Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb

Welcome to béu

... The Verbal Moods

..

When people speak they have different intentions. That is they are trying to achieve different things by speaking ... maybe they are trying to convey information, or wanting somebody to do something, or not to do something, or they are just expressing their feelings about something. All these are examples of what is called moods. Different languages have different methods of coding their moods. Also the various moods of a languages cover a different semantic range compared to other languages.

There are 7 moods in béu ... 3 expressing themselves by changes to the root verb and 4 by periphrasis.

..

..

..

What are considered moods are shown by a green circle.

..

..

How the different moods and forms interact are shown above. [this will be explained in full later]

..

... The Infinitive

..

The maŋga is "the infinitive"

This is the base form of the verb ... not considered a mood. maŋga corresponds to what is called the "infinitive" in some languages or the "masDar" in Arabic.

About 32% of multi syllable maŋga end in "a".

About 16% of multi syllable maŋga end in "e", and the same for "o".

About 9% of multi syllable maŋga end in "au", and the same for "oi", "eu" and "ai".

Note that no maŋga end in "i", "u", "ia" and "ua"

"i" is reserved for marking verb chains, which will be explained later.

"u" is used for the imperative mood ... i.e. for commanding people.

"ia" is used for a past passive participle. For example ...

yubako = to strengthen

yubakia = strengthened ... as in pazba dí r yubakia => "this table is strengthened"

"ua" could be called the future passive participle I guess. For example ...

ndi r yubakua => these ones must be strengthened

To form a negative infinitive the word jù is placed immediately in front of the verb. For example ...

doika = to walk

jù doika = to not walk .... not to walk

..

... The indicative

..

Also called the R-form.

..

To make a verb in the indicative mood, you must first deleted the final vowel from the infinitive. Then add affixes that indicate "agent", "indicative mood", "tense", "evidentiality" and "perfectness". We will refer to these as slots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

..

.. Slot 1

..

Slot 1 is for the agent ..

One of the 7 vowels below is must be added. These indicate the doer..

Notice that there are 2 entries that represent the 1st person plural subject (i.e. we). The top one represents first person inclusive and the bottom one represents first person exclusive.

Note that the ai form is used when you are talking about generalities ... the so called "impersonal form" ... English uses "you" or "one" for this function.

The above defines the "person" of the verb. Then follows an "r" which indicates the word is an verb in the indicative mood. For example ...

doika = to walk

doikar = I walk

doikair and doikaur = we walk

doikir = you walk

doiker = you walk

doikor = he/she/it walks

doikur = they walk

..

.. Slot 2

..

Slot 2 is for the indicative mood marker.

..

At this point we must introduce a new sound and a new letter.

This letter has not been mentioned so far because it doesn't occur in any words as such. It only occurs in grammatical suffixes and it indicates the indicative mood.

If you hear an "r" you know you are hearing the main verb of a clause.

..

.. Slot 3

..

Slot 3 is for tense markers. There are 5 tense markers in béu

..

1) *doikaro => doikar = I walk (habitually)

tunheu-n	doik-a-r-∅	fafalaja	gò	nambo-n	ny-á-r-∅
align=center|walk-1SG-IND-AOR	"every afternoon"	CONJ	home-DAT	return-1SG-IND-AOR

==> I walk to the townhall every afternoon and then return home

I call this the aortist tense. The word comes from Ancient Greek and means "indefinite" as it was the unmarked tense/aspect. (Actually thIs unmarked form had a past & nondurative meaning in Ancient Greek). I call this form aortist because it is usually represented by a null morpheme. In béu it has a sort of timeless tense (sometimes it is habitual) used for generic statements. For example ...

pyár jwadoi = "birds fly"

Actually you can say this tense has an underlying o which appears if there is an n or an s in the evidentiality slot.

tunheu-n	doik-o-r-o-s	fafalaja	gò	nambo-n	ny-o-r-o-s
align=center|walk-3SG-IND-AOR-EV2	"every afternoon"	CONJ	home-DAT	return-3SG-IND-AOR-EV2

==> They say he/she walks to the townhall every afternoon and then returns home

2) doikaru = I will walk

This is the future tense

3) doikari = I walked

This is the past tense. This means that the action was done before today (by the way ... the béu day starts at 6 in the morning).

4) doikare = I walked

This is the near-past tense. This means that the action was done earlier on today (a good memory aid is to remember that e is the same vowel as in the English word "day")

5) doikara = I am walking

This is the present tense ... it means that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking.

..

It can be seen that béu is more fine-grained, tense-wise than most of the world's languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/66 and http://wals.info/chapter/67

..

.. Slot 4

..

Slot 4 can have one of the evidential markers a, a, n, s or it can be empty. Actually the first a defines the subjects attitute rather than any evidentiality, however all 4 are usually just called evidential markers.

..

There are three markers that cites on what evidence the speaker is saying what he is saying. However it is not mandatory to stipulate on what evidence you are saying what you are saying. In fact most occurrences of the indicative verb do not have an evidence marker.

The markers are as follows ...

1) -n

For example ... doikorin = "I guess that he walked" ... That is the speaker worked it out from circumstances/clues observed.

2) -s

For example ... doikoris = "They say he walked" ....... That is the speaker was told by some third party(ies) or overheard some third party(ies) talking.

3) -a

For example ... doikoria = "he walked, I saw him" ...... That is the speaker saw it with his own eyes.

Note that the above evidential only co-occurs with the past tense and near-past tense. Actually when used with the near-past tense, *ea => ia so the distinction between "past" and "near-past" is lost for this evidential.

Now there is a forth possibility for this slot ... and it is not actually an evidintial. Furthermore it has the same form as 3).

4) -a

For example ... doikorua = "he intends to walk" ... the agent in this case must be a sentient being of course.

This evidential marker only co-occurs with the future tense.

If the speaker doesn't know the evidential or deems it unimportant then this slot can be left empty. According to corpus studies in béu, 60% - 70% of r-form have nothing in this slot.

..

It can be seen that the béu evidentiality inventory is quite substantial compared to other languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/78

..

.. Slot 5

..

This slot can have the "perfect aspect marker" yə or it can be empty.

..

The perfect tense, logically doesn't differ that much difference from the past tense,. but it is emphasizing a state rather than an action. It represents the state at the time of speaking as the outcome of past events. We have this aspect in English and it is realized as "have -en".

For example if you wanted to talk to John and you went to his office, his secretary might say "he has gone to lunch, this emphasizes the absence of John as opposed to "he went for lunch". The latter is just an action that happened in the past, the former is a present state brought about by a past action.

For another example ... "she read the book on geometry"

This doesn't specify whether she read it all the way thru or whether she just read a bit of it. Whereas ...

"she has read the book on geometry", implies she read the book all the way thru, but more importantly the connotation is that at the present time she has knowledge of geometry.

The total verb suffix system is given below.

..

..

The aortist tense can not occur with the perfect. It may appear that it does though. This is because the a of the present tense is dropped if yə is appended directly on to it. So ...

doikora = He is walking

doikoras = The say I am walking

doikoryə = He has walked ... or to be more specific ... "from the beginning of time until now he has walked at least once"

doikorasyə = The say he has walked

The perfect marker -yə was probably derived from ìa "to finish/to complete" in its verb chain form. The perfect aspect occurs in roughly half of the languages of the world ... http://wals.info/chapter/68

Also it appears that 5 categories being appended to the verb is typical of languages of the world. See ... http://wals.info/chapter/22 [If I have understood the chapter properly]

..

.. "O" No

..

We have seen that in the active verb suffix tail that o is not pronounced if it comes final (the aortist tense).

The reason for this is brevity of speech.

And for brevity of writng, every occurrence of o is not written (from the active verb suffix tail). For example ...

..

..

... The advisory

..

... The imperative

..

You use the following forms for giving orders ... for giving commands. When you use the following forms you do not expect a discussion about the appropriateness of the action ... although a discussion about the best way to perform the action is possible.

..

For non-monosyllabic verbs ...

The final vowel of the maŋga is deleted and replaced with u.

doika = to walk

doiku = walk !

..

For monosyllabic verbs -hu is appended.

gàu = "to do"

gauhu = "do it" ... often só is added fot extra emphasis.

só gauhu = do it !

One verb has an irregular form.

jò = "to go"

ojo = "go" ... actually a bit abrupt, probably expressing exasperation, veering towards "fuck off" ... jò itself can be used as a very polite form.

..

The imperative cab be directed at second person singular or second person plural. When addressing a group and issuing a command to the entire group you sort of let your eyes flick over the entire group. When addressing a group and issuing a command to one person you keep your eyes on this person when issuing the command ... maybe saying their name before the command ... probably preseded by só which is a vocative marker as well as being an emphatic particle.

[ Note ... I think that in English, the infinitive usually has "to" in front of it, in order to distinguish it from the imperative. In béu too there is a need to distinguish between these two verb forms. However as the imperative occurs less often than the infinitive, I have decided to mark the imperative. ]

..

... The prohibitive

..

This is also called the negative imperative. Semantically it is the opposite of the imperative. It is formed by putting the particle kyà before maŋga.

kyà doika = don't walk

That is pretty much all there is to say about it.

..

... The optative

..

This form expresses a wish or hope of the speaker ... but there is no appeal for the addressee to act. Also it is not really giving information as such. It is more about letting the speaker express his emotions [ maybe "ventative would be a suitable name for it  :-) ]

There is a verb ?ain?ai meaning to wish. It must be followed by a gò clause. (no manga or NP allowed)

?ain?ar gò yár halma = "I wish that I had an apple"

Now the actual verb ?ain?ai is usually dropped and gò sentence-initial is enough to express the optative ...

gò yár halma = "I wish that I had an apple"

The above example is orientated towards the future. However optative constructions can be orientated towards the past (in which case they are regrets) ...

gò diriyə jana = "If only you had arrived yesterday"

(gò clauses, otherwise tend not to occur initially ... "that he is stupid complicates things" would be recast as "things are complicated because he is stupid")

..

gò blàr doika = "Oh to be able to walk" or "If only I could walk" or "I wish that I could walk"

..

This form is used for curses and benedictions ... by frequency of usage the former outnumber the latter by about 10 to 1. For example ...

gò diablos ò ʔaworu = "May the Devil take him"

There are some formula type expressions that are used in certain situations/ rituals that use this form.. For example xxx = "God save the king"

The most common is the greeting gò yír fales "may you have peace"

..

... The suggestive

..

We have come across kái before. In chapter 2.10 we saw that it was a question word meaning "what kind of". It normally follows a noun being an adjective. For example ...

báu kái = what type of man ?

ò r báu kái = what type of man is he ?

ò r deuta kái = what type of soldier is he ?

nendi kái = this is what type ?

But just as a normal adjective can be a copula complement, so can kái.

ò r kái = what type is he ?

nendi r kái = this is what type ?

ʃì r kái = what type of thing is it ?

However when you see kái utterance initial you know that it has a slightly different function : it is introducing the "soliciting opinion" mood. For example ...

kái wìa nyáu nambon jindi = How about we go home now ? OR Let's go home now.

Now ... as with the "optative", the "soliciting opinion" mood is usually orientated towards the future and uses maŋga. However their are circumstances where you solicit opinion about past events [for example a group of detectives on a crime scene discussing the possible steps taken by the perpetrator]. In these circumstances the R-form would be used preceded by the particle tà ... [see the table in the section above]

The main thing about this mood is that the speaker is asking for feedback/advice/approval or disapproval. But it overlaps with the field "gently suggesting a course of action" somewhat.

..

... The interrogative

..

Also called Polar Questions. A polar question is a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no".

..

To turn a normal statement ( i.e. with the verb in its R-form) into a polar question the particle ʔai? is stuck on at the very end.

It has its own symbol (and I transcribe it as ʔai?) because it possesses its own tone contour.

I have mentioned this particle in chapter 1 (if you look back you can see its exact tone contour). Here is its symbol again ...

And here is an example of it in action ...

... jono jaŋkori ʔai? = Did John run ?

..

ʔai? is neutral as to the response expected ... well at least in positive questions.

To answer a positive question you answer ʔaiwa "yes" or aiya "no" (of course if "yes" or "no" are not adequate, you can digress ... the same as any language).

Here is an example of a positive question ...

glá r hauʔe ʔai? = Is the woman beautiful ?

If she is beautiful you answer ʔaiwa, if not you answer aiya^*.

..

To answer a negative question it is not so simple. ʔaiwa and aiya are deemed insufficient to answer a negative question on their own. For example ...

glá bù r hauʔe ʔai? = Is the woman not beautiful ?

If she is not beautiful, you should answer bù hauʔe^**, if she is you can answer either hù hauʔe or glá r hauʔe

I guess a negative question expects a negative answer, so a positive answer must be quite accoustically prominent (that is a short answer ("yes" or "no") is not enough)

..

We have mentioned só already ... in the above section about seŋko. This is the focus particle. It has a number of uses. When you want to emphasis one word in a clause, you would stick hù in front of it^***.

Another use for só is when hailing somebody .... só jono = Hey Johnny

You can also stick it in front of someone's name when you are talking to them. However it is not a "vocative case" exactly. Well for one thing it is never mandatory. When used the speaker is gently chiding the listener : he is saying, something like ... the view you have is unique/unreasonable or the act you have done is unique/unreasonable. When I say unique I mean "only the listener" hold these views : the listener's views/actions are a bit strange.

When stuck in front of a non-multi-syllable verb you get an imperative. For example ... só nyáu = Go home

só can also be used to highlight one element is a statement or polar question. For example ...

Statement ... bàus glán nori alha = the man gave flowers to the woman

Focused statement ... bàus só glán nori alha = It is the woman to whom the man gave flowers.^****

Unfocused question ... bàus glán nori alha ʔai? = Did the man give flowers to the woman ?

Focused statement ... bàus só glán nori alha ʔai? = It is to the woman that the man gave flowers ?

..

Any argument can be focused in this way.

..

^*These words have a unique tone contour as well ... at least when spoken in isolation. I suppose I should have given these two words a symbol each ... if I wanted to be consistent.

^**Mmm ... maybe you could answer ʔaiwa here ... but a bit unusual ... not entirely felicitous.

^***In English, when you want to emphasis a word, you make it more accoustically prominent : you don't rush over it but give it a very careful articulation. This is iconic and I guess all languages do the same. It is a pity that there is no easy way to represent this in the English orthography apart from increasing the font size or adding exclamation marks.

^****English uses a process called "left dislocation" to give emphasis to an element in a clause.

..

The other type of question ... the content question was covered in the last chapter.

..

... The conflative

..

Actually it is called the i-form. A clause that has one or more i-form verbs is called a conflative clause.

I will only touch on this here. In Ch 10 there is a section that goes into this in exhaustive detail. OK one quick example ...

..

to walk = doika

road = komwe

to follow = plèu

to whistle = wiza*

From the above we could make three short sentences.

John walked => jono doikori

John followed the road => jonos komwe plori

John whistled => jono wizori

..

However as all three verbs seem to take part in the same action they can be combined. The first verb in the combination is normal (whether it is r-form, u-form, s-form or in fact manga).

The following verbs in the combination take a special ending ... -i for multi-syllable words and the schwa ə for mono-syllable words. So we get the form ...

John walked along the road whistling => jono doikori komwe plə wiʒi

I will split up the above, just to keep track of the different elements ... jono doikori / komwe plə / wiʒi

It can also be recast as ... doikori jono / komwe plə / wiʒi .... however *plə komwe is not allowed ... any verb in its conflative form must always follow its object**. Also in a conflative clause there can only be one subject.

..

In this example, the three actions are happening similtaneous, hence any verb can be promoted to the left.

jono wizori / komwe plə / doiki

jonos komwe plori / doiki / wiʒi .... actually there is another three ways this sentence can be ordered ... but you get the idea.

..

The main motivation for having the conflative is to express meanings such as "through" or "into" by pure verbs ... i.e. "to go through", "to enter". So primarily used to describe situations involving motion. But no actual restrictions on what verbs can enter into a conflative clause (of course the verbs plus other arguments must represent a coherent subset of reality ... the overall clause must make sense semantically). For example ...

Yesterday John caught, cooked and ate three fish => jana jonos holdori slanji flə léu fiʒi

..

yesterday = jana

to catch = holda

three = léu

fish = fiʒi

..

In this case, all three verbs are intransitive and have the same object. So léu fiʒi can not occur between any of the three verbs.

Note ... "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate the three fish" => jana jonos léu fiʒi holdori slanji flə

..

* wiza is intransitive. laila "to sing" however is transitive. [ to whistle the national anthem => wizori / THE NATIONAL ANTHEM plə ]

** This is the opposite case to the manga ... where the object always follows the verb. ..

..... Participles

..

The past participle (occasionally called the passive participle) is formed by affixing -ia to the verb base. For example ...

..

laudo = to wash/launder : laudia = washed ... laudian = laundered clothes .......... ?à laudian = one item that has been laundered

kludau = to write : kludia = written ... kludian = "that which is written"/"notes".... ?à kludian = a note

..

The future participle (occasionally called the obligation participle) is formed by affixing -ua to the verb basr. For example ...

..

laudo = to wash/launder : laudua = to be washed ... lauduan = soiled clothing ... ?à lauduan = one item that has to be laundered

kludau = to write : kludua = that must be written ... kluduan = "that which must be written" ... ?à kluduan = a school assignment

..

If the verb is a mono-syllable then the final vowels are not deleted. Instead -ia => -ya and -ua => -wa. For example ...

glù = to know : gluya = known : gluwa = to be found out : gluyas = that which is known : gluwas = that which must be found out

..

..... Valency

..

In every language a particular verb can references a number of nouns ... usually called arguments. For example ....

jono-s	jene-n	laigau	haun-o-r-a	eŋglaba-tu
John-ERG	Jane-DAT	calculus	teach-3SG-IND-PRES	English-INST

==> John is teaching calculus to Jane in English

In the above example "teach" references 4 nouns.

Now things can get a bit confusing here. It is said that it is easy to distinguish between "core arguments" which are essential and "peripheral arguments" which simply add more information. But this is not so. The consensus w.r.t. English seems to be that if an argument requires a preposition, then it is a "peripheral arguments", if no preposition required then it is a "core argument".

In the above example "English" can be dismissed as a peripheral argument because of "using". But what about "Jane". In the above example Jane's roll in the clause is defined by the prefix "to". But what if "John is teaching calculus to Jane in English" is re-arranged as "John is teaching Jane calculus in English"? Here you have three nouns not qualified by a prefix. In English "teach" is sometimes called a ditransitive verb (a verb that can take three essential arguments).

In beu no verbs are considered ditransitive ... Jane will always be marked by the dative suffix. Now you might argue that every instance of teaching involves "somebody getting taught" ... well this is true, but it is also true that every instance of teaching involves some language being used. At the end of the day ... the English verb "teach" means exactly the same as its béu equivalent ( haun ). It is just that there are two different conventions for talking about the verb in two different linguistic traditions. The béu linguistic tradition is the simplest.

The béu linguistic tradition divides all verbs in into two types .... H (transitive) and Ø (intransitive). In dictionaries all verbs are marked by the simbol H or Ø. H means a transitive verb ( called a "dash verb" ) and Ø means an intransitive verb ( called a "stroke verb" ). The rule is ...

..

A verb is H if it can in any instance take a noun with the "s" pilamo.

A verb is Ø if it never take a noun with the "s" pilamo.

..

Now I will introduce the S A O convention which was introduced by RMW Dixon and is useful cross-linguistically for talking about valency. This is a useful way to refer to the arguments of transitive and intransitive verbs. The one argument of the intransitive verb is called the S argument. The argument of the transitive verb in which the success of the action most depends is referred to as the A argument. The argument of of the transitive verb is most affected by the action is called the O argument.

O was probably chosen from "object", A from "agent" and S from "subject" ( I find this useful to keep in mind as a memory aid). However O does not "mean" object and A does not mean agent and S does not mean subject. I (and many other linguists) use the word subject to refer to either A or S. Easier to talk about "subject" that to talk about "A or S" all the time.

The béu equivalents of A argument is "the sadu noun", of the O argument ... "the dash noun", and the S argument ... "the stroke noun".

..

Now in English certain verbs appear to be Ø in some situations and H in others. These are called ambitransitive verbs.

..

1) The old woman knitted a sweater

2) The old woman knitted

"knit" is regarded as a "A=S ambitransitive". In (1) "old woman" is A ... in (2) "old woman" is S ... [ (2) is essentially a smaller bite of the reality described by (1) ]

..

3) The old woman opened the door

4) The door opened

"open" is regarded as a "O=S ambitransitive". In (3) "the door" is O ... in (2) "the door" is S ... [ (4) is essentially a smaller bite of the reality described by (3) ]

..

Now just as there are no "ditransitives" in béu, there are no "ambitransitives. "knit" is considered H but with the O argument being dropped when it is unimportant or unknown. Similarly "open" is considered H but with the A argument dropped* when it is unimportant or unknown.

bala "open" is always H in béu. However, in English, "open" is sometimes transitive and sometimes intransitive.

Take pintu baləri "the door opened". In English the proper analysis is "door" = "S argument". Well it is subject because it comes before the verb, and as it is the only argument it must be S.

In béu the proper analysis is "door" = "O argument". We know bala "to open" is H becuse on occasion it can occur with A arguments ( sadu nouns ). However in this case the only noun is not marked for the ergative hence it must be the "O argument".

pintu baləri could also be translated as "the door was opened".

*Actually it would be possble to drop A arguments in English if the imperative was not the base verb. For example in English "knit a jersey" is a command ... but if English ... say ... suffixed "ugu" for the imperative, then the command would be "knitugu a jersey". That would allow "knit a jersey" to be interpreted as "jersey being knitted".

..

So in béu …. each verb is either H or Ø … no ambitransitives or ditransitives. Also “the passive” is not talked about … rather it is just considered a particular case of “dropping”. And actually “dropping” is not considered a bit deal … just an very obvious thing to do.

..

Now one problem with dropping arguments is that the subject (S or A) must be represented in slot "1" of the indicative verb. How should we know what to put in here ( see Ch3.1.2.1 ). One solution could be to use the 3 person plural suffix -u- ... chances are that it is a 3rd person agent and the plural is more generic than the singular. This is what Russian does to make a sort of a passive. Another solution would be to use a vowel not already appropriated for pronoun agreement. This is what béu does. The schwa is inserted in the slot just before the "r".

Everything collapses in ... to the schwa ... an impersonal schwa.

..

"the door opened" = "the door was opened" = pintu baləri (Actually I do not think the schwa symbol is visually distinct enough ... from now on I will use a cross) => pintu bal+ri

..

Here are some examples of this construction [ I will call it the impersonal construction from now on ]

beuba sw+r dían = "The language of béu is spoken here"

pí gaudoheu dè_sweno g+r = "In this factory telephones are made"

toilia bù ost+r pí duka dí = "Books are not sold in this shop"

pintu by+ru bala = pintu r balua = the door has to be opened

pintu bl+r bala = the door can be opened ........... [ to understand this example and the one above it ... see Ch 4.7 ]

hala dè nyal+ryə = that rock is eroded .......... nyale = to erode, to wear

..

Note ... the schwa can not support any tone. And as it is only used in the grammer and not in any base words as such it was not introduced in Chapter 1 (as r was not). The schwa is represented in fact by a cross in the béu writing system ...

..

Also note ... Some people pronouns "schwa" + "syllable final rhotic" as "ø". These people also tend to give "ø" the proper tone. However the majority pronoun a schwa followed by a rhotic appoximant with neutral tone.

..

Now "door" is a man-made object and probably it exists in a place with many people around. So it is reasonable to expect there to be human volition involved when it opens. But what about when we get out into nature. When we see a river freezing. There is no agent to be seen behind this "freezing" ... it just happens. For this reason the verb "to freeze" doska is Ø.

But now we have become clever ... we hold dominion over nature. Hence we need to derive a word for freeze that is H. And that deriration is arrived at by appending -n (historically this was -nau and even further back it was the independent word náu "to give")

Hence ...

moze doskori = the water froze

moze doskaniri = You froze the water

..

Actually any Ø can take this suffix and become H. Here are a few more examples ...

..

pyà	to fly	pyàn	to throw
jó	to go	jón	to send
tè	to come	tèn	to summon
bái	to rise	báin	to raise
kàu	to descend	kàun	to lower
dài	to die	dàin	to kill
slài	to change	slàin	to change
diadia	to happen	diadian	to cause

..

Six H can also take -nau as well. They are ...

..

flò	to eat	flòn	to feed, feeding
bwí	to see	bwín	to show, showing
háu	to learn	háun	to teach, tuition
glù	to know	glùn	to inform, informing
pòi	to enter, to join	pòin	to put in, insertion
féu	to exit, to leave	féun	to take out, extraction

..

In English, all the above except the last would be considered ditransitive verbs. "to take out" would not be considered ditransitive because one argument would be marked by the preposition "from". In béu they are all still simply H although they have undoubtedly exactly one extra verb compared to their non-derived counter parts. Remember H and Ø were defined as ...

A verb is H if it can in any instance take a noun with the "s" pilamo.

A verb is Ø if it never take a noun with the "s" pilamo.

(Note : fyá "to tell" means basically the same as glùn but is less formal )

..

We have discussed bala and doska so far. The first is considered basically H and the second one basically Ø. There is a third type of verb ... for this type it is hard to say if it is more basic as Ø or more basic as H. So these verbs have two basic forms. For example ...

..

cwamo hulkori = the bridge broke

deutais cwamo helkuri = the soldiers broke the bridge

..

Actually for the first example .. the chances are that the breakage was due to wear and tear caused by human activity. But the important thing is that it is non-volitional. Also there might have been no humans around when the bridge actually did break. So we can talk about the bridge breaking by itself ... as if by an act of nature. And another example ...

..

jono wiltore = John woke up (earlier today)

jenes jone woltore = Jane woke up John (earlier today)

..

There are about 40 of these pairs. If the Ø has u the H will have e ... if the Ø has i the H will have o.

So lets summarize these three typre of verb ...

..

..

---

So to wrap it all up about verbs and arguments ...

No verbs are ambitrasitive. They are either Ø or H. However it is easy to drop the A or the O argument from a [00] clause if either of them is considered trivial or is unknown.

Now in béu any H can be given a Ø meaning ( grammatically the structure is still H ) by making the the O argument tí ... meaning himself, herself, yourself etc. etc. However only animate A arguments do this. Hence ...

bàus tí timpori = the man hit himself ................. acceptable

*pintus tí balori = the door opened itself ...... unacceptable

In English there are two ways to report on a door opening without mentioning any agent ... "the door opened" and "the door was opened"

In béu only one ... pintu bal+ri ... which is just a two place clause with the A argument dropped. Comparable to how "the old woman knitted" is a two place clause with the O argument dropped.

..

In béu you can make a "passive participle" by suffixing -ia.

If you come across something broken and you know it was broken by human volition ... you would call it helkia.

If you come across something broken and you did not know how it was broken ... you would call it hulkia.

If you come across something frozen you would call it doskia. There is no such word as *doskania.

..

In béu you can make the "general obligation participle" by suffixing -ua.

If you come across something that had to be broken ... you would call it helkua.

If you come across something that had to be frozen ... you would call it doskanua.

There is no such words as *doskua or *hulkua

..

The above method of presenting a verb like bala all hint at human volition. To get rid of this connotation (to suggest that the event happened naturely) we must use lài "to become" plus an adjective. This is demonstrated below ...

Consider geuko = "to turn green" ... H ... derived from gèu "green"

1) báu lí gèu = The man became green .. ........................ natural

2) báu geuk+ri = The man was made green .................... human volition

3) báus tí geukori = The man made himself green

..

Now consider bala = "to open" ... H

1) pintu lì balia = the door became opened = the door opened .......... natural ................ [ here the agent could be anything ... the wind ... or even some fairy cái ... use your imagination ]

2) pintu bal-ri = the door was opened ............................................... human volition .... [ this one implies that the agent was human but is either unknown or unimportant and the action deliberate ]

Note ... there is no (3) here as a door is non-human.

..

In either of the (1)'s wistia "deliberately/carefully" or wistua "accidently/carelessly" can be added after* lì. This automatically makes Agent => Human

The same for the (2)'s, but the incidence of wistua should greatly excede the incidence of wistia as "intention" is the default for this construction.

With (3) the connotation of intent is so strong that wistia/ wistua could be considered a bit infelicitous ... not impossible but indicative of a very unusual situation.

* or wistiwe or wistuwe if not immediately after the verb. [by the way ... wisto = mind/brain]

---

bala = to open : kala = to shut : mala = to contact/touch : nala = to let go ... to release

..

..... Copulas

..

There are two copula's ... sàu "to be" and lài "to become". You will see that they were listed among the 37 special short verbs. However they pattern differently from the other 35 as we shall see.

The three components of a copular clause have a strict* order ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement" ... the same order as English in fact.

..

"copular subject"	"copula"	"copula complement"
jono	r	koduʒi
John	is	diligent

..

"copular subject"	"copula"	"copula complement"
jono	r	moltai
John	is	doctor

..

The copula subject is always unmarked ... i.e. it never takes the ergative suffix.

..

However the indicative mood is not derived from the infinitive by the usual method. As you might remember the first 3 slots are mandory in the indicative form (the aortist tense being a null morpheme).

But for sàu and lài things are radically different. Below are the indicative forms for sàu and lài.

..

..

Note that the third column (under lài) are grammatically all R-form's ... even though they don't actually have any rhotic sound.

For sàu in the aortist tense, r is the complete copula. It is a clitic attached the the last vowel of the copula subject (however it is always written as a separate word). For example ....

tomo r tumu = Thomas is stupid

It takes the tone of the copula subject (if the copula subject has one).

If the copula subject ends in a consonant then rò is used. For example ....

gèun rò solki = the green one is smoothe

Evidentials can be added as normal to these forms. For example ...

jene gáu rìs hauʔe = "They say old Jane used to be beautiful"

jono jutu lòn gáu = "I guess big John is becoming old" ... note that lón is considered mote appropriate than lán. If the timeframe of the action was a lot shorter then lá would be considered appropriate.

..

It is only the R-forms of the copula's which are irregular. All other forms are perfectly normal.

..

sauhu bòi = Be good ................................................................. U-form

kodor sə kludado = He works as a clark ................................ I-form

..

Note that for simple copular clauses (indicative mood), the subject can never be dropped (because the person/number information is gone). Even when the subject is known from context ... it can never be dropped in a simple copular clauses (indicative mood). It can of course be represented by a pronoun.

..

wìa r wikai tè nù r yubau = "we are weak but they are strong"

ʃì r helkia = "it is broken" [ ʃì hulkori ]

..

Under the section "Valancy" we introduced the impersonal form of the verb ... normally used when the subject is dropped because it is "unknown" or "trivial" or "obvious from context".

We also use the impersonal form for the copula. However now the reason is not because the subject is trivial ... rather that the subject is all encompassing. (Other languages use "world" or "environment" as the subject in similar situations)

As with English, this construction is often used for the weather ...

fona = rain : fonia = rainy/raining : fonua = dry (well not raining). So ...

s-ra fonia = it's raining

And of course, the other copula is used when we have a change of state ...

l-ra fonia = it's starting to rain

---

At the start of this section I said "the three components of a copular clause have a strict* order ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement" ... the same order as English in fact."

However there are two exceptions to the above.

..

1) If the copula subject is a manga or a manga phrase you have two possible orders.

..

nyáu	r	bòi
to return	is	good

==> To return is good

..

sòr	bòi	nyáu
"is"	good	to return

==> It is good to return

..

The more accoustic weight the manga phrase has, the bigger the tendency to use the second order ...

..

sòr	bòi	nyáu	nambo	jindi
"is"	good	to return	home	now

==> It is good to return to home now

..

With the copula coming initially the short form can never be used ... i.e. *rò bòi nyáu is illegal.

..

2) If the copula subject is a clause, you have one possible order ... "copula" => "copula complement" => "copular subject"

..

"copular"	"copula complement"	"copula subject"
sòr	bòi	gò jono r koduʒi
is	good	that john is hardworking

..

The particle gò is used to introduce the clause ... as it always is where a clause is taking a syntactic position that can otherwise be filled by a noun.

..

Often when discussing the advisability of some course of action a construction with an initial copula + one of the adjectives boʒi, neʒi or fàin + gò are used. For example ...

..

sor-u	boʒi	gò	jubu	j-u-r-u
"is"-FUT	optimum	CMPZ	nobody	go-3PL-IND-FUT

==> It will be best if nobody goes

..

sòr	neʒi	gò	ny-e-r-u	jindi
"is"	necessary	CMPZ	return-2PL-IND-FUT	now

==> It is necessary that you (pl) will return to home now ==> You (pl) must go home right now

..

sòr	jù	fàin	gò	sw-a-r-u	ifan	jindi
	"is"	negative	appropriate	CMPZ	speak-1SG-IND-FUT	anything	now

==> It is inappropriate that I will say anything now ==> I shouldn't say anything now

..

In the next chapter we will meet the two verbs yáu "to possess" and byó "to own" which, when used before a manga, add the meanings ""should" and "must" respectively to a clause. So by using yáu or byó you are can advise a course of action and depending on which auxilliary is use,can advise gentle or more forcefully.

Using the copula plus boʒi, neʒi or fàin also allows you to advise a course of action This method is a bit more wordy and only giving one degree of forcefulness, but it does give you the following shades of meaning ...

..

boʒi = best ........................... this course of action will yield more benefits than some other course of action.

neʒi = necessary ................. this action is a vital part in some larger scheme.

fàin = fitting/appropriate...... the action will be approved of by society.

..

(Note to self : sort out the below)

moze r neʒi LIFE.wo = water is necessary for life

Note the two nouns ... neʒin = "a necessity and boʒin = "the optimum"

..

..... Existence

..

In the above section we saw how the impersonal form of sàu links an adjective to the universe at large (well at least to the local environment).

In a similar way, the impersonal form of yáu "to have on your person" links an noun to the universe at large.

..

But first let us run through some of the usages of yáu.

..

The basic usage is to link an object to a person.

jonos yór kli.o = John has a knike

..

The basic usage can be expanded and it can be used to link objects to a location.

tunheu-s	y-o-r-e	yiŋki	hè	yildos
townhall-ERG	have-3SG-IND-PST	"attractive girls"	a lot	morning

==>(1) the townhall had many attractive girls this morning

..

The above usage can become impersonalized (i.e. the locative subject is deleted and the person slot gets a schwa) and the meaning then becomes ... the physical object exists somewhere in the Universe. For example ...

..

y+r dèus = "there is a God" or "God exists"

This construction can be negated in two ways ...

bù y+r dèus = "there isn't a God" or y+r jù dèus = "there is no God"

So y+r is basically the béu existential clause. The English existential clause has "there is"/"there are".

---

Now the basic existential clause can be modified. For example ...

(2) y+r yiŋki hè = "There are many attractive girls"

Can be modified ... below we modify it with an "adjective phrase of location" tunheuʔe and an "adjective phrase of time" yildos

(3) y+re yiŋki hè tunheuʔe yildos = "there were many attractive girls at the townhall this morning"

..

Which actually means exactly the same as (1) above ... (i.e. tunheus yore yiŋki hè yildos)

Which in turn means pretty much the same as the copular sentence ...

(4) yiŋki hè rè tunheuʔe yildos = "many attractive girls were at the townhall this morning" ... so ... actually three ways to say the same thing ... (1), (3) and (4)

But note ...

*tunheuʔe rè yiŋki hè yildos = "at the townhall this morning were many attractive girls"

The above construction that is allowed in English, feels a bit strange in béu ... in the same way that "green is the man" feels a bit strange in English.

But three ways to say the same thing, should be sufficient ... don't you think ?

..

..... Five slots before the verb

..

We have already covered the 5 slots for "agent", "tense/aspect", " r, "evidentiality", "perfect" at the end of the denuded infinitive. As well as the nuances given by these suffixes, there are particles which add further information to the basic verb. These are called (near-standers ?). These particles occur in 5 pre-verbal slots and a maximum of one is allowed from each slot.

The complete verbal block is shown below ...

Some restrictions on the co-occurence of these termsare given above. There are some additional restrictions not given above. For example juku is how you negate the perfect (dropping the yə). As yə can not co-occur with ʔès/ʔàn or jù, juku also can not co-occur with ʔès/ʔàn or jù.

..

... Slot 1

..

These two particles indicate probability.

màs = possibly

lói = probably

The probability distribution for màs centres around 50 %.

The probability distribution for lói centres around 85 %.

..

... Slot 2

..

bù is a negative particle which has scope over the entire sentence ... equivalent to "not" in English.

..

awa gives a "habitual but irregular" (maybe best translated as "now and again" or "occasionally" or even "not usually") meaning to the verbal block. Possibly related to the verb awata which means "to wander".

..

bolbo gives a "habitual and regular" (best translated as "normally" or "usually" or "regularly") meaning to the verbal block. Possibly related to the verb bolboi which means "to roll".

..

juku is used for negating the perfect aspect. To negate the perfect aspect you insert juku in this slot and delete the yə. juku means "never" which is the opposite of one of the perfect meanings. Namely "at least once"

By the way ... this negative construction mirrors what is done in Mandarin ... 没 méi or 没有 méiyǒu is used instead of 不 bù and the aspect marker 了 le is omitted.

..

Some examples of usuage ...

..

kodoriyə	he had worked	juku kodori	he had never worked
kodoreyə	he has worked (earlier today)	juku kodoreyə	he hasn't worked (so far) today
kodoryə	he has worked	juku kodora	he has never worked
kodoruyə	he will have worked	juku kodoru	he will never have worked

..

The usuage of -yə is given in section 1.2.5 earlier in this chapter. A good idea to revise it now.

..

Note ... In English you can say ... "horses never fly" which would be *juku pyár fanfai in béu. However the generic/habitual tense is not allowed with the perfect in béu so ... "horses never fly" => bù pyár fanfai. And why is generic/habitual tense is not allowed with the perfect ... well there is an addage in English "never say never". This addage is true ... or at least "never say ever" is ... which is the same thing :-)

..

... Slot 3

..

This slot is filled with ... what I call "overlap words".

Others call them "aspectual operators" or "aspectual particles".

..

There are two overlap words : ʔàn = "still" and ʔès = "already".

Most (all ?) languages have equivalents to these two particles ...

..

English	still	already
German	noch	schon
béu	ʔàn	ʔès
French	encore	déjà
Mandarin	hái	yîjing
Dutch	nog	al
Russian	eščë	uže
Serbo-Croatian	još	već
Finnish	vielä	jo
Swedish	än(nu)	redan
Indonesian	masih	sudah

..

ʔàn indicates ...

1) An activity is ongoing.

2) The activity must stop some time in the future, possibly quite soon.

3) There is a certain expectation^* that the activity should have stopped by now.

ʔès indicates ...

1) An activity is ongoing.

2) The activity was not ongoing some time in the past, possibly quite recently.

3) There is a certain expectation^* that the activity should not have started yet.

..

^* Inevitably a connotation of "contrary to expectation" will develope to a certain degree. This is because if the situation was according to expectation often nothing would need be utterred. Hence ʔàn and ʔès are often found in contrary to expectation situation which in turn colours their meaning.

..

..

A very interesting thing about the above two situations is how they are negated. Either the verb can be negated or the operator can be negated. (The verb is always under the scope of the operator so if you negate the operator you are also negating the verb). The first case I represent with a bar over the verb. The second I represent with a bar over the operator+verb.

On the diagram ... If the verb is negated ... then the yellow place becomes white and the white space becomes yellow.

On the diagram ... If the operator+verb is negated ... the line that represents onset/cessation of activity is moved to the other side of the dashed line representing "now".

..

....

..

As you see by above ... by changing whether the negator act on the operator+verb or whether only on the verb give diametrically opposite meanings.

Note that there are 4 possible negative cases to choose from and a language only needs 2. A language (to cover all negative cases) should be either "(a) (b) type" or "(c) (d) type" or " (a) (c) type" or "(b) (d) type"

Cross linguistically there are interesting variations. All Slavic languages prefer verb negation, hence they are (c) (d) types.

In German, only (a) and (c) are allowed in positive declarations.

Nahuatl has negation of the operator so is (a) (b) type.

English is a bit tricky ... it has suppletion and uses "not yet" for situation (c) and "no longer" for situation (d). Now in English "yet" means pretty much the same as "still". I believe "yet" was the original particle but "still" over time largely usurped it in the positive case. However the form "not yet" ... if taken at face value would seem to negate the operator. But it doesn't. Logically it would make more sense if we said "yet not" instead of "not yet" [i.e. we have situation (c) rather than (b)]. I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this reversal but unfortunately I do not know it ... anyway ... nothing to worry about too much. [ The form "not work yet" seems more logical in its word order ... how can "not" in "not yet work" have "work" under its scope but not "yet" ... but apparently that is the way it works ]

In béu, bù negates the whole clause so you can say that béu is basically (a) (b) type.

..

ʔàn	kod-a-r-a	dían
still	work-1SG-IND-PRES	here

==> I am still working here

ʔès	kod-a-r-a	dían
already	work-1SG-IND-PRES	here

==> I already work here

bù	ʔàn	kod-a-r-a	dían
not	still	work-1SG-IND-PRES	here

==> I no longer work here

bù	ʔès	kod-a-r-a	dían
not	already	work-1SG-IND-PRES	here

==> I don't work here yet

..

These operators are usually used to specify overlap with present time ... (I call the present time, NOW, in the diagrams). I would think this is true of every language (notice that the above examples the tense is always -a). However it is a trivial matter to reference the time of onset/cessation of activity to a different time ... you just change the tense.

..

If the reference time is not NOW, we have an overlap-word clause, non-zero reference time.

The example below has a refernce time in the past. This is shown by having verb in the past tense. (Note to specify tense, person must first be specified ... I went for 3SG)

..

..

To have the reference time in the future, simply put the future tense on the verb.

Now when you have a reference time other than NOW, this reference time must be already understood by all or it must be explicitly stated. For example ...

ʔès	kod-o-r-i	dían	kyù	baba	dai-o-r-i
already	work-3SG-IND-PAST	here	when	his father	die-3SG-IND-PAST

==> He was already working here when his father died [Note to self ... have I references "his father" correctly ?] [Do a 5 years ago example]

..

Sometimes the time of overlap between the reference time and the onset/cessation of activity is specified, I call this an overlap clause, specified overlap time.

By the way ... overlap clause, specified overlap time and a plain overlap clause have significantly different meaning ... ʔès and ʔàn clause are focused on the present time ... if an "offset time" is added then we focus on a period of past time extending into the present or a period of time extending from the present into the future. For example ...

ʔàn	kod-a-r-u	dían	euca	yìa
yet	work-1SG-IND-FUT	here	seven	year

==> I will work here for seven more years

ʔès	kod-a-r-a	dían	euca	yìa
already	work-1SG-IND-FUT	here	seven	year

==> I have worked here for seven years

Note ... If I wanted to give logical symmetry to the two case I could have used the present tense (kodara) for both. However the human mind treats past time and future time very different ... the future action is uncertain.

I thought this difference in treatment should be reflected in the grammar ... as in fact it is in most natural languages ... so ʔàn kodaru dían euca yìa instead of ʔàn kodara dían euca yìa

..

Now we have already said that béu is basically an (a) (b) type language.

However if we have a specified offset time it becomes (c) (d) type.

The negator used in this case is jù rather than bú.

To explain the reason for this .... well take the case of the English sentence ... "I have worked here for seven years" [ ʔàn kodara dían euca yìa ]

Now if we negate the English we get "I have not worked here for seven years"

However this is ambiguous ... does it mean "I have been idol for seven years" or "I have worked for a period of time different from seven years"

béu avoids this ambiguity by using the negative operator jù which only negates the element immediately following. So ...

"I have been idol for seven years" => ʔàn jù kodara dían euca yìa

"I have worked for a period of time different from seven years" => ʔàn kodara dían jù euca yìa

..

..

The rule is that bù is not allowed in a clause that has ʔès/ʔàn and an "specified offset time".

Note ... in English, one of the functions of the perfect is to indicate that an action started sometime in the past and is still going on. For example ... "I have worked here for seven years". In béu this is indicated by ʔès ...

..

While we are discussing this area I really should mention the béu non-overlap clause with duration and present tense.

If a time period is mentioned with a verb in béu the time period denote how long the activity went on for ... the duration of the activity (the duration usually follows the verb and no preposition ... like "for" ... is needed). However if ʔès/ʔàn are in the clause, the time period mentioned refers not to duration but to overlap. In this section we only talk about clauses with duration.

For the i, e and u tenses these constructions are self explanatory. For example ...

kod-a-r-i	dían	euca	yìa
work-1SG-IND-PAST	here	seven	year

==> I worked here for seven years (but I no longer work here).

However duration along with a present tense is worth mentioning.

kod-a-r-a	dían	euca	yìa
work-1SG-IND-PRES	here	seven	year

==> I will working here for seven years in total.

In the above example ... we are told that the total work period is seven years, but we get no information about how far we are through this seven year period. One doesn't hear this construction (present tense along with a time period) that often, but when you do hear it, its meaning is quite clear.

..

PS ... If you want to know more about aspect operators "The Meaning of Focus Particles" by Ekkehard König is the book for you.

..

... Slot 4

..

liga makes verbs which in themselves are quite compact more spread out. Possibly related to the verb ligai which means "to stay" or "to lie".

..

koʕia	to cough	liga koʕia	"to be coughing", "to have a coughing fit"
timpa	to hit	liga timpa	"to be hitting" or "to assault"

..

liga is never used with verbs that typically have an inherent long time duration. For example ...

*liga glarua beuba kewe would be translated as "I intend to be knowing the language of béu well" ... (not good in English either ... maybe OK in Indian English ?).

Simply glarua beuba kewe = "I intend to know the language of béu well" ... is more felicitous in both languages.

..

If translating from a language with a "perfective"/"imperfective" dichotomy, perhaps using liga for translation of the "imperfective" would work. However it should be dome sparingly. If every instance of "imperfective" was rendered with liga you would end up with a very very bad translation (the style would be judged attrocious by any béu speaker). Now in the very best register of béu this particle is used for a certain poetic effect, it is used sparingly and is not necessary for understanding what is being said. However people that are L1 speakers of a language having a perfective/imperfective tend to over-use liga. This is not really a problem, it just shows that they are not L1 béu speakers. Conversely people that are L1 speakers of language that lacks this distinction tend to not use liga enough. Again ... no real problem.

In certain situations liga can be translated as "keep". For example ...

liga doiku = keep walking

..

teka is the opposite of liga. It means "momentarily". Possibly related to the verb telka which means "to slip a little bit".

While in theory it can be used with almost any verb, it tends to be used disproportionately with a dozen or so verbs. For example ...

..

bwí	to see	liga bwí	to watch over	teka bwí	to catch a glimpse
wòi	to think	liga wòi	to ponder	teka wòi	to think for a moment
ʕái	to want	liga ʕái	to yearn for	teka ʕái	to have an momentary urge

..

So there is assymetry between the usages of liga and teka ... liga used with many verbs albiet verbs of short duration ... teka, while in theory can be used with many verbs, in practice the verbs usually used with it are quite restricted.

..

... Slot 5

..

There is only one entry for this slot ... jù. One of its uses has been discussed in the previous section.

Another of its uses is in certain SCV's. For example "listen not hear" ... "look not see" ... "try not succeed".

It usually has skope over the following word, however if the following word is liga or teka, it has scope over the next word as well.

..

... The perfect versus "already"

..

In English the perfect and "already" in many situation impart the same meaning to a clause. For example ...

1) She has gone to town ................ could have the experiential meaning.

2) She went to town already ......... no current relevance implied

3) She has already gone to town ... the addition of "already" brings us to the-here-and-now.

(Note to self ... think about this a bit more ... maybe the choice of verb "go" was infelicious ... whoever witnesses that as a complete event ??)

In béu ʔès and the perfect marker (-yə) can not be used together. They are two completely different things. For example ...

..

..

1) When you use ʔès (or ʔàn) you are concerned about the onset/cessation of an event ... probably in the recent past or near future.

2) When you use the perfect aspect you are concerned about the state of the subject (A or S) which has resulted from some event that might be quite far in the past ... impinging on this is a stong "experential" connotation. For example ... if John has read a book on geometry, you can assume he has some knowledge of this subject. If he has been to London, you can assume he has many sounds and sights of London stored away in his memory.

The meaning imparted by -yə is ...

a) The action is completed (some languages don't have a "perfect" but show "incompleted action" by having the "O" arguments in the partitive case). This is the base meaning of the perfect. In fact many perfect markers are derived from grammaticizing some word that means "finish".

b) There are "present consequences" to the action. This comes about because in most situations which are given a perfect marker THERE ARE "present consequences". Hence "present consequences" come to see associated with the perfect marker (a very simple process but behind all instances of grammaticization).

c) The subject has done the "action" once hence he has experienced the action and everything it involves.

..

-yə is used if the action is short compared to the total time frame being considered.

?ès is used if the action is long compared to the total time frame being considered. This is the same thing as saying that the action extends into NOW or into some other reference time.

..

... Index

1. Introduction to Béu
2. Béu : Chapter 1 : The Sounds
3. Béu : Chapter 2 : The Noun
4. Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb
5. Béu : Chapter 4 : Adjective
6. Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions
7. Béu : Chapter 6 : Derivations
8. Béu : Chapter 7 : Way of Life 1
9. Béu : Chapter 8 : Way of life 2
10. Béu : Chapter 9 : Word Building
11. Béu : Chapter 10 : Gerund Phrase
12. Béu : Discarded Stuff
13. A statistical explanation for the counter-factual/past-tense conflation in conditional sentences