SG.S-COP.ADJ-3.O alive-SG.DEF to 3SG.S-do_what
`Why is he still alive?'
b. Vírna desónt ut deuú?
vírn-a de-sónt ut de-uú
crowd-SG.INDEF 3SG.S-shout to 3SG.S-do_what
`Why did the people shout?'

[Creyeditor]

Simple Adverbs and Adverbial Phrases

Adverbs and adverbial phrases always occur in clause-final position. This means that they always follow the verb and any direct object, if present. There are no ordering restrictions between adverbs, they can be freely reordered. Adverbs and adverbials specify context conditions, e.g. time, manner, location, causes and the attitude of the speaker. Adverbs are simple words that take the adverbial inflection. One domain of meaning that is covered by simple adverbs is temporal reference. Instead of using past tense, present tense and future tense forms of verbs, simple adverbs are optionally added in the specific contexts.

(20) Examples of time adverbs
a. Kotrada dedurso iépat.
ko-trad-a de-durs-or iép-at
1SG.POSS-catbird-INDEF.SG 3SG.S-leave-1.O PST-SG
`A catbird of mine left me'
b. Debíng póiat.
de-bíng pói-at
3SG.S-rain now-SG
`It's raining.'
b. Bíngon detrúf bronat.
bíng-on de-trúf bron-at
rain-SG.DEF 3SG.S-stop FUT-SG
`The rain will stop.'

Adverbial phrases are more complex. They consist of a particle and either a noun phrase or a clause. The particle is interpreted as a preposition or a conjunction depending on the constituent it is combined with.

(21) Examples of adverbial phrases
a. Tradon demirb ik bíngon póiat.
trad-on de-mirb ik bíng-on pói-at
catbird-DEF.SG 3SG.S-play in rain now-SG
`The catbird is playing in the rain.'
b. Kotrada dedursor iépat id esirbo drinza et vorvon fridat.
Ko-trad-a de-durs-or iép-at id e-sirb-o drinz-a et vorv-on frid-at
1SG.POSS-catbird-INDEF.SG 3SG.S-leave-1.O PST-SG because 2PL.S-see-3.O swamp_eel-SG.INDEF at lake-DEF.SG yesterday-SG
`A catbird of mine left me because you saw a swamp eel at the lake yesterday.'

[Creyeditor]

Negation and Polar Questions

Negation and polar questions are formed with the sentence final adverbs sirat and sérat.

(21) Examples of negative and question adverbs
a. Abrint sirat.
a-brint sira-t
3SG.S-know NEG-SG
`He doesn't know anything.'
b. Abrint sérat.
a-brint sér-at
3SG-know Q-SG
`Does he know anything?'

Note that these adverbs agree with the subject in number only. There is no definitness agreement between negation/question adverbs and the subject. These adverbs can be freely ordered with any other adverbials. They follow objects. These objects can also be generic nouns or indefinite pronouns.

(22) Example of a generic noun under negation
Asirbo sirar nigi.
a-sirb-o nig-i sir-ar
3SG.S-know-3.O person-SG.INDEF NEG-SG\\
`He doesn't see anybody.'

[Creyeditor]

Copular Clauses

Kobardon has three different copula verbs that are used in different contexts: the locative copula aféko, the nominal copula adibo, and the adjectival/existential copula amii(o). The locative copula aféko is used for locations and --- in a figurative sense --- for some temporary states. It is a transitive verb and takes the figure, i.e. the item/person that is located, as its subject and the ground, i.e. the place where the thing/person is located, as its direct object. Note that no particle is used to indicate the ground, but relational nouns are still possible. Adverbs follow the locational object.

(23) Locative Copula
a. Drinzon deféko vorvon.
drinz-on de-f\=ek-o vorv-on
swamp_eel-SG.DEF 3SG.S-COP.LOC-3.O lake-DEF.SG
`The swamp eel is at the lake.'
b. Pukon deféko unidrimfon genzon.
puk-on de-fék-o uni-drimf-on genz-on
teacher-SG.DEF 3SG.S-COP.LOC-3.O 3.POSS-front-SG.DEF tavern-SG.DEF \\
`The teacher is in front of the tavern'

The locative copula is also used in the presentative construction. In this construction the ground is left implicit, but the clause is modified by the adverb fékat here. The thing to present is the subject of the intransitive locative copula.

(24) Presentative construction
a. Aféko fékat.
a-fék-o fék-at
1SG.S-COP.LOC-3.O here-SG
`Here I am!'
b. Nebráius seféko fékam.
ne-brái-us se-fék-o fék-am.
2.POSS-rope-DEF.PL 3SG.S-COP-LOC-3.O here-PL
`Here are your ropes!'

The nominal copula adibo is used to express identity of two noun phrases. It can also express membership or a subset relation. The subject will be generally the member and the object will be the group that the subject is a member of. Additionally, it is sometimes used in combination with a possessive construction to express more general relationships, e.g. kinship relations.

(25) Nominal Copula
Kobánzon dedibo freka.
ko-bánz-on de-dib-o frek-a
1.POSS-spouse-DEF.SG 3SG.S-COP.NOM-3.O chief-INDEF.SG
`My spouse is a chief.'

The adjectival copula amiio is mostly used for essential properties. It is special in that the subject is a noun phrase, but the direct object is an adjectival phrase. It is also sometimes used for temporary properties, especially if they lack a proper nominal form that could be used with the locative copula aféko.

(26) Adjectival Copula
a. Drinzus semiio gribas.
drinz-us se-mii-o grib-as
swamp_eel-PL.INDEF 3PL.S-COP.ADJ-3.O nice.to.touch-INDEF.SG
`Swamp eels are nice to touch.'
b. Unikirnon demiio gruran.
uni-kirn-on de-mii-o grur-an
3POSS-finger-DEF.SG 3SG.S-COP.ADJ-3.O serpentine-SG.DEF\
`His finger is serpent-like.'

The adjectival copula can also be used to specify the quantity or number of a referent.

(27) Adjectival copula indicating quantity
a. Drinzos semiio nérgas.
drinz-os se-mii-o nérg-as
swamp_eel-PL.INDEF 3PL.S-COP.ADJ-3.O many-INDEF.PL
`Swamp eels were abundant.'
b. Grurus semiio frimfur.
grur-us se-mii-o frimf-ur.
water_snake-DEF.PL 3PL.S-COP.ADJ-3.O two-DEF.PL
`The water snakes came in a group of two.'

The existential copula ami is used to express the existence of its subject. This can mean either existence in general or presence in a specific context. Note that this copula is intransitive and does not take a direct object.

(28) Existential copula
a. Trada demi.
trad-a de-mi
catbird-INDEF.SG 3SG.S-COP.EXIST
`There is a catbird.'
b. Trentos semi.
trent-os se-mi
god-INDEF.SG 3PL.S-COP.EXIST
`There are gods.'

The same copula is also used for predicative possession. The subject is a possessor marked noun phrase. The copula agrees with this subject.

(29) Existential copula in a possession construction
Kotrada demi.
ko-trad-a de-mi
1SG.POSS-catbird-INDEF.SG 3SG.S-COP.EXIST
`I have a catbird.'

Copular sentences are special in that they do not allow optative inversion. Instead, a modal verb atroso I must do s.th. is used. Similarly, passive constructions are blocked, with an indefinite pronoun taking its job.

(30) Examples of modal verbs as a optative copula substitute
Retroso reféko vorvon.
re-tros-o re-fék-o vorv-on
2SG.S-must-3.O 2SG.S-COP.LOC-3.O lake-DEF.SG
`Be at the lake!'

(31) Examples of indefinite pronoun as a passive copula substitute
De deféko vorvon.
de de-fék-o vorv-on
3SG.INDEF 2SG.S-must-3.O 2SG.S-COP.LOC-3.O lake-DEF.SG
`The lake was dwelled at. '

[Creyeditor]

Basic Clausal Word Order

The basic word order in Kobardon clauses is SVOX. The subject is followed by the verb, which in turn precedes the object. Any adverbials or prepositional phrase attach to the right.

(32) Basic Clausal Word Order
Keton denonso pabódaia fridat.
sunset-DEF.SG 3SG.S-shine-3.O feast-INDEF.SG yesterday-SG
`The sunset shines on a feast'

(33) An example syntactic structure

Spoiler:

For a deviation of this scheme in optative contexts, see above. Additionally, cleft sentence, while in principle still following SVOX formula, can vary the order of the lexical verb, its argument and any adverbials.

---

So, this were the sections on clausal and sentential syntax. How did you all like it?
A) a bit too dry
B) too much text
C) too many examples
D) not enough explanation
E) not enough examples
F) boring English-like
G) strangely artificial
H) lots and lots of typos
I) it was alright

[eldin raigmore]

I) it was alright!