Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions: Difference between revisions

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


== ..... Questions==
== ..... Seven generic nouns==


..
..


English is quite typical of languages in general and has 8 question words ... "which", "what", "who", "whose", "where", "when", "how" and "why". '''*'''  
There are seven generic nouns in '''béu'''. Actually there meaning is so general that they don't have that much meaning content. For example if you hear '''nèn''' "thing" ... you know what is being referred to doesn't belong to one of the other six generic categories, but that is about all that '''nèn''' tells you.
 
..  


'''béu''' has nine  ...  [[Image:TW_794.png]]
Note that the first two have an irregular ergative ... '''nòs''' and '''mìs'''.


..
..


If you hear any of these words you know you are being solicited for some information. These words have no other function apart from asking questions.
{| border=1
  |align=center| '''nèn''', '''nòs'''
  |align=center| thing
  |-
  |align=center| '''mìn''', '''mìs'''
  |align=center| person
  |-
  |align=center|  '''làu'''
  |align=center| amount
  |-
  |align=center| '''kài'''
  |align=center| kind, type
  |-
  |align=center| '''dà'''
  |align=center| place
  |-
  |align=center| '''kyù'''
  |align=center| time, occasion
  |-
  |align=center| '''sài'''
  |align=center| reason
  |}


..
..


Notice that there is no word for "how" or "why" in the above table. These are expressed by '''wé nái''' and '''nenji**''' respectively.
Because the above are so lacking in information content that they are frequently used for unknowns. For example ... you have a situation (a clause) but one component of that situation is either unknown'''*''' or is awkward to express for some reason. When used in this fashion, the generic noun is always fronted.


On the other hand, '''béu''' has single words where English has "how much" and "what kind of".
SOME EXAMPLES


..
Now there are two interesting particles in '''béu''' ... '''?ó''' and '''kò'''. The latter is used for requesting a material thing, the former for requesting information. So ...


The first two have dual forms ...  '''nén''' and '''mín''' are the absolutive forms and '''nós''' and '''mís'''  are the ergative forms.
'''?ó''' = "tell me"


..
'''kò''' = "give me"


Now  '''ʔai?''' always comes utterance final ...  '''ʔala''' always comes between two NP's. This leaves 7 QW's. Of these '''nén mín dá''' and '''kyú''' are fronted'''***'''
Only used for first person singular and the here and now. For anything other than the first person singular and the here and now, the suppletion forms XXXX and YYYY are used.


It can be seen that '''?ó''' plus one of the "algebraic" clauses I talked about above, are questions.


And '''láu kái dá''' and '''nái ****''' are found in their respective slots within a NP ... [[Image:TW_785.png]]
EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE


Note that when questioning who owns something '''yó mín''' occurs within the NP ... this is a sort of secondary usuage of '''mín''' and is not considered here.
In fact there is an altenative set of question forms.  
 
Also note that '''dá''' can be either fronted or within a NP.  When fronted it asked where the action takes place. When within a NP it asks about the NP's location. For example ...


..
..


{|  
{| border=1
|-
  |align=center| '''?ó nèn''', '''?ó nòs'''
! jene-s   || halma || dá || hump-o-r-u
  |align=center| what
|-
  |align=center| '''nén''', '''nós'''
| Jane- {{small|ERG}} || apple || where || eat-{{small|3SG-IND-FUT}}
  |-
|} => where is the apple that Jane will eat
  |align=center| '''?ó mìn''', '''?ó mìs'''
  |align=center| who
  |align=center| '''mín''', '''mís'''
  |-
   |align=center|  '''?ó làu'''
  |align=center| how much
  |align=center| '''láu'''
  |-
  |align=center|  '''?ó kài'''
  |align=center| what kind of
  |align=center| '''kái'''
  |-
  |align=center| '''?ó dà'''
  |align=center| where
  |align=center| '''dá'''
  |-
  |align=center|  '''?ó kyù'''
  |align=center| when
  |align=center|  '''kyú'''
  |-
  |align=center|  '''?ó sài'''
  |align=center| why
  |align=center| '''sái'''
  |}


A suitable answer to the above is '''pazbala''' "on the table"
..


{|
The two forms are in complementary distribution. The longer form tends to be used if the question is a new topic of conversation. The shorter version tends to be used when the question is part of an established conversation. But if you mix this up, nobody feels you are murdering the language. The longer form is also used anytime you want to give the question more emphasis.
|-
! dá || jene-s  || halma  || hump-o-r-u
|-
| where || Jane- {{small|ERG}}  || apple || eat-{{small|3SG-IND-FUT}}
|} => where will Jane eat the apple
 
A suitable answer to the above is '''pazba?e''' "at the table"


..
..


Statement .... '''bàus glán nori alha''' = the man gave the woman flowers
Mention YES/NO questions !!!


Question 1 .... '''mís glán nori alha''' = who gave the woman flowers ?
These 7 particles do not take '''nài''' to form a relative clause. That is why I classify them as particles as opposed to normal nouns.


Question 2 .... '''minin bàus nori alha''' = the man gave flowers to who ?
EXAMPLE


Question 3 .... '''nén bàus glán nori''' = what did the man give the woman ?
..


Question 4 ... '''bàus glán nori láu alha''' = How many flowers did the man gave the woman ?
'''*''' A bit like in Algebra. Maybe you first come across "x" in an equation such as "2(x+3)=10". I posit this equation is an analogy of the situation (clause) I referred to above. Where one component is unknown. Initially it is necessary to refer to the unknown by using the other elements in the clause. ( Perhaps) later the unknown can be identified uniquely.


Question 5 ... '''bàus glán nori alha kái''' = What kind of flowers did the man give the woman ?
..


Question 6 ... '''dá bàus glán nori alha''' = Where did the man give the woman flowers ?
== ..... Questions questions==


Question 7 ... '''kyú bàus glán nori alha''' = When did the man give the woman flowers ?
..


Question 8 ... '''í glá nái bàus nori alha''' = to which woman did the man gave the flowers ?
English is quite typical of languages in general and has 8 question words ... "which", "what", "who", "whose", "where", "when", "how" and "why". '''*'''  


Question 9 .... '''há bàu nái glán nori alha''' = which man gave the woman flowers ?
..  


Question 10 .... '''bàus glán nori alha ʔala cokolate''' = Did the man gave the woman flowers or chocolate ?
'''béu''' has nine  ...  [[Image:SW_187.png]]


Question 11 ... '''ʔír doika ʔala jaŋka''' = Do you want to walk or run
..


Question 12 .... '''bàus glán nori alha ʔai?''' = Did the man gave the woman flowers ?
If you hear any of these words you know you are being solicited for some information. These words have no other function apart from asking questions.
 
Question 13 ... '''minji bàus glán nori alha''' = Why did the man give the woman flowers ?


..
..


'''*'''Note ... there was also a "whom" until quite recently. Also some people count "whose" as a separate QW ... however it shouldn't be ... it is just "who" + "z" (the genitive clitic).
Notice that there is no word for "how" or "why" in the above table. These are expressed by '''wé nái''' and '''nenji**''' respectively.


'''**'''Well '''nenji''' is the normal traslation of "why". In certain situations you might hear '''minji''' ... when it is knows that an action/state is for somebody's benefit and no other reason is applicable.
On the other hand, '''béu''' has single words where English has "how much" and "what kind of".


'''***'''Around one third of the world's languages front a question word. English is one of them. [ see http://wals.info/feature/93A#2/25.5/151.2 ]
..


'''****'''Actually these 4 words often stand alone. But when they do, they are still considered within a NP ... only that the rest of the NP has been dropped.
The first two have dual forms ...  '''nén''' and '''mín''' are the absolutive forms and '''nós''' and '''mís'''  are the ergative forms.


..
..


----
Now  '''ʔai?''' always comes utterance final ...  '''ʔala''' always comes between two NP's. This leaves 7 QW's. Of these '''nén mín dá''' and '''kyú''' are fronted'''***'''. '''láu''' is sometimes fronted.
 


In the table of question words above I have marked the top two and the bottom two off. The top two because they are the QW's par excellence ... they are used more than the other QW's. The bottem two because their answers are restricted to two items. '''?a''' is restricted to "yes" or "no" ... '''?ala''' to one of the NP's that sandwich it.
And '''láu kái dá''' and '''nái ****''' are found in their respective slots within a NP ... [[Image:TW_785.png]]


'''láu kái dá kyú''' and '''nái''' each have low tone equivalents. These particles are important grammatical words in their own right and they each are related to their high tone equivalent in subtle ways. Basically '''làu''' introduces the "partitive construction" , '''kài''' means "like" or "similar", '''dà''' introduces an adverbial phrase of location, '''kyù''' introduces an adverbial phrase of time, and, '''nài''' is a "relativizor".
Note that when questioning who owns something '''yó mín''' occurs within the NP ... this is a sort of secondary usuage of '''mín''' and is not considered here.


=== ... nài===
Also note that '''dá''' can be either fronted or within a NP.  When fronted it asked where the action takes place. When within a NP it asks about the NP's location. For example ...


..
..


In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...
{|
 
|-
"The man ''who'' ate the chicken"
! jene-s  || halma || dá || hump-o-r-u
|-
| Jane- {{small|ERG}}  || apple || where || eat-{{small|3SG-IND-FUT}}
|} => where is the apple that Jane will eat


"The chicken ''that'' was eaten"
A suitable answer to the above is '''pazbala''' "on the table"


"The knife and fork ''which'' were used to eat the chicken"
{|
|-
! dá || jene-s  || halma  || hump-o-r-u
|-
| where || Jane- {{small|ERG}}  || apple || eat-{{small|3SG-IND-FUT}}
|} => where will Jane eat the apple


..
A suitable answer to the above is '''pazba?e''' "at the table"


In '''béu''' there is only one relativizer, which is '''nài'''. For example ...
'''láu''' is an interesting QW. When you expect an integer answer between 1 and 1727 ... "'''láu''' '''senko'''" are fronted. Otherwise  "'''senko''' '''láu'''", "'''olus''' '''láu'''" or "'''saidau''' '''láu'''" are in situ.


'''glá nài bàu timpori''' = "The woman who the man hit"
[Note to self : I need some examples of the above]


Now ... in the above ... '''glá''' is being modified by '''nài bàu timpori'''. '''nài bàu timpori''' implies a clause '''bàu timpori glà'''.
..


To construct a relative clause for '''glá''', '''nài''' is inserted between the noun and clause, and the noun is dropped from the clause.
Statement .... '''bàus glán nori alha''' = the man gave the woman flowers


Now in the above example ... the roll of '''glá''' in the clause is absolutive (i.e. '''glá''' is unmarked). However if the roll of the noun ... in the clause ... is one defined by one of the 17 '''pilamo''', this '''pilamo''' must be suffixed to '''nài'''. For example ...
Question 1 .... '''mís glán nori alha''' = who gave the woman flowers ?


..
Question 2 .... '''minin bàus nori alha''' = the man gave flowers to who ?


pi ... the basket '''naipi''' the cat shat was cleaned by John.
Question 3 .... '''nén bàus glán nori''' = what did the man give the woman ?


la ... the chair '''naila''' you are sitting was built by my grandfather.
Question 4 ... '''bàus glán nori láu alha''' = How many flowers did the man gave the woman ?


... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...
Question 5 ... '''bàus glán nori alha kái''' = What kind of flowers did the man give the woman ?


tu ... '''báu naitu ò''' is going to market is her husband = the man with which she is going to town is her husband ... '''kli.o naitu''' he severed the branch is rusty
Question 6 ... '''dá bàus glán nori alha''' = Where did the man give the woman flowers ?


ji ... The old woman '''naiji''' I deliver the newspaper, has died.
Question 7 ... '''kyú bàus glán nori alha''' = When did the man give the woman flowers ?


-s ... '''báu nàis timpori glá_rò  jutu sowe''' = The man that hit the woman is very big.
Question 8 ... '''í glá nái bàus nori alha''' = to which woman did the man gave the flowers ?


wo ... The boy '''naiwo''' they are all talking, has gone to New Zealand.
Question 9 .... '''há bàu nái glán nori alha''' = which man gave the woman flowers ?


-n ... the woman '''nàin''' I told the secret, took it to her grave.
Question 10 .... '''bàus glán nori alha ʔala cokolate''' = Did the man gave the woman flowers or chocolate ?


fi ... the town '''naifi''' she has come is the biggest south of the mountain.
Question 11 ... '''ʔír doika ʔala jaŋka''' = Do you want to walk or run


?e ... '''nambo naiʔe''' she lives is the biggest in town = the house in which she lives is the biggest in town
Question 12 .... '''bàus glán nori alha ʔai?''' = Did the man gave the woman flowers ?


-lya ... the boat '''nailya''' she has just entered is unsound
Question 13 ... '''minji bàus glán nori alha''' = Why did the man give the woman flowers ?


-lfe ... the lilly pad '''nailfe''' the frog jumped was the biggest in the pond ... (note to self : improve this, work out translation for all these concepts)
..


..
'''*'''Note ... there was also a "whom" until quite recently. Also some people count "whose" as a separate QW ... however it shouldn't be ... it is just "who" + "z" (the genitive clitic).


If the roll of the noun (in the clause) is one not specificated by the 17 '''pilamo''' then the noun can not be dropped entirely, it must be represented by a pronoun. For example ...
'''**'''Well '''nenji''' is the normal traslation of "why". In certain situations you might hear '''minji''' ... when it is knows that an action/state is for somebody's benefit and no other reason is applicable.


'''***'''Around one third of the world's languages front a question word.  English is one of them.  [ see http://wals.info/feature/93A#2/25.5/151.2 ]


'''****'''Actually these 4 words often stand alone. But when they do, they are still considered within a NP ... only that the rest of the NP has been dropped.


{|
..
|-
! gwài || nài  || polg-u-r-a || ala || ʃì
|-
| the islands ||  {{small|REL}}  || sail-{{small|1PL-IND-PRES}}  || between || them
|}


Literally "the islands that we are sailing between them" ... or ... in good English ... "the islands that we are sailing between"
THE BELOW SHOULD GO TO A SECTION ABOUT QUESTIONS


With a more complex NP it is usual to break it up in order to specify exactly which element is being questioned. For example ...


'''bawa gèu tiji láu pobomau nài doikura''' = " How many little green men on the  mountain that are walking? "


{|
'''bawa gèu tiji láu nài doikura _ láu r pobomau'''
|-
! gawa || nài || toti-s  || lent-o-r-e || tài  || nù
|-
| the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || in front of || them
|}


Literally "the women that the children played in front of them" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of"
'''wò bàu gèu pobomau nài doikura _ láu r tiji'''


..
'''wò bawa gèu tiji pobomau _ láu doikura''' = w.r.t. the little green men on top of the mountain, how many are walking ? ... or ...


{|
'''wò bàu tiji pobomau nài doikura _ láu r gèu''' = w.r.t. the little men on top of the mountain who are walking, how many are green ?
|-
! há ||  gawa || nài || toto-s  || lent-o-r-e || tài  || nù || waulo || dainuru
|-
| {{small|ERG}} || the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || in front of || them || dog || kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
|}


Literally "the women that the children played in front of them, will kill the dog" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of will kill the dog"
THE ABOVE SHOULD GO TO A SECTION ABOUT QUESTIONS


..
----


In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. '''béu''' has this also ...
In the table of question words above I have marked the top two and the bottom two off. The top two because they are the QW's par excellence ... they are used more than the other QW's. The bottem two because their answers are restricted to two items. '''?a''' is restricted to "yes" or "no" ... '''?ala''' to one of the NP's that sandwich it.


'''nài bwair rò nài mair''' = "what you see is what you get"
'''láu kái dá kyú''' and '''nái''' each have low tone equivalents. These particles are important grammatical words in their own right and they each are related to their high tone equivalent in subtle ways. Basically '''làu''' introduces the "partitive construction" , '''kài''' means "like" or "similar", '''dà''' introduces an adverbial phrase of location, '''kyù''' introduces an adverbial phrase of time, and, '''nài''' is a "relativizor".


'''nàis bwor rò nàis mair''' = "that which sees is that which gets"
..


'''ò nàis bwor rò ò nàis mor''' = 'he that sees is he that gets" ... [this one not headless of course ... a pronoun has been added to narrow down what exactly we are talking about]
== ..... Why oh why==


..
..


=== ... kyù===
"Why" is '''nenji''' in '''béu'''. Obviously derived from '''nén''' and the '''jì''' (the '''pila?o'''). "Why" is asking for what reason an event/state came about. The answer to '''nenji''' can by said to comform to one of the four scenario's  shown below.


..
..


'''kyù''' = when
[[Image:TW_937.png]]
 
'''toili gìn naru kyù twairu''' = I will give you the book when we meet ............................  '''kyù twairu'''  can be considered an adverb of time.


..
..


=== ... dà===
'''gərfi''' and '''ngò''' are followed by a clause. '''là cì''' and '''jì''' are followed by a noun (usually a persons name).


..
..


'''dà''' = where
'''gərfi''' is used when the questioned event/state was caused by an event/state in the past. That is the questioned event/state is a consequence of an event/state in the past.


'''pà twahu dà yildos twaire''' = meet me where we met in the morning ........................  '''dà yildos twaire'''  can be considered an adverb of place.
'''ngò''' is used when the questioned event/state exists to facility some event/state that is envisaged in the future.


..
'''là cì''' is used when the person following '''là cì''' (or at least a some supporter/collaborator of hs/her) has requested the questioned event/state at a previous time. '''cì''' = matter/affair


=== ... kài===
'''jì''' is used when the subject of the questioned event decided to do something for the benefit of the person following '''jì'''. The subject is the initiator of the action in this case. The benefits of the action are likely to materialize at a future time.


..
..


'''kài''' = as, like
[[Image:TW_887.png]]


..


{|
== ..... The conditional sentence==
|-
! jono || r || kài || dada || ò
|-
| john || is || like/as || older brother} || his
|} => John is like his older brother  .................................................................... in this example '''kài''' and what follows can be considerd an adjective.


..


These two modifiers ... '''yo''' and '''yoi''' are basically the equivalent to the Swahili NGE tense and the Swahili NGALI tense.


{|
..
|-
! jono || r || kài || dada
|-
| john || is || like/as || older brother}
|} => John is like my older brother  .................................................................... in this example '''kài''' and what follows can be considerd an adjective.
...


[[Image:SW_117.png]]


{|
..
|-
! jono-s || klud-o-r || kài || tomo-s || klud-o-r
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like/as || thomas-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}}
|} => John writes like Thomas writes ........................................................ in the following examples '''kài''' and what follows can be considerd an adverb of manner.


Basically '''yo''' represents an "open" conditional sentence, and '''yoi''' represents a counterfactual conditional sentence. Evidentials are never used with '''yo''' and '''yoi'''. 


..


{|
Remember from CH4 (more verb modifiers) that the verb modifier -'''ai''' can be equivalent to "when" in English. For example ...
|-
! jono-s || klud-o-r || kài || tomo-s
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like/as || thomas-{{small|ERG}}
|} => John writes like Thomas ...........................................Note ... the final verb has been dropped but Thomas keeps the ergative marking.


'''tìa pirai_ maumare''' = When you entered the house, I was asleep.


This can also be expressed as ...


{|
'''kyù tìa pire_maumare'''
|-
! jono-s || huz-o-r || kài || kulumo
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || smoke-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like/as || chimney
|} => John smokes like a chimney


..


Conditional sentences are for making plans, for considering contingencies.


{|
In English ... "if you go, they will kill you" ... two clauses ... the first introduced by "if" .... "if (A), (B)".
|-
!  taud-o-r-a || kài || hunwu || tú || húa || gayana
|-
|  to be annoyed-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || like/as || bear || with || head || aching
|} => he/she is annoyed like a bear with a  headache


(Note to self .... is '''gayana''' still valid)
Sometimes "then" can introduce the second clause [ "if (A), then (B)"] but this is not considered essential in English. However some natlangs require a particle in front of the second clause. In Chinese the particle 就 jiù is needed.


[[Image:SW_198.png]]


{|
[[Image:SW_197.png]]
|-
! bù || ?oim-o-r-a || kài || fiʒi || mù || moze
|-
|  not || to be happy-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || like/as || fish || out || water
|} => he/she is unhappy like a fish out of water


..


'''kyù jiru / gì dainuru''' => "when you go, they will kill you"


{|
{|  
|-
|-
! gì || r || gombuʒi || kài || jono
! kyù || j-i-r-u  || / || gì || dain-u-r-u
|-
|-
  |  you || are || argumentative  || like/as || John
| when || go-{{small|2SG-IND-FUT}} || "pause" || you || kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
|} => you are argumentative like John .............................. i.e. in the same manner ... for example ... shouting over other people when they try and put forward their arguments
|}  


..


Note ... the wide variety of things being compared ... clause to clause : clause to noun : noun to noun
'''tà  jiryo / gì dainuryo''' => "if you go, they will kill you"


..
{|
 
|-
=== ... làu===
! tà || j-i-r-yo  || / || gì || dain-u-r-yo
|-
| if  || go-{{small|2SG-IND-COND}}  || "pause" || you ||  kill-{{small|3PL-IND-CON}}
|}


..
..


Question ... '''ò r láu bòi''' "how good is he ?"
'''dà  jiryoi / gì dainuryoi''' => "if you would go, they would kill you"  


Answer .... '''ò r làu bòi jonowo "he is as good as John"
{|
|-
! dà || j-i-r-yoi  || / || gì || dain-u-r-yoi
|-
| if  || go-{{small|2SG-IND-CF/COND}}  || "pause" || you ||  kill-{{small|3PL-IND-CK/COND}}
|}


Note ... '''dà jiru''' is a place ... "where you will go"


..


'''làu''' means "to such an extent or degree" and is used in front of adjectives. The below are all single clauses.
You will see that '''béu''' has a nice symmetrical system when it comes to counterfactuality.


..
This is different from English, which has quite a lopsided system  ...


[[Image:TW_967.png]]


'''jono r làu bòi jenewo''' = "john is as good as jane"
The blue reflects a plain "if" conditional. The 15% to the left would be expressed with "when" rather than "if".


----------------
Now the plain "if" conditional can be used in situations with wildly different truth values.


'''tomo r làu''' fat _ '''plùa bù blòr doika''' = "thomas is so fat that he can not walk"
However if you want to be more specific as to truth value, you would use one of the orange constructions above. These constructions are a bit messy ... past tense => counterfactual : pluperfect => past tense + counterfactual. Plus none of the above represent 100% counterfactuality. If one of the orange constructions above represented 100% counterfactuality, then a tag such as "but you won't leave tomorrow" would be ungrmmatical. So the English system is a mess (although naturalistic).


??? Mmmmh ... as a conjunction '''plùa''' has been superceded by '''badas''' ... '''badas''' not appropriate here .... neither is '''gò''' ???
..


The way to do it is ... '''tomo r fat làu bù blòr doika'''
Note ... In '''béu''' the sequence '''yi''' is not allowed. And while the sequence '''ye''' is allowed it never occurs in the conditional marker. So how does '''béu''' express a conditional sentence in which one or both clauses is set in the past. Well you must use '''ryo''' plus an adverb. An adverb such as "this morning", "yesterday", "in the past", etc. etc.


But this would imply ...
Oh ... and one final thing. In '''béu''' (as in English) the consequent can precede the antecedent. This is a bit unusual. Joseph Greenberg’s Universal 14 says …
“In conditional statements, the conditional clause precedes the conclusion as the normal order in all languages.” (Greenberg 1966: 84; Greenberg 1990: 49)
Greenberg states that “the antecedent almost invariably precedes the consequent in the unmarked, or only permissible case …. "
I believe the following languages are strictly antecedent first …
Turkish, Mongolian, Tamil, Korean, Chinese, Japanese


'''jono r bòi làu jene''' = "john is as good as jane"
EXTRA ... Because of the distribution of  "if" + "past tense" (its range quite far towards the LHS), it is possible to cancel'''*''' "if" + "past tense" conditional sentence. For example "If you had enough money, you could visit Australia", could be cancelled by adding "... well you have enough money, you can visit Australia". This sort of cancellation can not be used with "da" [the LHS of "da" would have to spread a lot further to the RHS to make it cancelable].


--------------
..


'''ʔazwo pona làu hói hoŋko''' = two cups of hot milk 
== ..... Six important particles==


..
..


There are three main usages for this particle. The three examples above demonstrate these three usages.
Namely '''làu  jía  kài ''' "'''wé nài'''"  '''?ài and ?aibis'''
 
..
..
----


'''wé''' and '''nài''' are particles in their own right but the combination  "'''wé nài'''" is more than the sum of its parts (or perhaps "is more than the product of its parts" is more appropriate).
Hence "'''wé nài'''" should be considered a separate particle made up of two words.


..
..


Note ... all the above should be actually two clauses but because of truncation ... [ a chimney ] <= [ a chimney smokes ] ... [ before ] <= [ she used deceit before ] ...  [ John ] <= [ John is argumentative ] ...  [ agreed ] <= [ all parties agreed ] ... [ John ] <= [ John is ] ... these constructions often appear as if only a NP follows '''kài'''.
=== ... '''làu'''===


Usually for particles that can either be followed by a NP or a clause, I add '''gò''' after the particle when a clause follows. This is to prevent errors in comprehention. For example '''jì''' means "for" and is followed by a NP (usually a person). I have '''jì gò''' meaning "in order that"  ...  '''jì gò''' being followed by a clause. In '''béu''' the first word of a clause is often a noun. If I had '''jì''' meaning "in order that" there might be misunderstanding (albeit temporary). English does this also in many constructions [ I should go into this more fully ??? ]. Of course I could have a totally different particle for "in order that" but I wanted to emphasis the semantic overlap between these to constructions.
..


But there is no chance of misunderstanding when '''kài''' is heard ... it is always followed by a clause. Even in (5) what we have is a clause. The clause is '''jono r''' (with the '''r''' dropped). Actually '''kài''' means "in the manner or roll specified" ... the last bit added to include cases like (5).
There are 3 main uses for '''làu'''


..
..


Note ... '''kài''' can not be followed by an adjective.
1] The first use is when we are using the extended number set. '''làu''' stands between the noun ('''senko''' or '''olus''') and the extended number ...


..


There are 5 nouns that are associated with 5 of these above question word / indefinite pairs. '''làus''' = amount, quantity : '''kàin''' = kind, sort, type : '''dàs''' = place : '''kyùs''' accasion, time : '''sàin''' = reason, cause, origin
3,051<sub>12</sub> elephants => '''sadu làu uba wú odaija'''


These 5 nouns are never followed by '''nài'''. The table below is interesting. It shows the logical equivalence of a hypothetical expession (on the LHS) and the logical equivalent actually used (on the RHS).
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! sadu || làu || uba || wú ||  odaija
|-
| elephant || "partitive particle" || 3 || 12<sup>3</sup>  ||  51
|}


..
..


'''*làus nài''' => '''làu'''  
Note ... the singular form of '''senko''' always used when quantity is given by this method.


'''*kàin nài''' => '''kài'''
We have already touched on this in the previous chapter [ see the section Numbers ... (the extended set) ].


'''*dàs nài''' =>  '''dà'''
I call '''làu''' a partitive particle when it is doing this function.


'''*kyùs  nài''' => '''kyù'''
To the left of '''làu''', the noun always has a generic meaning hence in this position it would never take the '''kai''' prefix. [ cf. '''sadu''' = elephant : '''kaizadu''' = elephant-kind, "the elephant as a species" ]


'''*sàin nài''' => '''sài'''
So  '''*kaisadu làu uba wú odaija''' is illegal.


..
This construction is often seen with "magnifier" duplication ...


There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs.  '''laubo''' meaning "enough" and  '''kaibo''' meaning "suitable".
'''sadu làu wú wú''' = thousands of elephants : '''sadu làu nàin nàin''' = millions of elephants : '''sadu làu hungu hungu''' = billions of elephants
 
When specifying an amount of an '''olus''', '''làu''' is  use with any number, not just an extended number ...


Also there are two nouns associated with these question word / particle pairs. '''lauja''' meaning "level" and '''kaija''' meaning "species/model".
..


Two cups of hot milk => '''ʔazwo pona làu hói hoŋko'''


sài
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! ?azwo || pona || làu || hói || hoŋko
|-
| milk || hot || "partitive particle" || 2 || cup
|}


..
..


'''sài''' = because of
Two baskets of peaches => '''pice làu hói kapu'''


'''dari solbe sài ò''' = I started to drink because of her  ..................................................  '''sài ò''' can be considered an adverb of reason.
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! pice || làu || hói || kapu
|-
| peaches || "partitive particle" || 2 || basket
|}


Note ... '''sài''' means "because of" ... '''sài gò''' means "because"
..
 
'''pice''' is in fact '''olus'''. A single peach would be '''picai'''. By the way, if the basket was more pertinent than the peaches you could say ... '''kapu picia''' <= '''kapu pic'''-'''ia''' <= "basket peaches-having"


..
..


----
2] I also call '''làu''' a partitive particle when it is doing its second function ...


..
..


Three of these doctors => '''moltai.a dí làu léu'''


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! moltai.a || dí || làu || léu
|-
| doctors || this || "partitive particle" || 3
|}


To say something like "john is as good at writing as jane" you have to use '''ʔà''' (or '''ʔàbis''') ... see the next section.
..
 
Note ... the plural form of '''senko''' is always used for this construction.


..
..


Note that 3) and 8) do not mean the same thing ... '''kài''' defines a multi-characteristic concept (thing or action) while '''làu''' specifies position'''*''' on a uni-characteristic scale. ['''*''' or "degree" or "amount"]. So '''làu''' introduces only a quantity and '''kài''' intruduces a quality or manner.
Two cups of this hot milk => '''ʔazwo pona dí làu hói hoŋko'''
 
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! ?azwo || pona || dí || làu || hói || hoŋko
|-
| milk || hot || this ||  "partitive particle" || 2 || cup
|}


..
..


[[Image:TW_621.png]]
Of course, for an '''olus''' there is no plural form.
 
This second function of '''làu''' is when we are taking a portion from a larger amount. The first function of '''làu''' is when we are taking a portion of X out of the sum total of all the X in the universe.
 
For the '''olus''', there is not so much difference between function 1) and function 2).


..
..


I find the above table interesting. It is skewed ... OK '''pí wé nài''' ("in the manner that") can be used but it hardly ever is. Usually '''kài''' = "in the manner that". Why is it skewed ? My answer is ...
3] I call '''làu''' a quantitative particle when it is doing this function. Here is a typical example of '''làu''' functioning as a quantitative particle ...


"For everyone the most important things around them are other people. And the most important "attribute" of a person is "how" they behave."
..
 
Hence '''kài''' has supplanted '''pí wé nài'''.


Also notice that any adjective outwith a NP has to be introduced by the copula, hence '''sàu kài''' instead of simply '''kài'''.
'''tomo r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is as big as John"


..
..


Note ... '''nù r làu jutu saduwo''' and '''nù r jutu kài sadu''' do not mean the same thing ...  '''nù r làu jutu saduwo''' would be said when you have one specific '''sadu''' "elephant" in mind.
The construction is ... "''copula adjective'' '''làu''' ''noun''" as opposed to English "''AS adjective AS noun''"


So '''nù r làu jutu saduwo''' => "they're as big as the elephant" ... '''nù r jutu kài sadu''' would be said when you are talking about elephants in general. So => "they're as big as elephants"
In the negative it is ... "'''bù''' ''copula adjective'' '''làu''' ''noun''" as opposed to English "''not SO adjective AS noun''" ...  (By the way ..." ''not AS adjective AS noun''" is also valid in English)


..
..


In '''béu''' the final noun can be replaced by a clause introduced by '''gò'''. For example ...


Thomas is so clever that he doesn't have to go to school => '''tomo r jini làu gò bù byór jò banhain'''


Good, Better, Best
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! tomo || r || jini || '''làu || gò || bù || by-ó-r || jò || banhai-n
|-
| thomas || is || clever || "equalitative particle" || that || not || have-{{small|3SG-IND}} || go || school-{{small|DAT}}
|}


..
..


'''làu''' is part of a larger paradigm ... the comparative paradigm ... demonstrating with the help of '''bòi''' ("good")  ...
Now as ''copula + adjective'' is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...
 
Thomas thinks as fast as John => '''tomo wòr saco làu jono'''
 
as the same construction type.


..
..


{| border=1
We have talked about what I call the quantitative particle above. This is used when two nouns, ''verb'' to the same degree. But how you describe a situation when we have "more" or "less" degree ?
  |align=center| >>>
 
  |align=left| '''boimo'''
I think this is a suitable time to go into this.
  |align=left| best
  |-
  |align=center| >
  |align=left| '''boige'''
  |align=left| better
  |-
  |align=center| =
  |align=left| '''làu bòi'''
  |align=left| as good
  |-
  |align=center| <
  |align=left| '''boizo'''
  |align=left| less good
  |-
  |align=center| <<<
  |align=left| '''boizmo'''
  |align=left| least good
  |}


..
Taking the last example, we get ...


The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".
Thomas thinks faster than John => '''tomo wòr yú sacois jonowo'''


The fourth one down is used less frequently than the second one down. This is because its sentiment is sometimes expressed by negating the third one down. For example ...
with more degree.


'''gì bù r làu bòi pawo''' = "you're not as good as me" can be used instead of  '''gì r boizo pawo''' "you are less good than me"
Notice the lack of '''làu''', the adverbial suffix -'''is''' and the suffix -'''wo''' on the noun.


[ actually '''gì r boizo pawo''' would be the normal way to express this sentiment. But '''gì bù r làu bòi pawo''' would be used, for example,  as a retort to "I'm as good as you" ]
For less degree we have ...


The superlative forms are found as nouns more often than as adjectives. That is '''boimo''' and '''boizmo''' are rarer than '''boimos''' and '''boizmos'''. (see table below)
Thomas thinks not so fast than John => '''tomo wòr wì sacois jonowo'''


..
..


'''boimos''' = the best : '''bàu boimo''' = the best man
And for the ''copula adjective'' constructions with "more" or "less" degree. This paradigm is shown below ...


'''boizmos''' = the least good :  '''bàu boizmo''' = the least good man
..


..
Question ... '''tomo r jutu láu''' => "how big is Thomas ?"


[ you are argumentative like John but you are even worse ] ... explain this more
Answer[A] .... '''tomo r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is as big as John"


=== ... ?ài===
Answer[B] .... '''tomo r wì  jutu jonowo''' => "Thomas is less big than John"


..
Answer[C] .... '''tomo r yú  jutu jonowo''' => "Thomas is bigger than John"


The same or not the same
Answer[D] .... '''tomo bù r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is not as big as John"


..


'''ʔài''' = "same"
[[Image:TW_925.png]]


'''bù ʔài''' = "different"
Notice that D, invariably in English, makes Thomas smaller than John. Not so in '''béu'''. A B and C tend to be used a lot more than D.


Note ... for "the other", NP before the verb : for "another", NP after the verb)


1a) ''' jono lé jene sùr ʔài bèn ''' = "John and Jane are the same"  ... logically the ''' bèn ''' is unnecessary, but it is often included ... euphony.
[Note to self : get rid of -'''ge''' ? .... use it only in NP ? an alternative to C ? ]


1b) '''jono r ʔài jenewo''' = "John is the same as Jane"
----


The above two examples are ambiguous as to whether John and Jane are the same w.r.t. one characteristic or the same w.r.t. all characteristic.
Two more examples ... just for fun.


2a) '''jono lé jene r ʔài jutuwo''' = "John and Jane are the same size"
{|
|-
! jono-s || huz-o-r || làu || kulno
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || smoke-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like || chimney
|} => John smokes like a chimney


2b) '''*jono r ʔài jenewo jutuwo''' = "John is the same as Jane, sizewise" = "John is the same size as Jane"
..


The above is not allowed ... there is a rule saying that you can't have two consecutive -'''wo''' endings. So 2b) has to be re-assembled as ...
{|
|-
!  taud-o-r-a || làu || hunwu || huakod-ia
|-
|  to be annoyed-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || like/as || bear || headache-having
|} => he/she is annoyed like a bear with a  sore head


'''jono r làu jutu jenewo''' .... see Ch2.11.1
..


[Note '''jutuwo''' is derived from '''jutumiwo''' but the '''mi''' "ness" is invariably dropped.
=== ... '''jía''' ===


'''ʔàibis''' = similar
..


'''ʔài dù''' = exactly the same
'''jía''' has two functions.


'''ʔaimai''' = similarity
..


'''lomai''' = difference
[[Image:TW_904.png]]
 
 
To say something like "John is as good at writing as Jane" we can not say '''*jono r làu bòi jenewo kludauwo''' [ ??? ] [ two consecutive -'''wo''' no good ? ]
Also it has two shorthand forms ... the only word in the language to be so honoured. The leftmost word is never used. The => character used for the second function. The remaining character used for the first function.
 
You must use a sort of topic comment construction.
 
'''wo kludau bòi_jene r ʔài jonowo''' or '''wo kludau bòi_jene lé jono r ʔài '''


..
..


== ..... Totality ... collectively or individually==
1) In most languages you can drop certain components if they are obvious from context. And when you do the remaining utterance stays unchanged. However '''béu''' does not work like that'''*'''. We saw in the previous section that the particles used to show cause/reason are different, depending upon whether they are followed by a simple noun or by a clause. The same happens when we are making a statement by way of comparison. For example ...


..
..


Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.
Thomas thinks as fast as John  => '''tomo wòr saco làu jono'''


For this we use the particle '''ú''' before the plural of the noun. For example ...
Now obviously "John thinks" is underlying here. However if you want to make  "John thinks" overt you must change '''làu''' to '''jía''' ...


'''moltai''' = a/the doctor
Thomas thinks as fast as John thinks => '''tomo wòr saco jía jono wòr'''


'''moltai.a''' = doctors
Notice that English patterns the same way for both the above examples.


'''ú moltai'''  = all doctors
..


Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...
2) In English we have the verb "to equal" ... it bit of a strange verb. Almost exclusively found in a mathematical setting. (The adjective "equal" has the same form as the verb "to equal" .. but anyway ... )


'''falaja ú''' = all morning
The '''béu''' particle '''jía''' is used in most situations where we find the English verb "to equal". In a setting such as 2+3=5 ... well there are no need for tense or aspect ... we are talking about a timeless truth. Also no need for person affixes ... the elements (arguments) involved are always stated the the left and the right of '''jía'''. Also no need for evidential markers ... the world of '''béu''' considers evidentials as appropriate for the human world ... but the world of mathematics is so far beyond the human world ... to have evidentials on a mathematical expression would be to drag the matheverse down into the dirt. Hence '''jía''' is an invarient particle. By the way '''jiagan''' = "equation".


..
..


The opposite of the above, is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.
'''*''' Now why have I set things up like this ... well in '''béu''' it is quite easy to define a clause. A clause is a chunk that contains one active verb (active verb = a verb having an "r" ). I guess I have set things up like this, so as  to firmly draw a line between one clause constructions and two clause construction.


By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.
[ Note to self : why DO you want it like this ?]


Some examples ...
..


'''kòi''' = day
=== ... '''kài''' and '''wé nài'''===


'''kòi kòi''' = every day
..


'''moltai''' = doctor
There are 6 main uses for '''kài'''.


'''moltai moltai''' = each doctor
..


'''falaja''' = afternoon
1]  In this first function it is equivalent to "like" or "similar to" in English.


'''fa-falaja''' = every afternoon
..


Notice that for words over two syllables, only the first syllable is prefixed.
{|
|-
! jono || r || kài || dada || òn
|-
| john || is || like || older brother || his
|} => John is like his older brother


..
..


The "word-hood" of these duplications is murky. When the word in its entirety is dublicated, they are written as to seperate words. When a word is only partially duplicated I write it as a hyphenated word. In the '''béu''' script a special symbol is used to indicate duplication.
2] Sometimes '''kài''' can best be translated as "made of" ...


Single syllable words retain their tone when duplicated ... which indicates two separate words. However you also get phonological processes that are usually only word internal. That is to say, these structures show "sandhi".
a/the wooden house => '''tìa kài wuda'''


For example ...
the house is made of wood =>  '''tìa r kài wuda'''


'''yildos yildos''' (every morning) would be pronounced / jildoʃ jildos /.
..


'''bàu bàu''' <u>can</u> be pronounced '''bàu vàu''' ... [ If you remember ( Chapter 1.1) '''b''' and '''v''' are in free variation ]
3] Sometimes '''kài''' can best be translated as "for" ...


'''là bàu bàu''' = "on every man" .... indicates that '''bàu bàu''' is multi-word as the '''pilana''' is in its stand alone form.
water for drinking => '''moze kài solbe'''


Anyway ... these constructions are never written out in full. Instead a special symbol  is placed above the simple noun. This symbol can vary a bit, depending on the font being used : it can vary from a lower half circle bisected by a vertical stroke to a shape that looks a bit like the Arabic shaddah.
water for washing clothes => '''moze kài laudo'''


For example ...
this water is for washing clothing =>  '''moze dí r kài laudo'''


[[Image:TW_612.png]]
(in the above three examples,  '''kài''' and what follows it can be considerd an adjective)


..
..


It some contexts, semantically, it does not matter whether the individual or the collective form is used. When this is the case, the default choice is "individual" structure. '''ú''' tends to  be used with tangible nouns more, it is hardly ever used with nouns denoting periods of time.
4) In the fifth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''senko''' ...


Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...
elephant = '''sadu'''


'''ú bàu súr''' = all men are
elephant-kind = '''kaizadu'''


'''bàu bàu sór'''  =  every man is
this is actually a noun, the idea being something like "that which is like an elephant"


NOTE TO MYSELF
[ Note ... it is interesting that the '''béu''' word for "species" is '''kaija'''. Probably from " '''kài aja''' ", '''aja''' being an obsolete word for "one". ]


----
..


Every language has a word corresponding to "every" (or "each", same same) and a word corresponding to "all".  "all" emphasises the unity of the action (especially when the NP is S or A) while "every" emphasises the separateness of the actions. Now it is not always necessary to make this distinction (perhaps in most cases). It seems to me, that in that case, English uses "every" as the default case (the Scandinavian languages use "all" as the default ??? ). In '''béu''' the default is "all" '''ù'''.
5) In its sixth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''saidau''' ...


The meaning of this word (in English anyway) seems particularly prone to picking up other elements (for the sake of emphasis) with a corresponding lost of power for the basic word when it occurs alone. (From Etymonline EVERY = early 13c., contraction of Old English æfre ælc "each of a group," literally "ever each" (Chaucer's everich), from each with ever added for emphasis. The word still is felt to want emphasis; as in Modern English every last ..., every single ..., etc.)----
red = '''hìa'''


TO THINK ABOUT
reddish = '''kaihia'''


----
..


?à ?à bàu hù ?ís  =  any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )
6) And the sixth function ...


?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís  =  any men that you want
..


?ài bàu = some men
{|
|-
! gì || r || gombuʒi || kài || jono   
|-
|  you || are || argumentative  || like || John
|} => you are argumentative like John .............................. i.e. in the same manner ... for example ... shouting over other people when they try and put forward their arguments


..
..


== ..... '''lé''' .... '''lú''' .... '''ló'''==
This only is applicable to "complicated "adjectives ... adjectives that like have internal structure. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where this construction would be suitable for an adjective like "short".
 
I see "short" as a one dimensional adjective while I see '''gombuʒi''' as a multifaceted adjective.
 
You are treating '''gombuʒi''' ss one dimensional when you say ...  


..
..


Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.
{|
|-
! gì || r ||  gombuʒi || làu || jono   
|-
|  you || are ||  argumentative  || like || John
|} => you are as argumentative like John ...........................i.e. to the same degree


However this is only true when the words have no '''pilana''' affixed to them.  If you have two contiguous nouns suffixed by the same '''pilana''' then they are both considered to contribute equally to the sentence roll specified. For example ...
..


'''jonos jenes solbur moze''' = "John and Jane drink water"
In the above to examples, I would call '''kài''' a "qualitative particle", and I would call '''làu''' a "quantitative particle".


In the absence of an affixed '''pilana''', to show that two nouns contribute equally to a sentence (instead of the second one qualifying the first) the particle '''lé''' should be placed between them. For example ...
..


'''jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo''' = "Jane drank water and milk"
Now as "copula + adjective" is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...


'''jonos jenes bwuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusʔa''' = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.
..


[ Compare the above two examples to '''á jono jene solbori moze''' = Jane's John drank water ... i.e. The John that is in a relationship with Jane, drank water ]
{|
|-
! jono-s || klud-o-r || kài || tomo
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like/as || thomas
|} => John writes like Thomas writes


This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...
..


 
In most languages you can drop certain components if they are obvious from context. And when you do the remaining utterance stays unchanged. However '''béu''' does not work like that. We saw in the previous section that the particles used to show amount by way of comparison are different, depending upon whether they are followed by a simple noun or by a clause. The same happens when we are making a statement about manner by way of comparison. For example ...
[[Image:TW_595.png]]


..
..


Note ... in the '''béu''' script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.
Now in the above example, it is obvious that "thomas writes" but "writes" has been dropped. If we want to make this "writes" covert we must change the particle.


..
..


The following construction is also found.
{|
|-
! jono-s || klud-o-r || wé nài || tomo-s || klud-o-r
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}} || "in the manner that" || thomas || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}}
|} => John writes like Thomas writes


'''lé moze lé ʔazwo''' = "both water and milk"
Note ... when the final verb is dropped, the ergative marking on '''tomo''' is also dropped.


The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lé'''
..


Another linking word is '''lú''' meaning "or".
'''làu''' and '''kài''' sometimes gets mixed up. For example in the following example '''kài''' might actually get used more often than '''làu'''. While '''làu''' might be correct "logically", '''kài''' is more felicitous for savouring the rich imagery of "a fish out of water".


'''jenes blor solbe moze lú ʔazwo''' = "Jane can drink water or milk"
Perhaps if '''béu''' was a spoken language '''kài''' might take over from '''làu''' in many situations.


The following construction is also found.
..


'''lú moze lú ʔazwo''' = "either water or milk"
{|
|-
! bù || ?oim-o-r-a || làu || sainyi ||  moz-ua
|-
|  not || to be happy-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || like/as || fish ||  water-lacking
|} => he/she is unhappy like a fish out of water


The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lú'''
..


There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is '''ʔala''' and it is a question word. For example ...
This chart below might be of interest ...


'''ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo''' = "would you want water or milk"
..


And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"
[[Image:TW_928.png]]


Say you were asking somebody if they were thirsty and you had only water or milk to give them. Then you would say ... '''ʔís moze lú ʔazwo ʔai@'''
..


The expected answer to the above question would be either "yes" or "no" (as is always the case when you have @ ( @ is pronouced a bit like '''ʔai''' but has contour tone instead of a normal high tone, it has a special symbol and I am using "@" to represent this symbol in my transliteration)).
It shows how three question words correspond to three low tone particles.


Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...
..


'''ʔís mose ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume'''
----


But sometimes (either because of the laziness of the speaker or because the likelyhood was not considered) ... '''ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo ʔala leume''' comes out as '''ʔís moʒi ʔala ʔazwo'''.
..


So '''ʔís leume''' (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question '''ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo'''
One more example ... just for fun.


If the questioner would like to rule out the answer '''ʔís leume''' he would use the construction .
{|
|-
! tomo-s || futuba || lent-o-r || kài || yuzebi.o
|-
| thomas-{{small|ERG}} || football || play-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like || Eusabio
|} => Thomas plays football like Eusabio ............................................................ i.e. attacking the goal directly, strong on the ball with a powerful shot


'''ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo'''
..


So '''ʔala''' before the first item does exactly the same as '''lé''' or '''lú''' before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.
=== ...''' ?ài''' and '''aibis'''===


..
..


=== ... "no"===
These are mention here because they overlap with the first function of '''kài'''


..
These particles plus the noun (or NP) they qualifies are equivalent to adjectives.


In '''béu''', '''jù''' corresponds to "no".
'''?ài''' is derived from '''?à''' "one". There are quite a number of adjectives derived from nouns by the suffixing of -'''i''' ... (the meanings of these derived adjectives are often on the quirky side).
 
[ Note ... the English word "same" < P.I.E. "sem" meaning "one" ]
 
'''?aibis''' is formed from '''?ài''' plus the suffix -'''bis''' meaning "tending to".


"neither water nor milk" would be translated as '''jù moʒi jù ʔazwo'''
'''?ài''' and '''?aibis''' overlap in meaning with '''kài''' when in the first of its six functions.


..
[[Image:TW_926.png]]


=== ... lists===
We can say ... '''kài''' = "like"/"similar to" : '''?ài''' = "identical to"/"the same as" : '''?aibis''' = "a bit like"/"similar to"


..
You use '''?ài''' or '''?aibis''' if you want to specify the amout of similarity, use '''kài''' if you want to leave this vague.


So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...
Other related words/expressions are ... '''?aiko''' = to equalize : '''sàu ?ài''' = to be equal : '''bù ʔài''' = "different" : '''sàu bù ?ài''' = "to differ"/"to be different"
'''?aiti''' = similarity (one feature) : '''kuwai ?ài''' = similarity (in general) : '''u?aiti''' = difference (one feature) : '''kuwai u?ai''' = difference (in general)
'''?aiwe''' = to agree


..
..


{| border=1
Examples of '''?ài''' usage  ...
  |align=center| '''lé'''
  |align=center| giving
  |align=center| 2
  |align=center| items
  |-
  |align=center| '''lú'''
  |align=center| giving
  |align=center| 1
  |align=center| item
  |align=center|.....
  |align=center| '''ʔala'''
  |align=center| asking for
  |align=center| 1
  |align=center| item
  |-
  |align=center| '''jù'''
  |align=center| giving
  |align=center| 0
  |align=center| items
  |}


..
..


However we can join up more than two items. When more than two items are joined by the above 4 linking words, it is considered good style to have the linking word before the first item and the last item, before each item (except the first and the last) should be a slight pause (I call it a gap ... see "punctuation and page layout" earlier on this page).
1) ''' jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) ''' = "John and Jane are the same"  ... logically the ''' bèn ''' is unnecessary, but it is often included for euphony .... ('''bèn''' is used about 97% of the time in this construction)


For example ...
2) '''jono r ʔài jene''' = "John is the same as Jane"
 
The above two examples are ambiguous as to whether John and Jane are the same w.r.t. one characteristic or the same w.r.t. all characteristic. It should be known from context. If not you can disambiguate by ...
 
A) '''jono r ʔài jene jutuwo''' = "John is the same size as Jane"


'''jenes bwori lé ifa sadu _ uba ʔusʔa _ ega moŋgo lé oda gaifai falaja dí''' = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.
B) '''jono r ʔài jene uwe''' = "John is the same as Jane in every way"


..
C) '''jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) jutuwo''' = "John and Jane are the same size" ....  ('''bèn''' is used about 50% of the time in this construction)


=== ... other===
D) '''jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) uwe''' = "John and Jane are the same in every way" .... ('''bèn''' is used about 50% of the time in this construction)


..
..


'''ló''' = other
Note that (A) can also be expressed as '''jono r jutu làu jene''' ... see the third fuction of '''làu'''.
 
For comparison of ability to do something ...


'''lói''' = others
'''jono r bòi làu jene kludauwo''' = "John is as good at writing as Jane"


'''kyulo''' = again
[Note to self : sort out ... how to say "a similarity" ? ... "a difference" ?  ]


'''welo''' = otherwise
[Note to self : sort out ... '''ʔài dù''' = exactly the same ? ... '''ʔaimai''' = similarity ... '''lomai''' = difference ]


..
..


== ..... Another passive==
== ..... Two verb prefixes==


..
..


We have seen the impersonal passive above (where the vowel before the '''r''' becomes a schwa.
Earlier we saw how '''jwòi''' could be used to make a passive. That is, it took a transitive verb, detransitivized it, and made the original O argument the S argument [the original A argument having '''fi''' suffixed and becomes a side argument]


However there is another passive form made with the verb '''jwòi''' "to undergo" plus the infinitive.
'''béu''' also has a means to take a transitive verb, detransitivized it, and made the original A argument the S argument [the original O argument having '''h''' suffixed and becomes a side argument]


'''bwari jono katala lazde''' = I saw John cutting the grass ....................... '''katala lazde''' is a '''saidau kaza''' ..... '''katala''' is a '''saidau baga'''
This process involves prefixing '''li'''- to the verb. For example ...


'''bwari lazde jwola kata''' = I saw the grass being cut ............................. '''jwola kata''' is a '''saidau kaza'''  
'''jonos jene timpori''' => '''jono litimpori (jeneh)'''


'''bwari lazde jwola kata hí jono''' = I saw the grass being cut by John .... '''jwola kata hí jono''' is a '''saidau kaza'''
This process has been given the unfortunate name ... "anti-passive".


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'''
Some of the world's languages which are reckoned to have "anti-passives" undergo a semantic change when the anti-passive operation is applied. [Something like "I shot at the bear" compared to "I shot the bear" in the active voice. This does not happen in '''béu'''. In '''béu''' the '''li'''- prefixing operation only shuffles argument around.


'''bwari lazde kataya''' = I saw the grass that has been cut
However there is a prefix that signals non-success. This prefix is '''?eu'''-. Actually "non-success" is not quite correct. '''?eu'''- means "what was meant to be achieved by 'verbing' was not, or was not fully achieved".


'''bwari lazde katawa''' = I saw grass that must be cut = I saw that the grass must be cut
Actually I think there is only four verbs where what is meant to be achieved is fixed ...


'''lazde katawa bwari'''  = I saw the grass that must be cut
{|
| try || => || succeed
|-
| look || => || see
|-
| listen || => || hear
|-
| hear'''*''' || => || understand
  |}


'''bwari lazde nài r katawa'''  
In some cases, what people are attempting is nearly 100% predictable. For instance, if it was the hunting season and a hunter said "I '''?eu'''shot the deer" you could not be far off, if you took that to mean "I shot at the deer meaning to kill it but I missed"


..
In many cases what is meant to be achieved is totally dependent on background information which is not obvious to everybody. For example ... if it was known that '''hilda''' was going to the school to enroll her child for the following year. Then if you heard '''hilda''' say '''?eujari''' school'''h''' ... you would know she went to the school but was unsuccessful in her mission. But perhaps only two or three people would know the background story.


== ..... Making it flow==
Some times this prefix can be used to comic effect.


..
..


Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits.
'''*'''"to hear someone speak" to be more exact
 
Getting rid of the lumps entails dropping the elements that are already known ... these elements that are already uppermost in the mind. (De-lumping also involves inserting words that efficiently link to these elements that are already uppermost in the mind ... sometimes known as "anaphora". This aspect of de-lumping will be covered in the following section).


..
..


=== ... Dropping===
== ..... Two noun prefixes==


..
..


This section is about dropping known elements ... both arguments and person-tense markers.
'''huwu''' = good thoughts


A sentence [utterance = ???] is made up of one or more clauses [r-blocks]. Two r-blocks are separated by '''è''' or another particle. '''é''' is the most common particle for joining clauses and means "and then".
'''huwu.ai''' = a good thought


In '''béu''' the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is '''lé'''
'''hugu''' = good deeds


In English "he eats cheese and nuts" could be analyzed as "he eats cheese and (he eats) nuts" with the bracketed part dropped. In '''béu''' this analysis is not available. The particle between the two nouns would be '''lé''' (ar perhaps if the speaker had added "nuts" on as an afterthought ... '''uwe''' "also" would come after "nuts" (a pause before) ). The particlle '''è''' would not be used. It only separated two clauses that have dissimilar verbs.
'''hugu.ai''' = a good deed


'''?igu''' = bad deeds


Now in English allows the dropping of an S or A argument in a sentence when this argument has already been established as the topic. '''béu''' is pretty much the same. When two clauses are joined certain arguments are dropped from the second clause. The '''béu''' rules for dropping arguments are not atypical of the worlds languages'''*'''. The rules are given below.
..


'''hu'''- has provenance in avestian [cognate of Sanskrit '''su'''-]. '''?i''' has provenance in Thai อี.


..
..


[[Image:TW_840.png]]
== ..... Stuff to sort==


..
..


In the above "C1" stands for "the first clause" and  "C2" stands for "the second clause". And also in '''béu''' it is possible to integrate the two clauses further ... if the two claues share a subject and all the tense/aspect/evidential of the two verbs match, then the second verb can take its i-form (and as the definition of a '''béu''' clause is "one r-block" ... the result should be considered ONE clause. The dropping of the subject in the second clause is more or less mandatory, it would sound quite strange to retain it. As for conflating the two verbs ... well it depends how tightly bound logically the two verbs are ...
Usually for particles that can either be followed by a NP or a clause, I add '''gò''' after the particle when a clause follows. This is to prevent errors in comprehention. For example '''jì''' means "for" and is followed by a NP (usually a person). I have '''jì gò''' meaning "in order that" ... '''jì gò''' being followed by a clause. In '''béu''' the first word of a clause is often a noun. If I had '''jì''' meaning "in order that" there might be misunderstanding (albeit temporary). English does this also in many constructions [ I should go into this more fully ??? ]. Of course I could have a totally different particle for "in order that" but I wanted to emphasis the semantic overlap between these to constructions.


..
There are 4 nouns that are associated with 4 of these above question word / indefinite pairs. '''làus''' = amount, quantity : '''kàin''' = kind, sort, type : '''dàs''' = place : '''kyùs''' accasion, time.


[[Image:TW_842.png]]
These 4 nouns are never followed by '''nài'''. The table below is interesting. It shows the logical equivalence of a hypothetical expession (on the LHS) and the logical equivalent actually used (on the RHS).


..
..


Two examples are given above. The choice between conflated and not conflated depends upon the larger body of text that these examples are embedded in. But the relative likelyhood of conflation (over all situations) is given above. It can be seen that the more predictable second verb has a greater chance of being converted into its i-form. This makes sense as more unpredictable => more information. And we do not like to put to much information in one clause.
'''*làus nài''' => '''làu'''


Examples are given below ...
'''*kàin nài''' => '''kài'''


1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]
'''*dàs nài''' =>  '''dà'''


2) The man awoke and then [the man] ate his breakfast. [ this would usually be conflated ]
'''*kyùs  nài''' => '''kyù'''


3) The man drank all the beer and then [the man] slept. [ this would usually be conflated ]
..


4) The man coughed and then [the man] went to sleep. [ maybe two clauses ... no real logical tie between the two verbs ]
There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs.  '''laubo''' meaning "enough" and  '''kaibo''' meaning "suitable".


5) The man hit the woman and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??
Also there are two nouns associated with these question word / particle pairs.  '''lauja''' meaning "level" and '''kaija''' meaning "species/model".


6) The man woke up and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??
..


7) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' shot the man.
'''?ode r jutu làu sadu''' = "they're as big as an elephant" (talking about elephants in general) : '''?ode r jutu làu sadu dí''' =  "they're as big as the elephant"
 
8) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' cried.
 
9) The thief robbed the girl. Then the pirate raped her.
 
Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the dropped arguments are counted as S arguments. In '''béu''' they are considered O arguments.
 
Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the A argument can be supplied in a '''hí''' phrase (similarly, in English the agent can be supplied by a "by" phrase)
 
Dropping arguments is appropriate when the to clauses are bound together in meaning (and when bound together in meaning, by iconicity, usually on the same tone contour).
 
The last three cases which could not drop any arguments, are felt to be, not so tightly bound together. It  is no co-incidence, that these clause pairs are often given separate tone contours ... that is ... they are separate sentences.


..
..


=== ... Linking back===
Good, Better, Best


..
..


A good example of a word that links back is '''badas''' "afterwards"'''*'''. It is derived from '''bada''' "after" plus the adverbial suffix -'''s'''.
{| border=1
 
  |align=center| >>>
Normally when you join to clauses the linking particle is '''è''' "and then". However if the second clause is an afterthought that comes after you have stopped speaking, you must use '''badas'''. This word is an adverb (has scope over the whole clause) and means "after" ... but after what ? The answer is the action already described in the first clause ... this information is still uppermost in everybody's mind and still very accessable. Alternatively there can be no first clause ... '''badas''' can appear after a long period of silence. In this case "the after what" refers to some action that is uppermost in everybody's mind although not recently spoken about'''**'''.
  |align=left| '''boimo'''
 
  |align=left| best
  |-
  |align=center| >
  |align=left| '''boige'''
  |align=left| better
  |-
  |align=center| =
  |align=left| '''làu bòi'''
  |align=left| as good
  |-
  |align=center| <
  |align=left| '''boizo''' '''jige bòi'''
  |align=left| less good
  |-
  |align=center| <<<
  |align=left| '''boizmo'''
  |align=left| least good '''jimo bòi'''
  |}


..


The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".


....................................................................................
The fourth one down is used less frequently than the second one down. This is because its sentiment is sometimes expressed by negating the third one down. For example ...


since < sið ðan [after that] : until < (up to) or (as far as) x 2
'''gì bù r làu bòi pawo''' = "you're not as good as me" can be used instead of  '''gì r boizo pawo''' "you are less good than me"


[ actually '''gì r boizo pawo''' would be the normal way to express this sentiment. But '''gì bù r làu bòi pawo''' would be used, for example,  as a retort to "I'm as good as you" ]


'''*'''In English(well in my variety of English anyway, some from North East USA find (3) unacceptable and (1) marginal), there are three ways to that this anaphorical operation can happen.
The superlative forms are found as nouns more often than as adjectives. That is '''boimo''' and '''boizmo''' are rarer than '''boimos''' and '''boizmos'''. (see table below)


(1) “John came. Afterwards Mary came”
..
(2) “John came. After that Mary came”
(3) “John came. After, Mary came”


In '''béu''' only construction (1) is acceptable ... i.e. with '''badas'''
'''boimos''' =  the best : '''bàu boimo''' = the best man


'''**'''For example ... say you are a painter and decorator working with your helper at some sight. Now you both know that the next task will take around 15 minutes and it is a two man job. Your helper says he is gasping for a cigarette. To put him off for a bit, you can simply say '''badas'''
'''boizmos''' = the least good :  '''bàu boizmo''' = the least good man
 
----


..
..


Now the five particles talked about in the previous section must always be followed by something appropriate. If they are not, they must change their form.  
== ... Three important particles==


..
..


OK let us discuss this usage a bit. In English it is possible to say "We will do the paperwork after". Now the interlocarors must have some task (or tasks) in mind which they are going to do before the paperwork. In English this task is simply dropped ... it is part of the background. However in '''béu''' the particles feel wrong if they do not have appropriate words following, so the longer version is used.
=== ... '''dà''' ===


Anaphor .... things whizzing around .... "mindwhiz" .... dropping and anaphora
..


It might be felt that the suffix is referring back some action that was mentioned before.
'''dà''' = where


'''pà twahu dà yildos twaire''' = meet me where we met in the morning ........................  '''dà yildos twaire'''  can be considered an adverb of place.


----
..


'''ò''' is used to represent an person, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.
=== ... '''kyù''' ===


'''ʃì''' is used to represent an object, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.
..


'''só''' is used to represent an scenario, mentioned before, and still current in everybody's mind.
'''kyù''' = when


The above would be used in such sentences as ... "She acquiesced to return to Crosby's hotel room ... ''which'' was a very bad idea".
'''toili gìn naru kyù twairu''' = I will give you the book when we meet ............................ '''kyù twairu'''   can be considered an adverb of time.


..


----
=== ... '''nài''' ===


..


English is quite permissive as to what can be used for anaphora.
In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors  ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...


"That is good" or "This is good" can be about a situation [ they can also be about an object mentioned before as well ]
"The man ''who'' ate the chicken"


In '''béu''' "That is good" or "This is good" (when talking about a situation) => '''án rò bòi'''
"The chicken ''that'' was eaten"


"That is good" or "This is good" or "It is good"  (when talking about an object) => '''dò r bòi'''
"The knife and fork ''which'' were used to eat the chicken"
 
???  "it is good that he is coming back" .... "that he is coming back is good" is too front heavy .... What can '''béu''' use for "it" ?????? just miss it out "is good that ..... " ???


..
..


Four (five with '''nai.an''' ?) other particles also take -'''an'''. They are ...
In '''béu''' there is only one relativizer, which is '''nài'''. For example ...


{| border=1
'''glá nài bàu timpori''' = "The woman who the man hit"
  |align=center| '''lau.an'''
  |align=center| to that degree
  |-
  |align=center| '''kai.an'''
  |align=center| like that
  |-
  |align=center| '''we.an'''
  |align=center| thus, so, in that way
  |-
  |align=center| '''sai.an'''
  |align=center| for that reason
|}


English uses ''that'' for anaphora in the above 4 examples.
Now ... in the above ... '''glá''' is being modified by '''nài bàu timpori'''. '''nài bàu timpori''' implies a clause '''bàu timpori glà'''.


All these words are overwhelmingly/always ? utterance final.
To construct a relative clause for '''glá''', '''nài''' is inserted between the noun and clause, and the noun is dropped from the clause.
 
..


== ..... Telling the time==
Now in the above example ... the roll of '''glá''' in the clause is absolutive (i.e. '''glá''' is unmarked). However if the roll of the noun ... in the clause ... is one defined by one of the 17 '''pila?o''', this '''pila?o''' must be suffixed to '''nài'''. For example ...


..
..


The time of day is called '''jekas'''. (to ask what time it is, you say '''làu r  jekas''') ???
pi ... the basket '''naipi''' the cat shat was cleaned by John.


To ask what time of day it is ... '''jondi jé nái'''  or simply '''jé nái'''
la ... the chair '''naila''' you are sitting was built by my grandfather.


To ask what day of the month '''sabata'''  it is ... '''hoite kòi nái''' or simply '''kòi nái'''
... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...


To ask what year of the '''omba''' it is ... '''yìa toze nái'''  or simply '''toze nái'''
tu ... '''báu naitu òn''' is going to market is her husband = the man with which she is going to town is her husband ... '''kli.o naitu''' he severed the branch is rusty


To ask which '''omba''' ...... '''omba nái'''
ji ... The old woman '''naiji''' I deliver the newspaper, has died.


Actually '''omba''' is more precisely called '''ombatoze''''. However in a situation where time is being discussed ... '''omba''' by itself will do.
-s ... '''báu nàis timpori glá_rò  jutu sowe''' = The man that hit the woman is very big.


wo ... The boy '''naiwo''' they are all talking, has gone to New Zealand.


To specify time in a larger context we use the word '''kyukas'''. The nearest translation is "day" or "date". (to ask what day/date it is, you say '''làu r  kyukas''')
hn ... the woman '''nàih''' I told the secret, took it to her grave.


The word for time in general '''kyugan'''.  
fi ... the town '''naifi''' she has come is the biggest south of the mountain.


The word '''tozegan''' can be translated as "age" or "generation" or "century". Actually it is a period of 128 years.
ni ... '''tìa naini''' she lives is the biggest in town = the house in which she lives is the biggest in town


The word '''ombakas''' means epoch or eon (also "calendar", "time reckoning system"). However unlike the English terms '''ombakas''' has a specific length (about 400,000 years).
-lya ... the boat '''nailya''' she has just entered is unsound


'''kyù''' translates as the noun "occasion" as well as the particle "when/while/during". I guess '''kyù''' is not a '''senko''' as it is not tangible.
-lfe ... the lilly pad '''nailfe''' the frog jumped was the biggest in the pond ... (note to self : improve this, work out translation for all these concepts)
 
 
Below I have given one value of the '''ombakas'''. The total set of possible values can specify a time from around 200,000 years ago to 200,000 year in the future down to the nearest 50 seconds.
 
'''omba bene odaudai dimaku ?oli sunaba ajau'''


..
..


{|border=1
If the roll of the noun (in the clause) is one not specificated by the 17 '''pila?o''' then the noun can not be dropped entirely, it must be represented by a pronoun. For example ...
  |align=center| 1
  |align=center| 2
  |align=center| 3
  |align=center| 4
  |align=center| 5
  |align=center| 6
  |align=center| 7
  |-
  |align=center| '''omba'''
  |align=center| ('''komo'''/'''bene''')
  |align=center| '''odaudai'''
  |align=center| '''dimaku'''
  |align=center| '''?oli'''
  |align=center| '''sunaba'''
  |align=center| '''ajau'''
  |}


..


1)  ring/cycle/circle ... Every value of the '''ombakas''' starts with '''omba'''


2) (negative/positive) ... these can be dropped if it is known from context or from a tense affix, whether we are talking about the past or the future. By the way ... negative corresponds to the past.
{|
|-
! gwài || nài || polg-u-r-a || fía || ?ode
|-
| the islands ||  {{small|REL}}  || sail-{{small|1PL-IND-PRES}}  || between || them
|}


3)  "the number of the 128 year long cycle". '''odaudai''' = 550<sub>12</sub> = 780<sub>10</sub>. As time zero in the '''béu''' calendar is 22 Dec 2083, we are talking roughly about a hundred thousand years in the future here.
Literally "the islands that we are sailing between them" ... or ... in good English ... "the islands that we are sailing between"


4) "the particular year of the 128 cycle". '''dimaku''' means python and is the 100th year of the 128 year cycle.
{|
|-
! gawa || nài || toti-s  || lent-o-r-e || tài  || ʃide
|-
| the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || in front of || them
|}


5)  "the particular '''sabata''' of the year" ... there are 5 '''sabata''' a (73 day long period) in one year ... '''?oli pwè gú gamazu''' and '''yika'''
Literally "the women that the children played in front of them" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of"
 
6) '''sunaba''' is the sixteenth day of the 73 day '''sabata''' ... [ In chewa, sabata means "week" ... and Yes, I know this is very unlikely to have Bantu provenance ]
 
7)  "the particular fraction of the day that has past" ... '''ajau''' => 100<sub>12</sub>: 24 hours = 1000<sub>12</sub> : hence '''ajau''' = a twelfth of a day or 2 hours. As the day starts at 06:00, '''ajau''' corresponds to eight in the morning.
 
[ By the way ... if you put pluralize '''ajau''' you get '''ajau.a'''. This word corresponds to the time period between 08:00 and 10:00 ... '''ifau.a''' = 10:00 => 12:00 ... '''ibau.a''' = 12:00 => ... (well you get the idea)


..
..


Now a '''ombakas''' can be put at the periphery of a clause to identify when an action is happening. This is what they are nearly always used for. However '''ombakas''' are hardly ever given in full. For example it might be deemed sufficient just to give the time of the day. When time of the day occurs by itself it MUST be preceded by the particle '''jé'''.
{|  
 
To show "where" an action takes place, '''béu''' places '''?é''' before the "where".
 
In a similar manner, to show when an action takes place, '''béu''' places '''jé''' before the "when". For example ...
 
..
 
{|  
|-
|-
! jene-s || d-o-r-e || jé || ajau
! há ||  gawa || nài  || toto-s || lent-o-r-e || tài  || ʃide || waudo || dainuru
|-
|-
| Jane-{{small|ERG}} || arrive-{{small|2SG-IND-PST}}   || at || 08:00  ||  
| {{small|ERG}} || the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}} || in front of || them || dog || kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
|} => Jane arrived at eight in the morning
|}
 
Literally "the women that the children played in front of them, will kill the dog" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of will kill the dog"


..
..


Only in the situations above do you get '''jé''' introducing a truncated '''jekas'''.
In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. '''béu''' has this also ...


At this point I should stress something before moving on. A full '''jekas''' defines a point in time (50 sec) apart. A '''jekas''' with '''ajau''' at its RHS spefifies a point at exactly 08:00. Similarly '''ajaujai''' specifies a point at exactly 08:10. And similarly  '''ajaujaija''' specifies a point at exactly 08:10:50 (that is 50 seconds past ten minutes past eight).
'''nài hecair rò nài mair''' = "what you see is what you get"


The above represents points in time. As mentioned before, a range of times can be given by pluralizing the pont ... that is '''ajau.a''' = 08:00 to 10:00 and  '''ajaujai.a''' = 08:10 to 08:20. (ten minutes is the smallest range that can be specified in this way)
'''nàis hecor rò nàis mair''' = "that which sees is that which gets"


If a '''jekas''' is truncated by deleting the "time if day" then it actually specifies a time range (24 hours). If it is further truncated by deleting the day of the '''sabata''' then it actually specifies a time range (73 days). So to say something will be done on Tuesday ... no need for the "on". To say something will be done in January ... no need for the "on". For example ...  
'''òn nàis hecor rò òn nàis mor''' = 'he that sees is he that gets" ... [this one not headless of course ... a pronoun has been added to narrow down what exactly we are talking about]


..
..


{|
[[Image:TW_930.png]]
|-
! g-a-r-u || geufa
|-
| do-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}}  || on the seventh day of the month  ||
|} =>  I will do it on the seventh


..
..


{|
== ... Totality ... collectively or individually==
|-
! tomo-s || d-o-r-i || geufa || ajau
|-
| Thomas-{{small|ERG}} || arrived-{{small|2SG-IND-PST}} || on the seventh day of the month  || at 08:00  ||
|} => Thomas arrived on the seventh day of the month at eight in the morning


..
..


{|
Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.
|-
! tomo-s || c-o-r-u || ?oli || geufa || ajaujai
|-
| Thomas-{{small|ERG}} || leave-{{small|2SG-IND-FUT}} || in the first month || on the seventh day  || at ten past eight  ||
|} => Thomas will depart in the first month on the seventh day at ten past eight


..
For this we use the particle '''ú''' before the plural of the noun. For example ...


This time system is sufficient for all of human history. Of course to talk about cosmology, or even geology, some sort of extended system is needed.
'''moltai''' = a/the doctor


..
'''moltai.a''' = doctors


== ..... Relative time words==
'''ú moltai'''  = all doctors


..
Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...


In the previous section we learnt how to give the time in an absolute manner. It is also possible to give the time in a relative manner.
'''goize ú''' = all morning


..
..


day ...... night ........ evening ......... pre-zenith ..... post-zenith .... pre-nadir ..... post-nadir    '''be''' '''ko''' ???
The opposite of the above is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.


'''falaja''' = afternoon : '''falajas''' = in the afternoon/every afternoon .... (jé) falaja = in the afternoon
By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.


'''yildos''' = morning : '''yildozas''' = in the morning/every morning ....... (jé) falaja = in the afternoon
Some examples ...
 
'''nùa''' = a/the mouse


'''jana''' (swahili) = yesterday : '''kojana''' = the day before yesterday :
'''nùa nùa''' = every mouse


'''hoite''' (german) = today
'''jamba''' = a/the pelican


'''kuzaza''' (zulu) = tomorrow : '''bezaza''' the day after tomorrow :
'''jamba jamba''' = each pelican


"longtime" '''súa''' / short-time '''gìa''' ..... '''uzuas''' = soon
'''falaja''' = oasis


..
'''fa-falaja''' = every oasis


== ..... Ways to join clauses timewise==
Notice that for words over two syllables, only the initial consonant and following vowel/diphthong is prefixed.


..
..


In the previous sections we have seen how to give time information. However there is another way to give the time ... with respect to an evert or action.
..


We will cover seven particles in this section which allow us to give time information with respect to an event ... '''jé kyù koca beda kogan began''' and '''jindu'''.
The "word-hood" of these duplications is murky. When the word in its entirety is dublicated, they are written as to seperate words. When a word is only partially duplicated I write it as a hyphenated word. In the '''béu''' script a special symbol is used to indicate duplication.


..
Single syllable words retain their tone when duplicated ... which indicates two separate words. However you also get phonological processes that are usually only word internal. That is to say, these structures show some "sandhi".  


'''jé''' = '''kyù*''' = "while" or "when"
For example ...


'''koca''' = before
'''yildos yildos''' (every storehouse) would be pronounced / yildoʃ yildos /. If this was two seperate words it would be pronounced  / yildos yildos /. If this was one word it would be pronounced  / yildoʒyildos /


'''beda''' = after
'''bàu bàu''' <u>can</u> be pronounced '''bàu vàu''' ... [ If you remember ( Chapter 1.1) '''b''' and '''v''' are in free variation ]


'''kogan''' = until
'''là bàu bàu''' = "on every man" .... indicates that '''bàu bàu''' is multi-word as the '''pila?o''' is in its stand alone form.


'''began''' = since
'''fa-falaja?e''' = "at every oasis" .... indicates that '''fa-falaja''' is a single word as the '''pila?o''' is appended.


'''jindu''' = as soon as
Anyway ... these constructions are never written out in full. Instead a special symbol  is placed above the simple noun. This symbol can vary a bit, depending on the font being used : it can vary from a lower half circle bisected by a vertical stroke to a shape that looks a bit like the Arabic shaddah.


For example ...


In a similar manner to English, they can either introduce a clause, a noun (that designates a time) or an infinitive phrase (by the way ... I strongly object to the term "infinitive clause")


[[Image:TW_866.png]]


“After I ate breakfast”
..


“After the gold rush”
It some contexts, semantically, it does not matter whether the individual or the collective form is used. When this is the case, the default choice is "individual" structure. '''ú''' tends to  be used with tangible nouns more, it is hardly ever used with nouns denoting periods of time.


“After the eating of my breakfast”
Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...


'''ú bàu súr''' = all men are


The above are all time adverb phrases. A time adverb phrase is a dependent clause'''**''' (called an under clause in '''béu''') ... shown in red below. The main clause is shown in yellow.
'''bàu bàu sór''' =  every man is


..
NOTE TO MYSELF


[[Image:TW_851.png]]
----


Tha arrow is the arrow of time'''***'''  ... with the past to the left (''ko''mo), and the future to the right (''be''ne).
Every language has a word corresponding to "every" (or "each", same same) and a word corresponding to "all".  "all" emphasises the unity of the action (especially when the NP is S or A) while "every" emphasises the separateness of the actions. Now it is not always necessary to make this distinction (perhaps in most cases). It seems to me, that in that case, English uses "every" as the default case (the Scandinavian languages use "all" as the default ??? ). In '''béu''' the default is "all" '''ù'''.


I have given events wavey borders to represent "not so well defined". So, for example, on the top diagram ... the main clause action could start before the under clause action ... it could also outlast the under clause action ... the important thing is that for a substantial amount of time, the two actions were going on at the same time.
The meaning of this word (in English anyway) seems particularly prone to picking up other elements (for the sake of emphasis) with a corresponding lost of power for the basic word when it occurs alone. (From Etymonline EVERY = early 13c., contraction of Old English æfre ælc "each of a group," literally "ever each" (Chaucer's everich), from each with ever added for emphasis. The word still is felt to want emphasis; as in Modern English every last ..., every single ..., etc.)----


In the bottom four examples I have made the under clause actions very short. This is for illustration purposes only. The under clause actions can actually have any length ... depend on the verb/situation.
TO THINK ABOUT


Now these five examples show how two clauses can be joined in a timewise fashion. The '''béu''' rules are quite similar to English. That is ...
----


A) the under clause must be introduced with one of these 6 particles.
?à ?à bàu hù ?ís  =  any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )


B) we can have main clause and then the under clause ... or the other way around.
?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís  =  any men that you want


Here are examples to illustrate the 5 examples above ...
?ài bàu = some men


..
..


1) '''kyù'''/'''jé''' = while, as, when, during  ........ ( note to self : jé is definite : kyù not so ... = if ?? )
== ... And for a verb ... many many iterations==


'''pás pintu saikaru kyù gís pazba saikiru''' = "I will paint the door, while you paint the table"
..


'''kyù gís pazba saikiru_pás pintu saikaru''' = "while you paint the table, I will paint the door"
As duplication has (a very iconic) function with nouns, it has also a function with verbs (and very iconic too ... if I may say so)


'''kyù saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "while painting the table, you smoked"
..
 
{|
  |align=center| '''jò'''
  |align=center| to go
  |align=center| '''jojo'''
  |align=center| to scatter, emit
  |-
  |align=center| '''té'''
  |align=center| to come
  |align=center| '''tete'''
  |align=center| to gather, collect
  |-
  |align=center| '''pyá'''
  |align=center| to stop off
  |align=center| '''pyapya'''
  |align=center| to stutter  (person or engine)
  |-
  |align=center| '''dàu'''
  |align=center| to die
  |align=center| '''daudau'''
  |align=center| to fade away
  |-
  |align=center| '''nda'''
  |align=center| to put
  |align=center| '''ndanda'''
  |align=center| to dump
  |-
  |align=center| '''mài'''
  |align=center| get, receive
  |align=center| '''maimai'''
  |align=center| to rely on
  |-
  |align=center|  '''náu'''
  |align=center| give
  |align=center|  '''naunau'''
  |align=center| to support
  |-
  |align=center| '''pila'''
  |align=center| to put
  |align=center| '''pipila'''
  |align=center| to arrange
  |-
  |align=center| '''timpa'''
  |align=center| to hit
  |align=center| '''titimpa'''
  |align=center| to beat
  |-
  |align=center| '''yáu'''
  |align=center| to have
  |align=center| '''yauyau'''
  |align=center| to have in abundance
  |-
  |align=center| '''?ái'''
  |align=center| to want
  |align=center| '''?ai?ai'''
  |align=center| to be greedy
  |-
  |align=center| '''lí'''
  |align=center| to press
  |align=center| '''lili'''
  |align=center| to crowd, to throng
  |-
  |align=center| '''tí'''
  |align=center| to touch
  |align=center| '''titi'''
  |align=center| to fondle, to caress
  |-
  |align=center| '''jwòi'''
  |align=center| to undergo
  |align=center| '''jwoijwoi'''
  |align=left|  to be taken advantage of, to be a victim
  |-
  |align=center| '''?áu'''
  |align=center| to take
  |align=center| '''?au?au'''
  |align=center| to strip something bare
  |-
  |}


..
..


2) '''koca''' = before
'''pila''' "to place something correctly and orientate correctly" : '''pipila''' "to arrange", "to tidy up", "put in order" .... '''jenes pazba pipilaru''' = Jane will arrange the table ... a room, a house, [any place], an institution


'''pazba saikaru koca pintu (saikaru)''' = "I will paint the table before (I will paint) the door" 


'''koca pintu saikaru_pazba saikaru''' = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table"
Also ...  look.look = inspect : listen.listen = to sound out (a group of people) : talk.talk = to try and sell an idea (to an individual, but more commonly, to a group of people)
 
'''koca saiko pintu_pás pazba saikaru''' = "before painting the door, I will paint the table"


..
..


3) '''beda''' = after
== ... '''lé''' .... '''lú''' .... '''ló'''==


'''pintu saikaru beda pazba (saikaru)''' = "I will paint the door after (I will paint) the table" 
..


'''beda pazba saikaru_pintu saikaru''' = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table"
Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.


'''beda saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru''' = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"
However this is only true when the words have no '''pilana''' affixed to them.  If you have two contiguous nouns suffixed by the same '''pilana''' then they are both considered to contribute equally to the sentence roll specified. For example ...


..
'''jonos jenes solbur moze''' = "John and Jane drink water"


If you wanted to emphasize that the first action will continue until the second action you would use ...
In the absence of an affixed '''pilana''', to show that two nouns contribute equally to a sentence (instead of the second one qualifying the first) the particle '''lé''' should be placed between them. For example ...


4) '''kogan''' = until
'''jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo''' = "Jane drank water and milk"


'''gís huʒiri kogan dare saiko pazba''' = "you smoked until I started to paint the table"
'''jonos jenes hecuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusfa''' = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.


'''kogan dare saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "until I started to paint the table, you smoked"
[ Compare the above two examples to '''á jono jene solbori moze''' = Jane's John drank water ... i.e. The John that is in a relationship with Jane, drank water ]


'''kogan día saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "until starting to paint the table, you smoked"
This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...
 
 
[[Image:TW_595.png]]


..
..


If you wanted to emphasize that the first action has been continuing all the time since the second action you would use ...
Note ... in the '''béu''' script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.


5) '''began''' = since
..


'''gís ʔès huʒira figo care saiko pazba''' = "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"
The following construction is also found.


{|
'''lé moze lé ʔazwo''' = "both water and milk"
|-
! gí-s || ʔès || huʒ-i-r-a || began || c-a-r-e ||  saiko || pazba
|-
| you-{{small|ERG}} ||  already || smoke-{{small|2S-IND-PRES}} ||  since || stop-{{small|1S-IND-PAST}}||  painting ||  table
|} ==> "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"


'''began care saiko pazba_gís huʒira ''' = "since I stopped painting the table you have smoked"
The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lé'''


'''began cùa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira''' = "since stopping painting the table, you have smoked" ... [By the way ...  '''began ìa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira''' = "since finishing painting the table, you have smoked" ]
Another linking word is '''lú''' meaning "or".


..
'''jenes blor solbe moze lú ʔazwo''' = "Jane can drink water or milk"


There is one added complication in the above scheme ... if the intersect time of the two actions is in the future, then '''jindu''' (<'''jín''' "a moment" + '''dù''' "exact") can be used instead of '''began'''.
The following construction is also found.


..
'''lú moze lú ʔazwo''' = "either water or milk"


[[Image:TW_852.png]]
The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lú'''


..
There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is '''lu?o''' and it is a question word. For example ...


'''*''' In most situations  '''jé''' and '''kyù''' can be used interchangeably. However only '''kyù''' can take the adverbial marker ('''kyùas''' = meanwhile) and only '''jé''' can be used to introduce the time of day number.
'''ʔís moze lu?o ʔazwo''' = "would you want water or milk"


And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"


'''**''' I guess I should say what is the difference between a main clause and an under clause. (I should read about what other linguists say about this some day). Take the sentences ...
Say you were asking somebody if they were thirsty and you had only water or milk to give them. Then you would say ... '''ʔís moze lú ʔazwo ʔai@'''


(1) I will finish this drink before I go home.  .........      (2) I will go home after I finish this drink.
The expected answer to the above question would be either "yes" or "no" (as is always the case when you have @ ( @ is pronouced a bit like '''ʔai''' but has contour tone instead of a normal high tone, it has a special symbol and I am using "@" to represent this symbol in my transliteration)).


In terms of pure logic these both mean exactly the same. Also the choice of whether a verb is in the main or the under clause says nothing about the speakers attidude towards that verb ... i.e. relish, disgust, foreboding, sadness etc. But is seems that the verb in the main clause is the target of the speakers determination/willpower/resolve whereas the verb in the underclause is the target of nothing. I guess you can say it is background material..
Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...


'''ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo lu?o leume'''


'''***''' The organization of the Chinese writting system seems to have affected the language itself. The primary writing direction was top_to_bottom so of course the calendar was written top_to_bottom as well. From that "above" got associated with "the past" and "below got associated with "the future".  
But sometimes (either because of the laziness of the speaker or because the likelyhood was not considered) ... '''ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo lu?o iman''' comes out as '''ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo'''.


午 wǔ "noon" : 上 shàng "above" : 下 xià "under" => 上午 shàngwǔ "morning" : 下午 xiàwǔ "afternoon"
So '''ʔarwo iman''' (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question '''ʔirwo moze lu?o ʔazwo'''


A similar thing happened in '''béu'''. The practitioners of '''béu''' are above all engineers and the algebraic convention of having time along the horizontal axis has affected the language somewhat.
If the questioner would like to rule out the answer '''ʔís leume''' he would use the construction .


..
[ Maybe just forget about having a QW for "which of these two ]
 
'''ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo'''


== ..... Linking Back==
So '''ʔala''' before the first item does exactly the same as '''lé''' or '''lú''' before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.


..
..


Now the section above shows how two clauses can be joined in a timewise manner. They take a bit of working out in the mind of the speaker  [of course for written language this is not a constaint. The writer has more than enough time to work out complicated patterns.
=== ... "no"===
 
However in conversation, often things are not laid out so neatly. Consider the case where one clause has been spoken. The speaker considers himself done and gives the "finished speaking" intonation to the end of his utterance. Then ... after a split second it comes into the speakers head that another event (clause) is also of interest to the hearer. In this case, one of the below constructions must introduce the "afterthought".


..
..


[[Image:TW_848.png]]
In '''béu''', '''jù''' corresponds to "no".
 
 
The '''s''' ('''as''') suffix is the adverbial marker. And the adverbials '''kyùas''', '''bedas''', '''kocas''' make a connection back to the clause just spoken  [often called "anaphora" from the Greek "carry back"]. All the elements of the clause last enunciated are still whirring around the brain : they are easily accessible. And the words '''kyùas''', '''bedas''' and '''kocas''' connect to the "just spoken clause"  [kind of like a time portal :-) ].
 
Also it is usual to have a pause after these words ... maybe to give the hearer time to absorb the fact that a "link" has just been made.
 
The '''dí''' is the proximal determiner (i.e. "this"). In '''béu''' '''dí''' is also used a lot for linking back'''*''' to clauses just spoken. In fact '''dí''' represents the just spoken clause in its entirety.
 
Also it is usual to have a pause after '''koca dí''', '''began dí''' and '''kogan dí'''. But this pause is not so pronounced (or is not so insisted upon) as in the cases that have the adverbials. I do not know why this is so.
 
 
Now how to explain the pattern in above pattern the diagram above. Well some believe that for an adverbial to exits, it must be quite common. That is '''kogan''' and '''began''' as afterthough introducers are quite uncommon, hence the phrases '''kogan dí''' and  and '''began dí'''  are used as opposed to '''*koganas''' or '''*beganas'''.  Notice that '''koca''' can exist as an afterthought indroducer in the form '''kocas''' or '''koca dí'''. It is not known why the terms '''*kyù dí''' and '''*beda dí''' are not allowed.
 
Now the most common way to join clauses is to use the particle '''è''' "and then". When '''è''' is used both clauses that it joins are main clause, none is demoted to an under clause.
 
By the way ... when people are narrating a sequence of events, they mention these events in the order in which they happened. For that reason, this section is all about "and then" and not "before that".
 


"neither water nor milk" would be translated as '''jù moʒi jù ʔazwo'''


..
..


[[Image:TW_853.png]]
=== ... lists===


..
..


'''diadialas''' = eventually
So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...
 
'''jinduas''' = '''dùas''' = immediately


..
..


'''*'''Notice that English does something similar with "that". Also ''then'' ... but "then" does not represents the just spoken clause in its entirety, it only represents the time of the action.
{| border=1
 
  |align=center| '''lé'''
Also in '''béu''' '''dè''' the distal determiner (i.e. "that") is used to create a link to the clause ABOUT to be spoken. For example ...
  |align=center| giving
 
  |align=center| 2
{|  
  |align=center| items
|-
  |-
! unya || gì-n || fy-a-r-u || dè || _ || bla bla bla bla
  |align=center| '''lú'''
|-
  |align=center| giving
| and || 2SG-{{small|DAT}}  || tell-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}} || distal determiner || ''pause'' || "unspecified following clause"
  |align=center| 1
|} => And I will tell you this, bla bla bla bla bla
  |align=center| item
  |align=center|.....
  |align=center| '''lu?o'''
  |align=center| asking for
  |align=center| 1
  |align=center| item
  |-
  |align=center| '''jù'''
  |align=center| giving
  |align=center| 0
  |align=center| items
  |}
 
..
 
However we can join up more than two items. When more than two items are joined by the above 4 linking words, it is considered good style to have the linking word before the first item and the last item, before each item (except the first and the last) should be a slight pause (I call it a gap ... see "punctuation and page layout" earlier on this page).


Note that the '''béu''' system is the opposite of the English system.
For example ...


Also note ... instances such as the above (i.e. cataphora) are a hundred times rarer than anaphora. Really insignificant. But should be mentioned somewhere ... at least once.
'''jenes hecori lé sadu ima _ ʔusfa uya _ moŋgo eja lé gaifai ofa falaja dí''' = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.


..
..


== ..... Ways to join clauses non-timewise==
=== ... other===


..
..


'''è''' = "and then"
'''ló''' = other


'''duas''' =" immediately" (anaphoric)
'''lói''' = others  .... mmmh, same as probably


----
'''kyulo''' = an other time


OK the above have time information ... they are none-subordinating though.
'''tugis''' = again


'''unya''' = "and"  (some logical connection ... well if no logical connection, the two clauses would not be appearing side by side)
'''welo''' = otherwise


'''imwa''' = "but"
..


== ... Making it flow==


..


??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in ''béu''' we use '''u?u''' ???
Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits.  


There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as '''tè'''.  
Getting rid of the lumps entails dropping the elements that are already known ... these elements that are already uppermost in the mind. (De-lumping also involves inserting words that efficiently link to these elements that are already uppermost in the mind ... this will be covered in the section called "Linking Back")


?? Well this is the more neutral particle (the particle '''plí''' can also be used ??
This section omits anaphora and is about dropping known elements ... both arguments and person-tense markers. (However anaphora and all types of dropping involve a similar mental process)


??? '''sé kyude'''/'''è kyude''' : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes '''sé è''' are dropped.
A sentence [utterance = ???] is made up of one or more clauses [r-blocks]. Two r-blocks are separated by '''è''' or another particle. '''é''' is the most common particle for joining clauses and means "and then".


??? '''kyugo''' : this means that action A and B happen at the same time. Usually we have different actors in the two clauses, but not always.
In '''béu''' the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is '''lé'''


In English "he eats cheese and nuts" could be analyzed as "he eats cheese and (he eats) nuts" with the bracketed part dropped. In '''béu''' this analysis is not available. The particle between the two nouns would be '''lé''' (ar perhaps if the speaker had added "nuts" on as an afterthought ... '''uwe''' "also" would come after "nuts" (a pause before) ). The particlle '''è''' would not be used. It only separated two clauses that have dissimilar verbs.




'''jì dè''' = in order to
Now in English allows the dropping of an S or A argument in a sentence when this argument has already been established as the topic. '''béu''' is pretty much the same. When two clauses are joined certain arguments are dropped from the second clause. The '''béu''' rules for dropping arguments are not atypical of the worlds languages'''*'''. The rules are given below.


'''ji?is''' = because


'''ji?is wo''' = because of
..


'''huzu''' = to smoke
[[Image:TW_840.png]]


'''koʔia''' = to cough
..


'''?atsi''' = to sneeze ... (Butanese)
In the above "C1" stands for "the first clause" and  "C2" stands for "the second clause". And also in '''béu''' it is possible to integrate the two clauses further ... if the two claues share a subject and all the tense/aspect/evidential of the two verbs match, then the second verb can take its '''i'''-form (and as the definition of a '''béu''' clause is "one r-block" ... the result should be considered ONE clause. The dropping of the subject in the second clause is more or less mandatory, it would sound quite strange to retain it. As for conflating the two verbs ... well it depends how tightly bound logically the two verbs are ...


'''solbe''' = to drink
..


'''caume''' = medicine
[[Image:TW_842.png]]


----
..


Notes on grammar .... If you have two clauses, the particle <u>must</u> come between them : the element containing only infinitives (for example ... '''figo ìa saiko pazba''') is not a clause. I call it a "clause adjunct" or "adverbial phrase" [I should pick one term] : for the examples above containing a clause adjunct, note that only the main clause has a subject : notice that what is marked by the perfect in English is marked by '''ʔès''' "already" in '''béu'''. In English the perfect has 3 functions ... the resultative, the experiential and the so called universal which indicates that activity has been going on for sometime and still is. In '''béu''' the perfect marker was derived from a verb meaning "finish" ... a marker derived from this source can scarcely be expected to have this "universal" function.
Two examples are given above. The choice between conflated and not conflated depends upon the larger body of text that these examples are embedded in. But the relative likelyhood of conflation (over all situations) is given above. It can be seen that the more predictable second verb has a greater chance of being converted into its '''i'''-form. This makes sense as more unpredictable => more information. And we do not like to put to much information in one clause.


Also note ... '''cùa jì gò saiko pazba''' = "to leave in order to paint the table" ... In English you can drop "in order" to get "to leave to paint the table".  In '''béu''' this would result in "to stop painting the table" ... never leave out '''jì gò'''.
Examples are given below ...


Usually this type of clause adjunct does not express a subject ... but sometimes it can ... the subject is places after the word '''sàin''' "reason, cause, origin" and '''sàin''' comes after the object (if there is one) and the object comes after '''maŋga'''. The only element allowed to the left of '''maŋga''' is the negative '''jù'''. For example ....
1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]
 
2) The man awoke and then [the man] ate his breakfast. [ this would usually be conflated ]
 
3) The man drank all the beer and then [the man] slept. [ this would usually be conflated ]
 
4) The man coughed and then [the man] went to sleep. [ maybe two clauses ... no real logical tie between the two verbs ]
 
5) The man hit the woman and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??
 
6) The man woke up and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??


'''timpa jene sàin jono r kéu''' = John's hitting of Jane was bad  .... [maybe '''hí''' is better than '''sàin''' ???]
7) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' shot the man.


8) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' cried.


There are five particles used to introduce these time adverb phrases. Each of these particles defines a different time relationship between the main action and the under action.
9) The thief robbed the girl. Then the pirate raped her.


Note ... Both the main action and the under action can vary considerably in length. In the above diagrams I give what I consider typical time lengths.
Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the dropped arguments are counted as S arguments. In '''béu''' they are considered O arguments.


Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...
Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the A argument can be supplied in a '''hí''' phrase (similarly, in English the agent can be supplied by a "by" phrase)


'''beda jono joru_ufan rù bòi''' = After John goes, everything will be fine
Dropping arguments is appropriate when the to clauses are bound together in meaning (and when bound together in meaning, by iconicity, usually on the same tone contour).


The literal translation of the above is "since John will go, everything will be good" ... In English "since" has taken on a second meaning'''*'''. In '''béu''', '''jefi''' has no such secondary meaning and it is perfectly to use '''jefi''' with a clause set in the future. [In the chart I specify a NOW ... this is really to signify the situation for typical usuage of the English word. The NOW is not relevant to the '''béu''' usuage]
The last three cases which could not drop any arguments, are felt to be, not so tightly bound together. It  is no co-incidence, that these clause pairs are often given separate tone contours ... that is ... they are separate sentences.


..
..


'''*'''GIVE THAT EXAMPLE FROM DEUTSCHER'S BOOK.
== ... Agents==


..
..


The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...
'''kludau''' = to write (a verb) : '''kludala''' = writing (an adjective ... actually a participle)


'''jono liga ko?ori kogan ós solbori moze''' = John was coughing until he drank some water  ..... '''ko?ia''' = to cough
Two nouns can be formed by simply adding '''pú''' in front ...


Now the above can be recast ...
'''pú kludau''' = author, writer, novelist, playwrite, essayist : '''pú kludala''' = somebody that is writing right NOW


John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze hí ò'''
This is quite non-surprising. Take Thai .... เขียน khiian "to write". If you add ผู้  ,  คน  or  นัก  in front, you have an agent.
 
[Note to self : I need a term that implies, one makes ones living from ACT]


This can be futher cut ...
..


John was coughing until the drinking of water => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze'''
'''daumo''' = pen : '''daumo''' <= '''kludaumo'''


And further cut ...
'''dauno''' = a keyboard/typewriter : '''dauno''' <= '''kludauno'''


John was coughing until drinking => '''jono liga ko?ori solben''' .... Not  '''*jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe'''
..


When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''n''' instead of the particle '''kogan'''


In a similar way, when the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''fi''' instead of the particle '''jefi'''. For example ...


John has been coughing since he smoked a cigarette => '''jono ko?ora jefi ós huzore ʃigita''' ... huzu = to smoke, to suck


John has been coughing since smoking => '''jono ko?ora huzufi''' .... Not  '''*jono ko?ora jefi huzu'''
== ... Timewise==


..
..


For '''beda''' and '''koca''', when the time between the two events are stated ... it comes immediately after  '''bade''' or '''koca'''. For example ...
Many languages tend to use space-words to describe the time-profile of events/actions. This is understandable from a grammatical/diachronic perspective. However I consider '''béu''' to be richer, having a set of time-words totally independent from its space-words.
 
Hungarian has the word '''múlva''' which is the time-word equivalent to "at" (in actual practice, often represented by "in" in English ... at least when talking about the future). For example ...
 
'''haróm nap múlva jövök haza''' = "I'll come home in three days" ... (page 115)


'''beda odai yanfa jene fori''' = After five minutes Jane left (is '''féu''' Ø or H ?) .... [ '''yanfa''' = 5 seconds, '''odai''' = 50<sub>12</sub>  = 60<sub>10</sub> ... so the translation is 100% accurate ]
The '''béu''' equivalent of "múlva" is '''jé'''.  


..
'''jé''' = at (+ time expression) ..... represented in English by "when", "while", "during" or "as"


----
In theory '''jé''' indicates a point in time, a point in time infinitely short. But of course the following word determines how accurate one is being. For example ...


..
'''jaru jé jupe''' = "I will come in December" only pins the time of the action down to the nearest month.


7) '''jì gò''' = "in order that" "so" "so that"
To add a bit of fuzziness we can add '''-te''' "-ish" to '''jé'''. For example ...


It shows that the first action was done in order to bring about the second action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.
'''jaru jete jupe''' = "I will come around about December"


'''jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós ò klór''' = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.
To clear up a bit of ENGLISH fuzziness, people, on occasion, use the expression '''ú jé'''. How does this differ from simply '''jé'''? Well consider these two examples ...


The second clause is the <purpose> of the first clause .... '''jonos jenen toili nori''' is a clause : '''ós ò klór''' is a clause : '''jì gò ós ò klór''' is an adverbial adjunct
'''njaru jé jupe''' = I will relax in December


The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the '''gò jì''' makes the second verb sort of irrealis.
'''njaru ú jé jupe''' = I will relax all through December


..
..


Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''jì''' "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.  
Other time-words are '''jindi''' and '''jondi**'''. They both mean "now". '''jondi''' is the one you usually come across. '''jindi''' can be used for emphasis (for example in a swiftly changing situation).


If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct, and the particle '''jì''' is used.
..


'''toili mapari jì kludau ʃila''' = I opened the book in order to write in it
'''jé''' represents an instant in time. In contrast '''áus''' represents a span of time ...  represented in English by "for".
So if '''jé''' is equivalent to a point, '''áus''' is equivalent to a line. The length of this line is defined by the expression that follows '''áus'''.
This length can be said to be absolute. For example ...


'''tarye dían jì twá gì''' = I came here (in order) to meet you
'''gayiru aús kòi ima''' = You will be in discomfort for two days.


Occasionally you can have this construction where the object of the first clause is the subject of the second clause ...
Also '''béu''' has two words that define a length of time in a relative manner ... relative to what is considered normal. These words are ...


'''pà babas gaidoryə dían twá gì''' = My father brought me here to meet you
'''dali''' = a short time


From the underlying semantics of the above, it is pretty obvious that "the father" was not intent in "meeting you"
'''dugai''' = a long time'''*'''


[ Note to self ..... In English "in order to" is only used with same subject constructions .... interesting ]
..  
 
[[Image:SW_200.png]]


..
..


8) '''plùa''' = "therefore" "so" "hence" 
'''jé''' often locates an action/event in an absolute manner. For example when the 216 siscrete points are used to specify the time of day (go to CH7 "the time of the day" ).


It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.
But '''jé''' can also locate an action/event in an relative manner ... relative to another action/event. In the graphic below I show '''jé''' (and other time-words) doing just this.


'''ò klár plùa òn nari toili''' = I like her so I gave her a book
..


The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction
[[Image:SW_203.png]]


..
..


9) '''sài gò''' = "because" "as" "since"
In these examples, I have made the under clause actions very short. This is for illustration purposes only. The under clause actions can actually have any length. It depends on the verb and the situation.


It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.
Now these five examples show how two clauses can be joined in a timewise fashion. The '''béu''' rules are quite similar to English.  


'''jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili''' = Jane likes John because he gave her a book
..


The second clause is the <reason> for the first clause .... '''jenes jono klór''' is a clause : '''òn nori toili''' is a clause : '''sài gò òn nori toili''' is a adverbial adjunct
'''jé koca kogan beda began''' can introduce a clause, a noun (that designates a time) or an infinitive phrase. '''jindu''' patterns slightly different from the other five ... in that (b), the infinitive phrase, needs '''día''' "to start".


..


Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''sài''' "because of" would be the particle used.   
a) “After I ate breakfast”


..
b) “After the gold rush”


10) '''dà''' = where
c) “After the eating of my breakfast”


'''pà twá dà twaire yildos''' = meet me where we met in the morning
Below are some examples of how  '''jé koca kogan beda began''' work. I use '''beda''' to demonstrate ...


'''pà twá''' is a clause  ...  '''twaire yildos''' is a clause ... '''dà twaire yildos''' is an adverbial adjuct .... "adjunct" is something that can be added to a clause
a) '''pintu saikaru beda pazba (saikaru)''' = "I will paint the door after (I will paint) the table"


..
a) '''beda pazba saikaru_pintu saikaru''' = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table"


11) '''kyù''' = when
c) '''beda saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru***''' = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"


'''kyù twaru jene òn fyaru''' = When I see Jane I will tell her.
..


12) '''tà''' = if (hypothetical)


13) '''ʔáu gò''' = if (counterfactual) ... maybe equivalent to "suppose, imagine, assume".
..


Actually the above 3 form a sort of continuum as regard to the likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring. We could say ...


'''kyù''' covers the likelihood range of 100 % => 90 % : '''tà''' from 90 % => 10 % :  '''ʔáu gò''' 10 % => zilch


All three are used with pretty much the same frequency in '''béu'''.


Actually the context determines to a large extent likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring in English (and in most languages). For example ... "when pigs can fly"
Here are examples to illustrate the examples above ...


..
..


Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.


"If it rained tomorrow, people would dance in the street." .... notice that the conditional clause has a past tense verb, but is actually talking about the weather


"If it had rained yesterday, people would have dance in the street." .... and to get a counterfactual "past tense meaning", we actually have to use the past perfect form.


..
In English ... "before" and "after" are pretty much time-words. However they are related to the space-words "aft" and "fore". The two '''béu''' words for these concepts are not related to any space-words.


14) '''tè gò''' = unless  .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use '''gò''' to separate the clauses : should they use '''plùa''' to separate the clauses ???)
'''koca''' = before
..


15) '''dó''' = "although" "though" "even if"
'''beda''' = after


This conjunction introducing a clause denoting a circumstance that might be expected to preclude the action of the main clause, but does not. It has a more emphatic variation .... '''?emodo'''
And derived from the above words we have ...


Notice that '''dó''' and '''plàu''' are related. Any pair of clauses joined by '''plàu''' can be transformed into a pair of clauses joined by '''dó''' ...
'''kocagan'''/'''kogan''' = until


a) negating the first clause
'''bedagan'''/'''began''' = since


b) swapping the clause positions
..


c) get rid of '''plùa''' and insert '''dó''' between the clauses.
There is one added complication in the above scheme ... if the intersect time of the two actions is in the future, then '''jindu''' (<'''jín''' "a moment" + '''dù''' "exact") can be used instead of '''began'''.


He is tall so he is good at baskerball
..


He is good at basket ball although he is short 
[[Image:TW_852.png]]


..
..


16) '''kài''' = "as", "like", "the way"
'''**''' I guess I should say what is the difference between a main clause and an under clause. (I should read about what other linguists say about this some day). Take the sentences ...


'''kài''' is sufficient for joining clause ('''kài gò''' is never seen). If you look back on the chart at Ch2.11.1 you see that '''kài''' is an introductory particle indicating "manner". Manner means some action and action means a clause.
(1) I will finish this drink before I go home.  .........     (2) I will go home after I finish this drink.


"I was never allowed to do things as I wanted to do them"
In terms of pure logic these both mean exactly the same. Also the choice of whether a verb is in the main or the under clause says nothing about the speakers attidude towards that verb ... i.e. relish, disgust, foreboding, sadness etc. But is seems that the verb in the main clause is the target of the speakers determination/willpower/resolve whereas the verb in the underclause is the target of nothing. I guess you can say it is background material


..
..
== ..... Word building==


..
..


Many words in '''béu''' are constructed from amalgamating two basic words. The constructed word is non-basic semantically ... maybe one of the concepts needed for a particular field of study.
'''*'''These two words give rise to two verbs ...


..
'''daliko''' = to hurry, to hurry up


In '''béu''' when 2 nouns are come together the second noun qualifies the first. For example ...
'''dugako''' = to prolong, to draw out, to dilly-dally, to shilly-shally


'''toili nandau''' (literally "book" "word") ... the thing being talk about is "book" and "word" is an attribute of "book".
'''dalora''' = he is hurrying


Now the person who first thought of the idea of compiling a list of words along with their meaning would have called this idea '''toili nandau'''.
'''dugora''' = she is taking her time


However over the years as the concept '''toili nandau''' became more and more common, '''toili nandau''' would have morphed into  '''nandəli'''.
'''dalihu''' = hurry up, come on, get the finger out


Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.
..


----
'''**''' These two words are related to '''jon''' and '''jin'''.  '''jín''' means an interval of time an order of magnitude shorter than '''jón'''.  The particle '''jindu''' is derived from it. Also they give rise to the adverbs '''jonis''' "soon" and '''jinis''' "immediately".


There are 4 steps in this word building process ...
I guess '''jin''' and '''jon''' have meaning similar to '''dali''' and '''dugai'''. But they are used in totally different situations. '''dali''' and '''dugai''' are used to describe normal actions/events ... they are adverbs. '''jin''' and '''jon''' are more noun-like. Also they both imply short periods of time. If you want somebody to wait a minute, you usually just say '''jon'''.  


1) Swap positions : '''toili nandau''' => '''nandau toili'''
..


2) Delete syllable : '''nandau toili''' => '''nandau li'''
'''***''' this also can be expressed as ... '''gwò saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru'''. In a similar manner '''pín''' can be used in place of '''jé''' in front of infinitive phrases.
..


3) Vowel becomes schwa : '''nandau li''' => '''nandə li'''
Another time-word is ...


4) Merge the components : '''nandə li''' => '''nandəli'''
'''jindu''' = as soon as


..
..


[[Image:TW_667.png]]
a 24 hour period is divided into 6 minutes 40 seconds. These are considered "instantaneous" points. In normal day-to-day '''béu''' culture it is not considered worthwhile to have a finer graduation of time. It is like 6 minutes 40 seconds is their planck time => CH7 "the time of day"
 
..


----
..


The above example is for 2 non-monosyllabic words. In the vast majority of constructed words the contributing words are polysyllables.


The process is slightly different when a contributing word is a monosyllabic. First we look at the case when the main word is a monosyllable ...
Interesting aside ...


'''wé deuta''' (literally "manner soldier")
The organization of the Chinese writting system seems to have affected the language itself. The primary writing direction was top_to_bottom so of course the calendar was written top_to_bottom as well. From that "above" got associated with "the past" and "below got associated with "the future".


1) Swap positions : '''wé deuta''' => '''*deuta wé''' ........ there is no step 2
午 wǔ "noon" : 上 shàng "above" : 下 xià "under" => 上午 shàngwǔ "morning" : 下午 xiàwǔ "afternoon"


3) Vowel becomes schwa :  '''*deuta wé''' => '''*deutɘ wé'''
A similar thing happened in '''béu'''. The practitioners of '''béu''' are above all engineers and the algebraic convention of having time along the horizontal axis has affected the language somewhat.


4) Merge the components : '''*deutə wé''' => '''deutəwe'''
Perhaps the engineering convention has not affected the language. But there is a certain "chiming together", in that the past is depicted to the left ('''ko'''mo), and the future to the right ('''be'''ne). And of course '''ko'''ca is related to the concept "the past", and '''be'''da  is related to the concept "the future"


..
..


[[Image:TW_668.png]]
== ... Linking Back==


----
..


And the case when the attribute is a monosyllable ...
Now the section above shows how two clauses can be joined in a timewise manner. To do this takes a bit of working out in the mind of the speaker  [of course for written language this is not a constaint. The writer has more than enough time to work out complicated patterns].


'''nandau sài''' (literally "word colour")
However in conversation, often things are not laid out so neatly. Consider the case where one clause has been spoken. The speaker considers himself done and gives the "finished speaking" intonation to the end of his utterance. Then ... after a split second it comes into his head that another event (clause) is also of interest to the hearer. In this case, one of the below constructions must introduce the "afterthought".
 
1) Swap positions : '''*sài nandau'''
 
2) Delete syllable : '''*sài dau''' .......................................... there is no step 3
 
4) Merge the components : '''*sài dau'''  => '''saidau'''


..
..


[[Image:TW_669.png]]
[[Image:TW_952.png]]


----


And another case when the attribute is a monosyllable ...
The '''s''' ('''is''') suffix is the adverbial marker. And the adverbials '''jonis''', '''bedais*''', '''kocais''' make a connection back to the clause just spoken'''**''' ... back to the information which is still uppermost in everybody's mind [this phenomena is often called "anaphora" from the Greek "carry back"]. All the elements of the clause last enunciated are still whirring around the brain : they are easily accessible. And the words '''jonis''', '''bedais''' and '''kocais''' connect to the "just spoken clause"  [kind of like a time portal :-) ].  


'''ifan kwò''' (literally "double wheel")
Now these are adverbs which must come at the periphery of the clause. Hence above I have shown the adverbs occurring clause final as well. However clause initial is the preferred location.


Note .. the head is the notion of "duality", Also '''kwò''' "wheel" is related to "kwèu''' "to turn"
The '''dí''' is the proximal determiner (i.e. "this"). In '''béu''' '''dí''' is also used a lot for linking back'''***''' to clauses just spoken. In fact '''dí''' represents the just spoken clause in its entirety.


1) Swap positions : '''*kwò ifan'''
Note that the '''dí''' constructions can only occur initially.


2) Delete syllable : '''*kwò fan''' .......................................... there is no step 3


4) Merge the components : '''*kwò fan'''  => '''kwofan'''
Now how to explain the pattern in the diagram above ? Well some believe that for an adverbial to exits, it must be quite common. That is '''kogan''' and '''began''' as afterthough introducers are quite uncommon, hence the phrases '''kogan dí''' and  and '''began dí'''  are used as opposed to '''*koganas''' or '''*beganas'''. Notice that '''koca''' can exist as an afterthought indroducer in the form '''kocais''' or '''koca dí'''. It is not known why the terms '''*jón dí''' and '''*beda dí''' are not allowed.


..
..


[[Image:TW_815.png]]
Now the most common way to join clauses is to use the particle '''è''' "and then". When '''è''' is used both clauses that circumscribe it are main clauses.  


----
By the way ... when people are narrating a sequence of events (or when they are just thinking to themselves), they go through the events in the order in which they happened 9 times out of 10. It is for this reason that this section is all about "and then" and not "before that".


And the case when the attribute ends in a consonant ...
..


'''megau peugan''' ... "body of knowledge" "society"
[[Image:TW_906.png]]


1) Swap positions : '''*peugan megau'''
..


2) Delete syllable : '''*peugan gau'''
The above diagram shows two clauses A and B. In the normal course of events and when the speaker has the time to plan ahead, (1) would be used. If the speaker had not had time to plan ahead, one of the resumptive stategies (2), (3) or (4) can be used. '''dùs''' = "and then immediately" : '''diadilaIs''' = "eventually"" and '''bedais''' = "afterwards" as we have covered before. Now because these three adverbs can come either clause initial or clause final ... a pause "_" is mandatory.  Well you would expect a pause before '''bedais''' because this is a resumptive stategy ... this is the sentence you end up with if you don't think ahead and hence fail to produce the sentence with the '''è''' "and then" particle. But '''dùs''' and '''diadilaIs''' are not resumptive strategies (at least not primarily), but a pause is insisted upon.
 
3) Delete the coda and neutralize the vowel :'''*peugan gau''' => '''*peugə gau'''
 
4) Merge the components :'''*peugə gau''' => '''peugəgau'''


..
..


[[Image:TW_670.png]]
Another word that is commonly used to refer back to a recently utterance is '''wedi''' [examples 5 & 6]. It translates as "in that way".


----
[[Image:TW_879.png]]


And the case when the main word has a double consonant before the end vowel ...
And '''wede''' [example 7] is the cataphoric equivalent of '''wedi'''. It translates as "thus" or "like this".


'''kanfai gozo''' ... merchant of fruit
'''wedi''' and '''wede''' can appear at either end of a clause, but it is more common to find them in the end of the clause nearest to the clause they refer back/forward to.


1) Swap positions : '''*gozo kanfai'''
..


2) Delete syllable : '''*gozo fai''' ............................. Note '''kan''' is deletes, not just '''ka'''
And yet another word that is commonly used to refer back to a recently utterance is '''iwe''' [examples 8] "anyway".


3) Vowel before the final consonant becomes schwa :'''*gozo fai''' => '''*gozə fai'''
[[Image:TW_881.png]]


4) Merge the components :'''*gozə fai''' => '''gozəfai'''
There is a word '''uwe''' that sort of counterbalances '''iwe'''. However '''uwe''' is not used for anaphora, instead it appears clause final and is a particle meaning "completely".


..
..


[[Image:TW_671.png]]
'''*'''Translating '''bedais''' unto English gives "afterwards" or "after this" or just plain "after" ... a good example of the messiness of natural languages I think.


----
..


And here are a few examples to demonstrate the semantic range that this technique can encompass ...
'''**'''Actually a "first clause" can be absent ... these adverbs can appear after a long period of silence. In this case "the after what" refers to some action that is uppermost in everybody's mind although not recently spoken about. For example ... say you are a painter and decorator working with your helper on some sight. Now you both know that the next task will take around 15 minutes and will be a two man job. Your helper hints that he is desperate for a cigarette. To put him off for a bit, you can simply say '''bedais'''. So in this case not linking back to anything spoken ... but linking to what is uppermost in everybodies mind.


'''laŋku''' = shadow, reflection
..


'''miaka''' = echo, response, effect
'''***'''Notice that English does something similar with "that". Also ''then'' ... but "then" does not represents the just spoken clause in its entirety, it only represents the time of the action.


Which produce '''miakəka''' meaning "subtle influence" or "to subtly influence"
Also in '''béu''' '''dè''' the distal determiner (i.e. "that") is used to create a link to the clause ABOUT to be spoken. For example ...


..
{|
 
|-
[[Image:TW_672.png]]
! unya || gì-n || fy-a-r-u || dè || _ || bla bla bla bla
|-
| and || 2SG-{{small|DAT}}  || tell-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}} || distal determiner || ''pause'' || "unspecified following clause"
|} => And I will tell you this, bla bla bla bla bla


----
Note that the '''béu''' system is the opposite of the English system.


sword.spear => weaponry ... shield.helmet => armour, protection ... knife.fork => cuttlery ... table.chair => furniture
Also note ... instances such as the above (i.e. cataphora) are a hundred times rarer than anaphora. Really insignificant.  


There are no cases where both contributing words are monosyllables.
..


== ... Joining clauses logically==


As with the schwa-form and the i-form verbs ... the schwa is represented by cross.
..


When spelling words out, this cross is pronounced as '''jía''' ... meaning "link".
Some means of linking clauses and what have you in my own conlang (just worked out). A bit complicated and a bit messy …. the same as a natlang. But I think it makes sense … also nice to have a bit of redundancy.


Notice that when you hear '''nandəli''', '''deutəwe''' or '''peugəgau''' you know that they are a non-basic words (because of the schwa).
'''plà''' means “reason”
wò is the oblique case mark, meaning “with respect to”, “about”, “concerning”


This method of word building is only used for nouns.  
In my conlang, every single syllable word has either a low tone or a high tone. Low tone being denoted by a falling stroke (i.e. as in '''plà''') and high tone is denoted by a rising stroke ('''plá''' means “duck billed platipus”). Multi syllable words have no tone.


..
'''plawo''' means “because” OR “in order to”


== ... Bicycle plus==
I was thinking about modern Swedish here. BJP was talking about “because” and “in order to” both being reduced to “för” in some modern varieties of Swedish.


..
When using '''plawo''', whether it means “because” or “in order to” is usually clear from the content of the two clauses involved.


Above I explained the word for bicycle ...
'''plawo''' is always followed by a clause (as opposed to a NP).


There are a few more words that follow the same pattern ....
However “because” and “in order to” can be differentiated in my conlang. '''bwonafi''' means “because” and '''kyemah''' means “in order to”.


'''kwoban''' = tricycle
'''plawo''', '''bwonafi''' and '''kyemah''' occur with about equal frequency.


'''poməfan''' = a biped ............................... '''poma''' "leg"
Note … '''bwona''' means “cause”, '''kyema''' means “effect, aftermath, result”. -vi is the ablative case marker (i.e. “from” in English) and -h is the dative case marker (i.e. “to” in English).


'''poməgan''' = a quadruped
There is another word that means more or less the same as kyemah. This word is “deh”. Basically, kyemah and deh are interchangeable. But maybe deh is used a bit more when the subclause represents a state rather than an action. If you wanted to emphasize “in order to” you would use the longer option. Also if you were writing poetry it would be useful to have a choice of using a single syllable word or a double syllable word. deh is more common than kyemah.


'''poməlan''' = an insect
Note … '''de''' means “that”. It can also represents something about to be mentioned. And we mentioned above that -h is the dative case marker. So, '''deh''' = “in order to, so that”


'''poməzan''' = an spider  ............................  note '''béu''' is one of the few languages in the world to give the octopus a unique name.
Actually the purpose clause can be very tightly integrated into the main clause. Often the purpose clause just consists of the base verb. In such a case, -h is simply added to the base form. Often the purpose clause just consists of the base verb plus an object. In this case the particle '''hó''' (another form of -'''h''') precedes the base verb.


'''nodəban''' = a threeway intersection ....... '''node''' "node"
There is another word that means more or less the same as '''bwonafi'''. This word is jìan. Basically '''bwonafi''' and '''jìan''' are interchangeable. If you wanted to emphasize “because” you would use the longer option. Also if you were writing poetry you have a choice of using a single syllable word or a treble syllable word (you can also use '''plawo''' if you need a double syllable word). jìan is more common than '''bwonafi'''.


'''nodəgan''' = a fourway intersection
When I started off this thread I thought there would be some similarity between “because” and “because of” in my conlang. I am a bit surprised that I have in fact ended up with totally different forms.


'''nodədan''' = a fiveway intersection
“because of” is '''yenuni'''. This is inspired by Norwegian and Cebuano. Let me recap …


And so on ...
Cebuano Norwegian English


The regular shapes in 2 dimensions ...
tungod sa på grunn av because of


'''?aban''' = a triangle
The Norwegian one means “on ground of” (there is an English expression, not a million miles away from this that has a very similar meaning to “because of”). In Cebuano, sa means “at”, tungod means “nadir” or “the ground directly below”.


'''?agan''' = a quadrilateral
I reckon if Norwegian and Cebuano have so close forms it must reflect a commonality of human thinking. Actually I can see the thinking/feeling behind this expression.


'''?adan''' = a pentagon
Note … '''yenu''' means “nadir”. -'''ni''' is the locative case marker (i.e. “at” in English).


'''?alan''' = a hexagon
And that is basically it, as far as “because” and “because of” go.


And so on ...
..
I have a little more to add to my last post. I didn’t include the data below because I didn’t want to give too much information in one post. Also “because” and “because of ” were fully covered. This post is just tying up a few loose ends.


The 5 regular shapes in 3 dimensions ...
I mentioned '''dèh''' (I think I forgot the tone mark last post), derived from the demonstative '''dè'''. There is also a particle derive from the demonstrative '''dí''' “this”. This word combines with the ablative case marker to make '''difi''' “therefore”. '''déh''' tends to be used in fluent talk. '''difi''' tends to be used when the second clause is an afterthought, it tends to be used when there is a pause between the two clauses. It also tends to be used to introduce a new line of mathematics : in a similar way that “therefore” is used in English.


'''ʔaugan''' = a tetrahedron
Note … '''dí''' means “this”. It can also represents something just mentioned.


'''ʔaulan''' = a cube
Lets say a bit about jìan (one syllable, we have a rising diphthongs here). The word jì by itself means “for” as in  “I bought the oranges for my mother”. The word àn by itself means “that” as in “He thought that she was pretty” … I guess you could call it a nominalizer. You can imagine the meaning of these two words being twisted around a bit through time and coming together as jìan “because”. [ I do not have a fully worked out ur-lang behind my conlang, but occasionally I give some words a bit of history ].


'''ʔauzan''' = an octahedron
A word not a hundred miles away from jì is cila (“c” being pronounced as “ch” in Charlie). Whareas “for” implies no happenings before the main clause verb. That is nothing really occurred before “bought” in “I bought the oranges for my mother” … it was a simple act of kindness. cila implies some happenings before the main clause verb … some “behind the scenes dealing”. So some complexity involved.


'''ʔaujaun''' = a dodecahedron
cila comes from cí meaning matter/affair and lá is the adessive case (I think) (i.e. “on” in English). lá cí => cila in a regular process sanctioned by my conlang. cila means something like “on behalf of”.


'''ʔaujauzan''' = an icosahedron
And lastly I would like to mention womih (an interesting one here). womi means “zenith” or “the highest part”. In a way, the opposite of yenu “nadir”. And as covered before, -h is the dative case marker.


The 6 regular shapes in 4 dimensions ...
'''womih''' also means “in order to”.  


'''ʔaidan''' = a 5-cell
Now in my conculture there is a substantial body of work written which lays out a “philosophy of life” … a religion if you will. womih should only be used within this body of work. In fact it should only be used in front of the “67 noble goals”. Of course some people do not adhere to this. Some people use womih to give what they are saying a certain “flavour”. Similar to English, where some people use “thou” instead of “you”, to give what they are saying a “churchy/preachy” flavour.


'''ʔaizan''' = an 8-cell
Left over bits


'''ʔaijaugan''' = a 16-cell
bwona = cause           ubwonwe <= ubwonawe : for no reason
kyema = effect, aftermath, result      ukyemwe <=ukyemawe : in vain


'''ʔaifain ''' = a 24-cell
bwoda = origin, source


'''ʔaipain''' = 120-cell
== ... THIS HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REDONE==
 
'''ʔaigaufain''' = 600-cell


..
..


== ... Set Phrases==
'''unya''' = "and"  (some logical connection ... well if no logical connection, the two clauses would not be appearing side by side)


..
'''tè''' "but"


If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say  '''gò yír fales''' "may you have peace".
'''imwa''' = "but"


If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say  '''gò yér fales''' "may you have peace"
'''tè ?ài kyù''' = "but"


On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò nela r gimau''' "may the blue sky be above you"


On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò nela r jemau''' "may the blue sky be above you"
??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in ''béu''' we use '''u?u''' ???


If you pass somebody in the street or you meet your workmates for the first time in the morning '''fales''' is sufficient.  If you say '''gò yír fales''' it typically means that you are going to have a ten minute (at least) chat.
There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as '''tè'''.  


..
?? Well this is the more neutral particle (the particle '''plí''' can also be used ??


There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections
??? '''sé kyude'''/'''è kyude''' : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes '''sé è''' are dropped.


Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" }  which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.
??? '''kyugo''' : this means that action A and B happen at the same time. Usually we have different actors in the two clauses, but not always.


(A) '''yuajiswe.iʃʃ''' which expresses consternation and/or grief. In about 30% of cases it is shortened to '''swe.iʃʃ''' only.


It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)
'''huzu''' = to smoke


(B) '''hambətunmazore''' which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to '''hambətun''' only.
'''koʔia''' = to cough


It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)
'''?acu''' = to sneeze


(C) And finally when somebody is telling a story or giving detailed instructions, you might say '''plirai''' at suitable intervals. This is simply a contraction of '''plìr ʔai?''' ... "do you follow ?"
'''solbe''' = to drink


(D) ... OK, we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Not an exclamation in '''béu''' but maybe an exclamation in another language ... '''hù nén'''.
'''caume''' = medicine


It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!
----


(E) '''kè kè''' = "sorry" or "excuse me" ... Related to the word '''kelpa''' meaning "to apologize".
Notes on grammar .... If you have two clauses, the particle <u>must</u> come between them : the element containing only a base verv (for example ... '''figo ìa saiko pazba''') is not a clause. I call it a "clause adjunct" or "adverbial phrase" [I should pick one term] : for the examples above containing a clause adjunct, note that only the main clause has a subject : notice that what is marked by the perfect in English is marked by '''ʔès''' "already" in '''béu'''. In English the perfect has 3 functions ... the resultative, the experiential and the so called universal which indicates that activity has been going on for sometime and still is. In '''béu''' the perfect marker was derived from a verb meaning "finish" ... a marker derived from this source can scarcely be expected to have this "universal" function.


(F) '''sè sè''' = "thank you" ... Related to the word '''senda''' meaning "to thank".
Also note ... '''cùa jì gò saiko pazba''' = "to leave in order to paint the table" ... In English you can drop "in order" to get "to leave to paint the table".  In '''béu''' this would result in "to stop painting the table" ... never leave out '''jì gò'''.


(G) '''bwihu dè''' = "voila", "look at this" ... I guess an idiom because if the object to be looked at is '''senko''', the phrase ''should'' be  '''bwihu nende''' [ However if the thing to be looked at is an event ... then  '''bwihu dè''' is grammatical.
Usually this type of clause adjunct does not express a subject ... but sometimes it can ... the subject is places after the word '''sàin''' "reason, cause, origin" and '''sàin''' comes after the object (if there is one) and the object comes after '''maŋga'''. The only element allowed to the left of '''maŋga''' is the negative '''jù'''. For example ....


..
'''timpa jene sàin jono r kéu''' = John's hitting of Jane was bad  .... [maybe '''hí''' is better than '''sàin''' ???]


== ... A discussion on Complement Clauses and Variable Clauses==


We live in a world that has an independent reality. For example ... If nobody is looking at ... say A TREE, that TREE continues to exist. If nobody is thinking about this TREE, this TREE continues to exist. Even if no sentient being has any knowledge whatsoever of this TREE, this TREE continues to exist ... in fact this TREE is totally indifferent as to whether it is being looked at or thought about ... this TREE is totally indifferent as to whether it has EVER been  looked at or thought about.  
There are five particles used to introduce these time adverb phrases. Each of these particles defines a different time relationship between the main action and the under action.


I BELIEVE THE ABOVE IS SELF-EVIDENT.
Note ... Both the main action and the under action can vary considerably in length. In the above diagrams I give what I consider typical time lengths.


The philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) questioned the above (or at least he is reported to have questioned the above).
Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...


But in reality ... the entire Universe exists independently of any observers. In actual fact EVERY ADULT HUMAN carries an (imperfect) model of his environment in his mind and uses this model to plan his actions. The main reason HUMANS have been so successful compared to other animals is that we have a more complete model than ... say ... our primate cousins. The reason that out model is good is that we have LANGUAGE and so get information from our fellows. Probably the building of this MODEL and LANGUAGE were co-developements and could well be reflected in the size of the HUMAN BRAIN over the last few million years. I believe that this MODEL and LANGUAGE are intertwined and hence I don't think it is a good idea to consider either in isolation.
'''beda jono joru_ufan rù bòi''' = After John goes, everything will be fine


Now usually when we communicate ... we just talk about reality. For example ... JOHN IS TALL. We do not acknowledge the actual more complicated situation ... IN MY WORLD MODEL, JOHN IS TALL.
The literal translation of the above is "since John will go, everything will be good" ... In English "since" has taken on a second meaning'''*'''. In '''béu''', '''jefi''' has no such secondary meaning and it is perfectly to use '''jefi''' with a clause set in the future. [In the chart I specify a NOW ... this is really to signify the situation for typical usuage of the English word. The NOW is not relevant to the '''béu''' usuage]


But sometimes we do .... usually when we are talking about activities related to our mind ... like "thinking", "knowing" ... disseminating knowledge to our fellows "telling", "saying" ... gathering knowledge first hand "seeing", "hearing" ... trying to gather knowlege from our fellows "asking". All these bracketed verbs can take what are called complement clauses. When you see a complement clause you are seeing an admission that what we are talking about is not in fact REALITY, but some MODEL of REALITY. Maybe you could say that it is an admission that we are using META-DATA rather than DATA.
..


The following might illuminate a bit. What is on the white background is REALITY. What is on a black background is part of a MIND MODEL . The script on an orange background is a speach act appropriate for the situation shown. The first panel is the way that we normally speak ... that is REALITY is presented directly with no referrence to any MIND MODEL.
'''*'''GIVE THAT EXAMPLE FROM DEUTSCHER'S BOOK.


----
..


[[Image:TW_744.png]]
The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...


----
'''jono liga ko?ori kogan ós solbori moze''' = John was coughing until he drank some water  ..... '''ko?ia''' = to cough


[[Image:TW_738.png]]
Now the above can be recast ...  


----
John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze hí ò'''


[[Image:TW_739.png]]
This can be futher cut ...


----
John was coughing until the drinking of water => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze'''


[[Image:TW_742.png]] ===> [[Image:TW_743.png]]
And further cut ...


----
John was coughing until drinking => '''jono liga ko?ori solben''' .... Not  '''*jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe'''


Now it seems that most languages have at least one way of bracketing off the META-DATA from DATA.
When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''n''' instead of the particle '''kogan'''


..
In a similar way, when the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''fi''' instead of the particle '''jefi'''. For example ...


From now on Complement Clauses => CC's
John has been coughing since he smoked a cigarette => '''jono ko?ora jefi ós huzore ʃigita''' ... huzu = to smoke, to suck


Dixon reckons there are 7 different types of CC in English ...
John has been coughing since smoking => '''jono ko?ora huzufi''' .... Not  '''*jono ko?ora jefi huzu'''


(1) John said <u>that you are an idiot</u>.
..


(2) John knows<u>what you did last night</u>.
For '''beda''' and '''koca''', when the time between the two events are stated ... it comes immediately after  '''bade''' or '''koca'''. For example ...


(3) She mentioned <u>John hitting the dog</u>.
'''beda odai yanfa jene fori''' = After five minutes Jane left (is '''féu''' Ø or H ?) .... [ '''yanfa''' = 5 seconds, '''odai''' = 50<sub>12</sub>  = 60<sub>10</sub> ... so the translation is 100% accurate ]


(4) It's bad <u>for Jane to waste all her money</u>.
..


(5) She declared <u>John to be an idiot</u>.
----


(6) I told her <u>where to park her car</u>.
..


(7) She dissuaded <u>him from going</u>
7) '''jì gò''' = "in order that" "so" "so that"


Actually I would only consider (1) and (2) to be CC ... I would say (3) to (7) to contain different types of "Infinitive Phrases" ( Infinitive Phrases => IP )
It shows that the first action was done in order to bring about the second action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.


Take example 7 for example ... how can you parse that ? There should be nothing underlined there ... "dissuade" is a 3-part verb ... "from" is a preposition that defines the roll of the least pertinant part ... "she dissuaded him from going" really can not be broken up into smaller parts.
'''jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós òn klór''' = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.


(1) The word "that" functions as what is called a "deictic noun" ia in "Did you see that ? It is reasonable to assume that "John said <u>that you are an idiot</u>" <= "John said that" ... "you are an idiot" with "that" referring to the second clause. However over time this sentence type got more integrated and (along with a change in intonation) "that you are an idiot" got re-analized as an embedded clause.
The second clause is the <purpose> of the first clause .... '''jonos jenen toili nori''' is a clause : '''ós òn klór''' is a clause : '''jì gò ós òn klór''' is an adverbial adjunct


(2) This type of construction is very interesting. The embedded clause <u>what you did last night</u> is equivalent to a variable in mathematics (usually represented by X, Y or Z). And just as in mathematics the use of variables allows you to you to manipulate concepts without knowing there exact value, this "what" type of construction allows to to say things that ... either (a) you don't know .... or (b) are to unwieldy to say. For example the guy that spoke "John knows<u>what you did last night</u>" does not have to have this knowledge himself (alternatively he could have this knowledge ... but maybe if ten things were done last night ... well it is just too time consumming to enumerate them all).  
The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the '''gò jì''' makes the second verb sort of irrealis.  


This type of construction represents a "indefinite" ....
..


(2a) She asked what did you eat ................................... indefinite thing
Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''jì''' "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.  


(2b) She asked who ate the sandwich ........................... indefinite person
If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct", and the particle '''jì''' is used.


(2c) She asked where did you eat the sandwich ........... indefinite place
'''toili mapari jì kludau ʃila''' = I opened the book in order to write in it


(2d) She asked when did you eat last ........................... indefinite time
'''tarye dían jì twá gì''' = I came here (in order) to meet you  


(2e) She asked whose sandwich did you eat ................ indefinite owner (person)
Occasionally you can have this construction where the object of the first clause is the subject of the second clause ...


(2f) She asked which restaurant did we eat at ............. indefinite X out of all the X present/possible/pertinant. X represents a "unit" rather than a "type".
'''pà babas gaidoryə dían twá gì''' = My father brought me here to meet you


(2g) She asked how we got to the restaurant .............. indefinite manner
From the underlying semantics of the above, it is pretty obvious that "the father" was not intent in "meeting you"


(2h) She asked why we didn't go to her restaurant ..... indefinite reason ............. 8 question words in all in English
[ Note to self ..... In English "in order to" is only used with same subject constructions .... interesting ]
 
All 8 function as Question Words.
 
All 8 function as Complementers ... well all languages have verbs which introduce direct speech (page 36 of A Semantic Approach to English Grammar). And as all 8 are used in direct speech (i.e. QW's) it is not surprising that they have worked their way into complementizer position. Note that the above CC do not have direct speech. Well sometimes it is hard to determine if they are direct or indirect ... you must know the background to know ???


..
..


[[Image:TW_737.png]]
8) '''plùa''' = "therefore" "so" "hence" 


..
It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.


Note that  the QUESTION and the VARIABLE CLAUSE have different forms because of the English rule that you swap the position of the subject and the first word in the verb phrase in a question. However for (e) and (f) this swapping of positions is not possible as "whose" and "which" are constituents of NP as opposed to constituents of a verb phrase.
'''òn klár plùa òn nari toili''' = I like her so I gave her a book


It is (probably) for this reason that the element -"ever" is required appended to these to forms. In fact the element  -"ever" can be appended to the "wh" word in any variable clause. It increases the "indefiniteness" feeling.
The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction


From this analysis it seems like we should write "whose" as "who's" ... that is ... there is no independent word "whose".
..


As to "why" is not a variable clause ... well to me "why I let you go ..." sounds infelicitous rather than a big NO NO. I judge it to be wrong but not by much. Probably it is illegal because of the prevalence of the conjunction "because" ... which makes a variable clause about reason ... unnecessary.
9) '''sài gò''' = "because" "as" "since"  


== ... Extending a NP using the partitive ..."làu"==
It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.


..
'''jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili''' = Jane likes John because he gave her a book


In section 2.7 we analyzed the the different components that can go into '''seŋko kaza''' or the noun phrase if you will. Here we will go into it in a bit more detail. It will be seen that there is a bit of "internal structure" ... a bit of complexity that is not obvious upon first blush.
The second clause is the <reason> for the first clause .... '''jenes jono klór''' is a clause : '''òn nori toili''' is a clause : '''sài gò òn nori toili''' is a adverbial adjunct


..
..


=== .. Sets and subsets===
Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''sài''' "because of" would be the particle used.   


..
..


Nearly every '''seŋko''' occurs in multitudes. OK, there are a few counter examples, such as '''kòi''' "sun" but for the most part they occur in multitudes. When we talk about any plurality of these nouns it is possible to change the scope of the set under discussion ... it as if we can zoom in and zoom out and this ability to "zoom" is defined by grammar (what else).
10) '''dà''' = where


Let as take the noun '''moltai''' "doctor" to demonstrate this. Below ... represented by the orange area is all the doctors in the world (and also presumable the Universe'''*''').
'''pà twá dà twaire yildos''' = meet me where we met in the morning


'''*'''This "zooming" idea is not fully air-tight, there is a bit of fuzzyness about it ... hence the inclusion of "presumably".
'''pà twá''' is a clause  ...  '''twaire yildos''' is a clause ... '''dà twaire yildos''' is an adverbial adjuct .... "adjunct" is something that can be added to a clause


..
..


[[Image:TW_611.png]]
11) '''kyù''' = when


The above is as far as we can zoom out. Call the total orange area the "u'''*''' set". This scope is appropriate for generic pronouncements. Such as ...
'''kyù twaru jene òn fyaru''' = When I see Jane I will tell her.


'''moltai.a súr jini''' = "doctors are clever"
12) '''tà''' = if (hypothetical)


'''*''' u for universal.
13) '''ʔáu gò''' = if (counterfactual) ... maybe equivalent to "suppose, imagine, assume".


..
Actually the above 3 form a sort of continuum as regard to the likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring. We could say ...


OK ... now lets zoom in a bit. To zoom in we need to take in or give out some narrative. So now we hear the following ....
'''kyù''' covers the likelihood range of 100 % => 90 % : '''tà''' from 90 % => 10 % :  '''ʔáu gò''' 10 % => zilch


<b>Next week British junior doctors will withhold many services in protest against the long hour expected of them</b>
All three are used with pretty much the same frequency in '''béu'''.


OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "these doctors" '''moltai.a dí''' is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.
Actually the context determines to a large extent likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring in English (and in most languages). For example ... "when pigs can fly"


'''moltai.a dí''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
..


Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.


[[Image:TW_609.png]]
"If it rained tomorrow, people would dance in the street." .... notice that the conditional clause has a past tense verb, but is actually talking about the weather


OK ... lets hear another bit of narrative and change the "set" of doctors under consideration again. The narrative is ...
"If it had rained yesterday, people would have dance in the street." .... and to get a counterfactual "past tense meaning", we actually have to use the past perfect form.


<b>Much to the disgruntlement of the senior doctors who will have a hard week ahead of them making up for the short fall. </b>
..


OK ... after hearing that ... and if the NP "those doctors'''*'''" '''moltai.a dè''' is mentioned and commented on it becomes fixed in the mind of all the interlocators.
14) '''tè gò''' = unless  .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use '''gò''' to separate the clauses : should they use '''plùa''' to separate the clauses ???)
..


'''moltai.a dè''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
15) '''dó''' = "although" "though" "even if"


OK ... after hearing that, the NP "those doctors'''*'''" '''moltai.a dè''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
This conjunction introducing a clause denoting a circumstance that might be expected to preclude the action of the main clause, but does not. It has a more emphatic variation .... '''?emodo'''


Notice that '''dó''' and '''plàu''' are related. Any pair of clauses joined by '''plàu''' can be transformed into a pair of clauses joined by '''dó''' ...


[[Image:TW_610.png]]
a) negating the first clause


'''*''' This is presuming that the NP '''moltai.a dí''' was actually talked about after the first narrative. If not ... then the NP '''moltai.a dí''' would be used to refer to the senior doctors. So it is like the particles '''dí''' and '''dè''' are letting us keep track of two "sets" of doctors at the same time. That is ... the NP's  '''moltai.a dí''' and '''moltai.a dè''' have been set up in the minds of all interlocators to refer to two different sets. The second NP ( '''moltai.a dè''' ) only exists as a sort of contradistinction to the initial NP  '''moltai.a dí''' .
b) swapping the clause positions


OK ... this is as far as we can go with this example. I believe if you add the set "senior" doctors to the set "junior" doctors you have a set identical to the "set" doctors (However I could be wrong about this)
c) get rid of '''plùa''' and insert '''dó''' between the clauses.
 
He is tall so he is good at baskerball
 
He is good at basket ball although he is short 


..
..


Lets change the example to take this idea further. Let us take '''bawa''' "men" for our noun. OK assume some narrative was given, and then '''bawa dí''' was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind.
16) '''kài''' = "as", "like", "the way"


Then more narrative was given (defining a further subset) and '''bawa dé''' was mentioned to cement it into everybody's mind. A further NP can be used to refer to all '''bawa''' outside the first two sets. This NP is '''bawa lò''' "other men"
'''kài''' is sufficient for joining clause ('''kài gò''' is never seen). If you look back on the chart at Ch2.11.1 you see that '''kài''' is an introductory particle indicating "manner". Manner means some action and action means a clause.
 
"I was never allowed to do things as I wanted to do them"


[[Image:TW_602.png]]
..


Actually '''bawa lò''' is usually used just one ... the set referred to as  '''bawa lò''' are hardly ever kept in anybody's mind for more than a few seconds. In actual fact the first two terms don't usually persist long in a discourse either. We are continually zooming in ... zooming out ... changing our perspective.
== ... Compound words==


..
..


=== .. The extended NP===
Many words in '''béu''' are constructed from amalgamating two basic words. The constructed word is non-basic semantically ... maybe one of the concepts needed for a particular field of study.
 
Compound-words are found in most languages A typical example is “lighthouse”. The meaning of "lighthouse" can't be determined from the meaning of the constituent-words (though it can be guessed at).
 
In English (and presumably other languages) many normal words started life as compound-words … for example “husband”, “hustings” and “hussy” (originally “hūsbōnde”, “hūsthing” and “hūswīf”). With these above three examples, the journey from free expression'''*''' to indivisible word took time and it is hard to say exactly when the change happened. In '''béu''' it is obvious when the transformation from free expression'''*''' to indivisible word took place. Also this change can be considered a deliberate act. '''béu''' speakers (in a similar way to Australians) have a limited tolerance for long words turning up frequently. In '''béu''' there was a “fuck this” moment when somebody decided that '''toili nandau''' was too long and started using '''nandali''' … similar to when some Australian decided “registration” was too much of a mouthful and started using “rego”. Or when some Australian decided “afternoon” was too long and started using “arvo”.


..
..


When we were talking about how the NP was built up ( chapter 2.7 ) we mentioned the "numerative slot" that comes just before the head. We said that in this slot we can have either a "numerative" or a "selective". In this section we will discuss how these two classes of words interact with the singularity/plurality of the head noun. Also we will introduce a construction called "the extended NP" which gives a "partitive" meaning.
In '''béu''' when 2 nouns are come together the second noun acts as an attribute of the first'''**'''. For example ...


..
'''toili nandau''' (literally "book word" ... "book" is the head and "word" is the attribute).


{| border=1
Now the person who first thought of the idea of compiling a list of words along with their meaning would have called this thing he created '''toili nandau'''.
  |align=center| 1
 
  |align=right| '''jù moltai dí'''...
However over the years as the concept '''toili nandau''' became more and more common, '''toili nandau''' would have morphed into '''nandali'''.
  |align=left| no doctor here
 
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu jù'''...
Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.
  |align=left| none of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 2
  |align=right| '''ʔà moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| one doctor here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu ʔà'''...
  |align=left| one of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 3
  |align=right| '''hói moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| two doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu hói'''...
  |align=left| two of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 4
  |align=right| '''léu moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| three doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu léu'''...
  |align=left| three of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 5
  |align=right| '''iyo moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| a few doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu iyo'''...
  |align=left| few of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 6 ...
  |align=right| '''euca moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| seven doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu euca'''...
  |align=left| seven of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 7
  |align=right| '''hài moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| many doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu hài'''...
  |align=left| many of these doctors
  |-
  |align=center| 8
  |align=right| '''ú moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| all the doctors here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu ú'''...
  |align=left| "all of the doctors here" or "every one of the doctors here"
  |} 


..
[[Image:TW_932.png]]


In the table above the RHS has a  "partitive" meaning. For example ... '''euca moltai dí'''  means that we are talking about "seven doctors" and they are "here". But '''moltai.a dí làu euca''' means, we are talking about "seven out of a (significantly) larger number of doctors here". The RHS expressions I call an "extended NP's" ... [ NP  + '''làu''' +  numerative  =  extended NP ]
The process for generating the new word is shown above.


'''làu''' has been mention before in Chapter 2.12.1    ... it is a particle and it serves a number of functions'''*'''
First you trim the original expression. (A) The first syllable is dropped (provided the head has at least two syllables). (B) If the expression ends in a consonant, '''n''' or '''s''' is deleted (provided the attribute has at least two syllables). (C) If the expression ends in a diphthong, '''u''' or '''i''' or '''a''' is deleted (again provided the attribute has at least two syllables).


Then the position of the two components are swapped. Finally the components are merged into one word.


'''*''' These different functions are not totally unrelated to each other ... they "impinge" on each other ...  just as particles in natural language do.
Below is another example ....


To use an extended NP is to "zoom in". It is to narrow the scope of the items we are focusing on (as discussed in the previous section).
[[Image:TW_933.png]]


..
'''megau''' means "a body of knowledge" or "a subject". '''peugagau''' means the sum total of knowledge that a civilization has achieved.


[[Image:TW_608.png]]
And another example ...


..
[[Image:TW_934.png]]


TWO RULES ...
It can be seen in this example that the assembled words has a much more restricted meaning than the product of the component words. (there are about a thousand '''saidau''' compared to 12 '''nandau sài'''.


A) For non-extended NP ... in any numerative before the head, then the head is SINGULAR.
[[Image:TW_935.png]]


B) For extended NP ... the head is PLURAL.
'''wé''' means "way", "method" or "manner" and '''deuta''' means "soldier". '''deutawe''' is an adverb meaning "in the manner of a soldier".


..
[[Image:TW_936.png]]


But what about the "selectives". What about '''ín''' and '''èn''' ?  Listing the four possibilities below ...
'''wèu''' means "vehicle" or "wagon". '''sò''' means "row" or "series". '''soweu''' means "train".


..
..


9 ) '''ín moltai dí''' = any doctor here
Many locations and humans holding rank are two word expressions. These can be classified as intermediary with respect to free expressions and a formula (in Jesperson's terminology). They are fixed expressions but never collapse into a compound-word. Examples are Lake Geneva, Mountain Green, Loch Lomond, Desert Sahara, River Thames, Town London, Captain Turner or Doctor Johnson. (Note ... English is inconsistent and sometimes has the specific before the general, cf London town and Sahara desert)


10)  '''ín moltai.a dí''' = any doctors here
[ Note to self : '''Béu''' has 5 other words "public company(big, medium, small) and  "private company"(big small) that behave similar to Captain, Mountain etc ]


11) '''èn moltai dí''' = some doctor here
[ Note to self : what about Mr, Mrs etc etc ? ]
 
12)  '''èn moltai.a dí''' = some doctors here


..
..


It can be seen that following a "selective" ... the head can can be either SINGULAR or PLURAL
In future, when a non-basic (nb) word is introduced it will be marked as such along with its provenance. For example ...


Now how can we interpret a sentence ... such as ... "any two doctors here" ?
'''gozofai''' = fruterer : (nb : <'''kanfai gozo''')


Well the rules state that only one word is allowed in the numerative slot ... so ... '''*ín hói moltai dí''' or '''*hói ín moltai dí''' are not allowed.
'''kwofan''' = bicycle : (nb : <'''ifan kwò''')


However we can use extended NP's. For example ...
..


..
There are thousands of assembled words. Assembled words are listed in Ch 9.


{| border=1
[note to self : decide about the following forms]
  |align=center| 9
  |align=right|  '''ín moltai dí'''
  |align=left| any doctor here
  |align=center| =>
  |align=center| [ empty due to Rule B ]
  |align=left|
  |-
  |align=center| 10
  |align=right|  '''ín moltai.a dí *'''
  |align=left| any doctors here
  |align=center| =>
  |align=right| '''ín moltai.a dí làu hói'''
  |align=left| any two doctors here
  |-
  |align=center| 11
  |align=right|  '''èn moltai dí'''
  |align=left| some doctor here
  |align=center| =>
  |align=center| [ empty due to Rule B ]
  |align=left|
  |-
  |align=center| 12
  |align=right|  '''èn moltai.a dí'''
  |align=left| some doctors here
  |align=center| =>
  |align=right|  '''èn moltai.a dí làu hói'''
  |align=left|  two doctors here '''**'''
  |} 


..
sword.spear => weaponry ... shield.helmet => armour, protection ... knife.fork => cuttlery ... table.chair => furniture


'''*'''  ... '''ín moltai.a dí''' exists, however it is a very rare beast. By far the most common use of '''ín''' is with a singular head. But in certain situations you have a situation where it is known that a PLURALITY is needed. For example "to lift up a long narrow table". So in this situation  '''ín moltai.a dí''' could be used ( "any doctors here can lift the table" ... just an example). However in most situations where it is known that a plurality is needed ... it is know exactly HOW MANY are needed. In the above example TWO ... hence you would hear  '''ín moltai.a dí làu hói''' more often than hearing  '''ín moltai.a dí'''
..  


COMMON .... '''ín moltai dí''' >>> '''ín moltai.a dí làu''' X (where X is any numerative) >>>  '''ín moltai.a dí'''  ... UNCOMMON
'''*''' See Jespersen (1924) _Philosophy of grammar_, free from <https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282299> discussion about free expression is about page 24.


..
..


'''**''' You don't know which two ... bit we are defining them now ... henceforth we shall refer to them as '''nù'''.
'''**''' Actually there are three words that can be used to bind the two words together ... perhaps if you want to make the relationship between the two more concrete. These words are '''yó''' "property, '''gù''' "master"/"lord" and '''kài''' "kind"/"type"


..
'''waudo yó bàu''' = "the man's dog", '''bàu gù waudo''' = "the man who owns a/the dog", '''loweu kài banhai''' = "a/the school bus"


The particle '''nò''' can also occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...
But as I said before, usually speakers are happy to drop these linking words.


'''moltai.a dí làu nò''' = "several of these doctors"
By the way "whose" can be translated into '''béu''' using the '''gù''' construction ... "the man whose dog bit me" => '''bàu gù waudo nài pà ilkori'''


In this case ... '''nò''' can be looked on as indicating plurality neutrally ... without any connotations of HIGH MAGNITUDE as '''hài''' ... or LOW MAGNITUDE as '''iyo'''.
"the man who owns a dog bit me" would be rendered  '''bàus gù waudo_ós pà ilkore''' (a single clause ... '''bàus gù waudo''' and '''ós''' being in apposition)
 
Note that '''nò''' now has 3 uses ... it is a noun "number" ... it is a plural marker for most monosyllable nouns ... and now this use. Note that it is <u>not</u> a numerative (or a selective either for that matter).


..
..


'''moltai.a dí làu ʔà lú''' more = "one or more of these doctors" ??????????????
== ... Bicycle  + + ==


..
..


Note ... '''ʔà moltai dí ''' means pretty much the same as '''èn moltai dí''' ... one a selective, one a numerative.
'''makwo''' = bicycle


In '''béu''', '''èn''' is preferred over '''ʔà''' to code indefinite [ ??? go into indefiniteness after this section ??? ]
'''yakwo''' = tricycle
 
'''ʔà moltai dí ''' could mean "the one man here" but '''ʔà'''/"one" is superfluous in both '''béu''' and English (unless you were to appand a relative clause)


..
..


Two other numeratives that we haven't mentioned yet are '''tontu''' "the majority"/"most" and '''tonji''' "the minority".
'''mapoma''' = a biped ..................................... '''poma''' "leg"


'''ton''' = bit/part/section ... '''tontu''' <= '''ton jutu''' ... '''tonji''' <= '''ton tiji''' ... '''toŋko''' = to seperate ???
'''japoma''' = a quadruped


..
..


The distributive can occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...
'''yakanda''' = a threeway intersection ......... '''kanda''' "intersection"
'''moltai.a dí làu ò ò''' ... = You see the doctors here ... well everyone of them ...


[ Of course if "the doctors here" was on the top of every ones mind ... then only '''ò ò''' would be expressed ]
'''jakanda''' = a fourway intersection


'''fakanda''' = a fiveway intersection


OK ... I have explain all the above using the determiner '''dí'''. But it is exactly the same pattern with a different determiner or no determiner at all.
... and so on ...


I have explain all the above using a multi-syllable head. But the same pattern holds for mono-syllable heads ... regular and irregular. For example you could change '''wèu''' "vehicle" or "car" for '''moltai''' and '''nò wèu''' for '''moltai.a''' in the above explanation and everything would hold. Or '''bàu''' for '''moltai''' and '''bawa''' for '''moltai.a'''.
..


Also pronouns follow the above pattern. But note ... "those two'''*'''" in English is '''hói nù''' "two us" in '''béu''' ... "you three" is '''léu jè''' ... "us four" (including you) is '''ega wìa''' ... "us five" (excluding you) is '''oda yùa''' ... and so on.
'''yadalno''' = a triangle ................................ '''dalno''' "edge", "boundary", "border", "margin"


"five of them" being '''nù làu oda''' of couse, following the exact same pattern that a normal noun takes for partitiveness.
'''jadalno''' = a quadrilateral


'''á hói yùa doikuarua í london''' = "the two of us will walk to london" OR "us two will walk to london" ... [ I guess there would be a tendency to drop '''yùa'''???  ]
'''fadalno''' = a pentagon


'''á yùa làu hói doikuarua í london''' = two of us will walk to london ...  [tendency to drop '''yùa'''???  ]
'''?aidalno''' = a hexagon (this word is further eroded to '''?aida''' and takes on the meaning "townhall")


'''*''' I guess English is a bit irregular with the 3rd person plural pronoun. This would be "they two" if it patterned the same as the other pronouns.
'''?ai?adalno''' = a heptagon


----
... and so on ...


..


( write about partitive in Finnish ) ... ( write about the other uses of '''làu''' ) ... ( revisit the DISTRIBUTIVE )
'''jadaizlo''' = tetrahedron ............................ '''daizlo''' "face", "facet", "side"


WHAT ABOUT ....  enough of the men .... too many of the men ... above 100 of the men ... more of the men
'''?aidaizlo''' = cube (this word is further eroded to '''?aidai''' and takes on the meaning "dice" or "die")


all others => '''ú lòs
'''?aimadaizlo''' = octahedron


some others => nò lòs
'''maidaizlo ''' = dodecahedron


----
'''yaimadaizlo''' = icosahedron


any doctor => '''ín moltai'''
..


any doctor here = any of these doctors  =>  '''ín moltai dí'''
'''dauzo''' = a 5-cell ................................... '''dauzo''' "cube", "block"


any of the doctors here => '''ín moltai.a dí'''
'''dauzo''' = an 8-cell


..
'''dauzo''' = a 16-cell


'''ʔà ʃì''' = it ... '''nò ʃì''' = them (inanimate)
'''dauzo ''' = a 24-cell


..
'''dauzo''' = 120-cell


{|
'''dauzo''' = 600-cell
  |align=center| 1
  |align=center| '''ʔà ʃì nái'''
  |align=left| which one
  |-
  |align=center| 2
  |align=center| '''nò ʃì nái'''
  |align=left| which ones
  |-
  |align=center| 3
  |align=center| '''léu ʃì nái'''
  |align=left| which two
  |-
  |align=center| 4
  |align=center|  '''léus nái'''
  |align=center| which two
  |}


..
..


== ... A discussion on definiteness ==
== ... Set Phrase and idioms==
 
[  IMPORTANT ...  And at this point I would like to say that I consider "definite" to be the same as "specific" to be the same as "referential". I actually like to use the term "known". I am always careful to always specify "known to who". So "definite" = "specific" = "referential" = "known" ... and a noun "N" designated by any of these terms can be identified as one particular "N" out of every "N" in existance.
 
Also I consider "indefinite" to be the same as "non-specific" to be the same as not referential. I actually like to use the term "unknown". I am always careful to always specify "unknown to who" So "indefinite" = "non-specific" = "not referential" = "unknown" ... and a noun "N" designated by any of these terms can <u>not</u> be identified as one particular "N" out of every "N" in existance. ... IMPORTANT ]


..
..


Before I discuss how '''béu''' handles definiteness I would like to digress a little. Originally I tried using terms like <u>1st person specific / 2nd person non-specific</u> and <u>1st person non-specific / 2nd person non-specific</u> etc. etc. to express my ideas. But I soon realized that by using such terms I wasn't helping matters at all. So I decided to use a new terminology. I like to compare me introducing this new terminology and the introduction of modern algebraic notation. Algebra existed for a long time with very little progress being made : all through the Greek Age and the Roman age and the Middle Ages. It was only when an efficient notation was devised that people could started to manipulate the different terms and progress was made. I hope I can do likewise for the definite/indefinite dichotomy.
If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say  '''gò yír fales''' "may you have peace".


If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say  '''gò yér fales''' "may you have peace"


On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò nela r gimau''' "may the blue sky be above you"


Logically you can gave the specificity of a noun in a 24-way system (or we can say a noun can exist in 24 different situations). Namely ...
On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò nela r jemau''' "may the blue sky be above you"


The noun in question can be either specific or non-specific to the speaker. (2 choices)
If you pass somebody in the street or you meet your workmates for the first time in the morning '''fales''' is sufficient. If you say '''gò yír fales''' it typically means that you are going to have a ten minute (at least) chat.


The speaker can consider the noun to be specific to the listener, the noun to be non specific to the listener, or the speaker can be ignorant about the specificity of the noun to the listener. (3 choices)
..


A third person could exist or not exist, if they exist, the speaker can consider this third person to know the noun in question specifically, to not know the noun in question specifically, or the speaker can be ignorant about how this third person knows the noun in question. (4 choices).
There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections


2 x 3 x 4 so 24 ways that the various protagonists can view the specificity of a given noun. Of these 24 states, 16 are just over fussy, they <u>specify specificity too specifically</u> :-)  to be useful. So that leaves us with 8 states (of definite/indefiniteness) which I believe can be profitably considered.
Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" } which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.


So now let me introduce my notation ...
(A) '''yuajiswe.iʃʃ''' which expresses consternation and/or grief. In about 30% of cases it is shortened to '''swe.iʃʃ''' only.


..
It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)


The term for every state will begin with a capital "S" (maybe meaning "state" or "situation" or "in the situation" ... it doesn't really matter). Then there will follow 2 or 3 values.
(B) '''hambətunmazore''' which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to '''hambətun''' only.


The first value is "1" if the item (noun under consideration) is known to the 1st person (i.e. the speaker) ... "0" if not.
It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)


The second value is "1" if the item is known to the 2nd person (i.e. the spoken to) ... "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "spoken to" can identify the item, the value is "X" (unspecified).
(C) And finally when somebody is telling a story or giving detailed instructions, you might say '''plirai''' at suitable intervals. This is simply a contraction of '''plìr ʔai?''' ... "do you follow ?"


The third value is blank if no third person is involved ... "1" if the item is known to a 3rd person ... "0" if not. If the speaker does not know if the "3rd person" can identify the item the value is "X" (unspecified).
(D) ... OK, we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Not an exclamation in '''béu''' but maybe an exclamation in another language ... '''hù nén'''.


So ... in the sentence "She wants to marry the Norwegian", we can say Norwegian is defined '''[S 1 1 1]''' ... pronounced ... ɛs  wən  wən  wən.
It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!


In the sentence "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl", we can say "girl" is defined '''[S 1 0]''' ... pronounced ... ɛs  wən  zɪro.
(E) '''kè kè''' = "sorry" or "excuse me" ...  Related to the word '''kelpa''' meaning "to apologize".


In the sentence "Do you know that/the guy that got drunk last night ?", we can say "guy" is defined '''[S 1 X]''' ... pronounced ... ɛs wən ɛks.
(F) '''sè sè''' = "thank you" ...  Related to the word '''senda''' meaning "to thank".


OK ... we have the notation. Now let us consider my 8 states one by one.
(G) '''jonjau.e''' = wait a moment


..
..


(A) '''[S 1 1]''' .... this one is easy. known to both speaker and hearer, part of the body of knowledge that they share. I consider (A) to be "stable"
== ... Non-zero reference time ==


(B) '''[S 0 0]''' ... this one is also easy. The item is non-specific to both speaker and hearer. (B)  is "stable" also.
..


The next 4 situations represent a mismatch between the knowledge that the first person has and that the second person has. Now assuming that the two protagonists are from the same family or tribe : that they are friends or colleagues (the usual situation) they would probably like the information to spread to the other person.  
THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.


(C) '''[S 1 0]''' ... This one is my favorite. I consider it pretty unstable ... humans are a gregarious lot and like to share information. In English there are two particles used to tag (C) items ...  "a" and "this".
..


When physically introducing a new item to a person it is common to use "this". For example "come and look at this colorful little insect". Well of course "this" core meaning is/was for drawing the hearers attention to something near the speaker ... the hearer typically being further away from the object. Right away you get connotations of ... "seen better by the speaker" => "understood better by the speaker" => perhaps "known only by the speaker" and hence in modern day English "this" is used for introducing an unseen  '''[S 1 0]''' object. And just as when you introduce a visible object with "this", when you introduce a distant object with "this", the expectation is that you are going to talk a bit about the object : to change the state from (C) => (A) .  
If the reference time is not NOW, we have an overlap-word clause, non-zero reference time.


If you heard from an acquaintance "during my trip to Budapest I met this really nice girl" you would expect to hear quite a bit about her. Whereas if you heard "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" there would be no such expectations. Maybe the latter sentence was a reply to you saying "all hungarian girls are unfriendly to foreigners" ... "during my trip to Budapest I met a really nice girl" is just your acquaintance rebutting your assertion.
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)


So I would say, (C), when tagged with "this", is likely to change into (A) but when tagged with "a", is more likely to stay an (C)  state. However these are just tendencies, not rules. There is nothing wrong with introducing an
..
'''[S  1  0]'''  state with "this" and then saying nothing more about it, and there is nothing wrong with introducing an '''[S  1  0]'''  state with "a" and then expanding on it.


I consider (C) tagged by "this" as "unstable" and tagged by "a" as "stable".
[[Image:SW_047.png]]


..
..


OK ... we have covered the first three situations. The remaining 3 situations are quite different. They all engender questions'''*'''. So instead of the objects being tagged with "the"/"a"/"this", they are sought ou, they are represented by a question word such as "who"/"what"/"which".
To have the reference time in the future, simply put the future tense on the verb.


'''*''' Well they engender questions only if they are deemed significant, if they are considered insignificant (only part of the background) they will continue to be referred to as indefinite.
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 ...


(D) '''[S 1 X]''' ... Pretty unstable. The speaker will want to ascertain if the hearer can identify the object that he wants to discuss. So he ask question to that effect. If the hearer replies in the affirmitive then immediately the situation changes : '''[S 1 X]''' => '''[S 1 1]'''. 
{|
|-
! ʔés || kod-o-r-i || dían || kyù || baba ò  ||    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


If the hearer replies in the negative, the speaker will, in all probability, enlighten him. A two stage process leading to the same result  : '''[S 1 X]'''  =>  '''[S 1 0]'''  =>  '''[S 1 1]'''
..


NB .... where as in (C) the speaker will use "this" if he intends to talk more about a certain object. In (D) the speaker might use "that" in a question to ascertain if the situation is '''[S 1 1]'''  or  '''[S 1 0]''' '''**'''. For example "do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" '''***'''.  In this case "girl" is '''[S 1  1]'''  but maybe she is not that prominent in the hearers memory. The reason for  "Do you remember that girl that was really freaking out at her boyfriend last night" is to raise awareness of the girl in the hearer's mind ... to make her a solid '''[S 1  1]'''  (as opposed to a  '''[S  1  0.5]'''  or  a  '''[S  1  0.3]'''  ..... or even  '''[S  1  X]'''  if the hearers attention was wondering the night before).
In the above examples, the reference times are not NOW but are specified by another action (or state).


'''**'''  I find it pretty neat how the usage of "that" in (D) mirrors the usage of "this"  in (C).
..


'''***''' This is a good time to point out that we are not talking digital here ... more analogue ... more a spectrum of values than two discrete values. But of course there is always an attraction in considering a situation as either black or white ... it makes it so much more simple.
== ... When the overlap is specified ==


(E) '''[S 0 1]''' ... Along with (C)  the most unstable. If you don't know something and your mate does ... well, you will want that information.
..


(F) '''[S 0 X]''' ... Unstable. How the situation changes mirrors (D). For example ... the speaker knows that Jane had been raped a few days ago in the town. So, of course, he knows a human male agent was involved. But he doesn't know who. Assume he is visited by his brother from the town. The question will be either "who raped Jane" or "do you know who raped Jane". That is either a content question or a polarity question.
THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.


Content Question ...
..


Question : "who raped Jane" ... Answer : "I don't know" ......................... '''[S 0 X]'''  =>  '''[S 0 0]'''
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.  


Question : "who raped Jane" ... Answer : "Mad Hugo raped her" ............  '''[S 0 X]''' =>  '''[S  1  1]'''
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 ...


Polarity Question ...


Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer : "Mad Hugo" ......... '''[S 0 X]''' => '''[S 1 1]'''
{|
|-
! hogi || kod-a-r-u || dían || áus || yé || ofa
|-
| yet || work-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}}  || here || period || year  || five
|} ==> I will work here for five more years


Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer :  "no" ...................... '''[S 0 X]''' => '''[S 0 0]'''


Question : "do you know who raped Jane" ... Answer : "yes" ... Retort : "well who" (annoyed voice)   ..... Maybe this dialogue shouldn't be included. To answer "yes" in this situation is abnormal.
{|
|-
! ʔés || kod-a-r-a || dían || áus || yé || ofa
|-
| already || work-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}}  || here  || period || year || five
|} ==> I have worked here for five years
 
 
Note ... If I wanted to give logical symmetry to the two case I could have used the present tense ('''kodara''') for both. However the human mind treats past time and future time very different ... the future action is uncertain.
 
I thought this difference in treatment should be reflected in the grammar ... as in fact it is in most natural languages ... so '''hogi kodaru dían yé ofa''' instead of '''hogi kodara dían yé ofa'''


..
..


Here is a table of what we have covered so far ...
Negating the above


..
..


[[Image:TW_618.png]]
Now we have already said that '''béu''' is basically an (a) (b) type language.
 
However if we have a specified offset time it becomes (c)  (d) type.
 
The negator used in this case is '''jù''' rather than '''bú'''.
 
To explain the reason for this .... well take the case of the English sentence  ... "I have worked here for seven years" [ '''hogi kodara dían áus yé ofa''' ]
 
Now if we negate the English we get "I have ''not'' worked here for five years"
 
However this is ambiguous ... does it mean "I have been idol for five years" or "I have worked for a period of time different from five years"
 
'''béu''' avoids this ambiguity by using the negative operator '''jù''' which negates nouns.
 
"I have been idol for seven years" => '''hogi bù kodara dían áus yé ofa'''
 
"I have worked for a period of time different from seven years" =>  '''jù àn hogi kodara dían áus yé ofa'''


..
..


Notice that there are no undefined values in the final states, our interlocutors have shared information as much as possible.
[[Image:SW_077.png]]
 
[[Image:SW_078.png]]


..
..


Earlier I proposed considering how well a third party knew the object under discussion. My initial system was very complicated. I was going to include all of  '''[S 1 1 1]''' , '''[S 0 0 1]''' , '''[S 1 0 1]''' , '''[S 1 X 1]''' , '''[S 0 X 1]''' , '''[S 0 1 1]''' , '''[S 1 1 0]''' , '''[S 0 0 0]''' , '''[S 1 0 0]''' , '''[S 1 X 0]''' , '''[S 0 X 0]''' , '''[S 0 1 0]''' , '''[S 1 1 X]''' , '''[S 0 0 X]''' , '''[S 1 0 X]''' , '''[S 1 X X]''' , '''[S 0 1 X]''' ... definitely overkill.
Note : the bottom left one is '''?àn jù kodara yé euca''' rather than  '''*?ès jù kodara yé euca'''  
 
THIS IS BECAUSE ?
 


However I would like to keep these two situations ...
The rule is that '''bù''' is not allowed in a clause that has '''ʔès'''/'''ʔàn''' and an "specified offset time".


(G) '''[S 0 0 1]'''
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 '''ʔés''' ...


(H) '''[S 0 0 0]'''
..


The third person I am talking about, could be anybody. If one person can identify the object under discussion it is obviously real.
While we are discussing this area I really should mention the '''béu''' non-overlap clause with duration and present tense.


If nobody can identify the object under discussion it is not (necessarily) real or at least not real at this point in time.
If a time period is mentioned with a verb in '''béu''' the time period denote how long the activity went on for ... the ''duration'' of the activity (the duration usually follows the verb and no preposition ... like "for" ... is needed).
However if '''ʔès'''/'''ʔàn''' are in the clause, the time period mentioned refers not to duration but to overlap. In this section we only talk about clauses with duration.


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


Martin Haspelmath has written a thought provoking book called "Indefinite Pronouns" ( ISBN: 9780198299639 ). In it he talks about 9 indefinite "situations" (page 64 if you have the book at hand) and about how the grammar of different languages express the indefiniteness of these different situations. I find that 3 of his "situations" correspond to 3 of my "situations". In particular I find (1) = '''[S  1  0]''' : (2) = '''[S  0  0  1]''' : (3) = '''[S  0  0  0]'''.


I have marked (yellow background) where my "situations" overlap with Haspelmath's "situations".  [I would include another situations ... '''[S  1  1]''' to the left of '''[S  1  0]'''].
{|
|-
!  kod-a-r-i || dían || áus || yé || ofa
|-
| work-{{small|1SG-IND-PAST}}  || here  || period || year  || five
|} ==> I worked here for five years (but I no longer work here).


[[Image:TW_629.png]]


..
However duration along with a present tense is worth mentioning.


The main observation in this book is that different languages divide up this semantic domain and have different particles tagging the 9 "situations". The interesting thing is that these tags must appear contiguously on the diagram. For example ... below is the semantic domain of English with the particles ''some-'', ''any-'' and ''no-'' mapped.


..
{|
|-
!  kod-a-r-a|| dían || áus || yé || ofa
|-
| work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here  || period || year  || five
|} ==> I will working here for five years in total ............. I think this is disallowed
 


[[Image:TW_620.png]]
In the above example ... we are told that the total work period is five years, but we get no information about how far we are through this five 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.  


..
..


The sentence "Mary wants to marry a Norwegian"'''****''' can be given an '''[S 0 0 0]'''  interpretation and an  '''[S 0 0 1]'''  interpretation.
PS ... If you want to know more about aspect operators "The Meaning of Focus Particles" by Ekkehard König is the book for you.
 
'''****''' I find it a bit strange that English has no way to differentiate between (G) and (H). If "she wants to marry any norwegian" was grammatical this differentiaion would be made. However I find it a bit unfelicitous. The string "Mary wants to marry a norwegian ... ANY norwegian" I find felicitous ... strange.


..
..
Line 2,407: Line 2,486:


Samoan ...
Samoan ...
 
 
o sa fafine = a woman
o sa fafine = a woman
 
 
o le fafine = a woman
o le fafine = a woman
 
..
 
== ... The non-alphabet symbols ==


..
..


== ... Correlatives==
Below are a list of shorthand symbols which are commonly used. Punctualtion symbols are also shown (on the RHS).


..
..


[[Image:TW_796.png]]  
[[Image:TW_903.png]]


..
..


{| border=1
== ... Animal noises==
  |align=center| '''uda'''
  |align=center| everywhere
  |align=center| '''uku'''
  |align=center| always
  |align=center| '''ubu'''
  |align=center| everybody
  |align=center| '''ufan'''
  |align=center| everything
  |- 
  |align=center| '''juda'''
  |align=center| nowhere
  |align=center| '''juku'''
  |align=center| never
  |align=center| '''jubu'''
  |align=center| nobody
  |align=center| '''jufan'''
  |align=center| nothing
  |- 
  |align=center| '''ida'''
  |align=center| anywhere
  |align=center| '''iku'''
  |align=center| anytime
  |align=center| '''ibu'''
  |align=center| anybody
  |align=center| '''ifan'''
  |align=center| anything
  |- 
  |align=center| '''eda'''
  |align=center| somewhere
  |align=center| '''eku'''
  |align=center| sometime
  |align=center| '''ebu'''
  |align=center| somebody
  |align=center| '''efan'''
  |align=center| something
  |}
 
 
The above 16 correlatives all have a special symbols  (ignore the blue and red squares).
 
If you wants to make plural any word from the last two rows, you must revert to the nearest generic noun available and build up a NP in the normal way..
 
 
{| border=1
|align=center| '''ida'''
|align=center| anywhere
|align=center| '''iku'''
|align=center| anytime
|align=center| '''ibu'''
|align=center| anybody
|align=center| '''ifan'''
|align=center| anything
|-
|align=center| '''nò dà ín'''
|align=center| any places
|align=center| '''nò kyù ín'''
|align=center| any times
|align=center| '''abua ín'''
|align=center| any people
|align=center| '''fanyoi ín'''
|align=center| any things
|-
|align=center|
|-
|align=center| '''eda'''
|align=center| somewhere
|align=center| '''eku'''
|align=center| sometime
|align=center| '''ebu'''
|align=center| somebody
|align=center| '''efan'''
|align=center| something
|-
|align=center| '''nò dà èn'''
|align=center| some places
|align=center| '''nò kyù èn'''
|align=center| some times
|align=center| '''abua èn'''
|align=center| some people
|align=center| '''fanyoi èn'''
|align=center| some things
|}
 
 
A further 3 of these special symbols are shown below ....
 
..
 
[[Image:TW_797.png]]
 
..
 
The short-hand forms are <u>always</u> used.


..
..


The name and animal noise for cat and pig are identical. That is pigs go '''sú sú''' and cats go '''méu'''. Also dogs go '''wáu wáu''' (probably some connection to their name '''waudo'''). They also howl '''háu háu''' as do wolves.


(Note to self : resolve the stuff below)
Sheep and goats go '''mé''' and cows go '''mù'''. Actually the last three cries tend to break the phonological rules. Maybe a more faithful rendering would be '''háuuu''', '''mé?é?é''' and '''mùu''', but they are always written as '''háu''', '''mé''' and '''mù'''.
 
The columns are related to the words ... '''dàn''' = place ... '''kyùs''' = time/occasion ... '''glabu''' = person ... '''fanyo''' = thing


'''ubu''' can mean "each person" and "all the people". If they act together '''uwe''' can be added. If they act individually '''bajawe''' can be added.
Notice that animals smaller than humans have high tone cries, while animals bigger than humans have low tone cries.
 
..
 
== ... The non-alphabet symbols ==


..
..


[[Image:TW_676.png]]
By the way, '''wáu''' also means a pair of eyes and '''háu''' also means ???.


..
..

Latest revision as of 20:48, 4 November 2020

TW 415.png Welcome to béu

..... Seven generic nouns

..

There are seven generic nouns in béu. Actually there meaning is so general that they don't have that much meaning content. For example if you hear nèn "thing" ... you know what is being referred to doesn't belong to one of the other six generic categories, but that is about all that nèn tells you.

Note that the first two have an irregular ergative ... nòs and mìs.

..

nèn, nòs thing
mìn, mìs person
làu amount
kài kind, type
dà place
kyù time, occasion
sài reason

..

Because the above are so lacking in information content that they are frequently used for unknowns. For example ... you have a situation (a clause) but one component of that situation is either unknown* or is awkward to express for some reason. When used in this fashion, the generic noun is always fronted.

SOME EXAMPLES

Now there are two interesting particles in béu ... ?ó and kò. The latter is used for requesting a material thing, the former for requesting information. So ...

?ó = "tell me"

kò = "give me"

Only used for first person singular and the here and now. For anything other than the first person singular and the here and now, the suppletion forms XXXX and YYYY are used.

It can be seen that ?ó plus one of the "algebraic" clauses I talked about above, are questions.

EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE

In fact there is an altenative set of question forms.

..

?ó nèn, ?ó nòs what nén, nós
?ó mìn, ?ó mìs who mín, mís
?ó làu how much láu
?ó kài what kind of kái
?ó dà where dá
?ó kyù when kyú
?ó sài why sái

..

The two forms are in complementary distribution. The longer form tends to be used if the question is a new topic of conversation. The shorter version tends to be used when the question is part of an established conversation. But if you mix this up, nobody feels you are murdering the language. The longer form is also used anytime you want to give the question more emphasis.

..

Mention YES/NO questions !!!

These 7 particles do not take nài to form a relative clause. That is why I classify them as particles as opposed to normal nouns.

EXAMPLE

..

* A bit like in Algebra. Maybe you first come across "x" in an equation such as "2(x+3)=10". I posit this equation is an analogy of the situation (clause) I referred to above. Where one component is unknown. Initially it is necessary to refer to the unknown by using the other elements in the clause. ( Perhaps) later the unknown can be identified uniquely.

..

..... Questions questions

..

English is quite typical of languages in general and has 8 question words ... "which", "what", "who", "whose", "where", "when", "how" and "why". *

..

béu has nine ... SW 187.png

..

If you hear any of these words you know you are being solicited for some information. These words have no other function apart from asking questions.

..

Notice that there is no word for "how" or "why" in the above table. These are expressed by wé nái and nenji** respectively.

On the other hand, béu has single words where English has "how much" and "what kind of".

..

The first two have dual forms ... nén and mín are the absolutive forms and nós and mís are the ergative forms.

..

Now ʔai? always comes utterance final ... ʔala always comes between two NP's. This leaves 7 QW's. Of these nén mín dá and kyú are fronted***. láu is sometimes fronted.


And láu kái dá and nái **** are found in their respective slots within a NP ... TW 785.png

Note that when questioning who owns something yó mín occurs within the NP ... this is a sort of secondary usuage of mín and is not considered here.

Also note that dá can be either fronted or within a NP. When fronted it asked where the action takes place. When within a NP it asks about the NP's location. For example ...

..

jene-s halma dá hump-o-r-u
Jane- ERG apple where eat-3SG-IND-FUT

=> where is the apple that Jane will eat

A suitable answer to the above is pazbala "on the table"

dá jene-s halma hump-o-r-u
where Jane- ERG apple eat-3SG-IND-FUT

=> where will Jane eat the apple

A suitable answer to the above is pazba?e "at the table"

láu is an interesting QW. When you expect an integer answer between 1 and 1727 ... "láu senko" are fronted. Otherwise "senko láu", "olus láu" or "saidau láu" are in situ.

[Note to self : I need some examples of the above]

..

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

Question 1 .... mís glán nori alha = who gave the woman flowers ?

Question 2 .... minin bàus nori alha = the man gave flowers to who ?

Question 3 .... nén bàus glán nori = what did the man give the woman ?

Question 4 ... bàus glán nori láu alha = How many flowers did the man gave the woman ?

Question 5 ... bàus glán nori alha kái = What kind of flowers did the man give the woman ?

Question 6 ... dá bàus glán nori alha = Where did the man give the woman flowers ?

Question 7 ... kyú bàus glán nori alha = When did the man give the woman flowers ?

Question 8 ... í glá nái bàus nori alha = to which woman did the man gave the flowers ?

Question 9 .... há bàu nái glán nori alha = which man gave the woman flowers ?

Question 10 .... bàus glán nori alha ʔala cokolate = Did the man gave the woman flowers or chocolate ?

Question 11 ... ʔír doika ʔala jaŋka = Do you want to walk or run

Question 12 .... bàus glán nori alha ʔai? = Did the man gave the woman flowers ?

Question 13 ... minji bàus glán nori alha = Why did the man give the woman flowers ?

..

*Note ... there was also a "whom" until quite recently. Also some people count "whose" as a separate QW ... however it shouldn't be ... it is just "who" + "z" (the genitive clitic).

**Well nenji is the normal traslation of "why". In certain situations you might hear minji ... when it is knows that an action/state is for somebody's benefit and no other reason is applicable.

***Around one third of the world's languages front a question word. English is one of them. [ see http://wals.info/feature/93A#2/25.5/151.2 ]

****Actually these 4 words often stand alone. But when they do, they are still considered within a NP ... only that the rest of the NP has been dropped.

..

THE BELOW SHOULD GO TO A SECTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

With a more complex NP it is usual to break it up in order to specify exactly which element is being questioned. For example ...

bawa gèu tiji láu pobomau nài doikura = " How many little green men on the mountain that are walking? "

bawa gèu tiji láu nài doikura _ láu r pobomau

wò bàu gèu pobomau nài doikura _ láu r tiji

wò bawa gèu tiji pobomau _ láu doikura = w.r.t. the little green men on top of the mountain, how many are walking ? ... or ...

wò bàu tiji pobomau nài doikura _ láu r gèu = w.r.t. the little men on top of the mountain who are walking, how many are green ?

THE ABOVE SHOULD GO TO A SECTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

In the table of question words above I have marked the top two and the bottom two off. The top two because they are the QW's par excellence ... they are used more than the other QW's. The bottem two because their answers are restricted to two items. ?a is restricted to "yes" or "no" ... ?ala to one of the NP's that sandwich it.

láu kái dá kyú and nái each have low tone equivalents. These particles are important grammatical words in their own right and they each are related to their high tone equivalent in subtle ways. Basically làu introduces the "partitive construction" , kài means "like" or "similar", dà introduces an adverbial phrase of location, kyù introduces an adverbial phrase of time, and, nài is a "relativizor".

..

..... Why oh why

..

"Why" is nenji in béu. Obviously derived from nén and the jì (the pila?o). "Why" is asking for what reason an event/state came about. The answer to nenji can by said to comform to one of the four scenario's shown below.

..

TW 937.png

..

gərfi and ngò are followed by a clause. là cì and jì are followed by a noun (usually a persons name).

..

gərfi is used when the questioned event/state was caused by an event/state in the past. That is the questioned event/state is a consequence of an event/state in the past.

ngò is used when the questioned event/state exists to facility some event/state that is envisaged in the future.

là cì is used when the person following là cì (or at least a some supporter/collaborator of hs/her) has requested the questioned event/state at a previous time. cì = matter/affair

jì is used when the subject of the questioned event decided to do something for the benefit of the person following jì. The subject is the initiator of the action in this case. The benefits of the action are likely to materialize at a future time.

..

TW 887.png

..

..... The conditional sentence

..

These two modifiers ... yo and yoi are basically the equivalent to the Swahili NGE tense and the Swahili NGALI tense.

..

SW 117.png

..

Basically yo represents an "open" conditional sentence, and yoi represents a counterfactual conditional sentence. Evidentials are never used with yo and yoi.

..

Remember from CH4 (more verb modifiers) that the verb modifier -ai can be equivalent to "when" in English. For example ...

tìa pirai_ maumare = When you entered the house, I was asleep.

This can also be expressed as ...

kyù tìa pire_maumare

..

Conditional sentences are for making plans, for considering contingencies.

In English ... "if you go, they will kill you" ... two clauses ... the first introduced by "if" .... "if (A), (B)".

Sometimes "then" can introduce the second clause [ "if (A), then (B)"] but this is not considered essential in English. However some natlangs require a particle in front of the second clause. In Chinese the particle 就 jiù is needed.

SW 198.png

SW 197.png

..

kyù jiru / gì dainuru => "when you go, they will kill you"

kyù j-i-r-u / gì dain-u-r-u
when go-2SG-IND-FUT "pause" you kill-3PL-IND-FUT

..

tà jiryo / gì dainuryo => "if you go, they will kill you"

tà j-i-r-yo / gì dain-u-r-yo
if go-2SG-IND-COND "pause" you kill-3PL-IND-CON

..

dà jiryoi / gì dainuryoi => "if you would go, they would kill you"

dà j-i-r-yoi / gì dain-u-r-yoi
if go-2SG-IND-CF/COND "pause" you kill-3PL-IND-CK/COND

Note ... dà jiru is a place ... "where you will go"

..

You will see that béu has a nice symmetrical system when it comes to counterfactuality.

This is different from English, which has quite a lopsided system ...

TW 967.png

The blue reflects a plain "if" conditional. The 15% to the left would be expressed with "when" rather than "if".

Now the plain "if" conditional can be used in situations with wildly different truth values.

However if you want to be more specific as to truth value, you would use one of the orange constructions above. These constructions are a bit messy ... past tense => counterfactual : pluperfect => past tense + counterfactual. Plus none of the above represent 100% counterfactuality. If one of the orange constructions above represented 100% counterfactuality, then a tag such as "but you won't leave tomorrow" would be ungrmmatical. So the English system is a mess (although naturalistic).

..

Note ... In béu the sequence yi is not allowed. And while the sequence ye is allowed it never occurs in the conditional marker. So how does béu express a conditional sentence in which one or both clauses is set in the past. Well you must use ryo plus an adverb. An adverb such as "this morning", "yesterday", "in the past", etc. etc.

Oh ... and one final thing. In béu (as in English) the consequent can precede the antecedent. This is a bit unusual. Joseph Greenberg’s Universal 14 says … “In conditional statements, the conditional clause precedes the conclusion as the normal order in all languages.” (Greenberg 1966: 84; Greenberg 1990: 49) Greenberg states that “the antecedent almost invariably precedes the consequent in the unmarked, or only permissible case …. " I believe the following languages are strictly antecedent first … Turkish, Mongolian, Tamil, Korean, Chinese, Japanese

EXTRA ... Because of the distribution of "if" + "past tense" (its range quite far towards the LHS), it is possible to cancel* "if" + "past tense" conditional sentence. For example "If you had enough money, you could visit Australia", could be cancelled by adding "... well you have enough money, you can visit Australia". This sort of cancellation can not be used with "da" [the LHS of "da" would have to spread a lot further to the RHS to make it cancelable].

..

..... Six important particles

..

Namely làu jía kài "wé nài" ?ài and ?aibis

..

wé and nài are particles in their own right but the combination "wé nài" is more than the sum of its parts (or perhaps "is more than the product of its parts" is more appropriate). Hence "wé nài" should be considered a separate particle made up of two words.

..

... làu

..

There are 3 main uses for làu

..

1] The first use is when we are using the extended number set. làu stands between the noun (senko or olus) and the extended number ...

..

3,05112 elephants => sadu làu uba wú odaija

sadu làu uba wú odaija
elephant "partitive particle" 3 123 51

..

Note ... the singular form of senko always used when quantity is given by this method.

We have already touched on this in the previous chapter [ see the section Numbers ... (the extended set) ].

I call làu a partitive particle when it is doing this function.

To the left of làu, the noun always has a generic meaning hence in this position it would never take the kai prefix. [ cf. sadu = elephant : kaizadu = elephant-kind, "the elephant as a species" ]

So *kaisadu làu uba wú odaija is illegal.

This construction is often seen with "magnifier" duplication ...

sadu làu wú wú = thousands of elephants : sadu làu nàin nàin = millions of elephants : sadu làu hungu hungu = billions of elephants

When specifying an amount of an olus, làu is use with any number, not just an extended number ...

..

Two cups of hot milk => ʔazwo pona làu hói hoŋko

?azwo pona làu hói hoŋko
milk hot "partitive particle" 2 cup

..

Two baskets of peaches => pice làu hói kapu

pice làu hói kapu
peaches "partitive particle" 2 basket

..

pice is in fact olus. A single peach would be picai. By the way, if the basket was more pertinent than the peaches you could say ... kapu picia <= kapu pic-ia <= "basket peaches-having"

..

2] I also call làu a partitive particle when it is doing its second function ...

..

Three of these doctors => moltai.a dí làu léu

moltai.a dí làu léu
doctors this "partitive particle" 3

..

Note ... the plural form of senko is always used for this construction.

..

Two cups of this hot milk => ʔazwo pona dí làu hói hoŋko

?azwo pona dí làu hói hoŋko
milk hot this "partitive particle" 2 cup

..

Of course, for an olus there is no plural form.

This second function of làu is when we are taking a portion from a larger amount. The first function of làu is when we are taking a portion of X out of the sum total of all the X in the universe.

For the olus, there is not so much difference between function 1) and function 2).

..

3] I call làu a quantitative particle when it is doing this function. Here is a typical example of làu functioning as a quantitative particle ...

..

tomo r jutu làu jono => "Thomas is as big as John"

..

The construction is ... "copula adjective làu noun" as opposed to English "AS adjective AS noun"

In the negative it is ... "bù copula adjective làu noun" as opposed to English "not SO adjective AS noun" ... (By the way ..." not AS adjective AS noun" is also valid in English)

..

In béu the final noun can be replaced by a clause introduced by gò. For example ...

Thomas is so clever that he doesn't have to go to school => tomo r jini làu gò bù byór jò banhain

tomo r jini làu gò bù by-ó-r jò banhai-n
thomas is clever "equalitative particle" that not have-3SG-IND go school-DAT

..

Now as copula + adjective is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here ...

Thomas thinks as fast as John => tomo wòr saco làu jono

as the same construction type.

..

We have talked about what I call the quantitative particle above. This is used when two nouns, verb to the same degree. But how you describe a situation when we have "more" or "less" degree ?

I think this is a suitable time to go into this.

Taking the last example, we get ...

Thomas thinks faster than John => tomo wòr yú sacois jonowo

with more degree.

Notice the lack of làu, the adverbial suffix -is and the suffix -wo on the noun.

For less degree we have ...

Thomas thinks not so fast than John => tomo wòr wì sacois jonowo

..

And for the copula adjective constructions with "more" or "less" degree. This paradigm is shown below ...

..

Question ... tomo r jutu láu => "how big is Thomas ?"

Answer[A] .... tomo r jutu làu jono => "Thomas is as big as John"

Answer[B] .... tomo r wì jutu jonowo => "Thomas is less big than John"

Answer[C] .... tomo r yú jutu jonowo => "Thomas is bigger than John"

Answer[D] .... tomo bù r jutu làu jono => "Thomas is not as big as John"


TW 925.png

Notice that D, invariably in English, makes Thomas smaller than John. Not so in béu. A B and C tend to be used a lot more than D.


[Note to self : get rid of -ge ? .... use it only in NP ? an alternative to C ? ]

Two more examples ... just for fun.

jono-s huz-o-r làu kulno
john-ERG smoke-3SG-IND like chimney

=> John smokes like a chimney

..

taud-o-r-a làu hunwu huakod-ia
to be annoyed-3SG-IND-PRES like/as bear headache-having

=> he/she is annoyed like a bear with a sore head

..

... jía

..

jía has two functions.

..

TW 904.png

Also it has two shorthand forms ... the only word in the language to be so honoured. The leftmost word is never used. The => character used for the second function. The remaining character used for the first function.

..

1) In most languages you can drop certain components if they are obvious from context. And when you do the remaining utterance stays unchanged. However béu does not work like that*. We saw in the previous section that the particles used to show cause/reason are different, depending upon whether they are followed by a simple noun or by a clause. The same happens when we are making a statement by way of comparison. For example ...

..

Thomas thinks as fast as John => tomo wòr saco làu jono

Now obviously "John thinks" is underlying here. However if you want to make "John thinks" overt you must change làu to jía ...

Thomas thinks as fast as John thinks => tomo wòr saco jía jono wòr

Notice that English patterns the same way for both the above examples.

..

2) In English we have the verb "to equal" ... it bit of a strange verb. Almost exclusively found in a mathematical setting. (The adjective "equal" has the same form as the verb "to equal" .. but anyway ... )

The béu particle jía is used in most situations where we find the English verb "to equal". In a setting such as 2+3=5 ... well there are no need for tense or aspect ... we are talking about a timeless truth. Also no need for person affixes ... the elements (arguments) involved are always stated the the left and the right of jía. Also no need for evidential markers ... the world of béu considers evidentials as appropriate for the human world ... but the world of mathematics is so far beyond the human world ... to have evidentials on a mathematical expression would be to drag the matheverse down into the dirt. Hence jía is an invarient particle. By the way jiagan = "equation".

..

* Now why have I set things up like this ... well in béu it is quite easy to define a clause. A clause is a chunk that contains one active verb (active verb = a verb having an "r" ). I guess I have set things up like this, so as to firmly draw a line between one clause constructions and two clause construction.

[ Note to self : why DO you want it like this ?]

..

... kài and wé nài

..

There are 6 main uses for kài.

..

1] In this first function it is equivalent to "like" or "similar to" in English.

..

jono r kài dada òn
john is like older brother his

=> John is like his older brother

..

2] Sometimes kài can best be translated as "made of" ...

a/the wooden house => tìa kài wuda

the house is made of wood => tìa r kài wuda

..

3] Sometimes kài can best be translated as "for" ...

water for drinking => moze kài solbe

water for washing clothes => moze kài laudo

this water is for washing clothing => moze dí r kài laudo

(in the above three examples, kài and what follows it can be considerd an adjective)

..

4) In the fifth function kài actually merges with a following senko ...

elephant = sadu

elephant-kind = kaizadu

this is actually a noun, the idea being something like "that which is like an elephant"

[ Note ... it is interesting that the béu word for "species" is kaija. Probably from " kài aja ", aja being an obsolete word for "one". ]

..

5) In its sixth function kài actually merges with a following saidau ...

red = hìa

reddish = kaihia

..

6) And the sixth function ...

..

gì r gombuʒi kài jono
you are argumentative like John

=> you are argumentative like John .............................. i.e. in the same manner ... for example ... shouting over other people when they try and put forward their arguments

..

This only is applicable to "complicated "adjectives ... adjectives that like have internal structure. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where this construction would be suitable for an adjective like "short".

I see "short" as a one dimensional adjective while I see gombuʒi as a multifaceted adjective.

You are treating gombuʒi ss one dimensional when you say ...

..

gì r gombuʒi làu jono
you are argumentative like John

=> you are as argumentative like John ...........................i.e. to the same degree

..

In the above to examples, I would call kài a "qualitative particle", and I would call làu a "quantitative particle".

..

Now as "copula + adjective" is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here ...

..

jono-s klud-o-r kài tomo
john-ERG writes-3SG-IND like/as thomas

=> John writes like Thomas writes

..

In most languages you can drop certain components if they are obvious from context. And when you do the remaining utterance stays unchanged. However béu does not work like that. We saw in the previous section that the particles used to show amount by way of comparison are different, depending upon whether they are followed by a simple noun or by a clause. The same happens when we are making a statement about manner by way of comparison. For example ...

..

Now in the above example, it is obvious that "thomas writes" but "writes" has been dropped. If we want to make this "writes" covert we must change the particle.

..

jono-s klud-o-r wé nài tomo-s klud-o-r
john-ERG writes-3SG-IND "in the manner that" thomas writes-3SG-IND

=> John writes like Thomas writes

Note ... when the final verb is dropped, the ergative marking on tomo is also dropped.

..

làu and kài sometimes gets mixed up. For example in the following example kài might actually get used more often than làu. While làu might be correct "logically", kài is more felicitous for savouring the rich imagery of "a fish out of water".

Perhaps if béu was a spoken language kài might take over from làu in many situations.

..

bù ?oim-o-r-a làu sainyi moz-ua
not to be happy-3SG-IND-PRES like/as fish water-lacking

=> he/she is unhappy like a fish out of water

..

This chart below might be of interest ...

..

TW 928.png

..

It shows how three question words correspond to three low tone particles.

..

..

One more example ... just for fun.

tomo-s futuba lent-o-r kài yuzebi.o
thomas-ERG football play-3SG-IND like Eusabio

=> Thomas plays football like Eusabio ............................................................ i.e. attacking the goal directly, strong on the ball with a powerful shot

..

... ?ài and aibis

..

These are mention here because they overlap with the first function of kài

These particles plus the noun (or NP) they qualifies are equivalent to adjectives.

?ài is derived from ?à "one". There are quite a number of adjectives derived from nouns by the suffixing of -i ... (the meanings of these derived adjectives are often on the quirky side).

[ Note ... the English word "same" < P.I.E. "sem" meaning "one" ]

?aibis is formed from ?ài plus the suffix -bis meaning "tending to".

?ài and ?aibis overlap in meaning with kài when in the first of its six functions.

TW 926.png

We can say ... kài = "like"/"similar to" : ?ài = "identical to"/"the same as" : ?aibis = "a bit like"/"similar to"

You use ?ài or ?aibis if you want to specify the amout of similarity, use kài if you want to leave this vague.

Other related words/expressions are ... ?aiko = to equalize : sàu ?ài = to be equal : bù ʔài = "different" : sàu bù ?ài = "to differ"/"to be different" ?aiti = similarity (one feature) : kuwai ?ài = similarity (in general) : u?aiti = difference (one feature) : kuwai u?ai = difference (in general) ?aiwe = to agree

..

Examples of ?ài usage ...

..

1) jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) = "John and Jane are the same" ... logically the bèn is unnecessary, but it is often included for euphony .... (bèn is used about 97% of the time in this construction)

2) jono r ʔài jene = "John is the same as Jane"

The above two examples are ambiguous as to whether John and Jane are the same w.r.t. one characteristic or the same w.r.t. all characteristic. It should be known from context. If not you can disambiguate by ...

A) jono r ʔài jene jutuwo = "John is the same size as Jane"

B) jono r ʔài jene uwe = "John is the same as Jane in every way"

C) jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) jutuwo = "John and Jane are the same size" .... (bèn is used about 50% of the time in this construction)

D) jono lé jene sùr ʔài (bèn) uwe = "John and Jane are the same in every way" .... (bèn is used about 50% of the time in this construction)

..

Note that (A) can also be expressed as jono r jutu làu jene ... see the third fuction of làu.

For comparison of ability to do something ...

jono r bòi làu jene kludauwo = "John is as good at writing as Jane"

[Note to self : sort out ... how to say "a similarity" ? ... "a difference" ? ]

[Note to self : sort out ... ʔài dù = exactly the same ? ... ʔaimai = similarity ... lomai = difference ]

..

..... Two verb prefixes

..

Earlier we saw how jwòi could be used to make a passive. That is, it took a transitive verb, detransitivized it, and made the original O argument the S argument [the original A argument having fi suffixed and becomes a side argument]

béu also has a means to take a transitive verb, detransitivized it, and made the original A argument the S argument [the original O argument having h suffixed and becomes a side argument]

This process involves prefixing li- to the verb. For example ...

jonos jene timpori => jono litimpori (jeneh)

This process has been given the unfortunate name ... "anti-passive".

Some of the world's languages which are reckoned to have "anti-passives" undergo a semantic change when the anti-passive operation is applied. [Something like "I shot at the bear" compared to "I shot the bear" in the active voice. This does not happen in béu. In béu the li- prefixing operation only shuffles argument around.

However there is a prefix that signals non-success. This prefix is ?eu-. Actually "non-success" is not quite correct. ?eu- means "what was meant to be achieved by 'verbing' was not, or was not fully achieved".

Actually I think there is only four verbs where what is meant to be achieved is fixed ...

try => succeed
look => see
listen => hear
hear* => understand

In some cases, what people are attempting is nearly 100% predictable. For instance, if it was the hunting season and a hunter said "I ?eushot the deer" you could not be far off, if you took that to mean "I shot at the deer meaning to kill it but I missed"

In many cases what is meant to be achieved is totally dependent on background information which is not obvious to everybody. For example ... if it was known that hilda was going to the school to enroll her child for the following year. Then if you heard hilda say ?eujari schoolh ... you would know she went to the school but was unsuccessful in her mission. But perhaps only two or three people would know the background story.

Some times this prefix can be used to comic effect.

..

*"to hear someone speak" to be more exact

..

..... Two noun prefixes

..

huwu = good thoughts

huwu.ai = a good thought

hugu = good deeds

hugu.ai = a good deed

?igu = bad deeds

..

hu- has provenance in avestian [cognate of Sanskrit su-]. ?i has provenance in Thai อี.

..

..... Stuff to sort

..

Usually for particles that can either be followed by a NP or a clause, I add gò after the particle when a clause follows. This is to prevent errors in comprehention. For example jì means "for" and is followed by a NP (usually a person). I have jì gò meaning "in order that" ... jì gò being followed by a clause. In béu the first word of a clause is often a noun. If I had jì meaning "in order that" there might be misunderstanding (albeit temporary). English does this also in many constructions [ I should go into this more fully ??? ]. Of course I could have a totally different particle for "in order that" but I wanted to emphasis the semantic overlap between these to constructions.

There are 4 nouns that are associated with 4 of these above question word / indefinite pairs. làus = amount, quantity : kàin = kind, sort, type : dàs = place : kyùs accasion, time.

These 4 nouns are never followed by nài. The table below is interesting. It shows the logical equivalence of a hypothetical expession (on the LHS) and the logical equivalent actually used (on the RHS).

..

*làus nài => làu

*kàin nài => kài

*dàs nài => dà

*kyùs nài => kyù

..

There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs. laubo meaning "enough" and kaibo meaning "suitable".

Also there are two nouns associated with these question word / particle pairs. lauja meaning "level" and kaija meaning "species/model".

..

?ode r jutu làu sadu = "they're as big as an elephant" (talking about elephants in general) : ?ode r jutu làu sadu dí = "they're as big as the elephant"

..

Good, Better, Best

..

>>> boimo best
> boige better
= làu bòi as good
< boizo jige bòi less good
<<< boizmo least good jimo bòi

..

The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".

The fourth one down is used less frequently than the second one down. This is because its sentiment is sometimes expressed by negating the third one down. For example ...

gì bù r làu bòi pawo = "you're not as good as me" can be used instead of gì r boizo pawo "you are less good than me"

[ actually gì r boizo pawo would be the normal way to express this sentiment. But gì bù r làu bòi pawo would be used, for example, as a retort to "I'm as good as you" ]

The superlative forms are found as nouns more often than as adjectives. That is boimo and boizmo are rarer than boimos and boizmos. (see table below)

..

boimos = the best : bàu boimo = the best man

boizmos = the least good : bàu boizmo = the least good man

..

... Three important particles

..

... dà

..

dà = where

pà twahu dà yildos twaire = meet me where we met in the morning ........................ dà yildos twaire can be considered an adverb of place.

..

... kyù

..

kyù = when

toili gìn naru kyù twairu = I will give you the book when we meet ............................ kyù twairu can be considered an adverb of time.

..

... nài

..

In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...

"The man who ate the chicken"

"The chicken that was eaten"

"The knife and fork which were used to eat the chicken"

..

In béu there is only one relativizer, which is nài. For example ...

glá nài bàu timpori = "The woman who the man hit"

Now ... in the above ... glá is being modified by nài bàu timpori. nài bàu timpori implies a clause bàu timpori glà.

To construct a relative clause for glá, nài is inserted between the noun and clause, and the noun is dropped from the clause.

Now in the above example ... the roll of glá in the clause is absolutive (i.e. glá is unmarked). However if the roll of the noun ... in the clause ... is one defined by one of the 17 pila?o, this pila?o must be suffixed to nài. For example ...

..

pi ... the basket naipi the cat shat was cleaned by John.

la ... the chair naila you are sitting was built by my grandfather.

... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...

tu ... báu naitu òn is going to market is her husband = the man with which she is going to town is her husband ... kli.o naitu he severed the branch is rusty

ji ... The old woman naiji I deliver the newspaper, has died.

-s ... báu nàis timpori glá_rò jutu sowe = The man that hit the woman is very big.

wo ... The boy naiwo they are all talking, has gone to New Zealand.

hn ... the woman nàih I told the secret, took it to her grave.

fi ... the town naifi she has come is the biggest south of the mountain.

ni ... tìa naini she lives is the biggest in town = the house in which she lives is the biggest in town

-lya ... the boat nailya she has just entered is unsound

-lfe ... the lilly pad nailfe the frog jumped was the biggest in the pond ... (note to self : improve this, work out translation for all these concepts)

..

If the roll of the noun (in the clause) is one not specificated by the 17 pila?o then the noun can not be dropped entirely, it must be represented by a pronoun. For example ...


gwài nài polg-u-r-a fía ?ode
the islands REL sail-1PL-IND-PRES between them

Literally "the islands that we are sailing between them" ... or ... in good English ... "the islands that we are sailing between"

gawa nài toti-s lent-o-r-e tài ʃide
the women REL children-ERG play-3SG-IND-PAST in front of them

Literally "the women that the children played in front of them" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of"

..

há gawa nài toto-s lent-o-r-e tài ʃide waudo dainuru
ERG the women REL children-ERG play-3SG-IND-PAST in front of them dog kill-3PL-IND-FUT

Literally "the women that the children played in front of them, will kill the dog" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of will kill the dog"

..

In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. béu has this also ...

nài hecair rò nài mair = "what you see is what you get"

nàis hecor rò nàis mair = "that which sees is that which gets"

òn nàis hecor rò òn nàis mor = 'he that sees is he that gets" ... [this one not headless of course ... a pronoun has been added to narrow down what exactly we are talking about]

..

TW 930.png

..

... Totality ... collectively or individually

..

Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.

For this we use the particle ú before the plural of the noun. For example ...

moltai = a/the doctor

moltai.a = doctors

ú moltai = all doctors

Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...

goize ú = all morning

..

The opposite of the above is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.

By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.

Some examples ...

nùa = a/the mouse

nùa nùa = every mouse

jamba = a/the pelican

jamba jamba = each pelican

falaja = oasis

fa-falaja = every oasis

Notice that for words over two syllables, only the initial consonant and following vowel/diphthong is prefixed.

..

..

The "word-hood" of these duplications is murky. When the word in its entirety is dublicated, they are written as to seperate words. When a word is only partially duplicated I write it as a hyphenated word. In the béu script a special symbol is used to indicate duplication.

Single syllable words retain their tone when duplicated ... which indicates two separate words. However you also get phonological processes that are usually only word internal. That is to say, these structures show some "sandhi".

For example ...

yildos yildos (every storehouse) would be pronounced / yildoʃ yildos /. If this was two seperate words it would be pronounced / yildos yildos /. If this was one word it would be pronounced / yildoʒyildos /

bàu bàu can be pronounced bàu vàu ... [ If you remember ( Chapter 1.1) b and v are in free variation ]

là bàu bàu = "on every man" .... indicates that bàu bàu is multi-word as the pila?o is in its stand alone form.

fa-falaja?e = "at every oasis" .... indicates that fa-falaja is a single word as the pila?o is appended.

Anyway ... these constructions are never written out in full. Instead a special symbol is placed above the simple noun. This symbol can vary a bit, depending on the font being used : it can vary from a lower half circle bisected by a vertical stroke to a shape that looks a bit like the Arabic shaddah.

For example ...


TW 866.png

..

It some contexts, semantically, it does not matter whether the individual or the collective form is used. When this is the case, the default choice is "individual" structure. ú tends to be used with tangible nouns more, it is hardly ever used with nouns denoting periods of time.

Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...

ú bàu súr = all men are

bàu bàu sór = every man is

NOTE TO MYSELF

Every language has a word corresponding to "every" (or "each", same same) and a word corresponding to "all". "all" emphasises the unity of the action (especially when the NP is S or A) while "every" emphasises the separateness of the actions. Now it is not always necessary to make this distinction (perhaps in most cases). It seems to me, that in that case, English uses "every" as the default case (the Scandinavian languages use "all" as the default ??? ). In béu the default is "all" ù.

The meaning of this word (in English anyway) seems particularly prone to picking up other elements (for the sake of emphasis) with a corresponding lost of power for the basic word when it occurs alone. (From Etymonline EVERY = early 13c., contraction of Old English æfre ælc "each of a group," literally "ever each" (Chaucer's everich), from each with ever added for emphasis. The word still is felt to want emphasis; as in Modern English every last ..., every single ..., etc.)----

TO THINK ABOUT

?à ?à bàu hù ?ís = any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )

?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís = any men that you want

?ài bàu = some men

..

... And for a verb ... many many iterations

..

As duplication has (a very iconic) function with nouns, it has also a function with verbs (and very iconic too ... if I may say so)

..

jò to go jojo to scatter, emit
té to come tete to gather, collect
pyá to stop off pyapya to stutter (person or engine)
dàu to die daudau to fade away
nda to put ndanda to dump
mài get, receive maimai to rely on
náu give naunau to support
pila to put pipila to arrange
timpa to hit titimpa to beat
yáu to have yauyau to have in abundance
?ái to want ?ai?ai to be greedy
lí to press lili to crowd, to throng
tí to touch titi to fondle, to caress
jwòi to undergo jwoijwoi to be taken advantage of, to be a victim
?áu to take ?au?au to strip something bare

..

pila "to place something correctly and orientate correctly" : pipila "to arrange", "to tidy up", "put in order" .... jenes pazba pipilaru = Jane will arrange the table ... a room, a house, [any place], an institution


Also ... look.look = inspect : listen.listen = to sound out (a group of people) : talk.talk = to try and sell an idea (to an individual, but more commonly, to a group of people)

..

... lé .... lú .... ló

..

Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.

However this is only true when the words have no pilana affixed to them. If you have two contiguous nouns suffixed by the same pilana then they are both considered to contribute equally to the sentence roll specified. For example ...

jonos jenes solbur moze = "John and Jane drink water"

In the absence of an affixed pilana, to show that two nouns contribute equally to a sentence (instead of the second one qualifying the first) the particle lé should be placed between them. For example ...

jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo = "Jane drank water and milk"

jonos jenes hecuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusfa = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.

[ Compare the above two examples to á jono jene solbori moze = Jane's John drank water ... i.e. The John that is in a relationship with Jane, drank water ]

This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...


TW 595.png

..

Note ... in the béu script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.

..

The following construction is also found.

lé moze lé ʔazwo = "both water and milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lé

Another linking word is lú meaning "or".

jenes blor solbe moze lú ʔazwo = "Jane can drink water or milk"

The following construction is also found.

lú moze lú ʔazwo = "either water or milk"

The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word lú

There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is lu?o and it is a question word. For example ...

ʔís moze lu?o ʔazwo = "would you want water or milk"

And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"

Say you were asking somebody if they were thirsty and you had only water or milk to give them. Then you would say ... ʔís moze lú ʔazwo ʔai@

The expected answer to the above question would be either "yes" or "no" (as is always the case when you have @ ( @ is pronouced a bit like ʔai but has contour tone instead of a normal high tone, it has a special symbol and I am using "@" to represent this symbol in my transliteration)).

Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...

ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo lu?o leume

But sometimes (either because of the laziness of the speaker or because the likelyhood was not considered) ... ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo lu?o iman comes out as ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo.

So ʔarwo iman (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question ʔirwo moze lu?o ʔazwo

If the questioner would like to rule out the answer ʔís leume he would use the construction .

[ Maybe just forget about having a QW for "which of these two ]

ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo

So ʔala before the first item does exactly the same as lé or lú before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.

..

... "no"

..

In béu, jù corresponds to "no".

"neither water nor milk" would be translated as jù moʒi jù ʔazwo

..

... lists

..

So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...

..

lé giving 2 items
lú giving 1 item ..... lu?o asking for 1 item
jù giving 0 items

..

However we can join up more than two items. When more than two items are joined by the above 4 linking words, it is considered good style to have the linking word before the first item and the last item, before each item (except the first and the last) should be a slight pause (I call it a gap ... see "punctuation and page layout" earlier on this page).

For example ...

jenes hecori lé sadu ima _ ʔusfa uya _ moŋgo eja lé gaifai ofa falaja dí = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.

..

... other

..

ló = other

lói = others .... mmmh, same as probably

kyulo = an other time

tugis = again

welo = otherwise

..

... Making it flow

..

Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits.

Getting rid of the lumps entails dropping the elements that are already known ... these elements that are already uppermost in the mind. (De-lumping also involves inserting words that efficiently link to these elements that are already uppermost in the mind ... this will be covered in the section called "Linking Back")

This section omits anaphora and is about dropping known elements ... both arguments and person-tense markers. (However anaphora and all types of dropping involve a similar mental process)

A sentence [utterance = ???] is made up of one or more clauses [r-blocks]. Two r-blocks are separated by è or another particle. é is the most common particle for joining clauses and means "and then".

In béu the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is lé

In English "he eats cheese and nuts" could be analyzed as "he eats cheese and (he eats) nuts" with the bracketed part dropped. In béu this analysis is not available. The particle between the two nouns would be lé (ar perhaps if the speaker had added "nuts" on as an afterthought ... uwe "also" would come after "nuts" (a pause before) ). The particlle è would not be used. It only separated two clauses that have dissimilar verbs.


Now in English allows the dropping of an S or A argument in a sentence when this argument has already been established as the topic. béu is pretty much the same. When two clauses are joined certain arguments are dropped from the second clause. The béu rules for dropping arguments are not atypical of the worlds languages*. The rules are given below.


..

TW 840.png

..

In the above "C1" stands for "the first clause" and "C2" stands for "the second clause". And also in béu it is possible to integrate the two clauses further ... if the two claues share a subject and all the tense/aspect/evidential of the two verbs match, then the second verb can take its i-form (and as the definition of a béu clause is "one r-block" ... the result should be considered ONE clause. The dropping of the subject in the second clause is more or less mandatory, it would sound quite strange to retain it. As for conflating the two verbs ... well it depends how tightly bound logically the two verbs are ...

..

TW 842.png

..

Two examples are given above. The choice between conflated and not conflated depends upon the larger body of text that these examples are embedded in. But the relative likelyhood of conflation (over all situations) is given above. It can be seen that the more predictable second verb has a greater chance of being converted into its i-form. This makes sense as more unpredictable => more information. And we do not like to put to much information in one clause.

Examples are given below ...

1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]

2) The man awoke and then [the man] ate his breakfast. [ this would usually be conflated ]

3) The man drank all the beer and then [the man] slept. [ this would usually be conflated ]

4) The man coughed and then [the man] went to sleep. [ maybe two clauses ... no real logical tie between the two verbs ]

5) The man hit the woman and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??

6) The man woke up and then [the man] was spat on. ... the C2 O argument can only be dropped if the C2 A argument is irrelevant ??? [ can not be conflated ... different subject ] .... to undergo ??

7) The man hit the woman. Then the woman shot the man.

8) The man hit the woman. Then the woman cried.

9) The thief robbed the girl. Then the pirate raped her.

Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the dropped arguments are counted as S arguments. In béu they are considered O arguments.

Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the A argument can be supplied in a hí phrase (similarly, in English the agent can be supplied by a "by" phrase)

Dropping arguments is appropriate when the to clauses are bound together in meaning (and when bound together in meaning, by iconicity, usually on the same tone contour).

The last three cases which could not drop any arguments, are felt to be, not so tightly bound together. It is no co-incidence, that these clause pairs are often given separate tone contours ... that is ... they are separate sentences.

..

... Agents

..

kludau = to write (a verb) : kludala = writing (an adjective ... actually a participle)

Two nouns can be formed by simply adding pú in front ...

pú kludau = author, writer, novelist, playwrite, essayist : pú kludala = somebody that is writing right NOW

This is quite non-surprising. Take Thai .... เขียน khiian "to write". If you add ผู้ , คน or นัก in front, you have an agent.

[Note to self : I need a term that implies, one makes ones living from ACT]

..

daumo = pen : daumo <= kludaumo

dauno = a keyboard/typewriter : dauno <= kludauno

..



... Timewise

..

Many languages tend to use space-words to describe the time-profile of events/actions. This is understandable from a grammatical/diachronic perspective. However I consider béu to be richer, having a set of time-words totally independent from its space-words.

Hungarian has the word múlva which is the time-word equivalent to "at" (in actual practice, often represented by "in" in English ... at least when talking about the future). For example ...

haróm nap múlva jövök haza = "I'll come home in three days" ... (page 115)

The béu equivalent of "múlva" is jé.

jé = at (+ time expression) ..... represented in English by "when", "while", "during" or "as"

In theory jé indicates a point in time, a point in time infinitely short. But of course the following word determines how accurate one is being. For example ...

jaru jé jupe = "I will come in December" only pins the time of the action down to the nearest month.

To add a bit of fuzziness we can add -te "-ish" to jé. For example ...

jaru jete jupe = "I will come around about December"

To clear up a bit of ENGLISH fuzziness, people, on occasion, use the expression ú jé. How does this differ from simply jé? Well consider these two examples ...

njaru jé jupe = I will relax in December

njaru ú jé jupe = I will relax all through December

..

Other time-words are jindi and jondi**. They both mean "now". jondi is the one you usually come across. jindi can be used for emphasis (for example in a swiftly changing situation).

..

jé represents an instant in time. In contrast áus represents a span of time ... represented in English by "for". So if jé is equivalent to a point, áus is equivalent to a line. The length of this line is defined by the expression that follows áus. This length can be said to be absolute. For example ...

gayiru aús kòi ima = You will be in discomfort for two days.

Also béu has two words that define a length of time in a relative manner ... relative to what is considered normal. These words are ...

dali = a short time

dugai = a long time*

..

SW 200.png

..

jé often locates an action/event in an absolute manner. For example when the 216 siscrete points are used to specify the time of day (go to CH7 "the time of the day" ).

But jé can also locate an action/event in an relative manner ... relative to another action/event. In the graphic below I show jé (and other time-words) doing just this.

..

SW 203.png

..

In these examples, I have made the under clause actions very short. This is for illustration purposes only. The under clause actions can actually have any length. It depends on the verb and the situation.

Now these five examples show how two clauses can be joined in a timewise fashion. The béu rules are quite similar to English.

..

jé koca kogan beda began can introduce a clause, a noun (that designates a time) or an infinitive phrase. jindu patterns slightly different from the other five ... in that (b), the infinitive phrase, needs día "to start".


a) “After I ate breakfast”

b) “After the gold rush”

c) “After the eating of my breakfast”

Below are some examples of how jé koca kogan beda began work. I use beda to demonstrate ...

a) pintu saikaru beda pazba (saikaru) = "I will paint the door after (I will paint) the table"

a) beda pazba saikaru_pintu saikaru = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table"

c) beda saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru*** = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"

..


..



Here are examples to illustrate the examples above ...

..



In English ... "before" and "after" are pretty much time-words. However they are related to the space-words "aft" and "fore". The two béu words for these concepts are not related to any space-words.

koca = before

beda = after

And derived from the above words we have ...

kocagan/kogan = until

bedagan/began = since

..

There is one added complication in the above scheme ... if the intersect time of the two actions is in the future, then jindu (<jín "a moment" + dù "exact") can be used instead of began.

..

TW 852.png

..

** I guess I should say what is the difference between a main clause and an under clause. (I should read about what other linguists say about this some day). Take the sentences ...

(1) I will finish this drink before I go home. ......... (2) I will go home after I finish this drink.

In terms of pure logic these both mean exactly the same. Also the choice of whether a verb is in the main or the under clause says nothing about the speakers attidude towards that verb ... i.e. relish, disgust, foreboding, sadness etc. But is seems that the verb in the main clause is the target of the speakers determination/willpower/resolve whereas the verb in the underclause is the target of nothing. I guess you can say it is background material

..

..

*These two words give rise to two verbs ...

daliko = to hurry, to hurry up

dugako = to prolong, to draw out, to dilly-dally, to shilly-shally

dalora = he is hurrying

dugora = she is taking her time

dalihu = hurry up, come on, get the finger out

..

** These two words are related to jon and jin. jín means an interval of time an order of magnitude shorter than jón. The particle jindu is derived from it. Also they give rise to the adverbs jonis "soon" and jinis "immediately".

I guess jin and jon have meaning similar to dali and dugai. But they are used in totally different situations. dali and dugai are used to describe normal actions/events ... they are adverbs. jin and jon are more noun-like. Also they both imply short periods of time. If you want somebody to wait a minute, you usually just say jon.

..

*** this also can be expressed as ... gwò saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru. In a similar manner pín can be used in place of jé in front of infinitive phrases. ..

Another time-word is ...

jindu = as soon as

..

a 24 hour period is divided into 6 minutes 40 seconds. These are considered "instantaneous" points. In normal day-to-day béu culture it is not considered worthwhile to have a finer graduation of time. It is like 6 minutes 40 seconds is their planck time => CH7 "the time of day"

..

..


Interesting aside ...

The organization of the Chinese writting system seems to have affected the language itself. The primary writing direction was top_to_bottom so of course the calendar was written top_to_bottom as well. From that "above" got associated with "the past" and "below got associated with "the future".

午 wǔ "noon" : 上 shàng "above" : 下 xià "under" => 上午 shàngwǔ "morning" : 下午 xiàwǔ "afternoon"

A similar thing happened in béu. The practitioners of béu are above all engineers and the algebraic convention of having time along the horizontal axis has affected the language somewhat.

Perhaps the engineering convention has not affected the language. But there is a certain "chiming together", in that the past is depicted to the left (komo), and the future to the right (bene). And of course koca is related to the concept "the past", and beda is related to the concept "the future"

..

... Linking Back

..

Now the section above shows how two clauses can be joined in a timewise manner. To do this takes a bit of working out in the mind of the speaker [of course for written language this is not a constaint. The writer has more than enough time to work out complicated patterns].

However in conversation, often things are not laid out so neatly. Consider the case where one clause has been spoken. The speaker considers himself done and gives the "finished speaking" intonation to the end of his utterance. Then ... after a split second it comes into his head that another event (clause) is also of interest to the hearer. In this case, one of the below constructions must introduce the "afterthought".

..

TW 952.png


The s (is) suffix is the adverbial marker. And the adverbials jonis, bedais*, kocais make a connection back to the clause just spoken** ... back to the information which is still uppermost in everybody's mind [this phenomena is often called "anaphora" from the Greek "carry back"]. All the elements of the clause last enunciated are still whirring around the brain : they are easily accessible. And the words jonis, bedais and kocais connect to the "just spoken clause" [kind of like a time portal :-) ].

Now these are adverbs which must come at the periphery of the clause. Hence above I have shown the adverbs occurring clause final as well. However clause initial is the preferred location.

The dí is the proximal determiner (i.e. "this"). In béu dí is also used a lot for linking back*** to clauses just spoken. In fact dí represents the just spoken clause in its entirety.

Note that the dí constructions can only occur initially.


Now how to explain the pattern in the diagram above ? Well some believe that for an adverbial to exits, it must be quite common. That is kogan and began as afterthough introducers are quite uncommon, hence the phrases kogan dí and and began dí are used as opposed to *koganas or *beganas. Notice that koca can exist as an afterthought indroducer in the form kocais or koca dí. It is not known why the terms *jón dí and *beda dí are not allowed.

..

Now the most common way to join clauses is to use the particle è "and then". When è is used both clauses that circumscribe it are main clauses.

By the way ... when people are narrating a sequence of events (or when they are just thinking to themselves), they go through the events in the order in which they happened 9 times out of 10. It is for this reason that this section is all about "and then" and not "before that".

..

TW 906.png

..

The above diagram shows two clauses A and B. In the normal course of events and when the speaker has the time to plan ahead, (1) would be used. If the speaker had not had time to plan ahead, one of the resumptive stategies (2), (3) or (4) can be used. dùs = "and then immediately" : diadilaIs = "eventually"" and bedais = "afterwards" as we have covered before. Now because these three adverbs can come either clause initial or clause final ... a pause "_" is mandatory. Well you would expect a pause before bedais because this is a resumptive stategy ... this is the sentence you end up with if you don't think ahead and hence fail to produce the sentence with the è "and then" particle. But dùs and diadilaIs are not resumptive strategies (at least not primarily), but a pause is insisted upon.

..

Another word that is commonly used to refer back to a recently utterance is wedi [examples 5 & 6]. It translates as "in that way".

TW 879.png

And wede [example 7] is the cataphoric equivalent of wedi. It translates as "thus" or "like this".

wedi and wede can appear at either end of a clause, but it is more common to find them in the end of the clause nearest to the clause they refer back/forward to.

..

And yet another word that is commonly used to refer back to a recently utterance is iwe [examples 8] "anyway".

TW 881.png

There is a word uwe that sort of counterbalances iwe. However uwe is not used for anaphora, instead it appears clause final and is a particle meaning "completely".

..

*Translating bedais unto English gives "afterwards" or "after this" or just plain "after" ... a good example of the messiness of natural languages I think.

..

**Actually a "first clause" can be absent ... these adverbs can appear after a long period of silence. In this case "the after what" refers to some action that is uppermost in everybody's mind although not recently spoken about. For example ... say you are a painter and decorator working with your helper on some sight. Now you both know that the next task will take around 15 minutes and will be a two man job. Your helper hints that he is desperate for a cigarette. To put him off for a bit, you can simply say bedais. So in this case not linking back to anything spoken ... but linking to what is uppermost in everybodies mind.

..

***Notice that English does something similar with "that". Also then ... but "then" does not represents the just spoken clause in its entirety, it only represents the time of the action.

Also in béu dè the distal determiner (i.e. "that") is used to create a link to the clause ABOUT to be spoken. For example ...

unya gì-n fy-a-r-u dè _ bla bla bla bla
and 2SG-DAT tell-1SG-IND-FUT distal determiner pause "unspecified following clause"

=> And I will tell you this, bla bla bla bla bla

Note that the béu system is the opposite of the English system.

Also note ... instances such as the above (i.e. cataphora) are a hundred times rarer than anaphora. Really insignificant.

..

... Joining clauses logically

..

Some means of linking clauses and what have you in my own conlang (just worked out). A bit complicated and a bit messy …. the same as a natlang. But I think it makes sense … also nice to have a bit of redundancy.

plà means “reason” wò is the oblique case mark, meaning “with respect to”, “about”, “concerning”

In my conlang, every single syllable word has either a low tone or a high tone. Low tone being denoted by a falling stroke (i.e. as in plà) and high tone is denoted by a rising stroke (plá means “duck billed platipus”). Multi syllable words have no tone.

plawo means “because” OR “in order to”

I was thinking about modern Swedish here. BJP was talking about “because” and “in order to” both being reduced to “för” in some modern varieties of Swedish.

When using plawo, whether it means “because” or “in order to” is usually clear from the content of the two clauses involved.

plawo is always followed by a clause (as opposed to a NP).

However “because” and “in order to” can be differentiated in my conlang. bwonafi means “because” and kyemah means “in order to”.

plawo, bwonafi and kyemah occur with about equal frequency.

Note … bwona means “cause”, kyema means “effect, aftermath, result”. -vi is the ablative case marker (i.e. “from” in English) and -h is the dative case marker (i.e. “to” in English).

There is another word that means more or less the same as kyemah. This word is “deh”. Basically, kyemah and deh are interchangeable. But maybe deh is used a bit more when the subclause represents a state rather than an action. If you wanted to emphasize “in order to” you would use the longer option. Also if you were writing poetry it would be useful to have a choice of using a single syllable word or a double syllable word. deh is more common than kyemah.

Note … de means “that”. It can also represents something about to be mentioned. And we mentioned above that -h is the dative case marker. So, deh = “in order to, so that”

Actually the purpose clause can be very tightly integrated into the main clause. Often the purpose clause just consists of the base verb. In such a case, -h is simply added to the base form. Often the purpose clause just consists of the base verb plus an object. In this case the particle hó (another form of -h) precedes the base verb.

There is another word that means more or less the same as bwonafi. This word is jìan. Basically bwonafi and jìan are interchangeable. If you wanted to emphasize “because” you would use the longer option. Also if you were writing poetry you have a choice of using a single syllable word or a treble syllable word (you can also use plawo if you need a double syllable word). jìan is more common than bwonafi.

When I started off this thread I thought there would be some similarity between “because” and “because of” in my conlang. I am a bit surprised that I have in fact ended up with totally different forms.

“because of” is yenuni. This is inspired by Norwegian and Cebuano. Let me recap …

Cebuano Norwegian English

tungod sa på grunn av because of

The Norwegian one means “on ground of” (there is an English expression, not a million miles away from this that has a very similar meaning to “because of”). In Cebuano, sa means “at”, tungod means “nadir” or “the ground directly below”.

I reckon if Norwegian and Cebuano have so close forms it must reflect a commonality of human thinking. Actually I can see the thinking/feeling behind this expression.

Note … yenu means “nadir”. -ni is the locative case marker (i.e. “at” in English).

And that is basically it, as far as “because” and “because of” go.

.. I have a little more to add to my last post. I didn’t include the data below because I didn’t want to give too much information in one post. Also “because” and “because of ” were fully covered. This post is just tying up a few loose ends.

I mentioned dèh (I think I forgot the tone mark last post), derived from the demonstative dè. There is also a particle derive from the demonstrative dí “this”. This word combines with the ablative case marker to make difi “therefore”. déh tends to be used in fluent talk. difi tends to be used when the second clause is an afterthought, it tends to be used when there is a pause between the two clauses. It also tends to be used to introduce a new line of mathematics : in a similar way that “therefore” is used in English.

Note … dí means “this”. It can also represents something just mentioned.

Lets say a bit about jìan (one syllable, we have a rising diphthongs here). The word jì by itself means “for” as in “I bought the oranges for my mother”. The word àn by itself means “that” as in “He thought that she was pretty” … I guess you could call it a nominalizer. You can imagine the meaning of these two words being twisted around a bit through time and coming together as jìan “because”. [ I do not have a fully worked out ur-lang behind my conlang, but occasionally I give some words a bit of history ].

A word not a hundred miles away from jì is cila (“c” being pronounced as “ch” in Charlie). Whareas “for” implies no happenings before the main clause verb. That is nothing really occurred before “bought” in “I bought the oranges for my mother” … it was a simple act of kindness. cila implies some happenings before the main clause verb … some “behind the scenes dealing”. So some complexity involved.

cila comes from cí meaning matter/affair and lá is the adessive case (I think) (i.e. “on” in English). lá cí => cila in a regular process sanctioned by my conlang. cila means something like “on behalf of”.

And lastly I would like to mention womih (an interesting one here). womi means “zenith” or “the highest part”. In a way, the opposite of yenu “nadir”. And as covered before, -h is the dative case marker.

womih also means “in order to”.

Now in my conculture there is a substantial body of work written which lays out a “philosophy of life” … a religion if you will. womih should only be used within this body of work. In fact it should only be used in front of the “67 noble goals”. Of course some people do not adhere to this. Some people use womih to give what they are saying a certain “flavour”. Similar to English, where some people use “thou” instead of “you”, to give what they are saying a “churchy/preachy” flavour.

Left over bits

bwona = cause ubwonwe <= ubwonawe : for no reason kyema = effect, aftermath, result ukyemwe <=ukyemawe : in vain

bwoda = origin, source

... THIS HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REDONE

..

unya = "and" (some logical connection ... well if no logical connection, the two clauses would not be appearing side by side)

tè "but"

imwa = "but"

tè ?ài kyù = "but"


??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in béu' we use u?u ???

There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as tè.

?? Well this is the more neutral particle (the particle plí can also be used ??

??? sé kyude/è kyude : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes sé è are dropped.

??? kyugo : this means that action A and B happen at the same time. Usually we have different actors in the two clauses, but not always.


huzu = to smoke

koʔia = to cough

?acu = to sneeze

solbe = to drink

caume = medicine

Notes on grammar .... If you have two clauses, the particle must come between them : the element containing only a base verv (for example ... figo ìa saiko pazba) is not a clause. I call it a "clause adjunct" or "adverbial phrase" [I should pick one term] : for the examples above containing a clause adjunct, note that only the main clause has a subject : notice that what is marked by the perfect in English is marked by ʔès "already" in béu. In English the perfect has 3 functions ... the resultative, the experiential and the so called universal which indicates that activity has been going on for sometime and still is. In béu the perfect marker was derived from a verb meaning "finish" ... a marker derived from this source can scarcely be expected to have this "universal" function.

Also note ... cùa jì gò saiko pazba = "to leave in order to paint the table" ... In English you can drop "in order" to get "to leave to paint the table". In béu this would result in "to stop painting the table" ... never leave out jì gò.

Usually this type of clause adjunct does not express a subject ... but sometimes it can ... the subject is places after the word sàin "reason, cause, origin" and sàin comes after the object (if there is one) and the object comes after maŋga. The only element allowed to the left of maŋga is the negative jù. For example ....

timpa jene sàin jono r kéu = John's hitting of Jane was bad .... [maybe hí is better than sàin ???]


There are five particles used to introduce these time adverb phrases. Each of these particles defines a different time relationship between the main action and the under action.

Note ... Both the main action and the under action can vary considerably in length. In the above diagrams I give what I consider typical time lengths.

Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...

beda jono joru_ufan rù bòi = After John goes, everything will be fine

The literal translation of the above is "since John will go, everything will be good" ... In English "since" has taken on a second meaning*. In béu, jefi has no such secondary meaning and it is perfectly to use jefi with a clause set in the future. [In the chart I specify a NOW ... this is really to signify the situation for typical usuage of the English word. The NOW is not relevant to the béu usuage]

..

*GIVE THAT EXAMPLE FROM DEUTSCHER'S BOOK.

..

The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...

jono liga ko?ori kogan ós solbori moze = John was coughing until he drank some water ..... ko?ia = to cough

Now the above can be recast ...

John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze hí ò

This can be futher cut ...

John was coughing until the drinking of water => jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze

And further cut ...

John was coughing until drinking => jono liga ko?ori solben .... Not *jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe

When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -n instead of the particle kogan

In a similar way, when the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -fi instead of the particle jefi. For example ...

John has been coughing since he smoked a cigarette => jono ko?ora jefi ós huzore ʃigita ... huzu = to smoke, to suck

John has been coughing since smoking => jono ko?ora huzufi .... Not *jono ko?ora jefi huzu

..

For beda and koca, when the time between the two events are stated ... it comes immediately after bade or koca. For example ...

beda odai yanfa jene fori = After five minutes Jane left (is féu Ø or H ?) .... [ yanfa = 5 seconds, odai = 5012 = 6010 ... so the translation is 100% accurate ]

..

..

7) jì gò = "in order that" "so" "so that"

It shows that the first action was done in order to bring about the second action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.

jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós òn klór = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.

The second clause is the <purpose> of the first clause .... jonos jenen toili nori is a clause : ós òn klór is a clause : jì gò ós òn klór is an adverbial adjunct

The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the gò jì makes the second verb sort of irrealis.

..

Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... jì "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.

If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct", and the particle jì is used.

toili mapari jì kludau ʃila = I opened the book in order to write in it

tarye dían jì twá gì = I came here (in order) to meet you

Occasionally you can have this construction where the object of the first clause is the subject of the second clause ...

pà babas gaidoryə dían twá gì = My father brought me here to meet you

From the underlying semantics of the above, it is pretty obvious that "the father" was not intent in "meeting you"

[ Note to self ..... In English "in order to" is only used with same subject constructions .... interesting ]

..

8) plùa = "therefore" "so" "hence"

It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.

òn klár plùa òn nari toili = I like her so I gave her a book

The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction

..

9) sài gò = "because" "as" "since"

It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.

jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili = Jane likes John because he gave her a book

The second clause is the <reason> for the first clause .... jenes jono klór is a clause : òn nori toili is a clause : sài gò òn nori toili is a adverbial adjunct

..

Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... sài "because of" would be the particle used.

..

10) dà = where

pà twá dà twaire yildos = meet me where we met in the morning

pà twá is a clause ... twaire yildos is a clause ... dà twaire yildos is an adverbial adjuct .... "adjunct" is something that can be added to a clause

..

11) kyù = when

kyù twaru jene òn fyaru = When I see Jane I will tell her.

12) tà = if (hypothetical)

13) ʔáu gò = if (counterfactual) ... maybe equivalent to "suppose, imagine, assume".

Actually the above 3 form a sort of continuum as regard to the likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring. We could say ...

kyù covers the likelihood range of 100 % => 90 % : tà from 90 % => 10 % : ʔáu gò 10 % => zilch

All three are used with pretty much the same frequency in béu.

Actually the context determines to a large extent likelihood of the matrix verb actually occurring in English (and in most languages). For example ... "when pigs can fly"

..

Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.

"If it rained tomorrow, people would dance in the street." .... notice that the conditional clause has a past tense verb, but is actually talking about the weather

"If it had rained yesterday, people would have dance in the street." .... and to get a counterfactual "past tense meaning", we actually have to use the past perfect form.

..

14) tè gò = unless .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use gò to separate the clauses : should they use plùa to separate the clauses ???) ..

15) dó = "although" "though" "even if"

This conjunction introducing a clause denoting a circumstance that might be expected to preclude the action of the main clause, but does not. It has a more emphatic variation .... ?emodo

Notice that dó and plàu are related. Any pair of clauses joined by plàu can be transformed into a pair of clauses joined by dó ...

a) negating the first clause

b) swapping the clause positions

c) get rid of plùa and insert dó between the clauses.

He is tall so he is good at baskerball

He is good at basket ball although he is short

..

16) kài = "as", "like", "the way"

kài is sufficient for joining clause (kài gò is never seen). If you look back on the chart at Ch2.11.1 you see that kài is an introductory particle indicating "manner". Manner means some action and action means a clause.

"I was never allowed to do things as I wanted to do them"

..

... Compound words

..

Many words in béu are constructed from amalgamating two basic words. The constructed word is non-basic semantically ... maybe one of the concepts needed for a particular field of study.

Compound-words are found in most languages A typical example is “lighthouse”. The meaning of "lighthouse" can't be determined from the meaning of the constituent-words (though it can be guessed at).

In English (and presumably other languages) many normal words started life as compound-words … for example “husband”, “hustings” and “hussy” (originally “hūsbōnde”, “hūsthing” and “hūswīf”). With these above three examples, the journey from free expression* to indivisible word took time and it is hard to say exactly when the change happened. In béu it is obvious when the transformation from free expression* to indivisible word took place. Also this change can be considered a deliberate act. béu speakers (in a similar way to Australians) have a limited tolerance for long words turning up frequently. In béu there was a “fuck this” moment when somebody decided that toili nandau was too long and started using nandali … similar to when some Australian decided “registration” was too much of a mouthful and started using “rego”. Or when some Australian decided “afternoon” was too long and started using “arvo”.

..

In béu when 2 nouns are come together the second noun acts as an attribute of the first**. For example ...

toili nandau (literally "book word" ... "book" is the head and "word" is the attribute).

Now the person who first thought of the idea of compiling a list of words along with their meaning would have called this thing he created toili nandau.

However over the years as the concept toili nandau became more and more common, toili nandau would have morphed into nandali.

Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.

TW 932.png

The process for generating the new word is shown above.

First you trim the original expression. (A) The first syllable is dropped (provided the head has at least two syllables). (B) If the expression ends in a consonant, n or s is deleted (provided the attribute has at least two syllables). (C) If the expression ends in a diphthong, u or i or a is deleted (again provided the attribute has at least two syllables).

Then the position of the two components are swapped. Finally the components are merged into one word.

Below is another example ....

TW 933.png

megau means "a body of knowledge" or "a subject". peugagau means the sum total of knowledge that a civilization has achieved.

And another example ...

TW 934.png

It can be seen in this example that the assembled words has a much more restricted meaning than the product of the component words. (there are about a thousand saidau compared to 12 nandau sài.

TW 935.png

wé means "way", "method" or "manner" and deuta means "soldier". deutawe is an adverb meaning "in the manner of a soldier".

TW 936.png

wèu means "vehicle" or "wagon". sò means "row" or "series". soweu means "train".

..

Many locations and humans holding rank are two word expressions. These can be classified as intermediary with respect to free expressions and a formula (in Jesperson's terminology). They are fixed expressions but never collapse into a compound-word. Examples are Lake Geneva, Mountain Green, Loch Lomond, Desert Sahara, River Thames, Town London, Captain Turner or Doctor Johnson. (Note ... English is inconsistent and sometimes has the specific before the general, cf London town and Sahara desert)

[ Note to self : Béu has 5 other words "public company(big, medium, small) and "private company"(big small) that behave similar to Captain, Mountain etc ]

[ Note to self : what about Mr, Mrs etc etc ? ]

..

In future, when a non-basic (nb) word is introduced it will be marked as such along with its provenance. For example ...

gozofai = fruterer : (nb : <kanfai gozo)

kwofan = bicycle : (nb : <ifan kwò)

..

There are thousands of assembled words. Assembled words are listed in Ch 9.

[note to self : decide about the following forms]

sword.spear => weaponry ... shield.helmet => armour, protection ... knife.fork => cuttlery ... table.chair => furniture

..

* See Jespersen (1924) _Philosophy of grammar_, free from <https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.282299> discussion about free expression is about page 24.

..

** Actually there are three words that can be used to bind the two words together ... perhaps if you want to make the relationship between the two more concrete. These words are yó "property, gù "master"/"lord" and kài "kind"/"type"

waudo yó bàu = "the man's dog", bàu gù waudo = "the man who owns a/the dog", loweu kài banhai = "a/the school bus"

But as I said before, usually speakers are happy to drop these linking words.

By the way "whose" can be translated into béu using the gù construction ... "the man whose dog bit me" => bàu gù waudo nài pà ilkori

"the man who owns a dog bit me" would be rendered bàus gù waudo_ós pà ilkore (a single clause ... bàus gù waudo and ós being in apposition)

..

... Bicycle + +

..

makwo = bicycle

yakwo = tricycle

..

mapoma = a biped ..................................... poma "leg"

japoma = a quadruped

..

yakanda = a threeway intersection ......... kanda "intersection"

jakanda = a fourway intersection

fakanda = a fiveway intersection

... and so on ...

..

yadalno = a triangle ................................ dalno "edge", "boundary", "border", "margin"

jadalno = a quadrilateral

fadalno = a pentagon

?aidalno = a hexagon (this word is further eroded to ?aida and takes on the meaning "townhall")

?ai?adalno = a heptagon

... and so on ...

..

jadaizlo = tetrahedron ............................ daizlo "face", "facet", "side"

?aidaizlo = cube (this word is further eroded to ?aidai and takes on the meaning "dice" or "die")

?aimadaizlo = octahedron

maidaizlo = dodecahedron

yaimadaizlo = icosahedron

..

dauzo = a 5-cell ................................... dauzo "cube", "block"

dauzo = an 8-cell

dauzo = a 16-cell

dauzo = a 24-cell

dauzo = 120-cell

dauzo = 600-cell

..

... Set Phrase and idioms

..

If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò yír fales "may you have peace".

If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say gò yér fales "may you have peace"

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò nela r gimau "may the blue sky be above you"

On taking your leave of somebody who you have not met for sometime you say gò nela r jemau "may the blue sky be above you"

If you pass somebody in the street or you meet your workmates for the first time in the morning fales is sufficient. If you say gò yír fales it typically means that you are going to have a ten minute (at least) chat.

..

There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections

Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" } which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.

(A) yuajiswe.iʃʃ which expresses consternation and/or grief. In about 30% of cases it is shortened to swe.iʃʃ only.

It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)

(B) hambətunmazore which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to hambətun only.

It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)

(C) And finally when somebody is telling a story or giving detailed instructions, you might say plirai at suitable intervals. This is simply a contraction of plìr ʔai? ... "do you follow ?"

(D) ... OK, we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Not an exclamation in béu but maybe an exclamation in another language ... hù nén.

It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!

(E) kè kè = "sorry" or "excuse me" ... Related to the word kelpa meaning "to apologize".

(F) sè sè = "thank you" ... Related to the word senda meaning "to thank".

(G) jonjau.e = wait a moment

..

... Non-zero reference time

..

THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.

..

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

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

..

SW 047.png

..

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

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

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

==> He was already working here when his father died

..

In the above examples, the reference times are not NOW but are specified by another action (or state).

..

... When the overlap is specified

..

THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.

..

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 ...


hogi kod-a-r-u dían áus yé ofa
yet work-1SG-IND-FUT here period year five

==> I will work here for five more years


ʔés kod-a-r-a dían áus yé ofa
already work-1SG-IND-FUT here period year five

==> I have worked here for five years


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

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

..

Negating the above

..

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

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

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

To explain the reason for this .... well take the case of the English sentence ... "I have worked here for seven years" [ hogi kodara dían áus yé ofa ]

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

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

béu avoids this ambiguity by using the negative operator jù which negates nouns.

"I have been idol for seven years" => hogi bù kodara dían áus yé ofa

"I have worked for a period of time different from seven years" => jù àn hogi kodara dían áus yé ofa

..

SW 077.png

SW 078.png

..

Note : the bottom left one is ?àn jù kodara yé euca rather than *?ès jù kodara yé euca

THIS IS BECAUSE ?


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

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

..

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

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

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


kod-a-r-i dían áus yé ofa
work-1SG-IND-PAST here period year five

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


However duration along with a present tense is worth mentioning.


kod-a-r-a dían áus yé ofa
work-1SG-IND-PRES here period year five

==> I will working here for five years in total ............. I think this is disallowed


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

..

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

..

... How béu codes definiteness

..

In English if the definite article "the" comes before a noun it means that the noun is specific to both the speaker and the spoken to ... that is [S 1 1]

Also in English if the indefinite article "a" comes before a noun, it means that the noun is non-specific to the spoken to ... that is [S 0 0]

[S 1 0] is coded the same way as [S 0 0]. Most modern Western European languages do things in a similar way. However it is possible to code [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] together. For example ...

..

TW 627.png

..

béu follows Futuna-Aniwa and Samoan in codeing [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] the same way. For [S 1 1] and [S 1 0] the noun comes before the verb, for [S 0 0] (which includes both [S 0 0 1] and [S 0 0 0]) the noun comes after the verb. So we have ...

bàu doikori = The man walked / A man walked ..... [S 1]

doikori bàu = A man walked .................................. [S 0]

The first example encompassing both [S 1 1], [S 1 X] and [S 1 0]. Actually in béu ... for [S 1 0] if the speaker intends to talk about this object for a bit (if he intends to make it "known" to the listener) then the first time it is mentioned this object will have ʔà "one" in front of it. If it is a plural object it will have nò in front of it and the object itself will appear in its base form. For example ...


ʔà bàu doikori ... = This/a man walked ... (I know who but you do not)

nò bàu doikuri ... = These men walked ...

..

béu can also code indefiniteness by the particles ín and èn. These two particles are nearly used in the same way as "any" and "some" (see Haspelmath's Implicational Mapin the previous section). See below ...

..

TW 630.png

..

(??? what about using glu.ia "known" ... glu.ua "to be known" ... uglu.ia "unknown" ... uzwia "unsaid" ??? )

..

Addendum

..

*Futuna-Aniwa (Dougherty 1983: 135, 23)

a) na-n tukia ta fatu

pst-1sg hit spec rock

‘I hit against a rock.’

b)

a roroveka kaseroitia ma sa ika aratu

art Roroveka catch neg nonspec fish tomorrow

‘Roroveka won’t get any fish tomorrow.’

..

Samoan ...

o sa fafine = a woman

o le fafine = a woman

..

... The non-alphabet symbols

..

Below are a list of shorthand symbols which are commonly used. Punctualtion symbols are also shown (on the RHS).

..

TW 903.png

..

... Animal noises

..

The name and animal noise for cat and pig are identical. That is pigs go sú sú and cats go méu. Also dogs go wáu wáu (probably some connection to their name waudo). They also howl háu háu as do wolves.

Sheep and goats go mé and cows go mù. Actually the last three cries tend to break the phonological rules. Maybe a more faithful rendering would be háuuu, mé?é?é and mùu, but they are always written as háu, mé and mù.

Notice that animals smaller than humans have high tone cries, while animals bigger than humans have low tone cries.

..

By the way, wáu also means a pair of eyes and háu also means ???.

..

... 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_5_:_Questions&oldid=136670"