Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb: Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(153 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
Welcome to      <big> '''béu'''</big>
Welcome to      <big> '''béu'''</big>


== ... 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.  
== ..... Person/Tense/Evidence==


..
..


[[Image:TW_687.png]]
Also called the '''r'''-form or the indicative.


..
..
To make a verb in the indicative mood, you must first deleted the final vowel from the base form. 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. All these affixes together are known as the verb tail. The "agent", "indicative mood", "tense" are mandatory ... however one tense, the aortist is a null morpheme.


..
..


What are considered moods are shown by a green circle.
=== ... Seven Persons===


..
..


Slot 1 is for the agent
..
..


[[Image:TW_688.png]]
One of the 7 vowels below is must be added. These indicate the doer..
 
[[Image:TW_109.png]]


How the different moods and forms interact are shown above. [this will be explained in full later]
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. 
 
Some people might have difficulty remembering whether to use '''ai''' or '''au'''. The diagram below might help some ...


..
..


=== ... The Infinitive===
[[Image:SW_08.png]] ............... [[Image:SW_09.png]]


..
..


The '''maŋga''' is "the infinitive"
Mathematically it is as if ... '''ai''' = me + you ... and ... '''au''' = me + they ....... (sort of)


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.
The vowels of the first person plural inclusive pronoun '''magi''' are reflected in the infix -'''ai'''-.  


About 32% of multi syllable '''maŋga''' end in "a".
As are the  vowels of the first person plural exclusive pronoun '''manu''' reflected in the infix -'''au'''-.


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


[[Image:TW_626.png]]
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 ...


Note that no '''maŋga''' end in "i", "u", "ia" and "ua"
'''doika''' = to walk


"i" is reserved for marking verb chains, which will be explained later.
'''doikar''' = I walk


"u" is used for the imperative mood ... i.e. for commanding people.
'''doikair''' and '''doikaur''' = we walk


"ia" is used for a past passive participle. For example ...
'''doikir''' = you walk


'''yubako''' = to strengthen
'''doiker''' = you walk


'''yubakia''' = strengthened ... as in '''pazba dí r yubakia''' => "this table is strengthened"
'''doikor''' = he/she/it walks


"ua" could be called the future passive participle I guess. For example ...
'''doikur''' = they walk


'''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 ...
=== ... The R-form===


'''doika''' = to walk
..


'''jù doika''' = to not walk .... not to walk
One mood


..
..


=== ... The indicative===
Slot 2 is for the indicative mood marker.


..
..


Also called the R-form.
At this point we must introduce a new sound and a new letter.


..


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. All these affixes together are known as the verb tail. The "agent", "indicative mood", "tense" are mandatory ... however one tense, the aortist is a null morpheme.
[[Image:TW_355.png]]
 


..
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.


==== .. Slot 1====
If you hear an "r" you know you are hearing the main verb of a clause.


..
..


Slot 1 is for the agent
=== ... Five Tenses===
 
..
..


One of the 7 vowels below is must be added. These indicate the doer..
Slot 3 is for tense markers. There are 5 tense markers in '''béu'''


[[Image:TW_109.png]]
..


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


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.
This could be called "the open tense" ... timewise there are no limits to an action marked in this way. Also called "the timeless tense". A sort of habitual tense. Often used for generic statements. For example ...


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 ...
'''ngur jwadoi''' = "birds fly"


'''doika''' = to walk
Actually you can say this tense has an underlying  '''o''' which appears again if there is an '''n''' or '''s''' in slot 4.


'''doikar''' = I walk
2) '''doikaru''' = I will walk


'''doikair''' and '''doikaur''' = we walk
This is the future tense


'''doikir''' = you walk
3) '''doikari''' = I walked


'''doiker''' = you walk
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).


'''doikor''' = he/she/it walks
4) '''doikare''' = I walked


'''doikur''' = they walk
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


==== .. Slot 2====
This is the present tense ... it means that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking.


..
..


Slot 2 is for the indicative mood marker.
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


..
..


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


..


[[Image:TW_355.png]]
Two Evidentials
 
 
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 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.


..
..


Slot 3 is for tense markers. There are 5 tense markers in '''béu'''
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) '''*doikaro''' => '''doikar''' = I walk (habitually)
1) -'''n'''  
 
For example ... '''doikorin''' = "I guess that he walked" ... That is the speaker worked it out from circumstances/clues observed.


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 ...
I will mention '''waron''' here. It means "I think so" and is nearly as common an answer as '''aiwa''' "yes"


'''ngur jwadoi''' = "birds fly"
2) -'''s'''  


Actually you can say this tense has an underlying  '''o''' which appears again if there is an '''n''' or '''s''' in slot 4.
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.


2) '''doikaru''' = I will walk
3) -'''a'''  


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


3) '''doikari''' = I walked
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.


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).
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) '''doikare''' = I walked
4) -'''a'''  


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


5) '''doikara''' = I am walking
This evidential marker only co-occurs with the future tense.


This is the present tense ... it means that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking.
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 '''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
So the complete verb prefix system is ...
 
[[Image:TW_980.png]]


..
..


==== .. Slot 4====
It can be seen that the '''béu''' evidentiality inventory is quite substantial compared to other languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/78
 
Also it appears that 4 or 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]


..
..


Slot 4 can have one of the evidential markers '''a''', '''a''', '''n''', '''s''' or it can be empty.
=== ... For brevity===
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.
We have seen that in the verb tail, '''o''' is not pronounced if it comes final (the aortist tense).  


The markers are as follows ...
The reason for this is brevity of speech.


1) -'''n'''  
For brevity of writng, every occurrence of '''o''' is not written (in the verb tail).  For example ...


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


I will mention '''waron''' here. It means "I think so" and is nearly as common an answer as '''aiwa''' "yes"
[[Image:TW_795.png]]


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.
== ... Probability/Aspect/Negation==


3) -'''a'''
..


For example ... '''doikoria''' = "he walked, I saw him" ...... That is the speaker saw it with his own eyes.
We have already covered the 4 slots for "agent", '''r''', "tense" and "evidentiality" at the end of the verb. 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 three pre-verbal slots.


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.
The two particles in the first slot show probability.  


Now there is a forth possibility for this slot ... and it is not actually an evidintial. Furthermore it has the same form as 3).
The seven particles in the second slot have to do with aspect in some way. Aspect can be tricky.  


4) -'''a'''  
In the third slot, only one particle : the negating particle '''bù'''.


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.  
=== ... Two probability particles  ===


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.
..
 
[[Image:SW_051.png]]


..
..


So the complete verb prefix system is ...
'''lói''' = probably
 
'''màs''' = possibly


[[Image:TW_980.png]]
If nothing is in this slot, one assumes probability is 100% ... the option to challenge the underlying premise is never really considered.


..
The probability distribution for '''lói''' centres around 85 %.


It can be seen that the '''béu''' evidentiality inventory is quite substantial compared to other languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/78
The probability distribution for '''màs''' centres around 50 %.


Also it appears that 4 or 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]
One can indicate a probability distribution centred around 15 % by using '''lói''' + '''bù'''. For example ... '''lói bù doikor''' = He/she probably doesn't walk.


..
..


==== .. Dropping "o" for brevity====
=== ... Two habituality particles ===


..
..


We have seen that in the verb tail, '''o''' is not pronounced if it comes final (the aortist tense).  
[[Image:SW_052.png]]
 
..


The reason for this is brevity of speech.
Every verb can be considered to have a default probability distribution over time.  


For brevity of writng, every occurrence of '''o''' is not written (in the verb tail).  For example ...
[[Image:TW_984.png]] .... By the way, don't worry too much about the time scale in these sketched.


..
..


[[Image:TW_795.png]]
'''timpa''' and '''nko''' have very simple default probability shapes. But the typical (possible) probability distribution for '''kludau toili''' is more complicated.


..
..


=== ... The imperative===
[[Image:SW_001.png]]


..
Likewise the typical (possible) probability distribution for '''bunda tìa'''.


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.
We can group all verbs into 3 classes occording to their probability distribution over time.


..
1) Punctual event ... '''timpa'''


For non-monosyllabic verbs ...
2) Steady state ....... '''nko'''


The final vowel of the '''maŋga''' is deleted and replaced with '''u'''.
3) Process ............ '''kludau toili''' or '''bunda tìa'''


'''doika''' = to walk
Now every verb (actually "very situation" would be more acurate) have a range of typical probability distributions associated with them. However the '''béu''' aspect markers IMPOSE a typical probability distributions on any verb they touch.


'''doiku''' = walk !
For example the particle '''awa''' imposes a probability distribution quite similar to '''kludau toili''' on ANY verb that it come in contact with.
 
'''awa*''' gives a "habitual but irregular" (maybe best translated as "now and again" or "occasionally" or even "not usually") meaning to the verbal block.
 
The particle '''bolbo*''' is similar to '''awa''' in a way. However it implies quite a bit of regularity. Maybe the regularity implied by ...


..
[[Image:TW_985.png]]


For monosyllabic verbs -'''hu''' is appended.
'''bolbo''' gives a "habitual and regular" (best translated as "normally" or "usually" or "regularly") meaning to the verbal block.  


'''gàu''' = "to do"
..


'''gauhu''' = "do it" ... often '''só''' is added fot extra emphasis.
We saw earlier that of the five tenses. The first is a sort of habitual tense. For example ...


'''só gauhu''' = do it !
'''doikar''' = I walk (with a sort of habitual meaning) ... OR ... I can walk (with a sort of potential meaning)


One verb has an irregular form.
'''beucar''' = I am sick ... OR ... I am prone to sickness


'''jò''' = "to go"
So we have a sort of habitual meaning without needing to use either  '''awa''' or '''bolbo'''.


'''ojo''' = "go" ... actually a bit abrupt, probably expressing exasperation, veering towards "fuck off" ... '''jò''' itself can be used as a very polite form.
However, if we wanted to restrict the habitualness to either the past or the future,  '''awa''' or '''bolbo''' is needed. For example ...


..
'''bolbo doikari''' = I used to walk (to school)


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.
'''awa beucaru''' = I will be sick (when I start the chemotherapy)


[ 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. ]
'''awa''' or '''bolbo''' most often co-occur with tense (2) and tense (3). It is quite rare to have the right circumstances to use '''awa''' or '''bolbo''' with the other three tenses.


..
..


=== ... The prohibitive===
'''*''' '''awa''' is possibly related to the verb '''awata'''  which means "to wander". '''bolbo''' is possibly related to the verb '''bolbolo''' which means "to roll". [by the way '''boloi''' means "to turn over" (as in "to turn over a mat"). '''boloi''' also means revolution [ '''boloi peugan''' means "social revolution" or '''boloi tun''' means "political revolution" ... i.e. the French Revolution ]. '''gwò''' is possibly related to the verb '''gwói''' which means "to pass (by)".


..
..


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'''.
=== ... Three aspect particles ===


'''kyà doika''' =  don't walk
..


That is pretty much all there is to say about it.
Three aspect and a negating particle


..
..


=== ... The optative===
[[Image:SW_053.png]]


See Ch 3.??
..


=== ... The suggestive===
With the three particles '''pín''', '''gwò''' and '''juku''', the fifth tense (present tense) never co-occurs.


..
..


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 ...
Maybe the best way to approach '''pín''' and '''gwò''' is to consider process verb like "read the book" or "build a house" '''*'''


'''báu kái''' = what type of man ?
Well you could say ...


'''ò r báu kái''' = what type of man is he ?
'''bù bundar tìa''' = "I don't build houses" ... which would put you out of the running.


'''ò r deuta kái''' = what type of soldier is he ?
But if you said '''bundar tìa''' ... and you were expected to build a house, one of the following might be applicable ...


'''nendi kái''' = this is what type ?
1) '''hogi bù bundar tìa''' = I still haven't started to build the house


But just as a normal adjective can be a copula complement, so can '''kái'''.
2) '''pín bundar tìa''' = I am in the process of building a house


'''ò r kái''' = what type is he ?
3) '''gwò bundar tìa''' = I have built the house


'''nendi r kái''' = this is what type ?
It is (2) and (3) we are interested in at the moment.   


'''ʃì r kái''' = what type of thing is it ?
Notice that '''bù bundara tìa''' = "I am not building a house" can be true when (2) is true. Remember that tense 5 refers to the EXACT time of speaking.


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 ...
[[Image:SW_056.png]]


'''kái wìa nyáu tìan jindi''' = How about we go home now ? <u>OR</u> 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]
In English, it is a bit of a mouthful to say "I am in the process of building a house". So you can see that '''pín''' is a useful little particle when you want to be specific in this particular situation. However '''pín''' is the rarest out of '''pín''', '''gwò''' and '''juku'''.


The <u>main</u> 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.
[Is '''pín''' also a preposition meaning during ... preceding a noun which is a period of time ?]


..
..


=== ... The interrogative===
Lets talk about '''gwò''' now.
 


..
As we can see in (3), '''gwò''' is linked to the idea of completion. It is also linked to the idea of having done something at least once (to have "experienced" some action, in other words). For example ...


Also called Polar Questions. A polar question is a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no".
'''gwò jàr glasgoh''' = "I've been to Glasgow" as opposed to '''jari glasgoh''' = I went to Glasgow


..
As I said above, the present tense never co-occurs with '''pín''', '''gwò''' and '''juku'''. However the other 3 tenses are possible  ...


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.
'''gwò jaru glasgoh''' = I will have been to Glasgow


It has its own symbol (and I transcribe it as '''ʔai?''') because it possesses its own tone contour.
'''gwò jari glasgoh''' = I had been to Glasgow (with reference time sometime before today)


I have mentioned this particle in chapter 1 (if you look back you can see its exact tone contour). Here is its symbol again ... [[Image:TW_399.png]]
'''gwò jare glasgoh''' = I had been to Glasgow  (with reference time earlier today)


And here is an example of it in action ...
'''gwò''' could be called an experiential/resultative perfect. '''béu''' also has a resultative perfect expressed with the copula '''sàu''' and the suffix -'''in'''.


[[Image:TW_492.png]] ... '''jono jaŋkori ʔai?''' = Did John run ?
The aspect distinctions available in '''béu''' are pretty fine-grained in some areas. Maybe if '''béu''' were to become a natlang, many of the fine-grain distinctions I have given it would fall by the wayside.


..
..


'''ʔai?''' is neutral as to the response expected ... well at least in positive questions.
And now it's time to introduce '''juku'''. When '''gwò''' expresses the experiential idea (as it does above) '''juku''' expresses the non-experiential idea ...


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).
'''juku jare glasgoh''' = I had never been to Glasgow (with reference time, earlier today)
 
'''juku jari glasgoh''' = I had never been to Glasgow (with reference time, before today)


Here is an example of a positive question ...
'''juku jaru glasgoh''' = I will never go to Glasgow (with reference time, before today)


'''glá r hauʔe ʔai?''' = Is the woman beautiful ?
'''juku''' like '''gwò''' is most often referenced to NOW. Hence ...


If she is beautiful you answer '''ʔaiwa''', if not you answer '''aiya'''<sup>*</sup>.
'''juku jàr glasgoh''' = I have never been to Glasgow.


..
..


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 ...
It is useful to compare the usage of '''juku''' against the usage of '''bù'''.This can best be explained by taking a punctual verb such as '''timpa'''. For example, suppose we were discussing "John hitting Paul yesterday afternoon". That particular instance of "hitting" can be negated with '''bù'''. However suppose it is wished to widen what is negated. Suppose that you want to say that there has been no instances of "John hitting Paul" (up until the present time of course), then you would use '''juku''' to negate the proposition. This is equivalent to "never" in English and I consider it an aspect particle.


'''glá bù r hauʔe ʔai?''' = Is the woman not beautiful ?
'''jonos polo bù timpori''' = John did not hit Paul


If she is not beautiful, you should answer '''bù hauʔe'''<sup>**</sup>, if she is you can answer either '''hù hauʔe''' or '''glá r hauʔe'''  
'''jonos polo juku timpori''' = John never hit Paul .... Notice that both '''timpori''' or '''timpore''' could be used. It depends upon what has been said before.


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)
'''bù''' is purely negation. It has no aspect to it.


..
[Note 1 ... The way '''juku''' negates '''gwò''' keeping the same aspect is similar to the way 没 méi (or 没有 méiyǒu) negates 了 le the perfect aspect particle, in Mandarin. 不 [bù] not being involved, just as '''bù''' isn't involved in '''béu'''. ]


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<sup>***</sup>.
[Note 2 ... One little thing you should be aware off. I have equated '''juku''' with "never". Taking more strictly it should be equated with "have never". Let me expand on this ...


Another use for '''só''' is when hailing somebody .... '''só jono''' = Hey Johnny
a) "he has never worked" => '''juku kodor'''.


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.
b) "he doesn't work" or "he never works" => '''bù kodor''' .... in this one "never" in English is equivalent to the timeless tense plus the normal negator ... '''juku''' doesn't make an appearance ]


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
So to restate the '''béu''' aspect system ...


Focused statement ... '''bàus só glán nori alha''' = It is the woman to whom the man gave flowers.<sup>****</sup>


Unfocused question ... '''bàus glán nori alha ʔai?''' = Did the man give flowers to the woman ?
'''juku kludar toili dè''' = I have never read that book ... not one word


Focused statement ... '''bàus só glán nori alha ʔai?''' = It is to the woman that the man gave flowers ?
'''pín kludar toili dè''' = I have not completed that book (but I have read some of it)


..
'''gwò kludar toili dè''' = I have read that book .............. every word


Any argument can be focused in this way.


..
It is not really felicitous to say '''*bù kludar toili dè'''. However if you dropped the object, then '''bù kludar''' is acceptable.


<sup>*</sup>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.
'''bù kludar''' => "I don't read" or "I never read" or even "I can't read" [This can be regarded as an event with a probability distribution over time, similar to '''nko'''. That is it is a sort of generic steady state event. For these sort of events '''bù''' is the normal negator]


<sup>**</sup>Mmm ... maybe you could answer '''ʔaiwa''' here ... but a bit unusual ... not entirely felicitous.
"I don't intend to read this book" would be '''bù kludarua toili dè''' [And I think that exhausts everything I could want to do regarding "a/the book"]


<sup>***</sup>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.
In a similar way constructions like "horses never fly" '''*kài fanfa juku ngur''' are frowned upon. "horses don't fly" '''kài fanfa bù ngur''' is considered more felicitous.
 
<sup>****</sup>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.
To restate the system yet again'''**''' ...
 
{| border=1
  |align=center| '''gwò kodor'''
  |align=left| he has worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodor'''
  |align=left| he has never worked
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodori'''
  |align=left| he had worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodori'''
  |align=left| he had never worked
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodore'''
  |align=left| he has worked (earlier today)
  |align=center| '''juku kodore'''
  |align=left| he hasn't worked (so far) today
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodoru'''
  |align=left| he will have worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodoru'''
  |align=left| he will never have worked
  |}


..
..


=== ... The conflative===
These three aspect particles also occur quite frequently in fronted adverb clauses. In these, '''pín''', '''gwò''' or '''juku''' are followed by an base form (plus any other bits and pieces relevant to the clause), then the main clause follows. English has similar. Here are three examples from English, illustrating the possible uses of these fronted adverb clauses ...
 
1a) '''pín doika ... ''' : Walking dejectedly home, Peter noticed a sudden movement in the hedgerow.
 
1b) '''tìa pà pín bunda''', I HAD TO LOOK AFTER TWO DAUGHTERS
 
2a) '''gwò doika ... ''' : Having walked all the way home in the rain, Peter was ready for a hot bath and a cosy night in, in front of the TV.


..
2b)'''gwò''' TO TAKE CITY, HE BURNT IT : urbem captem incendit


Actually the verb itself is called an '''i'''-form verb. But a clause that has one or more '''i'''-form verbs is called a conflative clause.
3) '''juku jò ... ''' : Never having gone to Casablanca before, Peter soon got lost in a warren of small streets just north of the Bazaar.


I will only touch on this subject here ... in Ch 10 there is a section that goes into this verb form in exhaustive detail. But one quick example ...
These type of fronted adverb clauses are considered good style. One comes across them quite often. Notice that the tense of the whole sentence is determined by the main clause.


..
..


'''jana jonos holdori nti flə léu sainyi''' => "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate three fish"
Note ... '''pín''' can also stand before a noun, a noun that represents a period of time. In which case it means "during". Or is can stand before a base verb, in which case it is equivalent to "while" or "during". Or it can appear in an active predicate, where it specifies a certain aspect type.


..
..


yesterday = '''jana'''
NOTE TO SELF ... does '''pín''' cover all occurrences of "while" and "when" in English ?


to catch = '''holda'''
..
 
to cook = '''ntu'''
 
to eat = '''flò'''


three = '''léu'''
'''*''' I do not consider "read" and "build" in themselves to be process verbs, they are sort of open-ended affairs. But for "read the book" and "build a house" there is a definite completion time ... and completion state, implied.


fish = '''sainyi'''
'''**''' You can't have too much of a good thing.


..
..


'''totai timpə+ri jw+ daun''' = the child was hit and died (instantly) [Note to self : how to say "the child was hit and died later"]
=== ... Aspectual operators ===
 
'''totai''' = a/the child
 
'''timpa''' = to hit
 
'''jwòi''' = to undergo
 
'''dàu''' = to die
 
'''dàun''' = to kill
 
'''jwòi dàun''' = to be killed


..
..


In a conflative clause, the first verb is conjugated as normal. However the remaining verbs are in their '''i'''-form. That is ... the final vowel of the '''manga''' is deleted and replaced with "i". If the verb is monosyllabic, the final vowel is replaced with a schwa. Semantically the'''i'''-form verbs follow the first verb. That is '''nti''' means '''ntu.ori''' and '''flə''' means '''flori'''.
Two overlapping-action particles
 
In conflative clauses, there can only be one subject but there can be more than one object. A conflative clause can consist of a mixture of H verbs and ɸ verbs. If the first verb is H then the subject is in its ergative form, otherwise it is in its base form. In the example given here, the three verbs have a definite time order, so the verb order is pretty much set. But we shall see in Ch 10 many examples where this is not the case.


..
..


Note ... in this example, all three verbs are intransitive and have the same object. So '''léu sainyi''' can not come between any of the verbs, but must come either before them all or after them all ...
[[Image:SW_054.png]]
'''jana jonos léu sainyi holdori nti flə''' =>  "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate ''the'' three fish"


..
..


My motivation for having the conflative is to express meanings such as "through" or "into" by pure verbs ... i.e. "to go through", "to enter".  
I call '''ʔés''' and '''hogi''' "overlap words".


Also the '''béu''' verb tail can get pretty long so I didn't want it to be necessary to repeat it three or four times in quick succession.  
Sometimes referred to as  "aspectual operators" or "aspectual particles" in the Western Linguistic Tradition.


Conflative clauses are very often 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. That is the overall clause must make sense semantically).  
Most languages have equivalents to these two particles ...


..
..


== ... Probability/Aspect/Negation==
{|border=1
 
|align=center| English
..
|align=center| already
 
|align=center| still
We have already covered the 4 slots for "agent", '''r''', "tense" and "evidentiality" at the end of the verb. 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 three pre-verbal slots..
|-
 
|align=center| German
..
|align=center| schon
 
|align=center| noch
[[Image:TW_999.png]]
|-
 
|align=center| French
..
|align=center| déjà
 
|align=center| encore
=== ... Probabilities ===
|-
 
|align=center| Mandarin
..
|align=center| yîjing
 
|align=center| hái
The two particles in slot 1 show probability.
|-
 
|align=center| Dutch
'''lói''' = probably
|align=center| al
|align=center| nog
|-
|align=center| Russian
|align=center| uže
|align=center| eščë
|-
|align=center| Serbo-Croatian
|align=center| već
|align=center| još
|-
|align=center| Finnish
|align=center| jo
|align=center| vielä
|-
|align=center| Swedish
|align=center| redan
|align=center| än(nu)
|-
|align=center| Indonesian
|align=center| sudah
|align=center| masih
|-
|align=center| '''béu'''
|align=center| '''ʔés'''
|align=center| '''hogi'''
|}


'''màs''' = possibly
..


If nothing is in this slot, one assumes probability is 100%.
'''hogi''' indicates ...


The probability distribution for '''lói''' centres around 85 %.
1) An activity is ongoing.
 
2) The activity must stop some time in the future, possibly quite soon.
 
3) There is a certain expectation<sup>*</sup> that the activity should have stopped by now.


The probability distribution for '''màs''' centres around 50 %.
'''ʔés''' indicates ...


One can indicate a probability distribution centred around 15 % by using '''lói''' + '''bù'''. For example ... '''lói bù doikor''' = He/she probably doesn't walk.
1) An activity is ongoing.


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


=== ... Habitualities ===
3) There is a certain expectation<sup>*</sup> that the activity should not have started yet.


..
..


The six particles in slot 2 have to do with aspect in some way. The last three '''gwò''', '''?àn''' and '''?ès''' can be individually negated with '''jù''' (to recap : '''bù''' negates its entire clause, '''jù''' only negates the following word) so it can be argued that there are 9 elements in this slot..
<sup>*</sup> 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 '''hogi'''  
and '''ʔés''' are often found in contrary to expectation situation which in turn colours their meaning.


Aspect can be tricky. Every verb can be considered to have a default probability distribution over time.  
..


[[Image:TW_984.png]] .... By the way, don't worry too much about the time scale in these sketched.
[[Image:SW_046.png]]  


'''timpa''' and '''nko''' have very simple default probability shapes. But the typical (possible) probability distribution for '''kludau toili''' is more complicated.
..


Just as the total time taken to read a book is considerable so also is the time taken to build a house '''bunda tìa'''. Other considerations might affect what is thought of as a typical (possible) probability distribution for '''bunda tìa'''. For example are the one(s) building contractors (probably the same time spent building every day) or self-builders (probably a wide variation in daily build times).
A very interesting thing about the overlap couplet is how they are negated cross-linguisticly. Either the particle can be negated or the verb can be negated. The first case I represent with a bar  over the operator+verb. The second case with a bar over the verb only.


Now every verb (actually "very situation" would be more acurate) have a range of typical probability distributions associated with them. However the '''béu''' aspect markers IMPOSE a typical probability distributions on any verb they touch.


For example the particle '''awa''' imposes a probability distribution quite similar to '''kludau toili''' on ANY verb that it come in contact with.
Notice ... compared to the positive case, 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".


'''awa*''' gives a "habitual but irregular" (maybe best translated as "now and again" or "occasionally" or even "not usually") meaning to the verbal block.  
Notice ... compared to the positive case, if the verb is negated ... then the yellow place becomes white and the white space becomes yellow.


The particle '''bolbo*''' is similar to '''awa''' in a way. However it implies quite a bit of regularity. Maybe the regularity implied by ...
..


[[Image:TW_985.png]]  
[[Image:SW_007.png]] .... [[Image:TW_996.png]]


'''bolbo''' gives a "habitual and regular" (best translated as "normally" or "usually" or "regularly") meaning to the verbal block.  
..


..  
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.


The difference between '''bù''' and '''juku''' can best be explained with respect to a punctual verb such as '''timpa'''. For example, suppose we were discussing "John hitting Paul yesterday afternoon". That particular instance of "hitting" can be negated with '''bù'''. However suppose it is wished to widen what is negated. Suppose that you want to say that there has been no instances of "John hitting Paul" (up until the present time of course), then you would use '''juku''' to negate the proposition. This is equivalent to "never" in English and I consider it an aspect particle.
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"


'''jonos polo bù timpori''' = John did not hit Paul
Cross linguistically there are interesting variations. All Slavic languages prefer verb negation, hence they are (c) (d) types.


'''jonos polo juku timpori''' = John never hit Paul .... Notice that both '''timpori''' or '''timpore''' could be used. It depends upon what has been said before.
In German, only (a) and (c) are allowed in positive declarations.  


'''bù''' is purely negation. No probability distribution is imposed on the verb. Or you can say that the negated clause has the same probability distribution as the bare verb.
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 ]


=== ... Three degrees of perfection ===
In '''béu''', '''bù''' negates the verb and comes immediately before the verb. It has scope only over the verb, rather than the whole verb phrase.


..
----


Now '''awa''' and '''bolbo''' impose a probability distribution over a period in time. '''juku''', '''gwò*''' and '''jù gwò''' describe a probability distribution with respect to a point in time. In particular  '''juku''' says that zero action has happened before a relevant point in time and  '''gwò''' says that all the action has finished before a relevant point in time. For example ...
{|
|-
! hogi || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| still || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I am still working here


..


'''juku kludar toili dè''' = I have never read that book ... not one word
{|
|-
! ʔés || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| already || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I already work here


'''gwò kludar toili dè''' = I have read that book .............. every word
----


'''jù gwò kludar toili dè''' = I have not completed that book (but I have read some of it)
{|
|-
! hogi || bù || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| still || not || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I don't work here yet


..


It is not really possible to say '''*bù kludar toili dè'''. In this case the process of reading the book is being considered as a punctual process (which it really isn't). However by dropping the object you get '''bù kludar'''. This can be regarded as an event with a probability distribution over time, similar to '''nko'''. That is it is a sort of generic steady state event. For these sort of events '''bù''' is the normal negator. In a similar way constructions like "horses never fly" '''*fanfai juku ngur''' are frowned upon. "horses don't fly" '''*fanfai bù ngur''' is considered more felicitous.
{|
|-
! ʔés || bù || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| already || not || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I no longer work here
 
----


..
However although '''hogi bù''' and '''?é bù''' are possible, they are rarely encountered. Usually the terms '''jù dìa''' and '''uhoge''' are used. The provenance of these two terms is interesting ...
 
'''jü''' means zero and is also used for negating nouns. '''dìa''' is a verb with quite a norrow meaning. It is what the sun does when it is revealing itself first thing in the morning.
 
I guess '''jù dìa''' is an idiomatic expression.
 
'''hò''' means "long" [not to be confused with '''hó''' the 13th '''pila?o'''). '''hoge''' means "longer". So '''uhoge''' means "no longer".
 
So the actual system for these two negatives are ...
 
{|
|-
! jù dìa || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
|  "not yet" || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I don't work here yet
 
 
{|
|-
! uhoge || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| "no longer" || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I no longer work here


'''gwò''' could be called an experiential perfect. '''béu''' also has a result perfect expressed with the copula '''sàu''' and the participle -'''in'''.
----


Overall the aspect distinctions available with '''béu''' are pretty fine-grained in some areas. It is not necessary to obsess too much on getting the exact form.
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.


..
..


[ In Mandarin ... 没 méi or 没有 méiyǒu is used instead of 不 bù and the aspect marker 了 le is  omitted ]
== ... Verbal Moods==


..
..


Some examples of usage ...
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 6 moods in '''béu'''. The prohibitive, indicative, optative, imperative, suggestive and interrogative ... 2 of these are represented by changes to the root and 4 by adding particles.
 
Two verb forms ... the inflinitive and the conflative ... do not represent moods, but I present them here along with the moods. These both are represented by changes to the root.


..
..


{| border=1
[[Image:SW_189.png]]
  |align=center| '''gwò kodor'''
 
  |align=left| he has worked
..
  |align=center| '''juku kodor'''
  |align=left| he has never worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodora'''
  |align=left| he has never worked (up until now)
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodori'''
  |align=left| he had worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodori'''
  |align=left| he had never worked
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodore'''
  |align=left| he has worked (earlier today)
  |align=center| '''juku kodore'''
  |align=left| he hasn't worked (so far) today
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwò kodoru'''
  |align=left| he will have worked
  |align=center| '''juku kodoru'''
  |align=left| he will never have worked
  |}
 
 
The aortist tense is negated using '''bù'''. i.e. '''bù kodor''' => he doesn't work
 
Let me explain the difference between '''juku kodor''' and '''juku kodora'''. The former is the unmarked form. In the latter the possibly of working in the future is given more prominence.


 
How the different moods and forms interact are shown above. This will al be explained later.
'''*''' '''awa''' is possibly related to the verb '''awata'''  which means "to wander". '''bolbo''' is possibly related to the verb '''bolbolo''' which means "to roll". [by the way '''boloi''' means "to turn over" (as in "to turn over a mat"). '''boloi''' also means revolution [ '''boloi peugan''' means "social revolution" or '''boloi tun''' means "political revolution" ... i.e. the French Revolution ]. '''gwò''' is possibly related to the verb '''gwói''' which means "to pass (by)".


..
..


=== ... The overlap couplet ===
=== ... The base form===


..
..


I call '''ʔàn''' and '''ʔès''' "overlap words".
About 32% of multi syllable '''maŋga''' end in "a".


You sometimes come across them referred to as  "aspectual operators" or "aspectual particles" in the Western Linguistic Tradition.
About 16% of multi syllable '''maŋga''' end in "e", and the same for "o".


Most languages have equivalents to these two particles ...
About 9% of  multi syllable '''maŋga''' end in "au", and the same for "oi", "eu" and "ai".
 
[[Image:TW_626.png]]
 
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 base form the word '''jù''' is placed immediately in front of the verb. For example ...
 
'''doika''' = to walk
 
'''jù doika''' = to not walk .... not to walk


..
..


{|border=1
=== ... The imperative===
|align=center| English
 
|align=center| still
..
|align=center| already
 
|-
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.
|align=center| German
 
|align=center| noch
..
|align=center| schon
 
|-
For non-monosyllabic verbs ...
|align=center| '''béu'''
 
|align=center| '''ʔàn'''
The final vowel of the '''maŋga''' is deleted and replaced with '''u'''.
|align=center| '''ʔès'''
 
|-
'''doika''' = to walk
|align=center| French
 
|align=center| encore
'''doiku''' = walk !
|align=center| déjà
 
|-
..
|align=center| Mandarin
|align=center| hái
|align=center| yîjing
|-
|align=center| Dutch
|align=center| nog
|align=center| al
|-
|align=center| Russian
|align=center| eščë
|align=center| uže
|-
|align=center| Serbo-Croatian
|align=center| još
|align=center| već
|-
|align=center| Finnish
|align=center| vielä
|align=center| jo
|-
|align=center| Swedish
|align=center| än(nu)
|align=center| redan
|-
|align=center| Indonesian
|align=center| masih
|align=center| sudah
|}


..
For monosyllabic verbs -'''hu''' is appended.


'''ʔàn''' indicates ...
'''gàu''' = "to do"
 
'''gauhu''' = "do it" ... often '''só''' is added fot extra emphasis.


1) An activity is ongoing.
'''só gauhu''' = do it !


2) The activity must stop some time in the future, possibly quite soon.
One verb has an irregular form.


3) There is a certain expectation<sup>*</sup> that the activity should have stopped by now.
'''jò''' = "to go"


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


1) An activity is ongoing.
..


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


3) There is a certain expectation<sup>*</sup> that the activity should not have started yet.
[ 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. ]


..
..


<sup>*</sup> 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'''
=== ... The prohibitive===
and '''ʔès''' are often found in contrary to expectation situation which in turn colours their meaning.


..
..


[[Image:TW_753.png]]
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


=== ... Negating the above ===
That is pretty much all there is to say about it.


..
..


A very interesting thing about the overlap couplet is how they are negated cross-linguisticly. Either the particle can be negated or the verb can be negated. The first case I represent with a bar  over the operator+verb. The second case with a bar over the verb only.
=== ... The interrogative===


..


Notice ... compared to the positive case, 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".
The interrogative, also called a polar question. This is a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no".
 
Notice ... compared to the positive case, if the verb is negated ... then the yellow place becomes white and the white space becomes yellow.


..
..


[[Image:TW_773.png]] .... [[Image:TW_996.png]]
To turn a normal statement ( i.e. with the verb in its '''r'''-form) into a polar question the '''r''' is simply changed into '''?'''.


..


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


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.
[[Image:SW_195.png]] ... '''lea r tiji''' = Lea's small  [[Image:SW_190.png]] ... '''lea sòr tiji''' = Lea is small    [[Image:SW_191.png]]  ... '''lea so?o tiji''' = Is Lea small ?


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


Nahuatl has negation of the operator so is (a) (b) type.
Polar questions also exhibit a certain pitch contour ... the pitch rises towards the end of the utterance. There is a symbol to show this utterance pitch contour ... [[Image:SW_192.png]]


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 ]
However the '''béu''' question mark is never used when it is obvious that we have a question. But sometimes a single name, noun or adjective can constitute a question by itself. In these cases the special symbol is used.


In '''béu''', '''bù''' negates the whole clause and '''jù''' simply negates the following word. In '''béu''' to negate a clause containing '''?àn''' or '''?ès''', '''jù''' is always inserted immediately before the verb. It can be seen that it patterns with the Slavic languages.
[[Image:SW_193.png]] ... Lea ?


..
..


{|
The interrogative is neutral as to the response expected ... well at least in positive questions.
|-
 
! ʔàn || kod-a-r-a || dían
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).
|-
 
| still || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
Here is a positive question ...
|} ==> I am still working here


'''glá so?o hauʔe''' = Is the woman beautiful ?


{|
To which you answer '''ʔaiwa''' "yes" or '''aiya''' "no". [Actually these two words have their own unique intonation pattern ... at least when said in isolation (see CH1 : Some interjections) ]
|-
! ʔès || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| already || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I already work here


..


{|
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 ...
|-
! ʔàn || jù || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| still || not || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I don't work here yet


'''glá bù so?o hauʔe''' = Isn't the woman beautiful ?


{|
If she is not beautiful, you should answer '''bù sòr'''<sup>*</sup>, if she is you can answer either '''sòr''' or '''soro''' or '''sòr hau?e'''
|-
! ʔès || jù || kod-a-r-a || dían
|-
| already || not || work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here
|} ==> I no longer work here


..
..


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.
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 '''só''' in front of the word<sup>**</sup>.


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


=== ... Overlap specified ralatively ===
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.


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


If the reference time is not NOW, we have an overlap-word clause, non-zero reference time.
Statement ... '''bàus gláh nori alha''' = the man gave flowers to the woman


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)
Focused statement ... '''bàus só gláh nori alha''' = It is the woman to whom the man gave flowers.


..
Unfocused question ... '''bàus gláh no?i alha''' = Did the man give flowers to the woman ?


[[Image:TW_998.png]]
Focused statement ... '''bàus só gláh no?i alha''' = It is to the woman that the man gave flowers ?


..
..


To have the reference time in the future, simply put the future tense on the verb.
Any argument can be focused in this way. ['''béu''' also has a means of "fronting" to emphasize an element in a sentence. This is discussed elsewhere]


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 ...
..


{|
<sup>*</sup>Mmm ... maybe you could answer '''ʔaiwa''' here ... but a bit unusual ... not entirely felicitous.
|-
! ʔès || kod-o-r-i || dían || kyù ||  baba  ||    dai-o-r-i 
|-
| already || work-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || here  ||  when  ||  his father  ||    die-{{small|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]


..
<sup>**</sup>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.
 
In the above examples, the overlap between the reference time and the onset/cessation of activity is specified relative to another action.  I call these overlap clauses with relatively specified overlap time.  


..
..


=== ... Overlap specified absolutely ===
=== ... The suggestive===


..
..


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


{|
'''òn rò báu kái''' = what type of man is he ?
|-
! ʔàn || kod-a-r-u || dían || euca || yìa
|-
| yet || work-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}}  || here  || seven  || year
|} ==> I will work here for seven more years


'''òn rò deuta kái''' = what type of soldier is he ?


{|
'''dí kái''' = this is what type ?
|-
! ʔès || kod-a-r-a || dían || euca || yìa
|-
| already || work-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}}  || here  || seven  || year
|} ==> I have worked here for seven years


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


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.
'''òn rò kái''' = what type is he ?


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'''
'''dí r kái''' = this is what type ?


..
'''?ò r kái''' = what type of thing is it ?


=== ... Negating the above ===
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 àn nyairu tìah jindi''' => "how about we go home now" =>  "let's go home now"


Now we have already said that '''béu''' is basically an (a) (b) type language.  
Actually '''kái àn''' is sometimes rendered simply '''àn'''. Maybe you come across the two alternatives an equal amount of times.


However if we have a specified offset time it becomes (c)  (d) type.
Is there any difference between the two forms ? Well ... yes. '''kái àn''' is used when the proposed venture is connected to leisure and pleasure. '''àn''' is used in more work-a-day situations.


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


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''' ]
The <u>main</u> 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.


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"
=== ... The conflative===


'''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'''
Actually the verb itself is called an '''i'''-form verb. But a clause that has one or more '''i'''-form verbs is called a conflative clause.


"I have worked for a period of time different from seven years" =>  '''ʔàn kodara dían jù euca yìa'''
I will only touch on this subject here ... in Ch 10 there is a section that goes into this verb form in exhaustive detail. But one quick example ...


..
..


[[Image:TW_995.png]]
'''jana jonos holdori nti flə sainyi uya''' => "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate three fish"


..
..


Note : the bottom left one is '''?àn jù kodara euca yìa''' rather than  '''*?ès jù kodara euca yìa'''  
yesterday = '''jana'''


THIS IS BECAUSE ?
to catch = '''holda'''


to cook = '''ntu'''


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


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''' ...
three = '''uya'''
 
fish = '''sainyi'''


..
..


While we are discussing this area I really should mention the '''béu''' non-overlap clause with duration and present tense.
'''totai timpə+ri jw+ daun''' = the child was hit and died (instantly) [Note to self : how to say "the child was hit and died later"]


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).
'''totai''' = a/the child
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 ...
'''timpa''' = to hit


'''jwòi''' = to undergo


{|
'''dàu''' = to die
|-
!  kod-a-r-i || dían || euca || yìa
|-
| work-{{small|1SG-IND-PAST}}  || here  || seven  || year
|} ==> I worked here for seven years (but I no longer work here).


'''dàun''' = to kill


However duration along with a present tense is worth mentioning.
'''jwòi dàun''' = to be killed


..


{|
In a conflative clause, the first verb is conjugated as normal. However the remaining verbs are in their '''i'''-form. That is ... the final vowel of the '''manga''' is deleted and replaced with "i". If the verb is monosyllabic, the final vowel is replaced with a schwa. Semantically the'''i'''-form verbs follow the first verb. That is '''nti''' means '''ntu.ori''' and '''flə''' means '''flori'''.
|-
!  kod-a-r-a|| dían || euca || yìa
|-
| work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here  || seven  || year
|} ==> I will working here for seven years in total.


In conflative clauses, there can only be one subject but there can be more than one object. A conflative clause can consist of a mixture of H verbs and ɸ verbs. If the first verb is H then the subject is in its ergative form, otherwise it is in its base form. In the example given here, the three verbs have a definite time order, so the verb order is pretty much set. But we shall see in Ch 10 many examples where this is not the case.


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.
..
 
Note ... in this example, all three verbs are intransitive and have the same object. So '''léu sainyi uya''' can not come between any of the verbs, but must come either before them all or after them all ...  
'''jana jonos sainyi  uya holdori nti flə''' =>  "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate ''the'' three fish"


..
..


PS ... If you want to know more about aspect operators "The Meaning of Focus Particles" by Ekkehard König is the book for you.
My motivation for having the conflative is to express meanings such as "through" or "into" by pure verbs ... i.e. "to go through", "to enter".
 
Also the '''béu''' verb tail can get pretty long so I didn't want it to be necessary to repeat it three or four times in quick succession.  


..
Conflative clauses are very often 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. That is the overall clause must make sense semantically).  


=== ... Restrictions in usage ===


..
..


Let us discuss restrictions on these particles for a moment. Three rules to remember ...
To say that one activity happens totally within the time of an other activity, we use the conflative plus the particle '''pín''' which we met earlier in this chapter. For example ...


1) '''lói''' and '''màs''' from slot 1 can co-exist with any particles from slot 2.
'''jonos lailore pín doiki''' = "John sang while walking earlier today"


2) '''bù''' can not co-exist with any particles from slot 2.
'''jonos lailore pín doiki tunheun''' = "John sang while walking to the civic centre earlier today"


3) '''jù''' can only co-exist with '''?àn''' from slot 2. [think on this one again]
The whole constuctions (i.e. '''pín doiki''' and '''pín doiki tunheuh''') are equivalent adverbs.
 
An adverb meaning "the '''r'''-form (matrix verb) happened during the time of the '''pín''' + -'''i''' verb".


..
..


One usage of '''jù''' (slot 3) is mentioned above. Another usage is in certain SCV's. For example "listen not hear" ... "look not see" ... "try not succeed" where '''jù''' replaces the normal '''lé''' between the verbs.
=== ... The optative===
 
[ ANY OTHER USAGE ? ]


..
..


== ..... Valency==
See Ch 4 : The particles '''àn''' and '''gò'''


..
..


In every language a particular verb can be associated with a number of nouns (we usually called these nouns arguments of the verb). For example ....
== ..... Negativity==


{|
..
|-
! jono-s || jene-n || slaigau || haun-o-r-a || eŋglaba-tu
|-
| John-{{small|ERG}} || Jane-{{small|DAT}}|| calculus || teach-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || English-{{small|INST}}
|} ==> John is teaching calculus to Jane in English


In the above example "teach" is associated with 4 nouns.
'''béu''' has three particles/prefixes for expressing negativity.


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".
Different particles for different parts of speech. Usually the particle is immediately to the left of the concept it modifies.


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.
[[Image:SW_145.png]]
 
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 is  ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker  "-'''s'''".
'''bù''' negates the live verb (i.e. the verb in its r-form). We have encountered '''bù''' already in the section "probability/aspect/negation".


A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker  "-'''s'''".
The verb in its u-form is negated by the particle '''kyà''' to the left of the '''maŋga'''. For example ...


..
..


Now I will introduce the S A O convention which was devised by RMW Dixon. This convention 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.
'''sauhu bòi'''= be good


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.
However '''kyà sàu bòi''' = "don’t be good" instead of '''*bù sauhu bòi'''
 
[ In the '''béu''' linguistic tradition, the A argument is "the '''sadu''' noun", the O argument is the "the dash noun" and the S argument is the "the stroke noun".]


..
..


Now in English certain verbs appear to be Ø in some situations and H in others. These are called ambitransitive verbs.
The verb in its u-form can not be negated.


..
..


1) The old woman knitted a sweater
'''u'''- can connect to any adjective.
 
'''?ár wèu u.ai''' = I want a nonwhite car (I want a car, any colour but white)  


2) The old woman knitted
'''u'''- can on occasion be prefixed to nouns, the same as "non"- is used in English. However this construction is quite rare.


"knit" is regarded as a  "A=S ambitransitive". In (1) "old woman" is A ... in (2) "old woman" is S ... [ (2) is a smaller bite of the reality described by (1) ]
'''u'''- can connect to some verbs. The number of verbs it can connect to is limited ... about 20 or 30. Here are some examples ...


..
..


3) The old woman opened the door
{| border=1
  |align=center| '''kunja'''
  |align=center| to fold
  |align=center| '''ukunja'''
  |align=center| to unfold
  |-
  |align=center| '''laiba'''
  |align=center| to cover
  |align=center| '''ulaiba'''
  |align=center| to uncover
  |-
  |align=center| '''tata'''
  |align=center| to tangle
  |align=center| '''utata'''
  |align=center| to untangle
  |-
  |align=center| '''fuŋga'''
  |align=center| to fasten, to lock
  |align=center| '''ufuŋga'''
  |align=center| to unfasten, to unlock
  |-
  |align=center| '''benda'''
  |align=center| to assemble, to put together
  |align=center| '''ubenda'''
  |align=center| to take apart, to disassemble
  |-
  |align=center| '''pauca'''
  |align=center| to stop up, to block
  |align=center| '''upauca'''
  |align=center| to unstop
  |-
  |align=center| '''senza'''
  |align=center| to weave
  |align=center|  '''uzenza'''
  |align=center| to unravel
  |-
  |align=center| '''fiŋka'''
  |align=center| to put on clothes, to dress
  |align=center| '''ufiŋka'''
  |align=center| to undress
  |}
 
..
 
'''jù''' negates nouns. In the next chapter we will encounter it in the section on numbers. It means "zero".


4) The door opened
It also negates  '''maŋga''' or dead verbs.


"open" is regarded as a  "O=S ambitransitive". In (3) "the door" is O ... in (2) "the door" is S ... [ (4) is not inconsistant'''*''' to a smaller bite of the reality described by (3) ]
It also negates clauses. For example ...


'''jù àn ?ár jò''' = "not that I want to go"
..
..


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.  
Sometimes '''béu''' uses two of these three methods in the same sentence. I guess you could call this double negation. Double negation does NOT cancel, and it does NOT produce emphatic negation.


'''bala''' "to 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.  
Here is an example of '''bù'''/'''jù''' double negation ... '''jenes bù mbor jù flò cokolata''' ... meaning "Jane lacks the willpower to resist chocolates".


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. However in this case the only noun ('''pintu''') is not marked for the ergative hence it must be the "O argument".
..


'''pintu baləri''' could also be translated as "the door was opened".
And here is an example of '''bù'''.-'''u''' double negation ...


..
..


'''*'''(4) leave open the question whether human action brought about the action or it was due to some other cause. This question could be answered by rewriting (4) as either "The door was opened" or "The door opened by itself".
[[Image:SW_149.png]] ..................... [[Image:SW_148.png]]


'''**'''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".  
..


'''***'''We haven't come across the schwa before the "r" before. This will be explained very soon.
'''mutu/umutu''' "important/unimportant" patterns with such antonym pairs as big/small ( '''jutu/tiji''' ) in that the two pole values together do not fill up the entire semantic space.


..
..


So in '''béu''' …. each verb is either  H  or Ø … no ambitransitives or ditransitives.
Sometimes you have a choice, as to which negative to use. As in English, where "I don't have a house" can also be exressed as "I have no house". in '''béu''' you can say '''bù byár tìa''' or '''byár jù tìa'''. For both languages the latter form comes across as being more vivid, carries greater emotion [I am not 100% sure why this should be so].
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".
== ..... Six useful verbs==
 
..


Everything collapses in ... to the schwa ... an impersonal schwa.
Six verbs of a kind


..
..


[[Image:TW_664.png]]
{| border=1
   
  || '''bala'''
"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'''
  || to open
  || '''kala'''
  || to shut/close
  |-
  || '''bana'''
  || to let go, to release, to free ...
  || '''kana'''
  || to connect, to make fast, to join
  |-
  ||  '''baza'''
  || to empty
  || '''kaza'''
  || to fill
  |}


..
..


Here are some examples of this construction [ I will call it the impersonal construction from now on ]
And we have six common adjectives derived from the above ...


'''beuba bl+r dían''' = "The language of '''béu''' is spoken here"
..


'''pí gaudoheu dè_blanyo g+r''' = "In this factory telephones are made"
{| border=1
 
  ||  '''balya'''
'''toilia bù ost+r pí duka dí''' = "Books are not sold in this shop"
  || open
 
  ||  '''kalya'''
'''pintu by+r bala''' = '''pintu r balwa''' = the door has to be opened
  || shut/closed
 
  |-
'''pintu mb+r bala''' = the door can be opened ...........  [ to understand this example and the one above it ... see Ch 4.7 ]
  ||  '''banya'''
 
  || free, seperate
'''hala dè nyal+ryə''' = that rock is eroded .......... '''nyale''' = to erode, to wear
  ||  '''kanya'''
  || connected, joined
  |-
  ||  '''baʒya'''
  || empty
  ||  '''kaʒya'''
  || full
  |}


..
..


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 ...
{| border=1
 
  ||  '''balo'''
..
  || an key
 
  ||  '''kalo'''
[[Image:TW_909.png]]
  || a (window)shutter/valve
  |-
  ||  '''bano'''
  || padding
  ||  '''kano'''
  || link/connector
  |-
  ||  '''bazo'''
  || a void/vucuum
  ||  '''bano'''
  ||  fill
  |}


Note ... Some '''béu''' speakers  pronounce "schwa" + "syllable final rhotic" as  "ø" or "ør". 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.
The '''o''' suffix implies something solid.  "connection", "association" or "relationship" would be covered by the '''manga''' ... '''kana'''.


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'''. 
'''bazda''' = desert ?? : '''kazda''' = ocean " '''kanda''' = an intersection ?? : '''balda''' = a gap/opening


Hence ...
'''bano''' originally padding to separate a warriors leather armour from his tunic.


'''doska''' = to freeze
..


'''moze doskori''' = the water froze
== ..... Valency==
 
'''moze doskanaru''' = I will freeze the water


..
..


Actually any Ø can take this suffix and become H. Here are a few more examples ...
In every language a particular verb can be associated with a number of nouns (we usually called these nouns arguments of the verb). For example ....


..
{|
 
|-
{| border=1
! jono-s || jene-h || slaigau || haun-o-r-a || eŋglaba-tu
  || '''ngeu'''
|-
  || to fly
| John-{{small|ERG}} || Jane-{{small|DAT}}|| calculus || teach-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || English-{{small|INST}}
  || '''ngeun''' 
|} ==> John is teaching calculus to Jane in English
  || to throw
 
  |-
In the above example "teach" is associated with 4 nouns.
  || '''jó'''
 
  || to go
Now things can get a bit confusing here. Some people hold that it is easy to distinguish between "core arguments" which are essential and "peripheral arguments" which simply add more information. But this is questionable. 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". A simple to implement system at the least.
  || '''jón'''
 
  || to send
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 (unmarked) arguments).
  |-
 
  || '''tè'''
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 expounding an action (verb) in two different linguistic traditions. The '''béu''' linguistic tradition is the simplest :-)
  || to come
 
  ||  '''tèn'''
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 ...
  || to summon
 
  |-
..
  || '''bái'''
 
  || to rise
A verb is H  if it is ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-'''s'''".
  ||  '''báin'''
 
  || to raise
A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-'''s'''".
  |-
  ||  '''kàu'''
  || to descend
  || '''kàun'''
  || to lower
  |-
  ||  '''dàu'''
  || to die
  ||  '''dàun'''
  || to kill
  |-
  ||  '''slài'''
  || to change
  ||  '''slàin'''
  || to change
  |-
  || '''diadia'''
  || to happen
  || '''diadian'''
  || to cause
  |}


..
..


And here are a few more examples ....
Now I will introduce the S A O convention which was devised by RMW Dixon. This convention 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.
[ In the '''béu''' linguistic tradition, the A argument is "the '''sadu''' noun", the O argument is the "the dash noun" and the S argument is the "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 partially 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 not inconsistant'''*''' to being partially the reality described by (3) ]
..
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 also considered H but with the A argument dropped'''**''' when it is unimportant or unknown.
'''bala''' "to open" is always H in '''béu'''. 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. However in this case the only noun ('''pintu''') is not marked for the ergative hence it must be the "O argument".
'''pintu baləri''' could also be translated as "the door was opened".
..
'''*'''(4) leave open the question whether human action brought about the action or it was due to some other cause. This question could be answered by rewriting (4) as either "The door was opened" or "The door opened by itself".
'''**'''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".
'''***'''We haven't come across the schwa before the "r" before. This will be explained very soon.
..
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.
..
[[Image:TW_664.png]]
"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 bl+r dían''' = "The language of '''béu''' is spoken here"
'''pí gaudoheu dè_blanyo g+r''' = "In this factory telephones are made"
'''toilia bù ost+r pí duka dí''' = "Books are not sold in this shop"
'''pintu by+r bala''' = '''pintu r balwa''' = the door has to be opened
'''pintu mb+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 ...


{| border=1
  |align=center| '''ʔoime'''
  |align=center| to be happy, happyness
  |align=center| '''ʔoimor'''
  |align=center| he is happy
  |align=center| '''ʔoimen'''
  |align=center| to make happy
  |align=center| '''ʔoimen'''
  |align=center| pleasant
  |-
  |align=center| '''heuno'''
  |align=center| to be sad/sadness
  |align=center| '''heunor'''
  |align=center| she's sad
  |align=center| '''heunon'''
  |align=center| to make sad
  |align=center| '''heunon'''
  |align=center| depressing
  |-
  |align=center| '''taude'''
  |align=center| to be annoyed
  |align=center| '''taudor'''
  |align=center| he is annoyed
  |align=center| '''tauden'''
  |align=center| to annoy
  |align=center| '''tauden'''
  |align=center| annoying
  |-
  |align=center| '''swú'''
  |align=center| to be scared, fear
  |align=center| '''swor'''
  |align=center| she is afraid
  |align=center| '''swún'''
  |align=center| to scare
  |align=center| '''swún'''
  |align=center| frightening, scary
  |-
  |align=center| '''centa'''
  |align=center| to be angry, anger
  |align=center| '''centor'''
  |align=center| he is angry
  |align=center| '''centan'''
  |align=center| to make angry
  |align=center| '''centan'''
  |align=center| really annoying
  |-
  |align=center| '''yode'''
  |align=center| to be horny, lust
  |align=center| '''yodor'''
  |align=center| she is horny
  |align=center| '''yoden'''
  |align=center| to make horny
  |align=center| '''yoden'''
  |align=center| sexy, hot
  |-
  |align=center| '''gái'''
  |align=center| to ache, pain
  |align=center| '''gayor'''
  |align=center| he hurts
  |align=center| '''gáin'''
  |align=center| to hurt (something)
  |align=center| '''gáin'''
  |align=center| painful
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwibe'''
  |align=center| to be ashamed/shame/shyness
  |align=center| '''gwibor'''
  |align=center| she is ashamed/shy
  |align=center| '''gwiben'''
  |align=center| to embarrass
  |align=center| '''gwiben'''
  |align=center| embarrassing
  |-
  |align=center| '''doimoi'''
  |align=center| to be anxious, anxiety
  |align=center| '''doimor'''
  |align=center| he is anxious
  |align=center| '''doimoin'''
  |align=center| to cause anxiety, to make anxious
  |align=center| '''doimoin'''
  |align=center| worrying
  |-
  |align=center| '''ʔica'''
  |align=center| to be jealous, jealousy
  |align=center| '''ʔicor'''
  |align=center| she is jealous
  |align=center| '''ʔican'''
  |align=center| to make jealous
  |align=center| '''ʔican'''
  |align=center| causing jealousy
  |}
..
..


'''jài ?oime''' is an adjective meaning happy by nature.
[[Image:TW_909.png]]


 
Note ... Some '''béu''' speakers  pronounce "schwa" + "syllable final rhotic" as  "ø" or "ør". These people also tend to give "ø" the proper tone. However the majority pronoun a schwa followed by a rhotic appoximant with neutral tone.
Six H can also take -'''n''' as well. They are ...


..
..


{| border=1
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.
   ||  '''flò'''
 
   || to eat
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'''. 
   ||  '''flòn'''
 
   || to feed, feeding
Hence ...
 
'''doska''' = to freeze
 
'''moze doskori''' = the water froze
 
'''moze doskanaru''' = I will freeze the water
 
..
 
Actually any Ø can take this suffix and become H. Here are a few more examples ...
 
..
 
{| border=1
   ||  '''ngeu'''
   || to fly
   ||  '''ngeun'''  
   || to throw
   |-
   |-
   ||  '''mwé'''
   ||  '''jó'''
   || to see
   || to go
   ||  '''mwén'''
   ||  '''jón'''
   || to show, showing
   || to send
   |-
   |-
   ||  '''háu'''
   ||  '''tè'''
   || to learn
   || to come
   ||  '''háun'''
   ||  '''tèn'''
   || to teach, tuition
   || to summon
   |-
   |-
   || '''nko'''
   || '''bái'''
   || to know
   || to rise
   || '''nkon'''
   || '''báin'''
   || to inform, informing
   || to raise
   |-
   |-
   || '''pòi'''
   || '''kàu'''
   || to enter, to join
   || to descend
   || '''pòin'''
   || '''kàun'''
   || to put in, insertion
   || to lower
   |-
   |-
   || '''féu'''
   || '''dàu'''
   || to exit, to leave
   || to die
   || '''féun'''
  ||  '''dàun'''
   || to take out, extraction
  || to kill
  |-
  ||  '''slài'''
  || to change
  ||  '''slàin'''
  || to change
  |-
  ||  '''diadia'''
  || to happen
   || '''diadian'''
   || to cause
   |}
   |}


..
..


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 H although they have undoubtedly one extra noun compared to their non-derived counter parts. Remember H and Ø were defined as ...
And here are a few more examples ....


A verb is H  if it is  ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker  "-'''s'''".


A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-'''s'''".
  {| border=1
 
  |align=center| '''ʔoime'''
(Note : '''fyá''' "to tell" means basically the same as '''nkon''' but is less formal. Also '''gàu''' means basically the same as '''diadian''' but is less formal. )
  |align=center| to be happy, happyness
 
  |align=center| '''ʔoimor'''
..
  |align=center| he is happy
 
  |align=center| '''ʔoimen'''
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 <u>two</u> basic forms. For example ...
  |align=center| to make happy
 
  |align=center| '''ʔoimin'''
..
  |align=center| pleasant
 
  |-
'''cwamo hulkori''' = the bridge broke
  |align=center| '''heuno'''
 
  |align=center| to be sad/sadness
'''deutais cwamo helkuri''' = the soldiers broke the bridge
  |align=center| '''heunor'''
 
  |align=center| she's sad
..
  |align=center| '''heunon'''
 
  |align=center| to make sad
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 ...
  |align=center| '''heunin'''
 
  |align=center| depressing
..
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''taude'''
'''jono wiltore''' = John woke up (earlier today)
  |align=center| to be annoyed
 
  |align=center| '''taudor'''
'''jenes jone woltore ''' = Jane woke up John  (earlier today)
  |align=center| he is annoyed
 
  |align=center| '''tauden'''
..
  |align=center| to annoy
 
  |align=center| '''taudin'''
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'''.
  |align=center| annoying
 
  |-
So lets summarize these three typre of verb ...
  |align=center| '''swú'''
 
  |align=center| to be scared, fear
..
  |align=center| '''swor'''
 
  |align=center| she is afraid
[[Image:TW_825.png]]
  |align=center| '''swún'''
 
  |align=center| to scare
..
  |align=center| '''swu.in'''
 
  |align=center| frightening, scary
----
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''centa'''
So to wrap it all up about verbs and arguments ...
  |align=center| to be angry, anger
 
  |align=center| '''centor'''
No verbs are ambitrasitive. They are either Ø or H.  However it is easy to drop the A or the O argument from a H clause if either of them is considered trivial or is unknown.
  |align=center| he is angry
 
  |align=center| '''centan'''
Now in '''béu''' any H can be given a Ø meaning ( grammatically the structure is still H ) by making the the O argument '''tái''' ... meaning himself, herself, yourself etc. etc. However only animate A arguments do this. Hence ...
  |align=center| to make angry
 
  |align=center| '''centin'''
'''bàus tái timpori''' = the man hit himself  ................. acceptable
  |align=center| really annoying
 
  |-
'''*pintus tái balori''' = the door opened itself ...... unacceptable
  |align=center| '''yode'''
 
  |align=center| to be horny, lust
In English there are two ways to report on a door opening without mentioning any agent ... "the door opened" and "the door was opened"
  |align=center| '''yodor'''
 
  |align=center| she is horny
In '''béu''' only one ... '''pintu bal+ri''' ... which is just a H clause with the A argument dropped. Comparable to how "the old woman knitted"(as this would appear in '''béu''' of course) is a H clause with the O argument dropped.
  |align=center| '''yoden'''
 
  |align=center| to make horny
..
  |align=center| '''yodin'''
 
  |align=center| sexy, hot
In '''béu''' you can make a "passive participle" by suffixing -'''ia'''.
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''gái'''
If you come across something broken and you know it was broken by human volition ... you would call it '''helkia'''.
  |align=center| to ache, pain
 
  |align=center| '''gayor'''
If you come across something broken and you did not know how it was broken ... you would call it '''hulkia'''.
  |align=center| he hurts
 
  |align=center| '''gáin'''
If you come across something frozen you would call it '''doskia'''. There is no such word as '''*doskania'''.
  |align=center| to hurt (something)
  |align=center| '''gai.iin'''
  |align=center| painful
  |-
  |align=center| '''gwibe'''
  |align=center| to be ashamed/shame/shyness
  |align=center| '''gwibor'''
  |align=center| she is ashamed/shy
  |align=center| '''gwiben'''
  |align=center| to embarrass
  |align=center| '''gwibin'''
  |align=center| embarrassing
  |-
  |align=center| '''doimoi'''
  |align=center| to be anxious, anxiety
  |align=center| '''doimor'''
  |align=center| he is anxious
  |align=center| '''doimoin'''
  |align=center| to cause anxiety, to make anxious
  |align=center| '''doimin'''
  |align=center| worrying
  |-
  |align=center| '''ʔica'''
  |align=center| to be jealous, jealousy
  |align=center| '''ʔicor'''
  |align=center| she is jealous
  |align=center| '''ʔican'''
  |align=center| to make jealous
  |align=center| '''ʔicin'''
  |align=center| causing jealousy
  |}


..
..


In '''béu''' you can make the "general obligation participle" by suffixing -'''ua'''.
'''jài ?oime''' is an adjective meaning happy by nature.


If you come across something that has to be broken ... you could refer to it as '''helkua'''.


If you come across something that had to be frozen ... you could refer to it as '''doskanua'''.  
Six H can also take -'''n''' as well.  They are ...
 
There is no such words as '''*doskua''' or '''*hulkua'''


..
..


The above method of presenting a verb like '''bala''' hints at human volition. To get rid of this connotation (to suggest that the event happened naturely) we must use '''tezau''' "to become" plus an adjective. This is demonstrated below ...
{| border=1
 
  ||  '''flò'''
Consider '''geuko''' = "to turn something green" ... H ... derived from '''gèu''' "green"
  || to eat
  ||  '''flòn'''
  || to feed, feeding
  |-
  ||  '''heca'''
  || to see
  ||  '''hecan'''
  || to show, showing
  |-
  ||  '''háu'''
  || to learn
  ||  '''háun'''
  || to teach, tuition
  |-
  || '''nko'''
  || to know
  || '''nkon'''
  || to inform, informing
  |-
  || '''pòi'''
  || to enter, to join
  || '''pòin'''
  || to put in, insertion
  |-
  || '''féu'''
  || to exit, to leave
  || '''féun'''
  || to take out, extraction
  |}


..


1) '''báu tezori gèu''' = The man became green .. ........................ ''natural''
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 H although they have undoubtedly one extra noun compared to their non-derived counter parts. Remember H and Ø were defined as ...


2) '''báu  geuk+ri''' = The man was made green .................... ''human volition''
A verb is H  if it is  ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker  "-'''s'''".
 
A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker  "-'''s'''".


3) '''báus tái geukori''' = The man made himself green ......... ''human volition''
(Note : '''fyá''' "to tell" means basically the same as '''nkon''' but is less formal. Also '''gàu''' means basically the same as '''diadian''' but is less formal. )


..
..


Now consider '''bala''' = "to open" ... H
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 <u>two</u> basic forms. For example ...
 
..


'''cwamo hulkori''' = the bridge broke


1) '''pintu tezori balya''' = the door became opened = the door opened .......... ''natural'' ................ [ here the agent could be anything ... the wind ... or even some fairy '''cái'''  ... use your imagination ]
'''deutais cwamo helkuri''' = the soldiers broke the bridge


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.
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 ...


..
..


In either of the (1)'s '''wistia''' "deliberately/carefully" or '''wistua''' "accidently/carelessly" can be added after'''*'''  '''tezori'''.  This automatically makes Agent => Human
'''jono wiltore''' = John woke up (earlier today)
 
'''jenes jone woltore ''' = Jane woke up John (earlier today)


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 an unusual situation.
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'''.


'''*''' or '''wistiwe''' or '''wistuwe''' if not immediately after the verb. [by the way ...  '''wisto''' = "mind/brain" by the way]
So lets summarize these three typre of verb ...


..
..


== ..... Six verbs of a kind==
[[Image:TW_825.png]]


..
..


{| border=1
----
  ||  '''bala'''
 
  || to open
So to wrap it all up about verbs and arguments ...
  ||  '''kala'''
 
  || to shut/close
No verbs are ambitrasitive. They are either Ø or H. However it is easy to drop the A or the O argument from a H clause if either of them is considered trivial or is unknown.
  |-
  ||  '''bana'''
  || to let go, to release, to free ...
  ||  '''kana'''
  || to connect, to make fast, to join
  |-
  || '''baza'''
  || to empty
  ||  '''kaza'''
  || to fill
  |}


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


And we have six common adjectives derived from the above ...
'''bàus tái timpori''' = the man hit himself  ................. acceptable


..
'''*pintus tái balori''' = the door opened itself ...... unacceptable


{| border=1
In English there are two ways to report on a door opening without mentioning any agent ... "the door opened" and "the door was opened"
  ||  '''balya'''
 
  || open
In '''béu''' only one ... '''pintu bal+ri''' ... which is just a H clause with the A argument dropped. Comparable to how "the old woman knitted"(as this would appear in '''béu''' of course) is a H clause with the O argument dropped.
  ||  '''kalya'''
  || shut/closed
  |-
  ||  '''banya'''
  || free, seperate
  ||  '''kanya'''
  || connected, joined
  |-
  ||  '''baʒya'''
  || empty
  ||  '''kaʒya'''
  || full
  |}


..
..


{| border=1
In '''béu''' you can make a "passive participle" by suffixing -'''ia'''.
  ||  '''balo'''
 
  || an opening
If you come across something broken and you know it was broken by human volition ... you would call it '''helkia'''.
  ||  '''kalo'''
 
  || a (window)shutter/valve
If you come across something broken and you did not know how it was broken ... you would call it '''hulkia'''.
  |-
 
  ||  '''bano'''
If you come across something frozen you would call it '''doskia'''. There is no such word as '''*doskania'''.
  || padding
  ||  '''kano'''
  || link/connector
  |-
  ||  '''bazo'''
  || a void/vucuum
  || 
  ||
  |}


..


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


The '''o''' suffix implies something solid.  "connection", "association" or "relationship" would be covered by the '''manga''' ... '''kana'''.
If you come across something that has to be broken ... you could refer to it as '''helkua'''.


'''bazda''' = desert ?? : '''kazda''' = ocean " '''kanda''' = an intersection ?? : '''balda''' = a gap
If you come across something that had to be frozen ... you could refer to it as '''doskanua'''.


'''bano''' originally padding to separate a warriors leather armour from his tunic.
There is no such words as '''*doskua''' or '''*hulkua'''


..
..


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


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


Now '''béu''' has some justification for claiming to be an engelang. The paradigm above is quite engelangish as is the number system. The naming of shapes is also very engelangish. See below ...


..
1) '''báu tezori gèu''' = The man became green .. ........................ ''natural''


[[Image:TW_956.png]]
2) '''báu  geuk+ri''' = The man was made green .................... ''human volition''


Derived from '''dano dailo dauzo''' we have the adjectives '''danai dailai dauzai''' meaning "straight flat regular".
3) '''báus tái geukori''' = The man made himself green ......... ''human volition''
 
Derived from '''danai dailai dauzai''' we have the adjectives '''unai ulai uzai''' meaning "crooked/bent uneven/bumpy irregular".


..
..


Derived from '''dano dailo dauzo''' we have '''dante daite dauste''' meaning "a crooked line" "a rag"(also plate as in plate tectonics) "a lump"
Now consider '''bala''' = "to open" ... H


The above may have some connection with '''dò''' "to move". The below may have some connection with '''kwè''' "to turn".


'''kwane kwaile kwauze''' = "a ring" "disc/plate/dish" "ball/sphere/globe" [Note '''kwante kwailte kwauste''' are imperfect manifestations of <= ('''kwauste'''=blob) ]
1) '''pintu tezori balya''' = the door became opened = the door opened .......... ''natural'' ................ [ here the agent could be anything ... the wind ... or even some fairy '''cái''' ... use your imagination ]


Also note ... '''si.anka''' = a testicle, '''si.ankau''' = a pair of testicles, '''si.ai''' = the earth (not used for other worlds), '''si.ana''' = a globe (a facsimile of <=)
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 to self : should -'''ana''' derive other words ? '''taime''' = angle ? '''taume''' = solid angle ? ]
Note ... there is no (3) here as a door is non-human.


..
..


'''dalnoban''' = a triangle < '''uban dalno'''
In either of the (1)'s '''wistia''' "deliberately/carefully" or '''wistua''' "accidently/carelessly" can be added after'''*'''  '''tezori'''.  This automatically makes Agent => Human


'''dalnogan''' = a square < '''egan dalno'''
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.


Note ... '''dailo''' is the usual word for square, '''dailo uzai''' would mean rectangle. However you might hear '''dalnogan''' in a mathematical context.
With (3) the connotation of intent is so strong that '''wistia'''/ '''wistua''' could be considered a bit infelicitous ... not impossible but indicative of an unusual situation.


'''dalnodan''' = a pentagon < '''odan dalno'''
'''*''' or '''wistiwe''' or '''wistuwe''' if not immediately after the verb. [by the way ...  '''wisto''' = "mind/brain" by the way]


'''dalnolan''' = a hexagon < '''oilan dalno'''
..
 
etc. etc.


..
..


a tetrahedron = '''daizlogan''' < '''egan daizlo''' (i.e. a foursome of facets)
PUT ANOTHER WAY ...


a cube = '''daizlolan''' < '''oilan daizlo'''
There are many actions that are kind of fluid as to the number of participants involved. When languages code an action they take into account whether the action is normally'''*''' involves a single paricipant or two participants [ three participants is also possible but that is another story ]. And then the relevant language will add extra stuff (an extra word … bit of word … something like that) when this action involves more or less participants than suggested by the basic word coding this action.


Note ... '''dauzo''' is the usual word for cube, '''dauzo uzai''' would mean block. However you might hear '''daislolan''' in a mathematical context.
Two examples from French.


an octahedron = '''daizlozan''' < '''aizan daizlo'''
The action of boiling is deemed => single paricipant => bouillir
When two participants, we add the word faire => faire bouillir


a dodecahedron = '''daizlojain''' < '''ajain daizlo'''
The action of breaking is deemed => double paricipant => casser
When only a single participant, we add the word se => se casser


an icosahedron = '''daizlojaizan''' < '''ajaizan daizlo'''
Certain languages deem certain actions pretty evenly split between single-participant manifestations and double-participant manifestations. In these cases, it can be impossible to determine what is the basic form of the verb.


..
An example from Swahili.


Note ... side as in flank is '''kebo'''  ... face as in human/animal face is '''muka'''
cham-k-a = to boil as the soup over the open fire boils
cham-sh-a = to boil as your mother boils the water for a cup of tea


..
Further examples, Japanese this time.


== ..... Two verbal prefixes==


..


In Dyirbal we have ... ''baŋga-'' "to paint" : ''baŋga-yarra-'' "to begin to paint".
{| border=1
  ||  生きる
  || ikiru
  ||  to live
  |:
  ||  活かす
  || ikasu
  || to revive
  |-
  ||  逃げる
  || nigeru
  || to escape
  |:
  || 逃がす
  || nigasu
  || to set free
  |-
  || 揺れる
  || yureru
  || to sway
  |:
  || 揺らす
  || yurasu
  || to shake
  |}


In Russian we have ... бежать "to run" : побежать "to start running".


'''béu''' has something similar to the Russian example (except that voicing has been introduced) ...
Japanese has a many verbs pairs of this sort.


'''doika''' = "to walk" : '''bodoika''' = "to start to walk" / "to set out"
..


'''bo'''- is an inflection rather than a derivation because it is applied automatically to all verbs.
'''*''' The choice can be culturally determined in some circumstances. Imagine a community in which each grown male visits the barber to get shaved every morning versus a community in which shaving is a private affair. The language of the former will inevitably pattern "shave" as transitive, anf the latter will inevitably pattern "shave" as intransitive.


..
..


In the Western Linguistic Tradition, '''bo'''- is called a marker of inchoative aspect.
== ..... To undergo==


..
..


'''béu''' also has the verbal prefix '''ke'''- which is opposite semantically from '''bo'''- ...
We have seen the subjectless verb form above where the vowel before the '''r''' becomes a schwa.`However there is another way to drop a subject ... by using the verb '''jwòi''' "to undergo" followed by the base form. Of these two ways of dropping the subject, the former is overwhelmingly preferred. However for forming present participles and infinitives, the second method is necessary.


'''doika''' = "to walk" : '''kedoika''' = "to stop walking"
'''timp+ra pà''' = I am being hit : '''jwola timpa''' = being hit : '''jwòi timpa''' = to be hit


I don't think the Western Linguistic Tradition has a term for this (shame on you Western Linguistic Tradition)
[Note to self .... sort out the below ... and also all the RUBBISH PARTICIPLE stuff I have]


..
'''hecari jono katala lazde''' = I saw John cutting the grass ....................... '''katala lazde''' is a '''saidau kaza''' ..... '''katala''' is a '''saidau baga'''


Actually '''bo'''- and '''ke'''- are not symmetrical. '''ke'''- is a lot less common with the aspect particles '''yə''' and '''wə*''' taking up a lot of heavy lifting.
'''hecari lazde jwola kata''' = I saw the grass being cut ............................. '''jwola kata''' is a '''saidau kaza'''  


'''hecari lazde jwola kata hí jono''' = I saw the grass being cut by John .... '''jwola kata hí jono''' is a '''saidau kaza'''


If the verb begins with '''e''', then one of them is subsumed ...
Note ... although the '''là''' suffix is probably connected to the second '''pila?o''' it should be recognized as a separate siffix here. If it was the '''pila?o''' we would have ... '''bwari lazde là jwòi kata'''


'''eskua''' "to be angry" : '''keskua''' "to calm down" as opposed to ... '''bo.eskua''' "to get angry" ... which is the normal way '''béu''' handles vowels meeting up across inflectional boundaries.
'''hecari lazde kataya''' = I saw the grass that has been cut


A similar thing happens when '''bo'''- is prefixed to a verb beginning with '''o'''.
'''hecari lazde katawa''' = I saw grass that must be cut = I saw that the grass must be cut


..
'''lazde katawa hecari'''  = I saw the grass that must be cut


Some other examples ...
'''hecari lazde nài r katawa'''


'''mauma''' = to sleep : '''bomauma''' = to fall asleep : '''kemauma''' = to wake up
..


'''kodai''' = to work : '''bokodai''' = to start to work : '''kekodai''' = to stop working / to down tools
== ..... The copula==
 
sit .... stand ... lie ?


..
..


'''*'''See the section "IA & UA" in chapter 10.
The three'''*''' components of a copular clause usually have a strict order'''***''' ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement". For example ...


..
..


{|
|-
| "copular subject" ||align=center| "copula" || "copula complement"
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| r || koduʒi
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| is ||align=center| diligent
|-
|align=center| - ||align=center| - ||align=center| -
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| r || moltai
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| is ||align=center| doctor
|}


..
..


== ..... To undergo==
The copula's base form is '''sàu'''. You will see that it is listed among the 37 short verbs. However it patterns differently from the other 36. And indeed it patterns differently from all other verbs. Below are the '''r'''-forms of  '''sàu''' ...


..
..


We have seen the subjectless verb form above where the vowel before the '''r''' becomes a schwa.`However there is another way to drop a subject ... by using the verb '''jwòi''' "to undergo" plus the infinitive. Of these two ways of dropping the subject, the former is overwhelmingly preferred. However for forming present participles and infinitives, the second method is necessary.
[[Image:TW_969.png]]


'''timp+ra''' = I am being hit : '''jwola timpa''' = being hit : '''jwòi timpa''' = to be hit
..


[Note to self .... sort out the below ... and also all the RUBBISH PARTICIPLE stuff I have]
The copula form rule ... "When the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated, use the short form. At all other times, use the long form"


'''mwari jono katala lazde''' = I saw John cutting the grass ....................... '''katala lazde''' is a '''saidau kaza''' ..... '''katala''' is a '''saidau baga'''
..


'''mwari lazde jwola kata''' = I saw the grass being cut ............................. '''jwola kata''' is a '''saidau kaza'''  
The short form is used when the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated. In other situations the full form is used. For example when the copular subject is a pronoun'''**''', the long form must be used.


'''mwari lazde jwola kata hí jono''' = I saw the grass being cut by John .... '''jwola kata hí jono''' is a '''saidau kaza'''
You can see in the above chart that the short form of the aortist tense has two forms. '''ró''' is used in two situations ...


Note ... although the '''là''' suffix is probably connected to the second '''pilamo''' it should be recognized as a separate siffix here. If it was the '''pilamo''' we would have ... '''bwari lazde là jwòi kata'''
1) If the copula subject ends in a consonant.  For example ....


'''mwari lazde kataya''' = I saw the grass that has been cut
'''sòs rò hau?e''' = the snow is beautiful


'''mwari lazde katawa''' = I saw grass that must be cut = I saw that the grass must be cut
2) If an evidential is tagged on. For example ...


'''lazde katawa mwari''' = I saw the grass that must be cut
'''tìa ròn hau?e''' = the house is beautiful (I guess)


'''mwari lazde nài r katawa'''
..


[Note to self .... explain exactly what '''pilamo''' can go on the '''manga''' ... everything can go on '''mangan''' I guess ]
'''r''' by itself is used in all other situations.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.


..
..


== ..... The copula==
The aortist form is the form corresponding to "am", "are" ans is in English. The present tense is "marked" (i.e. the unusual case that carries extra eaning). For example ...
 
..
 
'''sòs rò hau?e''' = snow is beatiful ….. a timeless truth
 
'''sòs rà hau?e''' = the snow is beatiful (for now) ... maybe the speakers are contemplating the snow melting and the consequent slush


..
..


The three'''*''' components of a copular clause usually have a strict order'''***''' ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement". For example ...
And another example ...


..
..


{|
'''jono r bòi''' = John is good (it is his nature)
|-
| "copular subject" ||align=center| "copula" || "copula complement"
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| r || koduʒi
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| is ||align=center| diligent
|-
|align=center| - ||align=center| - ||align=center| -
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| r || moltai
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| is ||align=center| doctor
|}


..
'''jono rà bòi''' = John is being good ... maybe to impress somebody who is visiting.


The copula's base form is '''sàu'''. You will see that it is listed among the 37 short verbs. However it patterns differently from the other 36. And indeed it patterns differently from all other verbs. Below are the '''r'''-forms of  '''sàu''' ...
Note ... to say '''jono rà bòi''' invalidates '''jono r bòi''' to a certain extent.


..
..


[[Image:TW_969.png]]
Because there is a strict word order, definiteness can not be expressed as it usually is with other verbs (S, O, A, dative ... left of verb if definite, right of verb if not). However the particles '''èn''' and '''ín''' can be drafted for this purpose.


..
[Note to self : should every '''pila?o''' defined argument act thus ... what about other arguments ? ]


The copula form rule ... "When the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated, use the short form. At all other times, use the long form"
It is only the '''r'''-form of the copula which is irregular. All other forms are perfectly normal. For example ...


..
'''sauhu bòi''' = be good ................................................................. '''u'''-form


The short form is used when the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated. In other situations the full form is used. For example when the copular subject is a pronoun'''**''', the long form must be used.
'''kodor sə kludado''' = he works as a clark .................................... '''i'''-form


You can see in the above chart that the short form of the aortist tense has two forms. '''ró''' is used in two situations ...
'''kodi sòr kludado''' = he/she works as a clark …........................…  '''i'''-form .............. Actually, I think this way is better (change the rest of the website ?)


1) If the copula subject ends in a consonant.  For example ....
..


'''sòs rò hau?e''' = the snow is beautiful
There is also the change of state copula, '''tezau'''. While '''tezau''' < '''té''' + '''sàu''', I would not call it a calque on English "become", rather the deep semantic process that formed "become" in English, worked also in '''béu'''.
 
There is strict word order with this copula as well ...


2) If an evidential is tagged on. For example ...
..


'''tìa ròn hau?e''' = the house is beautiful (I guess)
{|
|-
| "copular subject" ||align=center| "copula" || "copula complement"
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| tezori || koduʒi
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| became ||align=center| diligent
|-
|align=center| - ||align=center| - ||align=center| -
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| tezori || moltai
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| became ||align=center| doctor
|}


..
..


'''r''' by itself is used in all other situations.it is a clitic attached the the last vowel of the copula subject. However it is always written as a separate word. For example ....
As you can see there is no erosion here.


'''tomo r tumu''' = Thomas is stupid
Notice that for the two copulas the copuls subjects are always unmarked ... that is they never take the ergative suffix.
 
It takes the tone of the copula subject.


..
..


The aortist form is the form corresponding to "am", "are" ans is in English. The present tense is "marked" (i.e. the unusual case that carries extra eaning). For example ...
How to negate a copular sentence ? Some examples ...


..
'''jono bù r jutu''' = john isn’t big
 
'''bù sòr jutu''' = he/she isn’t big


'''sòs rò hau?e''' = snow is beatiful ….. a timeless truth
'''òn bù sòr jutu''' = HE isn’t big (I am)


'''sòs rà hau?e''' = the snow is beatiful (for now) ... maybe the speakers are contemplating the snow melting and the consequent slush
In the last example, it is not necessary to have the full copula form to show 3SG ... '''*òn bù r jutu''' ... would not be confusing. However we continue to abide by "the copula form rule"


..
..


And another example ...
'''*''' Well sometimes the copular subject is dropped so two components. It is dropped if the subject is "the world"/"the environment". Under the section "Valancy" we introduced the impersonal form of the verb ... normally used when the subject is "unknown"/"trivial". The copula also has an impersonal form. However now the reason is not because the subject is trivial : rather the opposite, the subject is all encompassing.
 
Note ... Other languages use "world" or "environment" as the subject in similar situations, English used "it".


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


'''jono r bòi''' = John is good (it is his nature)
'''fona''' = rain : '''fonia''' = rainy/raining : '''fonua''' = dry (well not raining). So ...


'''jono rà bòi''' = John is being good ... maybe to impress somebody who is visiting.
'''s+ra fonia''' = it's raining


Note ... to say '''jono rà bòi''' invalidates '''jono r bòi''' to a certain extent.
'''tez+ra fonia''' = it's starting to rain


..
..


Because there is a strict word order, definiteness can not be expressed as it usually is with other verbs (S, O, A, dative ... left of verb if definite, right of verb if not). However the particles '''èn''' and '''ín''' can be drafted for this purpose.
'''**'''But actually to come across "pronoun" followed by "full copuls" is quite rare. As with all other verbs, ‘’’béu’’’ demands that the subject pronouns be dropped. Or at least you only hear them in exceptional circumstances.
For example, normally you would say ...


[Note to self : should every '''pilamo''' defined argument act thus ... what about other arguments ? ]
'''tìa bundari''' : "I built the house"


It is only the '''r'''-form of the copula which is irregular. All other forms are perfectly normal. For example ...
However upon hearing '''jono tia bundari''' (John built the house) you would say ...


'''sauhu bòi''' = be good ................................................................. '''u'''-form
aiya _ pás tìa bundari = No, I built the house


'''kodor sə kludado''' = he works as a clark .................................... '''i'''-form
And another example, normally you would say


'''kodi sòr kludado''' = he/she works as a clark …........................…  '''i'''-form .............. Actually, I think this way is better (change the rest of the website ?)
'''sar jutumo''' : "I am biggest"


..
However upon hearing '''jono r jutumo''' (John is biggest) you would say ...


There is also the change of state copula, '''tezau'''. While '''tezau''' < '''té''' + '''sàu''', I would not call it a calque on English "become", rather the deep semantic process that formed "become" in English, worked also in '''béu'''.
'''aiya _ pà sar jutumo''' : "No, I am biggest"
 
There is strict word order with this copula as well ...


..
..


{|
'''***'''There are two exceptions to this rule.
|-
| "copular subject" ||align=center| "copula" || "copula complement"
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| tezori || koduʒi
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| became ||align=center| diligent
|-
|align=center| - ||align=center| - ||align=center| -
|-
! align=center| jono ||align=center| tezori || moltai
|-
|align=center| John ||align=center| became ||align=center| doctor
|}


..
..


As you can see there is no erosion here.
1)  If the copula subject is a '''manga''' or a '''manga''' phrase you have two possible orders.
 
Notice that for the two copulas the copuls subjects are always unmarked ... that is they never take the ergative suffix.


..
..


How to negate a copular sentence ? Some examples ...
{|
|-
! nyáu ||align=center| r  || bòi
|-
| to return ||align=center| is ||  good
|} ==> To return is good


'''jono bù r jutu''' = john isn’t big
..


'''bù sòr jutu''' = he/she isn’t big
{|
|-
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || nyáu
|-
| "is" ||align=center| good ||  to return
|} ==> It is good to return


'''ò bù sòr jutu''' = HE isn’t big (I am)
..


In the last example, it is not necessary to have the full copula form to show 3SG ... '''*ò bù r jutu''' ... would not be confusing. However we continue to abide by "the copula form rule"
The more accoustic weight the '''manga''' phrase has, the bigger the tendency to use the second order ...


..
..


'''*''' Well sometimes the copular subject is dropped so two components. It is dropped if the subject is "the world"/"the environment". Under the section "Valancy" we introduced the impersonal form of the verb ... normally used when the subject is "unknown"/"trivial". The copula also has an impersonal form. However now the reason is not because the subject is trivial : rather the opposite, the subject is all encompassing.
{|
|-
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || nyáu || tìa || jindi
|-
| "is" ||align=center| good ||  to return ||  home-{{small|DAT}} ||  now
|} ==> It is good to return to home now


Note ... Other languages use "world" or "environment" as the subject in similar situations, English used "it".
..


As with English, this construction is often used for the weather ...
With the copula coming initially the short eroded form can never be used ... that is '''*r bòi nyáu''' or '''*rò bòi nyáu''' are illegal.


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


'''s+ra fonia''' = it's raining
2) If copula subject is a clause'''****''' with the particle '''gò''' at the front, you have only one possible order ...  "copula" and then  "copula complement"  and then "copular subject".


'''tez+ra fonia''' = it's starting to rain
{|
|-
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || gò || t-o-r-e || heute
|-
| "is" ||align=center| good ||  that || come-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}} ||  today
|} ==> It is good that he/she came today


..
..


'''**'''But actually to come across "pronoun" followed by "full copuls" is quite rare. As with all other verbs, ‘’’béu’’’ demands that the subject pronouns be dropped. Or at least you only hear them in exceptional circumstances.
'''tezau''' follows '''sàu''' when it comes to word order.
For example, normally you would say ...


'''tìa bundari''' : "I built the house"
..


However upon hearing '''jono tia bundari''' (John built the house) you would say ...
'''****''' this construction is covered in the Ch 4 in the section "The particle '''gò''' "


aiya _ pás tìa bundari = No, I built the house


And another example, normally you would say
----


'''sar jutumo''' : "I am biggest"


However upon hearing '''jono r jutumo''' (John is biggest) you would say ...
The above has all you need to know about the copula's ... not much to them ... just a few rules.


'''aiya _ pà sar jutumo''' : "No, I am biggest"
However I am appending a bit about the adverb '''wautus''' to this section as nowhere else really seems appropriate.


..
'''wautus''' can be broken down into '''wáu''' "a pair of eyes" : ''''tú''' "particle giving the intrumental case" : '''s''' "adverbial marker". It means "apparently" or "seemingly".


'''***'''There are two exceptions to this rule.
In English "by eye" usually means "by not measuring as such but roughly estimating (whatever) only using ones eyes". '''wautu''' does not mean this : it means "apparent".  


..
More often come across in the form '''wautus''' "apparently".
 
'''jono boizor wautu''' = "John is OK apparently
 
'''wautus jono boizor''' = "John appears to be health"
 
'''jene r wautu maumala''' = "it seems as if Jane is asleep"
 
'''jene maumora_wautus''' = "Jane is asleep, apparently" ... Note, in the last example '''wautus''' was added as an afterthought so it needs the adverbial '''s''' (not usually necessary when an adjective follows a live verb).


1)  If the copula subject is a '''manga''' or a '''manga''' phrase you have two possible orders.
The adverb has connotations of surprise ... "mirative ?"


..
..


{|
== ..... Existence==
|-
! nyáu ||align=center| r  || bòi
|-
| to return ||align=center| is ||  good
|} ==> To return is good


..
..


{|
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).
|-
 
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || nyáu
In a similar way, the impersonal form of '''yáu''' "to have on your person" links an noun to the universe at large.
|-
| "is" ||align=center| 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 ...
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.


{|  
{|  
|-
|-
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || nyáu || tìa || jindi
! tunheu-s || y-o-r-e || yiŋki || hè || yildos
|-
|-
| "is" ||align=center| good ||  to return || home-{{small|DAT}} || now
| townhall-{{small|ERG}} ||  have-{{small|3SG-IND-PST}} || "attractive girls" || a lot || morning
|} ==> It is good to return to home now
|} ==>(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 ?
 
..
 
== ..... Shapes et al.==
 
..
 
Now '''béu''' has some justification for claiming to be an engelang. The paradigm above is quite engelangish as is the number system. The naming of shapes is also very engelangish. See below ...
 
..
 
[[Image:TW_956.png]]
 
Derived from '''dano dailo dauzo''' we have the adjectives '''danai dailai dauzai''' meaning "straight flat regular".
 
Derived from '''danai dailai dauzai''' we have the adjectives '''unai ulai uzai''' meaning "crooked/bent uneven/bumpy irregular".
 
..
 
Derived from '''dano dailo dauzo''' we have '''dante daite dauste''' meaning "a crooked line" "a rag"(also plate as in plate tectonics) "a lump"
 
The above may have some connection with '''dò''' "to move". The below may have some connection with '''kwè''' "to turn".
 
'''kwane kwaile kwauze''' = "a ring" "disc/plate/dish" "ball/sphere/globe" [Note '''kwante kwailte kwauste''' are imperfect manifestations of <= ('''kwauste'''=blob) ]
 
Also note ... '''si.anka''' = a testicle, '''si.ankau''' = a pair of testicles, '''si.ai''' = the earth (not used for other worlds), '''si.ana''' = a globe (a facsimile of <=)
 
{Note to self : should -'''ana''' derive other words ? '''taime''' = angle ? '''taume''' = solid angle ? ]
 
---
 
'''dalnoban''' = a triangle < '''uban dalno'''
 
'''dalnogan''' = a square < '''egan dalno'''
 
Note ... '''dailo''' is the usual word for square, '''dailo uzai''' would mean rectangle. However you might hear '''dalnogan''' in a mathematical context.
 
'''dalnodan''' = a pentagon < '''odan dalno'''
 
'''dalnolan''' = a hexagon < '''oilan dalno'''
 
etc. etc.
 
..
 
a tetrahedron = '''daizlogan''' < '''egan daizlo''' (i.e. a foursome of facets)
 
a cube = '''daizlolan''' < '''oilan daizlo'''
 
Note ... '''dauzo''' is the usual word for cube, '''dauzo uzai''' would mean block. However you might hear '''daislolan''' in a mathematical context.
 
an octahedron = '''daizlozan''' < '''aizan daizlo'''
 
a dodecahedron = '''daizlojain''' < '''ajain daizlo'''
 
an icosahedron = '''daizlojaizan''' < '''ajaizan daizlo'''
 
--- THE ABOVE NEEDS UPDATING ---
 
Note ... side as in flank is '''kebo'''  ... face as in human/animal face is '''muka'''
 
..
 
----TO MOVE ELSEWHERE----
 
'''yildos''' = storehouse,barn, '''yildos yè''' = barns, '''yildos ú''' = all barns
 
'''seklas''' = a glass, '''seklas yè''' = glasses (<u>not</u> spectacles)
 
'''yè''' belongs to a small set of words that are never spelt out. They have a special "short hand" symbol. The '''yè''' symbol is shown below.
 
'''húa''' = head, '''húa yè''' = heads ..........[[Image:SW_72.png]]
 
..
 
The main derivation pathways
 
..
 
Derivational morphology often involves the addition of a derivational suffix or other affix. Such an affix usually applies to words of one lexical category (part of speech) and changes them into words of another such category. For example, the English derivational suffix -ly changes adjectives into adverbs (slow → slowly).
 
Examples of English derivational patterns and their suffixes:
 
*adjective-to-noun: -ness (slow → slowness)
*adjective-to-verb: -ize (modern → modernize)
*adjective-to-adjective: -ish (red → reddish)
*adjective-to-adverb: -ly (personal → personally)
*noun-to-adjective: -al (recreation → recreational)
*noun-to-verb: -fy (glory → glorify)
*verb-to-adjective: -able (drink → drinkable)
*verb-to-noun (abstract): -ance (deliver → deliverance)
*verb-to-noun (agent): -er (write → writer)
 
Derivation can be contrasted with inflection, in that derivation produces a new word (a distinct lexeme), whereas inflection produces grammatical variants of the same word.
 
Generally speaking, inflection applies in more or less regular patterns to all members of a part of speech (for example, nearly every English verb adds -s for the third person singular present tense), while derivation follows less consistent patterns (for example, the nominalizing suffix -ity can be used with the adjectives modern and dense, but not with open or strong).
 
Derivation can also occur without any change of form, for example telephone (noun) and to telephone. This is known as zero derivation. [ All the above from "wikipedia" under "linguistic derivation" ]
 
..
 
The diagram below shows the ten main derivational processes which are absolutely fundamental to the working of the language.
[Remember the base verb should be considered a noun]
 
 
[[Image:TW_917.png]]
 
 
[1]
 
Most nouns can be used as adjectives just by placing them directly after the noun they are qualifying. Like "school bus" in English. For example ...
 
'''pintu tìa''' = a/the door of the house
 
Also to indicate possession the possessee is usually just placed after the possessed.
 
'''tìa jono''' = John's house
 
(Actually there is a particle '''yó''' joining the possessed to the possessee ... however it is rarely used. '''yó''' is also a noun meaning possessions, '''yái''' an item possessed, '''yáu''' "to have")
 
"John's house" => '''tìa yó jono''' .... but more usually '''tìa jono'''
 
This is zero derivation and is marked as [[Image:TW_816.png]] in the above diagram.
 
[2]
 
'''gèu''' = green
 
'''+ gèu''' = the green one
 
'''?azwodus''' = lactose intolerant
 
'''+ ?azwodus''' = a/the lactose intolerant one
 
[3]
 
'''gèu''' = green
 
'''k+ gèu''' = the green ones
 
'''k+ gèu làu oila''' = six green ones
 
'''sadu''' = elephant
 
'''k+ sadu''' = elephant-kind
 
'''k+ sadu làu oila''' = six elephants ... well, it is legitimate to say this ... but '''oila sadu''' is so easier.
 
[4]
 
'''gèu''' = green
 
'''kuwai gèu''' = greenness
 
[5]
 
'''yubau''' = strong
 
'''yubako''' = to strengthen
 
'''pona''' = hot
 
'''ponako''' = to heat up
 
[6]
 
'''poma''' = kick (also means leg) .... '''pomora''' = He/she is kicking
 
'''pomako''' = to kick ..... NOW '''kaupa''' = leg ... '''kipa''' = kick
 
However if the base noun ends in '''n''' ...
 
'''kwofan''' = bicycle
 
'''gàu kwofan''' = to (do) bicycle
 
[7]
 
'''pazba yubara'''  "I am strengthening the table"
 
..
 
{|
|-
! pazba || yub-a-r-a
|-
| table || strengthen-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}} 
|}
 
'''ponara moze'''  "I am heating up some water"
 
{|
|-
! pon-a-r-a || moze
|-
|  "heat up"-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}} || water
|}
 
[8]
 
'''tunheun kwofanaru''' "I will bicycle to the townhall"
 
..
 
{|
|-
! tunheu-n || kwofan-a-r-u
|-
| townhall-{{small|DAT}} || bicycle-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}} 
|}
 
[9]
 
This will be covered in detail in the next chapter. However here is a quick example ...
 
'''solbara moze'''  "I am drinking water"
 
..
 
{|
|-
! solb-a-r-a || moze
|-
| drink-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}} || water
|}
 
from the verb base '''solbe''' "to drink"
 
[10]
 
-'''s''', -'''n''', -'''a''', -'''o''' take -'''is''', all other endings take -'''s''' (including -'''ia''' and -'''ua''')
 
'''saco''' = fast, '''sacois''' = quickly
 
'''pudus''' = timid (of an animal), '''puduʒis''' = timidly
 
'''yubau''' = strong, '''yubaus''' = strongly
 
..
 
.
 
For [7] and [8] if the root that is to be transformed is monosyllabic, then we need -'''ko''' as well as -'''r'''-. For example ...
 
..
 
'''bàu''' = man
 
'''bauko''' = to man (exact same meaning as in English)
 
'''baukara téu dí''' = I am manning this position.
 
..
 
'''gèu''' = green
 
'''geuko''' = to make green
 
'''geukara pazba dí''' = I am painting this table green
 
..
 
You can say, that for monosyllabic words [7] = [5] + [9] and  [8] = [6] + [9].
 
 
..
..
 
 
Unadorned adjective can be used as nouns in many situations. Similar happens in many languages. For example ... '''klár gèu''' is ambiguous.
 
To disambiguate => '''klár kuwai gèu''' "I like greenness"  /  '''klár k+ gèu''' "I like the green ones" /  '''klár + gèu''' "I like the green one"
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
----
 
The remaining two transformations shown on the diagram are for verbalization. Actually the affix -'''ko''' is added to all adjectives or nouns in order to make a verb. However in one circumstance this affix is not needed. This is for the '''r'''-form based on a multi-syllable adjective or noun. For example ...
 
..
 
'''pazba yubaku''' = strengthen the table (a command)
 
'''pazba yubakis''' = you should strengthen the table
 
..
 
'''ponaku moze''' = heat up some water  (a command)
 
'''ponakos moze''' = he/she should heat up some water
 
..
 
 
 
 
'''bauku téu dí''' = man this position  (a command)
 
'''baukos téu dí''' = he/she should man this position
 
 
 
 
 
'''naike''' = sharp : '''naikeko''' = to sharpen
 
'''keŋkia''' = salty : '''keŋkiko''' = to add salt  ... when the adjective ends is a diphthong (and is non-monosylabic) the last vowel is dropped.
 
'''keŋkikara''' = "I am adding salt"  .... note <u>not</u> '''*keŋkara''' ... this is because '''keŋkia''' is a derived word.
 
'''sài''' = colour : '''saiya''' = colourful : '''saiwa''' = colourless : '''saiko''' = to paint (maybe via '''*saiyako''')
 
..
 
Note ... -'''ko''' is possibly an eroded version of '''gàu''' ( "to do" or "to make" ).
 
Note ... There seems to be a method of deriving a two place verb from a one place verb by affixing -'''n'''. For example ... '''diadia''' = "to happen" : '''diadian''' = "to cause". While this mechanism is seen all over the language I have not mentioned it in the chart above. This is because I consider it non-productive. I count '''daidia''' and '''diadian''' both as base words. In a similar way that English speakers consider "rise" and "raise" independent words, "lie" and "lay" independent words and "sit" and "set" independent words.
 
..
 
== ... Intensifiers==
 
..
 
THIS MUST BE REWRITTEN .... TUGE = more : JIGE = less
 
Remember earlier in this chapter, we mentioned the numerative slot (for the '''senko'''). To recap, this slot can contain ...
 
'''yè''' "plural" ... '''aʔa''' "one" ... '''ima''' "two" ... '''uya''' "three" ... '''iyo''' "few" ... '''eja''' "four" ... '''ofa''' "five" ..... up to ..... '''afaufaifa''' "215<sub>10</sub> ... '''hài''' "many"and '''ú''' "all"
 
Below is show how '''hài''' and '''iyo''' divide up the semantic space of quantity(intensity).
 
..
 
[[Image:TW_788.png]]
 
..
 
Now all '''saidau'''(adjectives) can be affixed by -'''ge''' to form the comparative'''*''' form. For example ...
 
'''bàu jutu''' = "the big man" : '''bàu jutuge''' = "the bigger man"
 
This affix can also be used with the numbers ...
 
'''juge''' "more than zero", '''a?age''' "more than one" : '''image''' "more than two" .... up to '''afaufaifage''' "more than 215<sub>10</sub>'''**'''
 
Now -'''ge''' can also be affixed to '''iyo''' letting us fill in every box of the chart given above ... [[Image:TW_789.png]]
 
..
 
Now when attached to '''saidau''', -'''ge''' gives a relative value (i.e. you are comparing one thing with another). However when -'''ge''' is attached to a numbers you get an absolute value (i.e. you are not comparing the modified item with anything).
 
When you want to compare two items as to their numerative value, you must use the particle '''yú'''.
 
(The word '''yú''' and the suffix -'''ge''' both can be translated as "more", however '''yú''' only qualifies nouns and -'''ge''' only qualifies adjectives)
 
'''jonos byór yú klogau jenewo''' = "John has more pairs of shoes than Jane"
 
'''?ár yú halmai''' = "I want more apples"
 
'''?ár hài halmai''' = "I want a lot of apples" or "I want many apples"
 
..
 
Now a number can immediately follow '''yú'''. For example ...
 
'''?ár yú léu halma''' = "I want three more apples"
 
'''yár yú halmai jenewo''' = "I have more apples than Jane" ....... [ note ... '''halma''' with '''léu''' but '''halmai''' with '''yú''' ]
 
..
 
To indicate "less" ... use '''wì'''. For example ...
 
'''jenes yór wì halmai pawo''' = "Jane has less apples than me"
 
'''jenes yór wì hói halma pawo''' = "Jane has two less apples than me" .... but it would sound better to rephrase these as ...
 
'''yár yú halmai jenewo''' = "I have more apples than Jane" : '''yár yú hói halmai jenewo''' = "I have two more apples than Jane"
 
..
 
'''*'''The affix -'''mo''' is the superlative for adjectives. When joined to '''hài''' and '''iyo''' ... we get "the majority" '''haimo''' and "the minority" '''iyomo'''
 
'''**'''Note ... the words '''noge''', '''haige''' and '''uge''' do not exist.
 
..
 
----


..
..


With the copula coming initially the short eroded form can never be used ... that is '''*r bòi nyáu''' or '''*rò bòi nyáu''' are illegal.
Above we have talked about numeratives and in detail about how to quantify '''senko'''.
 
..


2) If copula subject is a clause'''****''' with the particle '''gò''' at the front, you have only one possible order ... "copula" and then  "copula complement"  and then "copular subject".
Below we will touch on how other categories of words have their own intensifiers ...
 
{|
|-
! sòr ||align=center| bòi || gò || t-o-r-e || heute
|-
| "is" ||align=center| good ||  that || come-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}} ||  today
|} ==> It is good that he/she came today


..
..


'''tezau''' follows '''sàu''' when it comes to word order.
[[Image:TW_920.png]]


..
..


'''****''' this construction is covered in the Ch 4 in the section "The particle '''gò''' "
'''hài bàu''' = many men
 
 
----
 
 
The above has all you need to know about the copula's ... not much to them ... just a few rules.
 
However I am appending a bit about the adverb '''wautus''' to this section as nowhere else really seems appropriate.
 
'''wautus''' can be broken down into '''wáu''' "a pair of eyes" : ''''tú''' "particle giving the intrumental case" : '''s''' "adverbial marker". It means "apparently" or "seemingly".
 
In English "by eye" usually means "by not measuring as such but roughly estimating (whatever) only using ones eyes". '''wautu''' does not mean this : it means "apparent".
 
More often come across in the form '''wautus''' "apparently".
 
'''jono boizor wautu''' = "John is OK apparently


'''wautus jono boizor''' = "John appears to be health"
'''moze hè''' = a lot of water


'''jene r wautu maumala''' = "it seems as if Jane is asleep"


'''jene maumora_wautus''' = "Jane is asleep, apparently" ... Note, in the last example '''wautus''' was added as an afterthought so it needs the adverbial '''s''' (not usually necessary when an adjective follows a live verb).
'''hè''' also can qualify verbs. As with normal adverbs, if it doesn't immediately follow the verb it must take the form '''hewe'''.


..
(Note to self : I can't think of a reason you would want to separate '''hè''' from its verb)


== ..... Existence==
'''glá doikori hè''' = the woman walked a lot


..
'''hewe glá doikori''' = the woman walked a lot


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).
'''báus timpori glá hewe''' = the man hit a woman a lot


In a similar way, the impersonal form of '''yáu''' "to have on your person" links an noun to the universe at large.
And also can intensify '''manga''' and '''mangas'''


..
'''solbe hè moze''' = "to drink a lot of water"


But first let us run through some of the usages of '''yáu'''.
'''solbe moze hè''' = "to drink a lot of water"


..
The above two forms are equally likely to be found. There is a difference in meaning but you would be a real nitpicker to worry about that.
 
The basic usage is to link an object to a person.
 
'''jonos yór kli.o''' = John has a knike


..
..


'''saidau''' and '''saidaun''' are both intensified by '''sowe''' ...


The basic usage can be expanded and it can be used to link objects to a location.
'''jutu sowe''' = "very big"
 
{|
|-
!  tunheu-s ||  y-o-r-e || yiŋki || hè || yildos
|-
|  townhall-{{small|ERG}} ||  have-{{small|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 ...
'''jutun sowe''' = "the very big one"


..
..


'''y+r dèus''' = "there is a God" or "God exists"
Notice that '''mangan''' and '''saidaun''' can take two intensifiers ...
 
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".
 


----
'''hài solben hè wiski''' = the many times a lot of whisky was drink ... '''hài solben hè wiski hí pà''' = the many times I have drunk a lot of whisky


 
'''hài gèun sowe''' = the many very green ones
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''')
We will take about the opposite of intensifiers and other quantifiers in a later chapter. These are a lot rarer. The intensifiers are the ones most commonly used.
 
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 ?


..
..

Latest revision as of 19:57, 7 August 2020

TW 415.png Welcome to béu



..... Person/Tense/Evidence

..

Also called the r-form or the indicative.

..

To make a verb in the indicative mood, you must first deleted the final vowel from the base form. 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. All these affixes together are known as the verb tail. The "agent", "indicative mood", "tense" are mandatory ... however one tense, the aortist is a null morpheme.

..

... Seven Persons

..

Slot 1 is for the agent ..

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

TW 109.png

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.

Some people might have difficulty remembering whether to use ai or au. The diagram below might help some ...

..

SW 08.png ............... SW 09.png

..

Mathematically it is as if ... ai = me + you ... and ... au = me + they ....... (sort of)

The vowels of the first person plural inclusive pronoun magi are reflected in the infix -ai-.

As are the vowels of the first person plural exclusive pronoun manu reflected in the infix -au-.

..

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

..

... The R-form

..

One mood

..

Slot 2 is for the indicative mood marker.

..

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


TW 355.png


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.

..

... Five Tenses

..

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

..

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

This could be called "the open tense" ... timewise there are no limits to an action marked in this way. Also called "the timeless tense". A sort of habitual tense. Often used for generic statements. For example ...

ngur jwadoi = "birds fly"

Actually you can say this tense has an underlying o which appears again if there is an n or s in slot 4.

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

..

... Evidentials

..

Two Evidentials

..

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.

I will mention waron here. It means "I think so" and is nearly as common an answer as aiwa "yes"

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.

..

So the complete verb prefix system is ...

TW 980.png

..

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

Also it appears that 4 or 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]

..

... For brevity

..

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

The reason for this is brevity of speech.

For brevity of writng, every occurrence of o is not written (in the verb tail). For example ...

..

TW 795.png

..

... Probability/Aspect/Negation

..

We have already covered the 4 slots for "agent", r, "tense" and "evidentiality" at the end of the verb. 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 three pre-verbal slots.

The two particles in the first slot show probability.

The seven particles in the second slot have to do with aspect in some way. Aspect can be tricky.

In the third slot, only one particle : the negating particle bù.

..

... Two probability particles

..

SW 051.png

..

lói = probably

màs = possibly

If nothing is in this slot, one assumes probability is 100% ... the option to challenge the underlying premise is never really considered.

The probability distribution for lói centres around 85 %.

The probability distribution for màs centres around 50 %.

One can indicate a probability distribution centred around 15 % by using lói + bù. For example ... lói bù doikor = He/she probably doesn't walk.

..

... Two habituality particles

..

SW 052.png

..

Every verb can be considered to have a default probability distribution over time.

TW 984.png .... By the way, don't worry too much about the time scale in these sketched.

..

timpa and nko have very simple default probability shapes. But the typical (possible) probability distribution for kludau toili is more complicated.

..

SW 001.png

Likewise the typical (possible) probability distribution for bunda tìa.

We can group all verbs into 3 classes occording to their probability distribution over time.

1) Punctual event ... timpa

2) Steady state ....... nko

3) Process ............ kludau toili or bunda tìa

Now every verb (actually "very situation" would be more acurate) have a range of typical probability distributions associated with them. However the béu aspect markers IMPOSE a typical probability distributions on any verb they touch.

For example the particle awa imposes a probability distribution quite similar to kludau toili on ANY verb that it come in contact with.

awa* gives a "habitual but irregular" (maybe best translated as "now and again" or "occasionally" or even "not usually") meaning to the verbal block.

The particle bolbo* is similar to awa in a way. However it implies quite a bit of regularity. Maybe the regularity implied by ...

TW 985.png

bolbo gives a "habitual and regular" (best translated as "normally" or "usually" or "regularly") meaning to the verbal block.

..

We saw earlier that of the five tenses. The first is a sort of habitual tense. For example ...

doikar = I walk (with a sort of habitual meaning) ... OR ... I can walk (with a sort of potential meaning)

beucar = I am sick ... OR ... I am prone to sickness

So we have a sort of habitual meaning without needing to use either awa or bolbo.

However, if we wanted to restrict the habitualness to either the past or the future, awa or bolbo is needed. For example ...

bolbo doikari = I used to walk (to school)

awa beucaru = I will be sick (when I start the chemotherapy)

awa or bolbo most often co-occur with tense (2) and tense (3). It is quite rare to have the right circumstances to use awa or bolbo with the other three tenses.

..

* awa is possibly related to the verb awata which means "to wander". bolbo is possibly related to the verb bolbolo which means "to roll". [by the way boloi means "to turn over" (as in "to turn over a mat"). boloi also means revolution [ boloi peugan means "social revolution" or boloi tun means "political revolution" ... i.e. the French Revolution ]. gwò is possibly related to the verb gwói which means "to pass (by)".

..

... Three aspect particles

..

Three aspect and a negating particle

..

SW 053.png

..

With the three particles pín, gwò and juku, the fifth tense (present tense) never co-occurs.

..

Maybe the best way to approach pín and gwò is to consider process verb like "read the book" or "build a house" *

Well you could say ...

bù bundar tìa = "I don't build houses" ... which would put you out of the running.

But if you said bundar tìa ... and you were expected to build a house, one of the following might be applicable ...

1) hogi bù bundar tìa = I still haven't started to build the house

2) pín bundar tìa = I am in the process of building a house

3) gwò bundar tìa = I have built the house

It is (2) and (3) we are interested in at the moment.

Notice that bù bundara tìa = "I am not building a house" can be true when (2) is true. Remember that tense 5 refers to the EXACT time of speaking.

SW 056.png

..

In English, it is a bit of a mouthful to say "I am in the process of building a house". So you can see that pín is a useful little particle when you want to be specific in this particular situation. However pín is the rarest out of pín, gwò and juku.

[Is pín also a preposition meaning during ... preceding a noun which is a period of time ?]

..

Lets talk about gwò now.


As we can see in (3), gwò is linked to the idea of completion. It is also linked to the idea of having done something at least once (to have "experienced" some action, in other words). For example ...

gwò jàr glasgoh = "I've been to Glasgow" as opposed to jari glasgoh = I went to Glasgow

As I said above, the present tense never co-occurs with pín, gwò and juku. However the other 3 tenses are possible ...

gwò jaru glasgoh = I will have been to Glasgow

gwò jari glasgoh = I had been to Glasgow (with reference time sometime before today)

gwò jare glasgoh = I had been to Glasgow (with reference time earlier today)

gwò could be called an experiential/resultative perfect. béu also has a resultative perfect expressed with the copula sàu and the suffix -in.

The aspect distinctions available in béu are pretty fine-grained in some areas. Maybe if béu were to become a natlang, many of the fine-grain distinctions I have given it would fall by the wayside.

..

And now it's time to introduce juku. When gwò expresses the experiential idea (as it does above) juku expresses the non-experiential idea ...

juku jare glasgoh = I had never been to Glasgow (with reference time, earlier today)

juku jari glasgoh = I had never been to Glasgow (with reference time, before today)

juku jaru glasgoh = I will never go to Glasgow (with reference time, before today)

juku like gwò is most often referenced to NOW. Hence ...

juku jàr glasgoh = I have never been to Glasgow.

..

It is useful to compare the usage of juku against the usage of bù.This can best be explained by taking a punctual verb such as timpa. For example, suppose we were discussing "John hitting Paul yesterday afternoon". That particular instance of "hitting" can be negated with bù. However suppose it is wished to widen what is negated. Suppose that you want to say that there has been no instances of "John hitting Paul" (up until the present time of course), then you would use juku to negate the proposition. This is equivalent to "never" in English and I consider it an aspect particle.

jonos polo bù timpori = John did not hit Paul

jonos polo juku timpori = John never hit Paul .... Notice that both timpori or timpore could be used. It depends upon what has been said before.

bù is purely negation. It has no aspect to it.

[Note 1 ... The way juku negates gwò keeping the same aspect is similar to the way 没 méi (or 没有 méiyǒu) negates 了 le the perfect aspect particle, in Mandarin. 不 [bù] not being involved, just as bù isn't involved in béu. ]

[Note 2 ... One little thing you should be aware off. I have equated juku with "never". Taking more strictly it should be equated with "have never". Let me expand on this ...

a) "he has never worked" => juku kodor.

b) "he doesn't work" or "he never works" => bù kodor .... in this one "never" in English is equivalent to the timeless tense plus the normal negator ... juku doesn't make an appearance ]

..

So to restate the béu aspect system ...


juku kludar toili dè = I have never read that book ... not one word

pín kludar toili dè = I have not completed that book (but I have read some of it)

gwò kludar toili dè = I have read that book .............. every word


It is not really felicitous to say *bù kludar toili dè. However if you dropped the object, then bù kludar is acceptable.

bù kludar => "I don't read" or "I never read" or even "I can't read" [This can be regarded as an event with a probability distribution over time, similar to nko. That is it is a sort of generic steady state event. For these sort of events bù is the normal negator]

"I don't intend to read this book" would be bù kludarua toili dè [And I think that exhausts everything I could want to do regarding "a/the book"]

In a similar way constructions like "horses never fly" *kài fanfa juku ngur are frowned upon. "horses don't fly" kài fanfa bù ngur is considered more felicitous.

..

To restate the system yet again** ...

gwò kodor he has worked juku kodor he has never worked
gwò kodori he had worked juku kodori he had never worked
gwò kodore he has worked (earlier today) juku kodore he hasn't worked (so far) today
gwò kodoru he will have worked juku kodoru he will never have worked

..

These three aspect particles also occur quite frequently in fronted adverb clauses. In these, pín, gwò or juku are followed by an base form (plus any other bits and pieces relevant to the clause), then the main clause follows. English has similar. Here are three examples from English, illustrating the possible uses of these fronted adverb clauses ...

1a) pín doika ...  : Walking dejectedly home, Peter noticed a sudden movement in the hedgerow.

1b) tìa pà pín bunda, I HAD TO LOOK AFTER TWO DAUGHTERS

2a) gwò doika ...  : Having walked all the way home in the rain, Peter was ready for a hot bath and a cosy night in, in front of the TV.

2b)gwò TO TAKE CITY, HE BURNT IT : urbem captem incendit

3) juku jò ...  : Never having gone to Casablanca before, Peter soon got lost in a warren of small streets just north of the Bazaar.

These type of fronted adverb clauses are considered good style. One comes across them quite often. Notice that the tense of the whole sentence is determined by the main clause.

..

Note ... pín can also stand before a noun, a noun that represents a period of time. In which case it means "during". Or is can stand before a base verb, in which case it is equivalent to "while" or "during". Or it can appear in an active predicate, where it specifies a certain aspect type.

..

NOTE TO SELF ... does pín cover all occurrences of "while" and "when" in English ?

..

* I do not consider "read" and "build" in themselves to be process verbs, they are sort of open-ended affairs. But for "read the book" and "build a house" there is a definite completion time ... and completion state, implied.

** You can't have too much of a good thing.

..

... Aspectual operators

..

Two overlapping-action particles

..

SW 054.png

..

I call ʔés and hogi "overlap words".

Sometimes referred to as "aspectual operators" or "aspectual particles" in the Western Linguistic Tradition.

Most languages have equivalents to these two particles ...

..

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

..

hogi 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.

ʔés 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 hogi and ʔés are often found in contrary to expectation situation which in turn colours their meaning.

..

SW 046.png

..

A very interesting thing about the overlap couplet is how they are negated cross-linguisticly. Either the particle can be negated or the verb can be negated. The first case I represent with a bar over the operator+verb. The second case with a bar over the verb only.


Notice ... compared to the positive case, 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".

Notice ... compared to the positive case, if the verb is negated ... then the yellow place becomes white and the white space becomes yellow.

..

SW 007.png .... TW 996.png

..

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 verb and comes immediately before the verb. It has scope only over the verb, rather than the whole verb phrase.

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

==> I am still working here


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

==> I already work here

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

==> I don't work here yet


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

==> I no longer work here

However although hogi bù and ?é bù are possible, they are rarely encountered. Usually the terms jù dìa and uhoge are used. The provenance of these two terms is interesting ...

jü means zero and is also used for negating nouns. dìa is a verb with quite a norrow meaning. It is what the sun does when it is revealing itself first thing in the morning.

I guess jù dìa is an idiomatic expression.

hò means "long" [not to be confused with hó the 13th pila?o). hoge means "longer". So uhoge means "no longer".

So the actual system for these two negatives are ...

jù dìa kod-a-r-a dían
"not yet" work-1SG-IND-PRES here

==> I don't work here yet


uhoge kod-a-r-a dían
"no longer" work-1SG-IND-PRES here

==> I no longer work here

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.

..

... 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 6 moods in béu. The prohibitive, indicative, optative, imperative, suggestive and interrogative ... 2 of these are represented by changes to the root and 4 by adding particles.

Two verb forms ... the inflinitive and the conflative ... do not represent moods, but I present them here along with the moods. These both are represented by changes to the root.

..

SW 189.png

..

How the different moods and forms interact are shown above. This will al be explained later.

..

... The base form

..

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".

TW 626.png

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 base form 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 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 interrogative

..

The interrogative, also called a polar question. This 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 r is simply changed into ?.


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


SW 195.png ... lea r tiji = Lea's small SW 190.png ... lea sòr tiji = Lea is small SW 191.png ... lea so?o tiji = Is Lea small ?

..

Polar questions also exhibit a certain pitch contour ... the pitch rises towards the end of the utterance. There is a symbol to show this utterance pitch contour ... SW 192.png

However the béu question mark is never used when it is obvious that we have a question. But sometimes a single name, noun or adjective can constitute a question by itself. In these cases the special symbol is used.

SW 193.png ... Lea ?

..

The interrogative 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 a positive question ...

glá so?o hauʔe = Is the woman beautiful ?

To which you answer ʔaiwa "yes" or aiya "no". [Actually these two words have their own unique intonation pattern ... at least when said in isolation (see CH1 : Some interjections) ]

..

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 so?o hauʔe = Isn't the woman beautiful ?

If she is not beautiful, you should answer bù sòr*, if she is you can answer either sòr or soro or sòr hau?e

..

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 só in front of the word**.

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.

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

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

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

Unfocused question ... bàus gláh no?i alha = Did the man give flowers to the woman ?

Focused statement ... bàus só gláh no?i alha = It is to the woman that the man gave flowers ?

..

Any argument can be focused in this way. [béu also has a means of "fronting" to emphasize an element in a sentence. This is discussed elsewhere]

..

*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.

..

... 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 ?

òn rò báu kái = what type of man is he ?

òn rò deuta kái = what type of soldier is he ?

dí kái = this is what type ?

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

òn rò kái = what type is he ?

dí r kái = this is what type ?

?ò 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 àn nyairu tìah jindi => "how about we go home now" => "let's go home now"

Actually kái àn is sometimes rendered simply àn. Maybe you come across the two alternatives an equal amount of times.

Is there any difference between the two forms ? Well ... yes. kái àn is used when the proposed venture is connected to leisure and pleasure. àn is used in more work-a-day situations.

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 conflative

..

Actually the verb itself is called an i-form verb. But a clause that has one or more i-form verbs is called a conflative clause.

I will only touch on this subject here ... in Ch 10 there is a section that goes into this verb form in exhaustive detail. But one quick example ...

..

jana jonos holdori nti flə sainyi uya => "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate three fish"

..

yesterday = jana

to catch = holda

to cook = ntu

to eat = flò

three = uya

fish = sainyi

..

totai timpə+ri jw+ daun = the child was hit and died (instantly) [Note to self : how to say "the child was hit and died later"]

totai = a/the child

timpa = to hit

jwòi = to undergo

dàu = to die

dàun = to kill

jwòi dàun = to be killed

..

In a conflative clause, the first verb is conjugated as normal. However the remaining verbs are in their i-form. That is ... the final vowel of the manga is deleted and replaced with "i". If the verb is monosyllabic, the final vowel is replaced with a schwa. Semantically thei-form verbs follow the first verb. That is nti means ntu.ori and flə means flori.

In conflative clauses, there can only be one subject but there can be more than one object. A conflative clause can consist of a mixture of H verbs and ɸ verbs. If the first verb is H then the subject is in its ergative form, otherwise it is in its base form. In the example given here, the three verbs have a definite time order, so the verb order is pretty much set. But we shall see in Ch 10 many examples where this is not the case.

..

Note ... in this example, all three verbs are intransitive and have the same object. So léu sainyi uya can not come between any of the verbs, but must come either before them all or after them all ... jana jonos sainyi uya holdori nti flə => "yesterday John caught, cooked and ate the three fish"

..

My motivation for having the conflative is to express meanings such as "through" or "into" by pure verbs ... i.e. "to go through", "to enter".

Also the béu verb tail can get pretty long so I didn't want it to be necessary to repeat it three or four times in quick succession.

Conflative clauses are very often 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. That is the overall clause must make sense semantically).


..

To say that one activity happens totally within the time of an other activity, we use the conflative plus the particle pín which we met earlier in this chapter. For example ...

jonos lailore pín doiki = "John sang while walking earlier today"

jonos lailore pín doiki tunheun = "John sang while walking to the civic centre earlier today"

The whole constuctions (i.e. pín doiki and pín doiki tunheuh) are equivalent adverbs.

An adverb meaning "the r-form (matrix verb) happened during the time of the pín + -i verb".

..

... The optative

..

See Ch 4 : The particles àn and gò

..

..... Negativity

..

béu has three particles/prefixes for expressing negativity.

Different particles for different parts of speech. Usually the particle is immediately to the left of the concept it modifies.

..

SW 145.png

..

bù negates the live verb (i.e. the verb in its r-form). We have encountered bù already in the section "probability/aspect/negation".

The verb in its u-form is negated by the particle kyà to the left of the maŋga. For example ...

..

sauhu bòi= be good

However kyà sàu bòi = "don’t be good" instead of *bù sauhu bòi

..

The verb in its u-form can not be negated.

..

u- can connect to any adjective.

?ár wèu u.ai = I want a nonwhite car (I want a car, any colour but white)

u- can on occasion be prefixed to nouns, the same as "non"- is used in English. However this construction is quite rare.

u- can connect to some verbs. The number of verbs it can connect to is limited ... about 20 or 30. Here are some examples ...

..

kunja to fold ukunja to unfold
laiba to cover ulaiba to uncover
tata to tangle utata to untangle
fuŋga to fasten, to lock ufuŋga to unfasten, to unlock
benda to assemble, to put together ubenda to take apart, to disassemble
pauca to stop up, to block upauca to unstop
senza to weave uzenza to unravel
fiŋka to put on clothes, to dress ufiŋka to undress

..

jù negates nouns. In the next chapter we will encounter it in the section on numbers. It means "zero".

It also negates maŋga or dead verbs.

It also negates clauses. For example ...

jù àn ?ár jò = "not that I want to go"

..

Sometimes béu uses two of these three methods in the same sentence. I guess you could call this double negation. Double negation does NOT cancel, and it does NOT produce emphatic negation.

..

Here is an example of bù/jù double negation ... jenes bù mbor jù flò cokolata ... meaning "Jane lacks the willpower to resist chocolates".

..

And here is an example of bù.-u double negation ...

..

SW 149.png ..................... SW 148.png

..

mutu/umutu "important/unimportant" patterns with such antonym pairs as big/small ( jutu/tiji ) in that the two pole values together do not fill up the entire semantic space.

..

Sometimes you have a choice, as to which negative to use. As in English, where "I don't have a house" can also be exressed as "I have no house". in béu you can say bù byár tìa or byár jù tìa. For both languages the latter form comes across as being more vivid, carries greater emotion [I am not 100% sure why this should be so].

..

..... Six useful verbs

..

Six verbs of a kind

..

bala to open kala to shut/close
bana to let go, to release, to free ... kana to connect, to make fast, to join
baza to empty kaza to fill

..

And we have six common adjectives derived from the above ...

..

balya open kalya shut/closed
banya free, seperate kanya connected, joined
baʒya empty kaʒya full

..

balo an key kalo a (window)shutter/valve
bano padding kano link/connector
bazo a void/vucuum bano fill


The o suffix implies something solid. "connection", "association" or "relationship" would be covered by the manga ... kana.

bazda = desert ?? : kazda = ocean " kanda = an intersection ?? : balda = a gap/opening

bano originally padding to separate a warriors leather armour from his tunic.

..

..... Valency

..

In every language a particular verb can be associated with a number of nouns (we usually called these nouns arguments of the verb). For example ....

jono-s jene-h slaigau 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" is associated with 4 nouns.

Now things can get a bit confusing here. Some people hold that it is easy to distinguish between "core arguments" which are essential and "peripheral arguments" which simply add more information. But this is questionable. 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". A simple to implement system at the least.

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 (unmarked) 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 expounding an action (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 is ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-s".

A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-s".

..

Now I will introduce the S A O convention which was devised by RMW Dixon. This convention 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.

[ In the béu linguistic tradition, the A argument is "the sadu noun", the O argument is the "the dash noun" and the S argument is the "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 partially 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 not inconsistant* to being partially the reality described by (3) ]

..

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 also considered H but with the A argument dropped** when it is unimportant or unknown.

bala "to open" is always H in béu. 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. However in this case the only noun (pintu) is not marked for the ergative hence it must be the "O argument".

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

..

*(4) leave open the question whether human action brought about the action or it was due to some other cause. This question could be answered by rewriting (4) as either "The door was opened" or "The door opened by itself".

**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".

***We haven't come across the schwa before the "r" before. This will be explained very soon.

..

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.

..

TW 664.png

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

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

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

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

pintu mb+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 ...

..

TW 909.png

Note ... Some béu speakers pronounce "schwa" + "syllable final rhotic" as "ø" or "ør". 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.

Hence ...

doska = to freeze

moze doskori = the water froze

moze doskanaru = I will freeze the water

..

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

..

ngeu to fly ngeun 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
dàu to die dàun to kill
slài to change slàin to change
diadia to happen diadian to cause

..

And here are a few more examples ....


ʔoime to be happy, happyness ʔoimor he is happy ʔoimen to make happy ʔoimin pleasant
heuno to be sad/sadness heunor she's sad heunon to make sad heunin depressing
taude to be annoyed taudor he is annoyed tauden to annoy taudin annoying
swú to be scared, fear swor she is afraid swún to scare swu.in frightening, scary
centa to be angry, anger centor he is angry centan to make angry centin really annoying
yode to be horny, lust yodor she is horny yoden to make horny yodin sexy, hot
gái to ache, pain gayor he hurts gáin to hurt (something) gai.iin painful
gwibe to be ashamed/shame/shyness gwibor she is ashamed/shy gwiben to embarrass gwibin embarrassing
doimoi to be anxious, anxiety doimor he is anxious doimoin to cause anxiety, to make anxious doimin worrying
ʔica to be jealous, jealousy ʔicor she is jealous ʔican to make jealous ʔicin causing jealousy

..

jài ?oime is an adjective meaning happy by nature.


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

..

flò to eat flòn to feed, feeding
heca to see hecan to show, showing
háu to learn háun to teach, tuition
nko to know nkon 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 H although they have undoubtedly one extra noun compared to their non-derived counter parts. Remember H and Ø were defined as ...

A verb is H if it is ever associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-s".

A verb is Ø if it is never associated with a noun that has the ergative marker "-s".

(Note : fyá "to tell" means basically the same as nkon but is less formal. Also gàu means basically the same as diadian 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 ...

..

TW 825.png

..

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 H 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 tái ... meaning himself, herself, yourself etc. etc. However only animate A arguments do this. Hence ...

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

*pintus tái 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 H clause with the A argument dropped. Comparable to how "the old woman knitted"(as this would appear in béu of course) is a H 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 has to be broken ... you could refer to it as helkua.

If you come across something that had to be frozen ... you could refer to it as doskanua.

There is no such words as *doskua or *hulkua

..

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

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


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

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

3) báus tái geukori = The man made himself green ......... human volition

..

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


1) pintu tezori balya = 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* tezori. 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 an unusual situation.

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

..

..

PUT ANOTHER WAY ...

There are many actions that are kind of fluid as to the number of participants involved. When languages code an action they take into account whether the action is normally* involves a single paricipant or two participants [ three participants is also possible but that is another story ]. And then the relevant language will add extra stuff (an extra word … bit of word … something like that) when this action involves more or less participants than suggested by the basic word coding this action.

Two examples from French.

The action of boiling is deemed => single paricipant => bouillir When two participants, we add the word faire => faire bouillir

The action of breaking is deemed => double paricipant => casser When only a single participant, we add the word se => se casser

Certain languages deem certain actions pretty evenly split between single-participant manifestations and double-participant manifestations. In these cases, it can be impossible to determine what is the basic form of the verb.

An example from Swahili.

cham-k-a = to boil as the soup over the open fire boils cham-sh-a = to boil as your mother boils the water for a cup of tea

Further examples, Japanese this time.


生きる ikiru to live : 活かす ikasu to revive
逃げる nigeru to escape : 逃がす nigasu to set free
揺れる yureru to sway : 揺らす yurasu to shake


Japanese has a many verbs pairs of this sort.

..

* The choice can be culturally determined in some circumstances. Imagine a community in which each grown male visits the barber to get shaved every morning versus a community in which shaving is a private affair. The language of the former will inevitably pattern "shave" as transitive, anf the latter will inevitably pattern "shave" as intransitive.

..

..... To undergo

..

We have seen the subjectless verb form above where the vowel before the r becomes a schwa.`However there is another way to drop a subject ... by using the verb jwòi "to undergo" followed by the base form. Of these two ways of dropping the subject, the former is overwhelmingly preferred. However for forming present participles and infinitives, the second method is necessary.

timp+ra pà = I am being hit : jwola timpa = being hit : jwòi timpa = to be hit

[Note to self .... sort out the below ... and also all the RUBBISH PARTICIPLE stuff I have]

hecari jono katala lazde = I saw John cutting the grass ....................... katala lazde is a saidau kaza ..... katala is a saidau baga

hecari lazde jwola kata = I saw the grass being cut ............................. jwola kata is a saidau kaza

hecari lazde jwola kata hí jono = I saw the grass being cut by John .... jwola kata hí jono is a saidau kaza

Note ... although the là suffix is probably connected to the second pila?o it should be recognized as a separate siffix here. If it was the pila?o we would have ... bwari lazde là jwòi kata

hecari lazde kataya = I saw the grass that has been cut

hecari lazde katawa = I saw grass that must be cut = I saw that the grass must be cut

lazde katawa hecari = I saw the grass that must be cut

hecari lazde nài r katawa

..

..... The copula

..

The three* components of a copular clause usually have a strict order*** ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement". For example ...

..

"copular subject" "copula" "copula complement"
jono r koduʒi
John is diligent
- - -
jono r moltai
John is doctor

..

The copula's base form is sàu. You will see that it is listed among the 37 short verbs. However it patterns differently from the other 36. And indeed it patterns differently from all other verbs. Below are the r-forms of sàu ...

..

TW 969.png

..

The copula form rule ... "When the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated, use the short form. At all other times, use the long form"

..

The short form is used when the copular subject noun (or noun phrase) is overtly stated. In other situations the full form is used. For example when the copular subject is a pronoun**, the long form must be used.

You can see in the above chart that the short form of the aortist tense has two forms. ró is used in two situations ...

1) If the copula subject ends in a consonant. For example ....

sòs rò hau?e = the snow is beautiful

2) If an evidential is tagged on. For example ...

tìa ròn hau?e = the house is beautiful (I guess)

..

r by itself is used in all other situations.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.

..

The aortist form is the form corresponding to "am", "are" ans is in English. The present tense is "marked" (i.e. the unusual case that carries extra eaning). For example ...

..

sòs rò hau?e = snow is beatiful ….. a timeless truth

sòs rà hau?e = the snow is beatiful (for now) ... maybe the speakers are contemplating the snow melting and the consequent slush

..

And another example ...

..

jono r bòi = John is good (it is his nature)

jono rà bòi = John is being good ... maybe to impress somebody who is visiting.

Note ... to say jono rà bòi invalidates jono r bòi to a certain extent.

..

Because there is a strict word order, definiteness can not be expressed as it usually is with other verbs (S, O, A, dative ... left of verb if definite, right of verb if not). However the particles èn and ín can be drafted for this purpose.

[Note to self : should every pila?o defined argument act thus ... what about other arguments ? ]

It is only the r-form of the copula which is irregular. All other forms are perfectly normal. For example ...

sauhu bòi = be good ................................................................. u-form

kodor sə kludado = he works as a clark .................................... i-form

kodi sòr kludado = he/she works as a clark …........................… i-form .............. Actually, I think this way is better (change the rest of the website ?)

..

There is also the change of state copula, tezau. While tezau < té + sàu, I would not call it a calque on English "become", rather the deep semantic process that formed "become" in English, worked also in béu.

There is strict word order with this copula as well ...

..

"copular subject" "copula" "copula complement"
jono tezori koduʒi
John became diligent
- - -
jono tezori moltai
John became doctor

..

As you can see there is no erosion here.

Notice that for the two copulas the copuls subjects are always unmarked ... that is they never take the ergative suffix.

..

How to negate a copular sentence ? Some examples ...

jono bù r jutu = john isn’t big

bù sòr jutu = he/she isn’t big

òn bù sòr jutu = HE isn’t big (I am)

In the last example, it is not necessary to have the full copula form to show 3SG ... *òn bù r jutu ... would not be confusing. However we continue to abide by "the copula form rule"

..

* Well sometimes the copular subject is dropped so two components. It is dropped if the subject is "the world"/"the environment". Under the section "Valancy" we introduced the impersonal form of the verb ... normally used when the subject is "unknown"/"trivial". The copula also has an impersonal form. However now the reason is not because the subject is trivial : rather the opposite, the subject is all encompassing.

Note ... Other languages use "world" or "environment" as the subject in similar situations, English used "it".

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

tez+ra fonia = it's starting to rain

..

**But actually to come across "pronoun" followed by "full copuls" is quite rare. As with all other verbs, ‘’’béu’’’ demands that the subject pronouns be dropped. Or at least you only hear them in exceptional circumstances.

For example, normally you would say ...

tìa bundari : "I built the house"

However upon hearing jono tia bundari (John built the house) you would say ...

aiya _ pás tìa bundari = No, I built the house

And another example, normally you would say

sar jutumo : "I am biggest"

However upon hearing jono r jutumo (John is biggest) you would say ...

aiya _ pà sar jutumo : "No, I am biggest"

..

***There are two exceptions to this rule.

..

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 tìa jindi
"is" good to return home-DAT now

==> It is good to return to home now

..

With the copula coming initially the short eroded form can never be used ... that is *r bòi nyáu or *rò bòi nyáu are illegal.

..

2) If copula subject is a clause**** with the particle gò at the front, you have only one possible order ... "copula" and then "copula complement" and then "copular subject".

sòr bòi gò t-o-r-e heute
"is" good that come-3SG-IND-PAST today

==> It is good that he/she came today

..

tezau follows sàu when it comes to word order.

..

**** this construction is covered in the Ch 4 in the section "The particle gò "



The above has all you need to know about the copula's ... not much to them ... just a few rules.

However I am appending a bit about the adverb wautus to this section as nowhere else really seems appropriate.

wautus can be broken down into wáu "a pair of eyes" : 'tú "particle giving the intrumental case" : s "adverbial marker". It means "apparently" or "seemingly".

In English "by eye" usually means "by not measuring as such but roughly estimating (whatever) only using ones eyes". wautu does not mean this : it means "apparent".

More often come across in the form wautus "apparently".

jono boizor wautu = "John is OK apparently

wautus jono boizor = "John appears to be health"

jene r wautu maumala = "it seems as if Jane is asleep"

jene maumora_wautus = "Jane is asleep, apparently" ... Note, in the last example wautus was added as an afterthought so it needs the adverbial s (not usually necessary when an adjective follows a live verb).

The adverb has connotations of surprise ... "mirative ?"

..

..... 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 ?

..

..... Shapes et al.

..

Now béu has some justification for claiming to be an engelang. The paradigm above is quite engelangish as is the number system. The naming of shapes is also very engelangish. See below ...

..

TW 956.png

Derived from dano dailo dauzo we have the adjectives danai dailai dauzai meaning "straight flat regular".

Derived from danai dailai dauzai we have the adjectives unai ulai uzai meaning "crooked/bent uneven/bumpy irregular".

..

Derived from dano dailo dauzo we have dante daite dauste meaning "a crooked line" "a rag"(also plate as in plate tectonics) "a lump"

The above may have some connection with dò "to move". The below may have some connection with kwè "to turn".

kwane kwaile kwauze = "a ring" "disc/plate/dish" "ball/sphere/globe" [Note kwante kwailte kwauste are imperfect manifestations of <= (kwauste=blob) ]

Also note ... si.anka = a testicle, si.ankau = a pair of testicles, si.ai = the earth (not used for other worlds), si.ana = a globe (a facsimile of <=)

{Note to self : should -ana derive other words ? taime = angle ? taume = solid angle ? ]

---

dalnoban = a triangle < uban dalno

dalnogan = a square < egan dalno

Note ... dailo is the usual word for square, dailo uzai would mean rectangle. However you might hear dalnogan in a mathematical context.

dalnodan = a pentagon < odan dalno

dalnolan = a hexagon < oilan dalno

etc. etc.

..

a tetrahedron = daizlogan < egan daizlo (i.e. a foursome of facets)

a cube = daizlolan < oilan daizlo

Note ... dauzo is the usual word for cube, dauzo uzai would mean block. However you might hear daislolan in a mathematical context.

an octahedron = daizlozan < aizan daizlo

a dodecahedron = daizlojain < ajain daizlo

an icosahedron = daizlojaizan < ajaizan daizlo

--- THE ABOVE NEEDS UPDATING ---

Note ... side as in flank is kebo ... face as in human/animal face is muka

..

TO MOVE ELSEWHERE----

yildos = storehouse,barn, yildos yè = barns, yildos ú = all barns

seklas = a glass, seklas yè = glasses (not spectacles)

yè belongs to a small set of words that are never spelt out. They have a special "short hand" symbol. The yè symbol is shown below.

húa = head, húa yè = heads ..........SW 72.png

..

The main derivation pathways

..

Derivational morphology often involves the addition of a derivational suffix or other affix. Such an affix usually applies to words of one lexical category (part of speech) and changes them into words of another such category. For example, the English derivational suffix -ly changes adjectives into adverbs (slow → slowly).

Examples of English derivational patterns and their suffixes:

  • adjective-to-noun: -ness (slow → slowness)
  • adjective-to-verb: -ize (modern → modernize)
  • adjective-to-adjective: -ish (red → reddish)
  • adjective-to-adverb: -ly (personal → personally)
  • noun-to-adjective: -al (recreation → recreational)
  • noun-to-verb: -fy (glory → glorify)
  • verb-to-adjective: -able (drink → drinkable)
  • verb-to-noun (abstract): -ance (deliver → deliverance)
  • verb-to-noun (agent): -er (write → writer)

Derivation can be contrasted with inflection, in that derivation produces a new word (a distinct lexeme), whereas inflection produces grammatical variants of the same word.

Generally speaking, inflection applies in more or less regular patterns to all members of a part of speech (for example, nearly every English verb adds -s for the third person singular present tense), while derivation follows less consistent patterns (for example, the nominalizing suffix -ity can be used with the adjectives modern and dense, but not with open or strong).

Derivation can also occur without any change of form, for example telephone (noun) and to telephone. This is known as zero derivation. [ All the above from "wikipedia" under "linguistic derivation" ]

..

The diagram below shows the ten main derivational processes which are absolutely fundamental to the working of the language. [Remember the base verb should be considered a noun]


TW 917.png


[1]

Most nouns can be used as adjectives just by placing them directly after the noun they are qualifying. Like "school bus" in English. For example ...

pintu tìa = a/the door of the house

Also to indicate possession the possessee is usually just placed after the possessed.

tìa jono = John's house

(Actually there is a particle yó joining the possessed to the possessee ... however it is rarely used. yó is also a noun meaning possessions, yái an item possessed, yáu "to have")

"John's house" => tìa yó jono .... but more usually tìa jono

This is zero derivation and is marked as TW 816.png in the above diagram.

[2]

gèu = green

+ gèu = the green one

?azwodus = lactose intolerant

+ ?azwodus = a/the lactose intolerant one

[3]

gèu = green

k+ gèu = the green ones

k+ gèu làu oila = six green ones

sadu = elephant

k+ sadu = elephant-kind

k+ sadu làu oila = six elephants ... well, it is legitimate to say this ... but oila sadu is so easier.

[4]

gèu = green

kuwai gèu = greenness

[5]

yubau = strong

yubako = to strengthen

pona = hot

ponako = to heat up

[6]

poma = kick (also means leg) .... pomora = He/she is kicking

pomako = to kick ..... NOW kaupa = leg ... kipa = kick

However if the base noun ends in n ...

kwofan = bicycle

gàu kwofan = to (do) bicycle

[7]

pazba yubara "I am strengthening the table"

..

pazba yub-a-r-a
table strengthen-1SG-IND-PRES

ponara moze "I am heating up some water"

pon-a-r-a moze
"heat up"-1SG-IND-PRES water

[8]

tunheun kwofanaru "I will bicycle to the townhall"

..

tunheu-n kwofan-a-r-u
townhall-DAT bicycle-1SG-IND-FUT

[9]

This will be covered in detail in the next chapter. However here is a quick example ...

solbara moze "I am drinking water"

..

solb-a-r-a moze
drink-1SG-IND-PRES water

from the verb base solbe "to drink"

[10]

-s, -n, -a, -o take -is, all other endings take -s (including -ia and -ua)

saco = fast, sacois = quickly

pudus = timid (of an animal), puduʒis = timidly

yubau = strong, yubaus = strongly

..

.

For [7] and [8] if the root that is to be transformed is monosyllabic, then we need -ko as well as -r-. For example ...

..

bàu = man

bauko = to man (exact same meaning as in English)

baukara téu dí = I am manning this position.

..

gèu = green

geuko = to make green

geukara pazba dí = I am painting this table green

..

You can say, that for monosyllabic words [7] = [5] + [9] and [8] = [6] + [9].


.. ..


Unadorned adjective can be used as nouns in many situations. Similar happens in many languages. For example ... klár gèu is ambiguous.

To disambiguate => klár kuwai gèu "I like greenness" / klár k+ gèu "I like the green ones" / klár + gèu "I like the green one"




.

The remaining two transformations shown on the diagram are for verbalization. Actually the affix -ko is added to all adjectives or nouns in order to make a verb. However in one circumstance this affix is not needed. This is for the r-form based on a multi-syllable adjective or noun. For example ...

..

pazba yubaku = strengthen the table (a command)

pazba yubakis = you should strengthen the table

..

ponaku moze = heat up some water (a command)

ponakos moze = he/she should heat up some water

..



bauku téu dí = man this position (a command)

baukos téu dí = he/she should man this position



naike = sharp : naikeko = to sharpen

keŋkia = salty : keŋkiko = to add salt ... when the adjective ends is a diphthong (and is non-monosylabic) the last vowel is dropped.

keŋkikara = "I am adding salt" .... note not *keŋkara ... this is because keŋkia is a derived word.

sài = colour : saiya = colourful : saiwa = colourless : saiko = to paint (maybe via *saiyako)

..

Note ... -ko is possibly an eroded version of gàu ( "to do" or "to make" ).

Note ... There seems to be a method of deriving a two place verb from a one place verb by affixing -n. For example ... diadia = "to happen" : diadian = "to cause". While this mechanism is seen all over the language I have not mentioned it in the chart above. This is because I consider it non-productive. I count daidia and diadian both as base words. In a similar way that English speakers consider "rise" and "raise" independent words, "lie" and "lay" independent words and "sit" and "set" independent words.

..

... Intensifiers

..

THIS MUST BE REWRITTEN .... TUGE = more : JIGE = less

Remember earlier in this chapter, we mentioned the numerative slot (for the senko). To recap, this slot can contain ...

yè "plural" ... aʔa "one" ... ima "two" ... uya "three" ... iyo "few" ... eja "four" ... ofa "five" ..... up to ..... afaufaifa "21510 ... hài "many"and ú "all"

Below is show how hài and iyo divide up the semantic space of quantity(intensity).

..

TW 788.png

..

Now all saidau(adjectives) can be affixed by -ge to form the comparative* form. For example ...

bàu jutu = "the big man" : bàu jutuge = "the bigger man"

This affix can also be used with the numbers ...

juge "more than zero", a?age "more than one" : image "more than two" .... up to afaufaifage "more than 21510**

Now -ge can also be affixed to iyo letting us fill in every box of the chart given above ... TW 789.png

..

Now when attached to saidau, -ge gives a relative value (i.e. you are comparing one thing with another). However when -ge is attached to a numbers you get an absolute value (i.e. you are not comparing the modified item with anything).

When you want to compare two items as to their numerative value, you must use the particle yú.

(The word yú and the suffix -ge both can be translated as "more", however yú only qualifies nouns and -ge only qualifies adjectives)

jonos byór yú klogau jenewo = "John has more pairs of shoes than Jane"

?ár yú halmai = "I want more apples"

?ár hài halmai = "I want a lot of apples" or "I want many apples"

..

Now a number can immediately follow yú. For example ...

?ár yú léu halma = "I want three more apples"

yár yú halmai jenewo = "I have more apples than Jane" ....... [ note ... halma with léu but halmai with yú ]

..

To indicate "less" ... use wì. For example ...

jenes yór wì halmai pawo = "Jane has less apples than me"

jenes yór wì hói halma pawo = "Jane has two less apples than me" .... but it would sound better to rephrase these as ...

yár yú halmai jenewo = "I have more apples than Jane" : yár yú hói halmai jenewo = "I have two more apples than Jane"

..

*The affix -mo is the superlative for adjectives. When joined to hài and iyo ... we get "the majority" haimo and "the minority" iyomo

**Note ... the words noge, haige and uge do not exist.

..

..

Above we have talked about numeratives and in detail about how to quantify senko.

Below we will touch on how other categories of words have their own intensifiers ...

..

TW 920.png

..

hài bàu = many men

moze hè = a lot of water


hè also can qualify verbs. As with normal adverbs, if it doesn't immediately follow the verb it must take the form hewe.

(Note to self : I can't think of a reason you would want to separate hè from its verb)

glá doikori hè = the woman walked a lot

hewe glá doikori = the woman walked a lot

báus timpori glá hewe = the man hit a woman a lot

And also can intensify manga and mangas

solbe hè moze = "to drink a lot of water"

solbe moze hè = "to drink a lot of water"

The above two forms are equally likely to be found. There is a difference in meaning but you would be a real nitpicker to worry about that.

..

saidau and saidaun are both intensified by sowe ...

jutu sowe = "very big"

jutun sowe = "the very big one"

..

Notice that mangan and saidaun can take two intensifiers ...

hài solben hè wiski = the many times a lot of whisky was drink ... hài solben hè wiski hí pà = the many times I have drunk a lot of whisky

hài gèun sowe = the many very green ones

..

We will take about the opposite of intensifiers and other quantifiers in a later chapter. These are a lot rarer. The intensifiers are the ones most commonly used.

..

... 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
Retrieved from "http://www.frathwiki.com/index.php?title=Béu_:_Chapter_3_:_The_Verb&oldid=135347"