Sevvuferyn Semantics

HHi vs HHiju

Both of these words mean "what".

"HHi" is the more common version, and is what one is more likely to encounter in the wild. However, when someone is being very emphatic about it, they may say "hhiju" instead to draw your attention to it.

Compare the following:

"HH'ysers TÏII?"

(What did he say to her?)

and

"HHij'ysers TÏII?"

(What did he say to her?)

In each sentence, a different component is emphasised.

How to deal with elision

So, elision happens all the time, both in Sevvuferyn words and sentences, and is often used either for quicker speaking or to sound more poetic. The main issue, I suppose, is this: should it be shown in writing? And there is no correct answer. The simple justification for both sides is as follows: those who do not show the effects of elision in writing do not want to confuse readers who may be new to the language/unfamiliar with the specific lexicon that a given work of literature deals with. Those who do show the effects of elision in their writing do not want to waste time with expressions that are easy to figure out and/or most readers will already know.

For example, many Sevvuferyn writers will not include the "i" in the word "hhi(ju)", meaning "what", as it has become convenient to drop this syllable in speech. Thus, for example, the sentence "what did you do?" becomes "hh'ova?" from "hhi ova?". However, some writers may want to keep this in its uncontracted form. Similarly, consonants can get elided, as is shown by the sentence "can you do it?" in whose Sevvuferyn translation, "soå tejsow IN on?", it has become common to drop the initial "t" of "tejsow", because that makes the sentence easier to pronounce, and thus it becomes "soå'ejsow IN on?"

It is worth noting that in official texts and documents, the effects of elision are NOT to be applied under any circumstances.

Hyla vs yyizyn

Both of these words mean "a lot of/many" in theory, but in practice they are not used interchangeably. For starters, one word, "hyla" is usually followed by the genitive of the noun it is describing, which is not the same for "yyizyn", which takes the nominative.

From observations of its use, it is evident that "hyla" is used for continuous groups of data and uncountable items (e.g weight of an object, emotions) whereas "yyizyn" is used for discrete groups of data and countable items (e.g number of leaders in an army, number of elements in the periodic table)

Compare the following:

"Søn hyla meltamim ë telig dõkijý."

(There is a lot of worry among my friends)

And

"Søn yyizyn dõkijý."

(There are many friends)

Saying, for example, "søn hyla dõkijý" just does not sound right, and equally so if one were to say "søn yyizyn meltam ë telig dõkijý". This may stem from the grammatical differences between the words - after all, having much of something may be linked to something like sand, which one can pick up from a seemingly smooth, continuous pile, whereas simply having "many" may be linked to being able to point out each one of the "many". But this is mere speculation and Sevvuferyn scholars are still in disagreement as to where this semantic difference came from.

"Should" vs "Must" -"søn" + infinitive or "sibon" + infinitive?

Just as in English, there is a slight distinction between saying that something should/is supposed to be done and saying that it must be. However, the line dividing the two is sometimes differently shaped than in English.

Compare the following:

"Sø nok IN ÏII don!"

(You should bring it to me at once!)

And

"Sibont ÏII ovunk!"

(he has to come to me!)

Here, it seems pretty clear - one sentence needs "must/has to" and one needs "should/is supposed to". But again, this is not always the case.

Compare the following:

"Nek syn ËN nekar!"

(They must not kill me!)

And

"Nek sibotin ËN nekar!"

(They must not kill me!)

Both sentences are grammatically correct and carry the same meaning, yet it is not clear which one should be used in Sevvufery, even though in English it is obvious - "they're not supposed to kill me" carries a completely different meaning to "they have to not kill me". In fact, the Sevvuferyn translation would probably even add the word "divvog" (suitable, as in "they are not suitable to kill me" or "it is improper for them to kill me") to make the distinction clearer.

Søn + infinitive for the present tense works just fine, but what about past/future (e.g he was/will be supposed to). Should we adjust the tense of "si" or the infinitive that is paired with it?

The answer depends on the context. Take the following sentence, for example:

"He should have told me, so that I could save him!"

Here, it is probably better (and sounds better) to say

"Ses ËN ÿsi, wylin..."

than

"Søn ËN ÿse, wylin..."

Even though both sentences are grammatically correct. Perhaps this is linked to the imperfective vs perfective aspect. In other words, "ses ÿsi", implies that something was supposed to be set in motion (in this case by being told), whereas "søn ÿse" suggest that in the present, it is necessary for you to have done this, in the past. In other words, the latter form is, in some sense, comparable to a "Future Perfect Imperative". (e.g "have done this by tomorrow morning")

Take the following sentence, for example:

"You all are to have done this by the time of the performance!"

Here, one is much more likely to say

"sojõ oheåen ovõ milúd..."

than

"sël oheåen on milúd..."

Although this is also a stricter restriction.