Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions: Difference between revisions

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


== ..... Questions 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"
 
..


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.
'''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.


And '''láu kái dá''' and '''nái ****''' are found in their respective slots within a NP ... [[Image:TW_785.png]]
It can be seen that '''?ó''' plus one of the "algebraic" clauses I talked about above, are questions.


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.
EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE


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 fact there is an altenative set of question forms.  


..
..


{|  
{| 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"
Mention YES/NO questions !!!


'''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.
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.


[Note to self : I need some examples of the above]
EXAMPLE


..
..


Statement .... '''bàus glán nori alha''' = the man gave the woman flowers
'''*''' 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 1 .... '''mís glán nori alha''' = who gave the woman flowers ?
..


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


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 ?
English is quite typical of languages in general and has 8 question words ... "which", "what", "who", "whose", "where", "when", "how" and "why". '''*'''  


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 ?
'''béu''' has nine  ...  [[Image:SW_187.png]]


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 ?
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 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 ?
Notice that there is no word for "how" or "why" in the above table. These are expressed by '''wé nái''' and '''nenji**''' respectively.


Question 11 ... '''ʔír doika ʔala jaŋka''' = Do you want to walk or run
On the other hand, '''béu''' has single words where English has "how much" and "what kind of".
 
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).
The first two have dual forms ... '''nén''' and '''mín''' are the absolutive forms and '''nós''' and '''mís'''  are the ergative forms.
 
'''**'''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.


..
..


----
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.


'''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".
And '''láu kái dá''' and '''nái ****''' are found in their respective slots within a NP ... [[Image: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.


== ..... Why oh why==
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 ...


..
..


"Why" is '''nenji''' in '''béu'''. Obviously derived from '''nén''' and the '''jì''' (the '''pilamo'''). "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.
{|
|-
! 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
 
A suitable answer to the above is '''pazbala''' "on the table"


..
{|
|-
! dá || jene-s  || halma  || hump-o-r-u
|-
| where || Jane- {{small|ERG}}  || apple || eat-{{small|3SG-IND-FUT}}
|} => where will Jane eat the apple


[[Image:TW_937.png]]
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.


'''gərfi''' and '''ngò''' are followed by a clause. '''là cì''' and '''jì''' are followed by a noun (usually a persons name).
[Note to self : I need some examples of the above]


..
..


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


'''ngò''' is used when the questioned event/state exists to facility some event/state that is envisaged in the future.
Question 1 .... '''mís glán nori alha''' = who gave the woman flowers ?


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


'''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.
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 ?


[[Image:TW_887.png]]
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 ?


== ..... Six important particles==
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 ?


Namely '''làu  jía  kài ''' "'''wé nài'''"  '''?ài and ?aibis'''
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 ?


'''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).
Question 13 ... '''minji bàus glán nori alha''' = Why did the man give the woman flowers ?
Hence "'''wé nài'''" should be considered a separate particle made up of two words.


..
..


=== ... '''làu'''===
'''*'''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 ]


There are 3 main uses for '''làu'''
'''****'''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.


..
..


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 ...
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 ...


3,051<sub>12</sub> elephants => '''sadu làu uba wú odaija'''
'''bawa gèu tiji láu pobomau nài doikura''' = " How many little green men on the  mountain that are walking? "


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
'''bawa gèu tiji láu nài doikura _ láu r pobomau'''
! sadu || làu || uba || wú ||  odaija
|-
| elephant || "partitive particle" || 3 || 12<sup>3</sup>  ||  51
|}


..
'''wò bàu gèu pobomau nài doikura _ láu r tiji'''


Note ... the singular form of '''senko''' always used when quantity is given by this method.
'''wò bawa gèu tiji pobomau _ láu doikura''' = w.r.t. the little green men on top of the mountain, how many are walking ? ... or ...


We have already touched on this in the previous chapter [ see the section Numbers ... (the extended set) ].
'''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 ?


I call '''làu''' a partitive particle when it is doing this function.
THE ABOVE SHOULD GO TO A SECTION ABOUT QUESTIONS


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.
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.


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


'''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 ...
== ..... Why oh why==


..
..


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


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
[[Image:TW_937.png]]
! ?azwo || pona || làu || hói || hoŋko
|-
| milk || hot || "partitive particle" || 2 || cup
|}


..
..


Two baskets of peaches => '''pice làu hói kapu'''
'''gərfi''' and '''ngò''' are followed by a clause. '''là cì''' and '''jì''' are followed by a noun (usually a persons name).


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
..
! pice ||  làu || hói || kapu
 
|-
'''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.
| peaches || "partitive particle" || 2 || basket
 
|}
'''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.


..
..


'''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"
[[Image:TW_887.png]]


..
..


2] I also call '''làu''' a partitive particle when it is doing its second function ...
== ..... The conditional sentence==


..
..


Three of these doctors => '''moltai.a dí làu léu'''
These two modifiers ... '''yo''' and '''yoi''' are basically the equivalent to the Swahili NGE tense and the Swahili NGALI tense.
 
..


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
[[Image:SW_117.png]]
! moltai.a || dí || làu || léu
|-
| doctors || this || "partitive particle" || 3
|}


..
..


Note ... the plural form of '''senko''' is always used for this construction.
Basically '''yo''' represents an "open" conditional sentence, and '''yoi''' represents a counterfactual conditional sentence. Evidentials are never used with '''yo''' and '''yoi'''.


..
..


Two cups of this hot milk => '''ʔazwo pona dí làu hói hoŋko'''
Remember from CH4 (more verb modifiers) that the verb modifier -'''ai''' can be equivalent to "when" in English. For example ...


{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
'''tìa pirai_ maumare''' = When you entered the house, I was asleep.
! ?azwo || pona || dí || làu || hói || hoŋko
|-
| milk || hot || this ||  "partitive particle" || 2 || cup
|}


..
This can also be expressed as ...


Of course, for an '''olus''' there is no plural form.
'''kyù tìa pire_maumare'''
 
..
 
Conditional sentences are for making plans, for considering contingencies.  


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.
In English ... "if you go, they will kill you" ... two clauses ... the first introduced by "if" .... "if (A), (B)".


For the '''olus''', there is not so much difference between function 1) and function 2).
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]]


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 ...
[[Image:SW_197.png]]


..
..


'''tomo r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is as big as John"
'''kyù jiru / gì dainuru''' => "when you go, they will kill you"
 
{|
|-
! kyù || j-i-r-u  || / || gì || dain-u-r-u
|-
| when  || go-{{small|2SG-IND-FUT}}  || "pause" || you ||  kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
|}


..
..


The construction is ... "''copula adjective'' '''làu''' ''noun''" as opposed to English "''AS adjective AS noun''"
'''tà  jiryo / gì dainuryo''' => "if you go, they will kill you"  


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


..
..


In '''béu''' the final noun can be replaced by a clause introduced by '''gò'''. For example ...
'''dà  jiryoi / gì dainuryoi''' => "if you would go, they would kill you"


Thomas is so clever that he doesn't have to go to school => '''tomo r jini làu gò bù byór jò banhain'''
{|
 
|-
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! dà || j-i-r-yoi  || / || gì || dain-u-r-yoi
! 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}}
| 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"


..
..


Now as ''copula + adjective'' is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...
You will see that '''béu''' has a nice symmetrical system when it comes to counterfactuality.


Thomas thinks as fast as John => '''tomo wòr saco làu jono'''
This is different from English, which has quite a lopsided system  ...


as the same construction type.
[[Image:TW_967.png]]


..
The blue reflects a plain "if" conditional. The 15% to the left would be expressed with "when" rather than "if".


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


I think this is a suitable time to go into this.
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).


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


Thomas thinks faster than John => '''tomo wòr yú sacois jonowo'''
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.


with more degree.
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


Notice the lack of '''làu''', the adverbial suffix -'''is''' and the suffix -'''wo''' on the noun.
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].


For less degree we have ...
..


Thomas thinks not so fast than John => '''tomo wòr wì sacois jonowo'''
== ..... Six important particles==


..
..


And for the ''copula adjective'' constructions with  "more" or "less" degree. This paradigm is shown below ...
Namely '''làu  jía  kài ''' "'''wé nài'''" '''?ài and ?aibis'''


..  
..


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


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"
=== ... '''làu'''===


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"
There are 3 main uses for '''làu'''


..


[[Image:TW_925.png]]
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 ...


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.
..


3,051<sub>12</sub> elephants => '''sadu làu uba wú odaija'''


[Note to self : get rid of -'''ge''' ? .... use it only in NP ? an alternative to C ? ]
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! sadu || làu || uba || wú ||  odaija
|-
| elephant || "partitive particle" || 3 || 12<sup>3</sup>  ||  51
|}


----
..


Two more examples ... just for fun.
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) ].
|-
! jono-s || huz-o-r || làu || kulno
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || smoke-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like || chimney
|} => John smokes like a chimney


..
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" ]
|-
!  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


..
So  '''*kaisadu làu uba wú odaija''' is illegal.


=== ... '''jía''' ===
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


'''jía''' has three functions.  
When specifying an amount of an '''olus''', '''làu''' is  use with any number, not just an extended number ...


..
..


[[Image:TW_904.png]] 
Two cups of hot milk => '''ʔazwo pona làu hói hoŋko'''
 
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 functions 1 and 3.


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


..
..


Thomas thinks as fast as John  => '''tomo wòr saco làu jono'''
Two baskets of peaches => '''pice làu hói kapu'''


Now obviously "John thinks" is underlying here. However if you want to make "John thinks" overt you must change '''làu''' to '''jía''' ...
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! pice || làu || hói || kapu
|-
| peaches || "partitive particle" || 2 || basket
|}


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


..
..


3) The third function of '''jía''' is for considering contingencies. In English "if" is essential for considering contingencies. However "if" does not equate to '''jía'''. Let me explain ...
Three of these doctors => '''moltai.a dí làu léu'''


In English ... "if you go, they will kill you" ... two clauses ... the first introduced by "if" .... "if (A), (B)".
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
! moltai.a || dí || làu || léu
|-
| doctors || this || "partitive particle" || 3
|}


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.
..


'''béu''' requires '''gò''' in front of the first clause and '''jía''' in front of the second clause. For example ...
Note ... the plural form of '''senko''' is always used for this construction.


..
..


'''gò jiru jía gì dainuru''' => "if you go, they will kill you"
Two cups of this hot milk => '''ʔazwo pona dí làu hói hoŋko'''


..
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
 
! ?azwo || pona || dí || làu || hói || hoŋko
{|  
|-
|-
! gò || j-i-r-u  || jía || gì || dain-u-r-u
| milk || hot || this ||  "partitive particle" || 2 || cup
|-
|}
| that  || go-{{small|2SG-IND-FUT}} || "equative particle" || you || kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
|}  


..
..


As well as Mandarin, French has a mechanism which is not a million miles away from the '''béu''' arrangement.
Of course, for an '''olus''' there is no plural form.


In classical and educated French, the complementizer "que" could function as a marker of protasis if the verb of the clause is in the subjunctive mood. The apodosis would be in the future tense, preceded by "et" (and) :
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.


"Que je périsse, et elle périra" (périsse = subjunctive) =  "if I perish, she will too"
For the '''olus''', there is not so much difference between function 1) and function 2).
 
"Si je péris, elle périra" (péris =  indicative)       =  "if I perish, she will too"


..
..


'''*''' 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.
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 ...
 
[ Note to self : why DO you want it like this ?]


..
..


=== ... '''kài''' and '''wé nài'''===
'''tomo r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is as big as John"


..
..


There are 6 main uses for '''kài'''.  
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)


..
..


1]  In this first function it is equivalent to "like" or "similar to" 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'''


{|
{| border=1 style="text-align:center;"
|-
! tomo || r || jini || '''làu || gò || bù || by-ó-r || jò || banhai-n
! jono || r || kài || dada || ò
|-
|-
| thomas || is || clever || "equalitative particle" || that || not || have-{{small|3SG-IND}} || go || school-{{small|DAT}}
| john || is || like || older brother || his
|}
|} => John is like his older brother


..
..


2] Sometimes '''kài''' can best be translated as "made of" ...
Now as ''copula + adjective'' is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...


a/the wooden house => '''tìa kài wuda'''
Thomas thinks as fast as John => '''tomo wòr saco làu jono'''


the house is made of wood =>  '''tìa r kài wuda'''
as the same construction type.


..
..


3] Sometimes '''kài''' can best be translated as "for" ...
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 ?


water for drinking => '''moze kài solbe'''
I think this is a suitable time to go into this.


water for washing clothes => '''moze kài laudo'''
Taking the last example, we get ...


this water is for washing clothing => '''moze dí r kài laudo'''
Thomas thinks faster than John => '''tomo wòr yú sacois jonowo'''


(in the above three examples,  '''kài''' and what follows it can be considerd an adjective)
with more degree.


..
Notice the lack of '''làu''', the adverbial suffix -'''is''' and the suffix -'''wo''' on the noun.


4) In the fifth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''senko''' ...
For less degree we have ...


elephant = '''sadu'''
Thomas thinks not so fast than John => '''tomo wòr wì sacois jonowo'''


elephant-kind = '''kaizadu'''
..


this is actually a noun, the idea being something like "that which is like an elephant"
And for the ''copula adjective'' constructions with  "more" or "less" degree. This paradigm is shown below ...


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


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


5) In its sixth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''saidau''' ...
Answer[A]  .... '''tomo r jutu làu jono''' => "Thomas is as big as John"


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


reddish = '''kaihia'''
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"


6) And the sixth function ...


..
[[Image: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.


{|
|-
! 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


..
[Note to self : get rid of -'''ge''' ? .... use it only in NP ? an alternative to C ? ]


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.
Two more examples ... just for fun.


You are treating '''gombuʒi''' ss one dimensional when you say ...
{|
|-
! jono-s || huz-o-r || làu || kulno
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || smoke-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like || chimney
|} => John smokes like a chimney


..
..
Line 507: Line 561:
{|
{|
  |-
  |-
  ! gì || r || gombuʒi || làu || jono   
  ! taud-o-r-a || làu || hunwu || huakod-ia
  |-
  |-
  |  you || are ||  argumentative  || like || John
  |  to be annoyed-{{small|3SG-IND-PRES}} || like/as || bear || headache-having
  |} => you are as argumentative like John ...........................i.e. to the same degree
  |} => he/she is annoyed like a bear with a  sore head


..
..


In the above to examples, I would call '''kài''' a "qualitative particle", and I would call '''làu''' a "quantitative particle".
=== ... '''jía''' ===


..
..


Now as "copula + adjective" is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...
'''jía''' has two functions.  


..
..


{|
[[Image:TW_904.png]]  
|-
 
  ! jono-s || klud-o-r || kài || tomo
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.
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|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 ...
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 ...


..
..


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.
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 ... )
|-
! 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


Note ... when the final verb is dropped, the ergative marking on '''tomo''' is also dropped.
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".


..
..


'''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".
'''*''' 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.


Perhaps if '''béu''' was a spoken language '''kài''' might take over from '''làu''' in many situations.
[ Note to self : why DO you want it like this ?]


..
..


{|
=== ... '''kài''' and '''wé nài'''===
|-
! 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


..
..


This chart below might be of interest ...
There are 6 main uses for '''kài'''.  


..
..


[[Image:TW_928.png]]
1] In this first function it is equivalent to "like" or "similar to" in English.
 
..
 
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
  ! jono || r || kài || dada || òn
  |-
  |-
  | thomas-{{small|ERG}} || football || play-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like || Eusabio
  | john || is || like || older brother || his
  |} => Thomas plays football like Eusabio ............................................................ i.e. attacking the goal directly, strong on the ball with a powerful shot
  |} => John is like his older brother


..
..


=== ...''' ?ài''' and '''aibis'''===
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'''


..
..


These are mention here because they overlap with the first function of '''kài'''
3] Sometimes '''kài''' can best be translated as "for" ...
 
water for drinking => '''moze kài solbe'''


These particles plus the noun (or NP) they qualifies are equivalent to adjectives.
water for washing clothes => '''moze kài laudo'''


'''?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).
this water is for washing clothing =>  '''moze dí r kài laudo'''


[ Note ... the English word "same" < P.I.E. "sem" meaning "one" ]
(in the above three examples,  '''kài''' and what follows it can be considerd an adjective)


'''?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.  
4) In the fifth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''senko''' ...


[[Image:TW_926.png]]
elephant = '''sadu'''


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


You use '''?ài''' or '''?aibis''' if you want to specify the amout of similarity, use '''kài''' if you want to leave this vague.
this is actually a noun, the idea being something like "that which is like an elephant"


Other related words/expressions are ... '''?aiko''' = to equalize : '''sàu ?ài''' = to be equal : '''mwe?ai''' = to equate, to consider equal : '''bù ʔài''' = "different" : '''sàu bù ?ài''' = "to differ"/"to be different"
[ Note ... it is interesting that the '''béu''' word for "species" is '''kaija'''. Probably from " '''kài aja''' ", '''aja''' being an obsolete word for "one". ]
'''?aiti''' = similarity (one feature) : '''kuwai ?ài''' = similarity (in general) : '''u?aiti''' = difference (one feature) : '''kuwai u?ai''' = difference (in general)


..
..


Examples of '''?ài''' usage  ...
5) In its sixth function '''kài''' actually merges with a following '''saidau''' ...


..
red = '''hìa'''


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)
reddish = '''kaihia'''


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 ...
6) And the sixth function ...


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"
{|
|-
! 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


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)
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.


Note that (A) can also be expressed as '''jono r jutu làu jene''' ... see the third fuction of '''làu'''.
You are treating '''gombuʒi''' ss one dimensional when you say ...  


For comparison of ability to do something ...
..


'''jono r bòi làu jene kludauwo''' = "John is as good at writing as Jane"
{|
|-
! gì || r ||  gombuʒi || làu || jono   
|-
|  you || are ||  argumentative  || like || John
|} => you are as argumentative like John ...........................i.e. to the same degree


[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 ]
In the above to examples, I would call '''kài''' a "qualitative particle", and I would call '''làu''' a "quantitative particle".


..
..


=== ... Stuff to sort===
Now as "copula + adjective" is more or less equivalent to "verb" so the following is included here  ...


..
..


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.
{|
  |-
  ! jono-s || klud-o-r || kài || tomo
|-
| john-{{small|ERG}} || writes-{{small|3SG-IND}} || like/as || thomas
|} => John writes like Thomas writes


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).
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 ...


..
..


'''*làus nài''' => '''làu'''
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.


'''*kàin nài''' => '''kài'''
..


'''*dàs nài''' => '''dà'''
{|
|-
! 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


'''*kyùs  nài''' => '''kyù'''
Note ... when the final verb is dropped, the ergative marking on '''tomo''' is also dropped.


..
..


There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs. '''laubo''' meaning "enough" and  '''kaibo''' meaning "suitable".
'''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".


Also there are two nouns associated with these question word / particle pairs.  '''lauja''' meaning "level" and '''kaija''' meaning "species/model".
Perhaps if '''béu''' was a spoken language '''kài''' might take over from '''làu''' in many situations.


..
..


'''nù r jutu làu sadu''' = "they're as big as an elephant" (talking about elephants in general) : '''nù r jutu làu sadu dí''' = "they're as big as the elephant"
{|
 
|-
! 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
 
..
..


Good, Better, Best
This chart below might be of interest ...


..
..


{| border=1
[[Image:TW_928.png]]
  |align=center| >>>
  |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'''
  |align=left| less good
  |-
  |align=center| <<<
  |align=left| '''boizmo'''
  |align=left| least good
  |}


..
..


The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".
It shows how three question words correspond to three low tone particles.


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
One more example ... just for fun.


'''boizmos''' = the least good :  '''bàu boizmo''' = the least good man
{|
|-
! 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


..
..


== ..... Three important particles==
=== ...''' ?ài''' and '''aibis'''===


..
..


=== ... '''dà''' ===
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.


'''dà''' = where
'''?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).


'''pà twahu dà yildos twaire''' = meet me where we met in the morning ........................   '''dà yildos twaire'''  can be considered an adverb of place.
[ Note ... the English word "same" < P.I.E. "sem" meaning "one" ]


..
'''?aibis''' is formed from '''?ài''' plus the suffix -'''bis''' meaning "tending to".


=== ... '''kyù''' ===
'''?ài''' and '''?aibis''' overlap in meaning with '''kài''' when in the first of its six functions.


..
[[Image:TW_926.png]]


'''kyù''' = when
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.


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


..
..


=== ... '''nài''' ===
Examples of '''?ài''' usage  ...


..
..


In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors  ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...
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"


"The man ''who'' ate the chicken"
B) '''jono r ʔài jene uwe''' = "John is the same as Jane in every way"


"The chicken ''that'' was eaten"
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)


"The knife and fork ''which'' were used to eat the chicken"
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)


..
..


In '''béu''' there is only one relativizer, which is '''nài'''.  For example ...
Note that (A) can also be expressed as '''jono r jutu làu jene''' ... see the third fuction of '''làu'''.


'''glá nài bàu timpori''' = "The woman who the man hit"
For comparison of ability to do something ...


Now ... in the above ... '''glá''' is being modified by '''nài bàu timpori'''. '''nài bàu timpori''' implies a clause '''bàu timpori glà'''.
'''jono r bòi làu jene kludauwo''' = "John is as good at writing as Jane"


To construct a relative clause for '''glá''', '''nài''' is inserted between the noun and clause, and the noun is dropped from the clause.
[Note to self : sort out ... how to say "a similarity" ? ... "a difference" ?  ]


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


..
..


pi ... the basket '''naipi''' the cat shat was cleaned by John.
== ..... Two verb prefixes==


la ... the chair '''naila''' you are sitting was built by my grandfather.
..
 
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]


... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...
This process involves prefixing '''li'''- to the verb. For example ...


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
'''jonos jene timpori''' => '''jono litimpori (jeneh)'''


ji ... The old woman '''naiji''' I deliver the newspaper, has died.
This process has been given the unfortunate name ... "anti-passive".


-s ... '''báu nàis timpori glá_rò  jutu sowe''' = The man that hit the woman is very big.
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.


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


-n ... the woman '''nàin''' I told the secret, took it to her grave.
Actually I think there is only four verbs where what is meant to be achieved is fixed ...


fi ... the town '''naifi''' she has come is the biggest south of the mountain.
{|
| try || => || succeed
|-
| look || => || see
|-
| listen || => || hear
|-
| hear'''*''' || => || understand
|}


?e ... '''tìa naiʔe''' she lives is the biggest in town = the house in which she lives is the biggest in town
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"


-lya ... the boat '''nailya''' she has just entered is unsound
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.


-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)
Some times this prefix can be used to comic effect.


..
..


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 ...
'''*'''"to hear someone speak" to be more exact


..


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


{|
..
|-
! 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"
'''huwu''' = good thoughts


[Note to self : or maybe '''bain''' should mean "between"]
'''huwu.ai''' = a good thought


'''hugu''' = good deeds


'''hugu.ai''' = a good deed


{|
'''?igu''' = bad deeds
|-
! 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"


..
..


{|
'''hu'''- has provenance in avestian [cognate of Sanskrit '''su'''-]. '''?i''' has provenance in Thai อี.
|-
! há ||  gawa || nài  || toto-s  || lent-o-r-e || tài  || nù || waudo || 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"


..
..


In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. '''béu''' has this also ...
== ..... Stuff to sort==
 
'''nài mwair rò nài mair''' = "what you see is what you get"


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


'''ò nàis mwor 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]
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_930.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).


..
..


== ..... Totality ... collectively or individually==
'''*làus nài''' => '''làu'''


..
'''*kàin nài''' => '''kài'''


Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.
'''*dàs nài''' =>  '''dà'''


For this we use the particle '''ú''' before the plural of the noun. For example ...
'''*kyùs  nài''' => '''kyù'''


'''moltai''' = a/the doctor
..


'''moltai.a''' = doctors
There are two adjectives associated with these question word / particle pairs.  '''laubo''' meaning "enough" and  '''kaibo''' meaning "suitable".


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


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


'''goize ú''' = all morning
'''?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"


..
..


The opposite of the above is when all members of the category "noun" is acting (or is being acted upon) INDIVIDUALLY.
Good, Better, Best


By doubling the noun (or the first part of a noun) you give what can be called a distributive meaning.
..


Some examples ...
{| border=1
  |align=center| >>>
  |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'''
  |}


'''nùa''' = a/the mouse
..


'''nùa nùa''' = every mouse
The top and the bottom items are the superlative degree and so have no "standard of comparison".


'''jamba''' = a/the pelican
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 ...


'''jamba jamba''' = each pelican
'''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)


'''falaja''' = oasis
..


'''fa-falaja''' = every oasis
'''boimos''' = the best : '''bàu boimo''' = the best man


Notice that for words over two syllables, only the initial consonant and following vowel/diphthong is prefixed.
'''boizmos''' = the least good :  '''bàu boizmo''' = the least good man


..
..
== ... Three important particles==


..
..


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.
=== ... '''dà''' ===


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 ...
'''dà''' = where


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


'''bàu bàu''' <u>can</u> 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 '''pilamo''' is in its stand alone form.
=== ... '''kyù''' ===


'''fa-falaja?e''' = "at every oasis" .... indicates that '''fa-falaja''' is a single word as the '''pilamo''' 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.
'''kyù''' = when


For example ...
'''toili gìn naru kyù twairu''' = I will give you the book when we meet ............................  '''kyù twairu'''  can be considered an adverb of time.


..


[[Image:TW_866.png]]
=== ... '''nài''' ===


..
..


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.
In English "who", "that" and "which" are relativizors  ... a particle that introduced a relative clause. For example ...


Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...
"The man ''who'' ate the chicken"


'''ú bàu súr''' = all men are
"The chicken ''that'' was eaten"


'''bàu bàu sór'''  =  every man is
"The knife and fork ''which'' were used to eat the chicken"


NOTE TO MYSELF
..


----
In '''béu''' there is only one relativizer, which is '''nài'''.  For example ...


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'''.
'''glá nài bàu timpori''' = "The woman who the man hit"


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


TO THINK ABOUT
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 ...


?à ?à bàu hù ?ís  =  any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )
..


?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís  =  any men that you want
pi ... the basket '''naipi''' the cat shat was cleaned by John.


?ài bàu = some men
la ... the chair '''naila''' you are sitting was built by my grandfather.


..
... mau / goi / ce / dua / bene / komo ...


== ..... And for a verb ... many many iterations==
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.


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)
-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 ...
  |align=center| '''jò'''
 
  |align=center| to go
 
  |align=center| '''jojo'''
 
  |align=center| to scatter, emit
{|  
  |-
|-
  |align=center| '''té'''
! gwài || nài  || polg-u-r-a || fía || ?ode
  |align=center| to come
|-
   |align=center| '''tete'''
| the islands ||  {{small|REL}}   || sail-{{small|1PL-IND-PRES}}  || between || them
   |align=center| to gather, collect
|}
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''pyá'''
Literally "the islands that we are sailing between them" ... or ... in good English ... "the islands that we are sailing between"
  |align=center| to stop off
 
  |align=center| '''pyapya'''
{|  
  |align=center| to stutter  (person or engine)
|-
  |-
! gawa || nài  || toti-s  || lent-o-r-e || tài  || ʃide
  |align=center| '''dàu'''
|-
  |align=center| to die
| the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || in front of || them
  |align=center| '''daudau'''
|}
  |align=center| to fade away
 
  |-
Literally "the women that the children played in front of them" ... or ... in good English ... "the women that the children played in front of"
  |align=center| '''nda'''
 
   |align=center| to put
..
  |align=center| '''ndanda'''
 
  |align=center| to dump
{|  
  |-
|-
  |align=center| '''mài'''
! há ||  gawa || nài  || toto-s || lent-o-r-e || tài  || ʃide || waudo || dainuru
  |align=center| get, receive
|-
  |align=center| '''maimai'''
| {{small|ERG}} || the women ||  {{small|REL}}  || children-{{small|ERG}} || play-{{small|3SG-IND-PAST}}  || in front of || them || dog || kill-{{small|3PL-IND-FUT}}
  |align=center| to rely on
|}
  |-
 
  |align=center|  '''náu'''
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"
  |align=center| give
 
  |align=center|  '''naunau'''
..
  |align=center| to support
 
  |-
In English we have what is called a headless relative clause. '''béu''' has this also ...
  |align=center| '''pila'''
 
  |align=center| to put
'''nài hecair rò nài mair''' = "what you see is what you get"
  |align=center| '''pipila'''
 
  |align=center| to arrange
'''nàis hecor rò nàis mair''' = "that which sees is that which gets"
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''timpa'''
'''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]
   |align=center| to hit
 
  |align=center| '''titimpa'''
..
  |align=center| to beat
 
  |-
[[Image:TW_930.png]]
  |align=center| '''yáu'''
 
  |align=center| to have
..
  |align=center| '''yauyau'''
 
  |align=center| to have in abundance
== ... Totality ... collectively or individually==
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''?ái'''
..
  |align=center| to want
 
  |align=center| '''?ai?ai'''
Sometimes we want to talk about all members of the category "noun" acting (or being acted upon) COLLECTIVELY.
  |align=center| to be greedy
 
  |-
For this we use the particle '''ú''' before the plural of the noun. For example ...
  |align=center| '''lí'''
 
  |align=center| to press
'''moltai''' = a/the doctor
  |align=center| '''lili'''
 
  |align=center| to crowd, to throng
'''moltai.a''' = doctors
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''tí'''
'''ú moltai''' = all doctors
  |align=center| to touch
 
  |align=center| '''titi'''
Note ... the same word, when appended to a noun, means "the whole" or "entire". For example ...
  |align=center| to fondle, to caress
 
  |-
'''goize ú''' = all morning
  |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
  |-
  |}
 
..
..


'''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
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.


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)
Some examples ...


..
'''nùa''' = a/the mouse


== ..... '''lé''' .... '''lú''' .... '''ló'''==
'''nùa nùa''' = every mouse


..
'''jamba''' = a/the pelican


Earlier we have seen that when 2 nouns come together the second one qualifies the first.
'''jamba jamba''' = each pelican


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 ...
'''falaja''' = oasis


'''jonos jenes solbur moze''' = "John and Jane drink water"
'''fa-falaja''' = every oasis


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 ...
Notice that for words over two syllables, only the initial consonant and following vowel/diphthong is prefixed.


'''jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo''' = "Jane drank water and milk"
..


'''jonos jenes mwuri 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 ]
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.


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


[[Image:TW_595.png]]
'''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''' <u>can</u> be pronounced '''bàu vàu''' ... [ If you remember ( Chapter 1.1) '''b''' and '''v''' are in free variation ]


Note ... in the '''béu''' script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.
'''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.


The following construction is also found.
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.


'''lé moze lé ʔazwo''' = "both water and milk"
For example ...


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


Another linking word is '''lú''' meaning "or".
[[Image:TW_866.png]]


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


The following construction is also found.
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.


'''lú moze lú ʔazwo''' = "either water or milk"
Note (as in English) the plural verb form is used for the collective structure, the singular verb form for the individual structure. For example ...


The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lú'''
'''ú bàu súr''' = all men are


There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is '''ʔala''' and it is a question word. For example ...
'''bàu bàu sór''' =  every man is


'''ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo''' = "would you want water or milk"
NOTE TO MYSELF


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@'''
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 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)).
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.)----


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


'''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'''.
?à ?à bàu hù ?ís  =  any man that you want ( ?ís ... "you would want" ???? )


So '''ʔís leume''' (I would like both) is an acceptable answer to the question '''ʔís moze ʔala ʔazwo'''
?ài ?ài bàu hù ?ís  =  any men that you want


If the questioner would like to rule out the answer '''ʔís leume''' he would use the construction .
?ài bàu = some men


'''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.
== ... And for a verb ... many many iterations==


..
..


=== ... "no"===
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)


..
..


In '''béu''', '''jù''' corresponds to "no".
{|
 
  |align=center| '''jò'''
"neither water nor milk" would be translated as '''jù moʒi jù ʔazwo'''
  |align=center| to go
 
  |align=center| '''jojo'''
..
  |align=center| to scatter, emit
 
  |-
=== ... lists===
   |align=center| '''té'''
 
   |align=center| to come
..
   |align=center| '''tete'''
 
   |align=center| to gather, collect
So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...
 
..
 
{| border=1
   |align=center| '''lé'''
   |align=center| giving
   |align=center| 2
   |align=center| items
   |-
   |-
   |align=center| '''lú'''
   |align=center| '''pyá'''
   |align=center| giving
   |align=center| to stop off
   |align=center| 1
   |align=center| '''pyapya'''
   |align=center| item
  |align=center| to stutter  (person or engine)
   |align=center|.....
  |-
   |align=center| '''ʔala'''
   |align=center| '''dàu'''
   |align=center| asking for
   |align=center| to die
   |align=center| 1
   |align=center| '''daudau'''
   |align=center| item
   |align=center| to fade away
  |-
   |align=center| '''nda'''
  |align=center| to put
  |align=center| '''ndanda'''
   |align=center| to dump
   |-
   |-
   |align=center| '''jù'''
   |align=center| '''mài'''
   |align=center| giving
   |align=center| get, receive
   |align=center| 0
   |align=center| '''maimai'''
   |align=center| items
   |align=center| to rely on
   |}
   |-
 
  |align=center|  '''náu'''
..
  |align=center| give
 
  |align=center|  '''naunau'''
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).
  |align=center| to support
 
  |-
For example ...
  |align=center| '''pila'''
 
  |align=center| to put
'''jenes mwori lé ifa sadu _ uba ʔusfa _ ega moŋgo lé oda gaifai falaja dí''' = Jane saw two elephants, three giraffes, four gibbons and five flamengos this morning.
  |align=center| '''pipila'''
 
  |align=center| to arrange
..
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''timpa'''
=== ... other===
  |align=center| to hit
 
  |align=center| '''titimpa'''
..
  |align=center| to beat
 
  |-
'''ló''' = other
  |align=center| '''yáu'''
 
  |align=center| to have
'''lói''' = others
  |align=center| '''yauyau'''
 
  |align=center| to have in abundance
'''kyulo''' = again
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''?ái'''
'''welo''' = otherwise
  |align=center| to want
 
  |align=center| '''?ai?ai'''
..
  |align=center| to be greedy
 
  |-
== ..... Making it flow==
  |align=center| '''lí'''
 
  |align=center| to press
..
  |align=center| '''lili'''
 
  |align=center| to crowd, to throng
Grammar provides ways to make the stream of words coming out a speaker's mouth nice and smooth ... no lumpy bits.
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''tí'''
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")
  |align=center| to touch
 
  |align=center| '''titi'''
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)
  |align=center| to fondle, to caress
 
  |-
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".
  |align=center| '''jwòi'''
 
  |align=center| to undergo
In '''béu''' the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is '''lé'''
  |align=center| '''jwoijwoi'''
 
  |align=left|  to be taken advantage of, to be a victim
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.
  |-
 
  |align=center| '''?áu'''
  |align=center| to take
  |align=center| '''?au?au'''
  |align=center| to strip something bare
  |-
  |}


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.
..


'''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


..


[[Image:TW_840.png]]
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)


..
..


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 ...
== ... '''lé''' .... '''lú''' .... '''ló'''==


..
..


[[Image:TW_842.png]]
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 ...


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


Examples are given below ...
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 ...


1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]
'''jenes solbori moʒi lé ʔazwo''' = "Jane drank water and milk"


2) The man awoke and then [the man] ate his breakfast. [ this would usually be conflated ]
'''jonos jenes hecuri hói sadu lé léu ʔusfa''' = John and Jane saw two elephants and three giraffes.


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


4) The man coughed and then [the man] went to sleep. [ maybe two clauses ... no real logical tie between the two verbs ]
This word is that is never written out in full but has its own symbol. See below ...


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 ??
[[Image:TW_595.png]]


7) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' shot the man.
..


8) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' cried.
Note ... in the '''béu''' script, the "o" before "r" is always dropped. This is just a sort of short hand thing.


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.
The following construction is also found.


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)
'''lé moze lé ʔazwo''' = "both water and milk"


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


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.
Another linking word is '''lú''' meaning "or".


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


== ..... Telling the time==
The following construction is also found.


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


To ask what time of day it is you say '''jondi kí nái''' or '''kí nái'''
The above construction emphasizes the "linking" word '''lú'''


To ask what day it is you say '''hoite dinda nái''' or simply '''kòi nái'''
There is another word that corresponds to the English "or". This is '''lu?o''' and it is a question word. For example ...


To ask what season it is you say '''jondi sabata nái''' or simply '''sabata nái'''
'''ʔís moze lu?o ʔazwo''' = "would you want water or milk"


To ask what year it is you say '''jondi toze nái''' or simply '''toze nái'''
And the answer expected of would be either "water" or "milk"


To ask which cycle it is you say '''omba nái'''
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)).


Actually '''omba''' is more precisely called '''ombatoze''''. However in a situation where time is being discussed ... '''omba''' by itself will do.
Now if the question was "would you want water or milk, or both" you should say ...


The word for time in general '''kyugan'''.
'''ʔi?o moze lu?o ʔazwo lu?o leume'''


The word '''tozegan''' can be translated as "age" or "generation" or "century". Actually it is a period of 128 years.
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'''


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).
If the questioner would like to rule out the answer '''ʔís leume''' he would use the construction .


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


'''ʔís ʔala moze ʔala ʔazwo'''


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.
So '''ʔala''' before the first item does exactly the same as '''lé''' or '''lú''' before the first item : it emphasizes the linking word.
 
'''omba bene odaudai dimaku ?oli sunaba ajau'''


..
..


{|border=1
=== ... "no"===
  |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'''
In '''béu''', '''jù''' corresponds to "no".


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.
"neither water nor milk" would be translated as '''jù moʒi jù ʔazwo'''
 
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.
 
4)  "the particular year of the 128 cycle". '''dimaku''' means python and is the 100th year of the 128 year cycle.
 
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'''
 
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'''.
=== ... lists===
 
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 ...


..
..


{|
So far we have restricted ourselves to two items. We can summarize the system for two items as below ...
|-
! jene-s || d-o-r-e || jé || ajau
|-
| Jane-{{small|ERG}} || arrive-{{small|2SG-IND-PST}}  || at || 08:00  ||
|} => Jane arrived at eight in the morning


..
..


Only in the situations above do you get '''jé''' introducing a truncated '''jekas'''.
{| border=1
 
  |align=center| '''lé'''
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).
  |align=center| giving
 
  |align=center| 2
The above represents points in time. As mentioned before, a range of times can be given by pluralizing the point ... 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 ... by the way 08:00 to 08:10 = '''ajaujua''')
  |align=center| items
  |-
  |align=center| '''lú'''
  |align=center| giving
  |align=center| 1
  |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
  |}
 
..


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


..
..


{|
=== ... other===
|-
! 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


..
..


{|
'''ló''' = other
|-
 
! tomo-s || c-o-r-u || ?oli || geufa || ajaujai
'''lói''' = others  .... mmmh, same as probably
|-
 
| Thomas-{{small|ERG}} || leave-{{small|2SG-IND-FUT}} || in the first month || on the seventh day  || at ten past eight  ||
'''kyulo''' = an other time
|} => Thomas will depart in the first month on the seventh day at ten past eight


..
'''tugis''' = again


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.
'''welo''' = otherwise


..
..


Relative time words and their provenance
== ... Making it flow==


..
..


So far we have learnt how to give the time in an absolute manner. Time is sometimes also given in a relative manner ...
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)


'''jana''' = yesterday
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".


'''heute''' = today
In '''béu''' the particle for joining nouns and adjectives is '''lé'''


'''kuzaza''' = tomorrow
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.


'''bezaza''' = the day after tomorrow (<= be + kuzaza)


'''kojana''' = the day before yesterday (<= ko + jana)
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.


Three of the above have natlang provenance '''jana''' from Swahili, '''kuzaza''' from Zulu and '''heute''' from German ... and Yes, (I am aware that the german word is not pronounced '''heute''' these days ... maybe it once was.


..
..


[[Image:TW_867.png]] ... [[Image:TW_863.png]] ... [[Image:TW_921.png]]
[[Image:TW_840.png]]


..
..


The above two wheels represent 24 hours in the '''béu''' time reckoning. A 24 hour period is called '''dinda''' and '''dinda''' is the unit of time [in the Western tradition the second is the unit of time].
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 ...


The LHS wheel represents periods of time. Actually each 2 hour time period can be further subdivided into 12 periods of 10 minutes. For example '''aibai.a''' can be divided up into '''aibaijua aibaijau.a aibaifau.a aibaibau.a aibaigau.a aibaidau.a aibailau.a aibaicau.a aibaizau.a aibaikau.a aibaipau.a aibaitau.a '''. This scheme is seldom used though. By the way ... '''jejua''' => '''jejujua jejujau.a jejufau.a''' etc.
..


the first 10 minutes after midday is called '''abaijau.a'''.
[[Image:TW_842.png]]


The RHS wheel represents points of time ... '''jé aibai''' = midday : '''jé okai''' = midnight : '''jé jù''' = 6 o'clock in the morning (the start of the '''béu''' day). Only twelve points are shown, however there are actually 1728.
..


When '''ko.okai''' becomes '''bejua''' is unclear. A period of time that varies through-out the year is the '''jondia''' "dawn. It starts when the sun is first seen above the horizon and continues until it is clear of the horizon. This period will also vary according to position ... if you live in a deep valley '''jondia''' will come later than if you stay on the coast or on a plain. '''jindia''' is the '''jondia''' midpoint. This is a point of time.
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.


The small wheel shows Sundown '''koikau''' and Sunrise '''jondia'''. '''koikau''' is important for spiritual observancies. These obviously vary through-out the year.
Examples are given below ...


'''jindia''' is a technical term and not used a lot. It specifies when the middle of the sun clears the horizon at your particular locality. If you live in a valley this time would be of course delayed compared to your neighbours outside the valley. Trees or other man made obstructions are not taken into consideration when calculating this number.
1) The man hit the woman and then [the man] smashed her glasses. [ there are different objects ..... can be two clauses ]


Here are some examples of the system in use ...
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 ]
|-
! g-a-r-u ||  kolze
|-
| do-{{small|1SG-IND-FUT}} ||  day
|} ==> "I will do it during daylight hours"


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 ??
|-
 
!  gì || tw-a-r-u || jé || ugai
7) The man hit the woman. Then ''the woman'' shot the man.
|-
| {{small|2SG}} || meet-{{small|1S-IND-FUT}} ||  at || 14:00
|} ==>"I'll meet you at 2 in the afternoon"


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


{| border=1
9) The thief robbed the girl. Then the pirate raped her.
  ||  '''garu kolze'''
  || I'll do it during the day
  |-
  ||  '''garu noice'''
  || I'll do it at night
  |-
  ||  '''garu goize'''
  || I'll do it in the morning
  |} .... and so on


{| border=1
Note ... For examples 5 & 6, the dropped arguments are counted as S arguments. In '''béu''' they are considered O arguments.
  ||  '''garu jejua'''
  || I'll do it between 6 and 8 in the morning
  |-
  ||  '''garu ajai.a'''
  || I'll do it between 8 and 10 in the morning
  |} .... and so on


{| border=1
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)
  ||  '''gì twaru jé jù'''
  || I'll meet you at 6 o'clock in the morning
  |-
  ||  '''gì twaru jé ezai'''
  || I'll meet you at 10 o'clock at night
  |-
  ||  '''gì twaru jé ajaujaija'''
  || I'll meet you at exactly 08:10:50 (that is 50 seconds past ten minutes past eight).
  |} .... and so on


..
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.
|-
!  g-o-r-∅ ||  dinda-s
|-
| do-{{small|3SG-IND-HAB}} || "24 hours period"-{{small|ADV}}
|} ==> "He/she does it daily"


..
..


{| border=1
== ... Agents==
  ||  '''gor kolzes'''
  || He usually does it during daylight hours
  |-
  ||  '''gor noices'''
  || She usually does it at night
  |-
  ||  '''gor aibai.as'''
  || He usually does it in the early afternoon
  |} .... and so on


Four of the terms in the LHS wheel have natlang provenance ...
..


'''goize''' (basque) : '''hapon''' (cebuano) : '''wece''' (bosnian) : '''noice''' (portuguese)
'''kludau''' = to write (a verb) : '''kludala''' = writing (an adjective ... actually a participle)


..
Two nouns can be formed by simply adding '''pú''' in front ...


Also the meaning of two terms on the RHS wheel have expanded ...
'''pú kludau''' = author, writer, novelist, playwrite, essayist : '''pú kludala''' = somebody that is writing right NOW


'''aibai''' = noon => high point, zenith
This is quite non-surprising. Take Thai .... เขียน khiian "to write". If you add ผู้  , คน  or  นัก  in front, you have an agent.


'''okai''' = midnight => low point, nadir
[Note to self : I need a term that implies, one makes ones living from ACT]


..
..


When the 5 relative time words combine with others the relative comes first. For example ... '''kuzaza jejua''' = early morning tomorrow
'''daumo''' = pen : '''daumo''' <= '''kludaumo'''
 
'''dauno''' = a keyboard/typewriter : '''dauno''' <= '''kludauno'''


..
..


There are also two undefined periods of time. '''jin''' and '''jon'''. '''jon''' is an order of magnitude greater than '''jin''' (but both are not rigorously defined).


'''jondi''' = now


'''jindi''' = exactly now


"longtime" '''súa''' / short-time '''gìa''' the latter giving rise to the adverb '''uzuas''' "soon"
== ... Timewise==


'''kí''' = a time interval of 50 seconds ... I suppose it should be included when talking about daily time but it is invariably dropped. For example 8 o'clock is '''jé ajau''' not  '''jé kí ajau'''.
..


[Note to self : talk about "the first century" = "century zero" : "the first kilometer" = "kilometer zero"]
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 ...


== ... Ways to join clauses timewise==
'''haróm nap múlva jövök haza''' = "I'll come home in three days" ... (page 115)


..
The '''béu''' equivalent of "múlva" is '''jé'''.  


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


We will cover six particles in this section which allow us to give time information with respect to an event ... '''jón koca beda kogan began jindu''' and '''jonde'''.
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.


'''jón''' = "while" or "when"
To add a bit of fuzziness we can add '''-te''' "-ish" to '''jé'''. For example ...


'''koca''' = before
'''jaru jete jupe''' = "I will come around about December"


'''beda''' = after
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 ...


'''kogan''' = until
'''njaru jé jupe''' = I will relax in December


'''began''' = since
'''njaru ú jé jupe''' = I will relax all through December


'''jindu''' = as soon as
..


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).


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 disapprove of the term "infinitive clause")
..


'''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 ...


“After I ate breakfast”
'''gayiru aús kòi ima''' = You will be in discomfort for two days.


“After the gold rush”
Also '''béu''' has two words that define a length of time in a relative manner ... relative to what is considered normal. These words are ...


“After the eating of my breakfast”
'''dali''' = a short time


'''dugai''' = a long time'''*'''


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.
..  


[[Image:TW_951.png]]
[[Image:SW_200.png]]


..
..


Tha arrow is the arrow of time'''**''' ... with the past to the left (''ko''mo), and the future to the right (''be''ne).
'''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" ).


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.
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.


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.
..


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 ...
[[Image:SW_203.png]]


A) the under clause must be introduced with one of these 6 particles.
..


B) we can have main clause and then the under clause ... or the other way around.
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.


Here are examples to illustrate the 5 examples above ...
Now these five examples show how two clauses can be joined in a timewise fashion. The '''béu''' rules are quite similar to English.  


..
..


1) '''jón''' = while, as, when, during
'''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".


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


'''jón gís pazba saikiru_pás pintu saikaru''' = "while you paint the table, I will paint the door"
a) “After I ate breakfast”


'''jón saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "while painting the table, you smoked"
b) “After the gold rush”


..
c) “After the eating of my breakfast”


2) '''koca''' = before
Below are some examples of how  '''jé koca kogan beda began''' work. I use '''beda''' to demonstrate ...


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


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


'''koca saiko pintu_pás pazba saikaru''' = "before painting the door, I will paint the table"
c) '''beda saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru***''' = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"


..
..


3) '''beda''' = after


'''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"


'''beda saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru''' = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"


..


If you wanted to emphasize that the first action will continue until the second action you would use ...
Here are examples to illustrate the examples above ...


4) '''kogan''' = until
..


'''gís huʒiri kogan dare saiko pazba''' = "you smoked until I started to paint the table"


'''kogan dare saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "until I started to paint the table, you smoked"


'''kogan día saiko pazba_gís huʒiri''' = "until starting to paint the table, you smoked"


..
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.


If you wanted to emphasize that the first action has been continuing all the time since the second action you would use ...
'''koca''' = before


5) '''began''' = since
'''beda''' = after
 
'''gís ʔès huʒira began care saiko pazba''' = "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"


{|
And derived from the above words we have ...
|-
! 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"
'''kocagan'''/'''kogan''' = until


'''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" ]
'''bedagan'''/'''began''' = since


..
..
Line 1,647: Line 1,644:
..
..


'''*''' 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 ...
'''**''' 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.
(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..
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


..


'''**''' 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"
'''*'''These two words give rise to two verbs ...


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


..
'''dugako''' = to prolong, to draw out, to dilly-dally, to shilly-shally


'''jón''' used to mean an interval of time. It still does but nowadays you see it most often as the particle meaning "when"/"while". The conjunction '''jonde''' "and then" is derived from it.
'''dalora''' = he is hurrying


'''jín''' means an interval of time an order of magnitude shorter than '''jón'''.  The particle '''jindu''' is derived from it.
'''dugora''' = she is taking her time


The adverbs '''jondi''' and '''jindi''' are derived from the above. They both mean "now". '''jondi''' is the one usually used. '''jindi''' is used for emphasis (for example in a swiftly changing situation).
'''dalihu''' = hurry up, come on, get the finger out


..
..


== ... Linking Back==
'''**''' 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'''.  


..
..


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].
'''***''' 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.
..


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".
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 ('''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"
 
..
 
== ... 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".
 
..


[[Image:TW_952.png]]
[[Image:TW_952.png]]
Line 1,753: Line 1,785:
..
..


== ... Other ways to join clauses==
== ... Joining clauses logically==


..
..


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


'''tè''' "but"
'''plà''' means “reason”
wò is the oblique case mark, meaning “with respect to”, “about”, “concerning”


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


'''tè ?ài kyù''' = "but"
'''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.


??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in ''béu''' we use '''u?u''' ???
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”.


There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as '''tè'''.  
'''plawo''', '''bwonafi''' and '''kyemah''' occur with about equal frequency.


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


??? '''sé kyude'''/'''è kyude''' : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes '''sé è''' are dropped.
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.


??? '''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.
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'''.


'''jì dè''' = in order to
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.


'''ji?is''' = because
“because of” is '''yenuni'''. This is inspired by Norwegian and Cebuano. Let me recap …


'''ji?is wo''' = because of
Cebuano Norwegian English


'''huzu''' = to smoke
tungod sa på grunn av because of


'''koʔia''' = to cough
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”.


'''?atsi''' = to sneeze ... (Butanese)
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.


'''solbe''' = to drink
Note … '''yenu''' means “nadir”. -'''ni''' is the locative case marker (i.e. “at” in English).


'''caume''' = medicine
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.


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.
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.


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


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 ....
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 ].


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


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.
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.


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.
'''womih''' also means “in order to”.  


Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...
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.


'''beda jono joru_ufan rù bòi''' = After John goes, everything will be fine
Left over bits


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]
bwona = cause           ubwonwe <= ubwonawe : for no reason
kyema = effect, aftermath, result      ukyemwe <=ukyemawe : in vain


..
bwoda = origin, source


'''*'''GIVE THAT EXAMPLE FROM DEUTSCHER'S BOOK.
== ... THIS HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REDONE==


..
..


The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...
'''unya''' = "and"  (some logical connection ... well if no logical connection, the two clauses would not be appearing side by side)


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


Now the above can be recast ...
'''imwa''' = "but"


John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze hí ò'''
'''tè ?ài kyù''' = "but"


This can be futher cut ...


John was coughing until the drinking of water => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze'''
??? "but" can sometimes come before nouns in English. For example ... "all but me" .... in ''béu''' we use '''u?u''' ???


And further cut ...
There are also some phrases with more "sound.weight" that have the exact same meaning as '''tè'''.  


John was coughing until drinking => '''jono liga ko?ori solben''' .... Not  '''*jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe'''
?? Well this is the more neutral particle (the particle '''plí''' can also be used ??


When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''n''' instead of the particle '''kogan'''
??? '''sé kyude'''/'''è kyude''' : these mean that action B follows action A but not necessarily immediate. Sometimes '''sé è''' are dropped.


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 ...
??? '''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.


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'''  
'''huzu''' = to smoke


..
'''koʔia''' = to cough


For '''beda''' and '''koca''', when the time between the two events are stated ... it comes immediately after  '''bade''' or '''koca'''. For example ...
'''?acu''' = to sneeze


'''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 ]
'''solbe''' = to drink


..
'''caume''' = medicine


----
----


..
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.


7) '''jì gò''' = "in order that" "so" "so that"
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'''.


It shows that the first action was done in order to bring about the second action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.
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 ....


'''jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós ò klór''' = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.
'''timpa jene sàin jono r kéu''' = John's hitting of Jane was bad  .... [maybe '''hí''' is better than '''sàin''' ???]


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


The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the '''gò jì''' makes the second verb sort of irrealis.  
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.


Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''jì''' "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.  
Note ... In English "since" can only be used for an under clause that occurs in the past. For example ...


If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct, and the particle '''jì''' is used.
'''beda jono joru_ufan rù bòi''' = After John goes, everything will be fine


'''toili mapari jì kludau ʃila''' = I opened the book in order to write in it
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]


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


'''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"
The usuage of these five particles is quite straightforward. However there is one little quirk that should be pointed out. For example ...


[ Note to self ..... In English "in order to" is only used with same subject constructions .... interesting ]
'''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 ...  


8) '''plùa''' = "therefore" "so" "hence" 
John was coughing until the drinking of water by him => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze hí ò'''


It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.
This can be futher cut ...


'''ò klár plùa òn nari toili''' = I like her so I gave her a book
John was coughing until the drinking of water => '''jono liga ko?ori kogan solbe moze'''


The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction
And further cut ...


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


9) '''sài gò''' = "because" "as" "since"
When the verb-noun is only one word it will take the suffix -'''n''' instead of the particle '''kogan'''


It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.
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 ...


'''jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili''' = Jane likes John because he gave her a book
John has been coughing since he smoked a cigarette => '''jono ko?ora jefi ós huzore ʃigita''' ... huzu = to smoke, to suck


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


..
..


Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''sài''' "because of" would be the particle used.   
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''' = 50<sub>12</sub>  = 60<sub>10</sub> ... so the translation is 100% accurate ]


..
..


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
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.


11) '''kyù''' = when
'''jonos jenen toili nori jì gò ós òn klór''' = John gave Jane a book in order that she would like him.


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


12) '''tà''' = if (hypothetical)
The second clause always has the aortist tense form in this construction ... actually the '''gò jì''' makes the second verb sort of irrealis.


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 ...
Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''jì''' "for" or "for the benefit of" would be the particle used.  


'''kyù''' covers the likelihood range of 100 % => 90 % : '''tà''' from 90 % => 10 % :  '''ʔáu gò''' 10 % => zilch
If both clauses have the same subject, then the second one usually becomes an "infinitive adverbial adjunct", and the particle '''jì''' is used.


All three are used with pretty much the same frequency in '''béu'''.
'''toili mapari jì kludau ʃila''' = I opened the book in order to write in it


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"
'''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 ...


Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.
'''pà babas gaidoryə dían twá gì''' = My father brought me here to meet you


"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
From the underlying semantics of the above, it is pretty obvious that "the father" was not intent in "meeting you"


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


..
..


14) '''tè gò''' = unless  .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use '''gò''' to separate the clauses : should they use '''plùa''' to separate the clauses ???)
8) '''plùa''' = "therefore" "so" "hence" 
..


15) '''dó''' = "although" "though" "even if"
It shows that a second clause follows on logically from the first clause. The particle is always between the clauses.


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


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''' ...
The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction


a) negating the first clause
..


b) swapping the clause positions
9) '''sài gò''' = "because" "as" "since"


c) get rid of '''plùa''' and insert '''dó''' between the clauses.
It shows that the second state/action is a consequence of the first action/state. The particle is always between the clauses.


He is tall so he is good at baskerball
'''jenes jono klór sài gò òn nori toili''' = Jane likes John because he gave her a book


He is good at basket ball although he is short 
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


..
..


16) '''kài''' = "as", "like", "the way"
Notice that if the second clause was replaced by a NP ... '''sài''' "because of" would be the particle used.    
 
'''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"


..
..


10) '''dà''' = where


'''pà twá dà twaire yildos''' = meet me where we met in the morning


== ... Extending a NP using the partitive ..."làu"==
'''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


..
..


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


..
12) '''tà''' = if (hypothetical)


=== .. Sets and subsets===
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 ...


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


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


'''*'''This "zooming" idea is not fully air-tight, there is a bit of fuzzyness about it ... hence the inclusion of "presumably".
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"


..
..


[[Image:TW_611.png]]
Note on English .... English uses "if" for both hypothetical and counterfactual. Things are a bit twisted in the English usuage.


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 ...
"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


'''moltai.a súr jini''' = "doctors are clever"
"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.


'''*''' u for universal.
..


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


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 ....
15) '''dó''' = "although" "though" "even if"


<b>Next week British junior doctors will withhold many services in protest against the long hour expected of them</b>
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'''


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.
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''' ...


'''moltai.a dí''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
a) negating the first clause


b) swapping the clause positions


[[Image:TW_609.png]]
c) get rid of '''plùa''' and insert '''dó''' between the clauses.


OK ... lets hear another bit of narrative and change the "set" of doctors under consideration again. The narrative is ...
He is tall so he is good at baskerball


<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>
He is good at basket ball although he is short


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.
..


'''moltai.a dè''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
16) '''kài''' = "as", "like", "the way"


OK ... after hearing that, the NP "those doctors'''*'''" '''moltai.a dè''' is represented by the orange area in the Venn diagram below.
'''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_610.png]]
..


'''*''' 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''' .
== ... Compound words==
 
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)


..
..


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.
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.


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"
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).


[[Image:TW_602.png]]
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”.  
 
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.


..
..


=== .. The extended NP===
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).


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.
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'''.


{| border=1
Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.
  |align=center| 1
  |align=right| '''jù moltai dí'''...
  |align=left| no doctor here
  |align=right| '''moltai.a dí làu jù'''...
  |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 ...


..
..


{| border=1
There are thousands of assembled words. Assembled words are listed in Ch 9.
  |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 '''**'''
  |} 


..
[note to self : decide about the following forms]


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


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'''.


..
..


The particle '''nò''' can also occur in the tail of an extended NP. For example ...
'''**''' 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"


'''moltai.a dí làu nò''' = "several of these doctors"
'''waudo yó bàu''' = "the man's dog", '''bàu gù waudo''' = "the man who owns a/the dog", '''loweu kài banhai''' = "a/the school bus"


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'''.
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'''


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).
"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)


..
..


'''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 ??? ]


'''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)
'''yakwo''' = tricycle


..
..


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 ...
'''jakanda''' = a fourway intersection
 
'''fakanda''' = a fiveway intersection


[ Of course if "the doctors here" was on the top of every ones mind ... then only '''ò ò''' would be expressed ]
... and so on ...


..


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.
'''yadalno''' = a triangle ................................ '''dalno''' "edge", "boundary", "border", "margin"


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'''.
'''jadalno''' = a quadrilateral


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.
'''fadalno''' = a pentagon


"five of them" being '''nù làu oda''' of couse, following the exact same pattern that a normal noun takes for partitiveness.
'''?aidalno''' = a hexagon (this word is further eroded to '''?aida''' and takes on the meaning "townhall")


'''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'''???  ]
'''?ai?adalno''' = a heptagon


'''á yùa làu hói doikuarua í london''' = two of us will walk to london ... [tendency to drop '''yùa'''???  ]
... and so on ...


'''*''' 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.
..


----
'''jadaizlo''' = tetrahedron ............................ '''daizlo''' "face", "facet", "side"


'''?aidaizlo''' = cube (this word is further eroded to '''?aidai''' and takes on the meaning "dice" or "die")


( write about partitive in Finnish ) ... ( write about the other uses of '''làu''' ) ... ( revisit the DISTRIBUTIVE )
'''?aimadaizlo''' = octahedron


WHAT ABOUT ....  enough of the men .... too many of the men ... above 100 of the men ... more of the men
'''maidaizlo ''' = dodecahedron


all others => '''ú lòs
'''yaimadaizlo''' = icosahedron


some others => nò lòs
..


----
'''dauzo''' = a 5-cell ................................... '''dauzo''' "cube", "block"


any doctor => '''ín moltai'''
'''dauzo''' = an 8-cell


any doctor here = any of these doctors  =>  '''ín moltai dí'''
'''dauzo''' = a 16-cell


any of the doctors here => '''ín moltai.a dí'''
'''dauzo ''' = a 24-cell


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


'''ʔà ʃì''' = it ... '''nò ʃì''' = them (inanimate)
'''dauzo''' = 600-cell


..
..


{|
== ... Set Phrase and idioms==
  |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
  |}


..
..


== ... Compound words==
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"


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.
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"


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).
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"


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”.  
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.


..
..


In '''béu''' when 2 nouns are come together the second noun acts as an attribute of the first'''**'''. For example ...
There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections


'''toili nandau''' (literally "book word" ... "book" is the head and "word" is the attribute).
Also there two phrases { "j" and "k" }  which could be considered interjections. They have the intonation pattern of a single word.


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


However over the years as the concept '''toili nandau''' became more and more common, '''toili nandau''' would have morphed into  '''nandali'''.
It means ... (say "iʃʃ" for us)


Often when this process happens the resulting construction has a narrower meaning than the original two word phrase.
(B) '''hambətunmazore''' which expresses great joy. In about 70% of cases it is shortened to '''hambətun''' only.


[[Image:TW_932.png]]
It means ... (the gates to heaven have opened)


The process for generating the new word is shown above.
(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 ?"


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).
(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'''.


Then the position of the two components are swapped. Finally the components are merged into one word.
It expresses sudden consternation/dismay, equivalent to ... WHAT !!


Below is another example ....
(E) '''kè kè''' = "sorry" or "excuse me" ... Related to the word '''kelpa''' meaning "to apologize".


[[Image:TW_933.png]]
(F) '''sè sè''' = "thank you" ...  Related to the word '''senda''' meaning "to thank".


'''megau''' means "a body of knowledge" or "a subject". '''peugagau''' means the sum total of knowledge that a civilization has achieved.
(G) '''jonjau.e''' = wait a moment


And another example ...
..


[[Image:TW_934.png]]
== ... Non-zero reference time ==


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'''.
..


[[Image:TW_935.png]]
THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.


'''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]]
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)
 
..


'''wèu''' means "vehicle" or "wagon". '''sò''' means "row" or "series". '''soweu''' means "train".
[[Image:SW_047.png]]


..
..


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


[ 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 ]
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 ...


[ Note to self : what about Mr, Mrs etc etc ? ]
{|
|-
! 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


..
..


In future, when a non-basic (nb) word is introduced it will be marked as such along with its provenance. For example ...
In the above examples, the reference times are not NOW but are specified by another action (or state).


'''gozofai''' = fruterer : (nb : <'''kanfai gozo''')
..


'''kwofan''' = bicycle : (nb : <'''ifan kwò''')
== ... When the overlap is specified ==


..
..


There are thousands of assembled words. Assembled words are listed in Ch 9.
THIS SECTION FOLLOWS ON FROM "TWO OVERLAPPING-ACTION PARTICLES" IN CH 3.


[note to self : decide about the following forms]
..


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


'''*''' 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.


..
{|
|-
! 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


'''**''' 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"
{|
|-
! 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


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'''
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.


"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)
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'''


..
..


== ... Bicycle plus==
Negating the above


..
..


Above I explained the word for bicycle ...
Now we have already said that '''béu''' is basically an (a) (b) type language.  
 
There are a few more words that follow the same pattern. Remember fron the last chapter that '''ifan''' = a duo, '''uban''' = a threesome, '''egan''' = a foursome, '''odan''' = a fivesome, etc.


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


'''kwafan''' = bicycle
The negator used in this case is '''jù''' rather than '''bú'''.


'''kwoban''' = tricycle
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"


'''pomafan''' = a biped
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"


'''pomagan''' = a quadruped
'''béu''' avoids this ambiguity by using the negative operator '''jù''' which negates nouns.


'''pomalan''' = an insect
"I have been idol for seven years" => '''hogi bù kodara dían áus yé ofa'''


'''pomazan''' = an spider ............................  '''béu''' is one of the few languages in the world to give the octopus a name not consisting of "eight".
"I have worked for a period of time different from seven years" => '''jù àn hogi kodara dían áus yé ofa'''


..
..


'''kandaban''' = a threeway intersection ....... '''kanda''' "intersection"
[[Image:SW_077.png]]
 
'''kandagan''' = a fourway intersection


'''kandadan''' = a fiveway intersection
[[Image:SW_078.png]]


..
..


'''dalnoban''' = a triangle
Note : the bottom left one is '''?àn jù kodara yé euca''' rather than  '''*?ès jù kodara yé euca'''  


'''dalnogan''' = a quadrilateral
THIS IS BECAUSE ?


'''dalnodan''' = a pentagon


'''dalnolan''' = a hexagon ........ This is further eroded to '''nolan''' and takes on the meaning "townhall".
The rule is that '''bù''' is not allowed in a clause that has '''ʔès'''/'''ʔàn''' and an "specified offset time".


And so on ...
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''' ...


..
..


'''daizlodan''' = a 5-cell
While we are discussing this area I really should mention the '''béu''' non-overlap clause with duration and present tense.


'''daizlozan''' = an 8-cell
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.


'''daizlogan''' = a 16-cell
For the '''i''', '''e''' and '''u''' tenses these constructions are self explanatory. For example ...


'''daizlofain ''' = a 24-cell


'''daizlopain''' = 120-cell
{|
|-
!  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).


'''daizlogaufain''' = 600-cell


..
However duration along with a present tense is worth mentioning.


== ... Set Phrase and idioms==


..
{|
 
|-
If you meet somebody who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò yír fales''' "may you have peace".
! kod-a-r-a|| dían || áus || yé || ofa
 
|-
If you meet some people who you have not met for sometime you say '''gò yér fales''' "may you have peace"
| work-{{small|1SG-IND-PRES}}  || here  || period || year || five
 
|} ==> I will working here for five years in total ............. I think this is disallowed
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.
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.  


..
..


There are some set phrases ... these are not a million miles from interjections
PS ... If you want to know more about aspect operators "The Meaning of Focus Particles" by Ekkehard König is the book for you.
 
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) '''mwehu dè''' = "voila", "look at this" ... I guess an idiom because if the object to be looked at is '''senko''', the phrase ''should'' be  '''mwehu nende''' [ However if the thing to be looked at is an event ... then  '''mwehu dè'''  is grammatical.


(H) '''jonjau.e''' = wait a moment
..
..


Line 2,554: Line 2,490:


o le fafine = a woman
o le fafine = a woman
..
== ... 16 common words in a neat 4x4 matrix==
..
Sixteen very common and useful little words are given in the table below ...
[[Image:TW_883.png]]
They obviously were erosions of what were two word expressions. For example '''*ú pú''' "all people" => '''upu'''. For the indefinite particles '''èn''' and '''ín''' it appears that an inversion of normal words order has also happened. These 16 words are mandatory ... for example ... if you heard '''*ú pú''' instead of '''upu''' you would think it very very strange.
..
{| border=1
  |align=center| '''uda'''
  |align=center| everywhere
  |align=center| '''uku'''
  |align=center| always
  |align=center| '''upu'''
  |align=center| everybody
  |align=center| '''ufan'''
  |align=center| everything
  |- 
  |align=center| '''juda'''
  |align=center| nowhere
  |align=center| '''juku'''
  |align=center| never
  |align=center| '''jupu'''
  |align=center| nobody
  |align=center| '''jufan'''
  |align=center| nothing
  |- 
  |align=center| '''ida'''
  |align=center| anywhere
  |align=center| '''iku'''
  |align=center| anytime
  |align=center| '''ipu'''
  |align=center| anybody
  |align=center| '''ifan'''
  |align=center| anything
  |- 
  |align=center| '''eda'''
  |align=center| somewhere
  |align=center| '''eku'''
  |align=center| sometime
  |align=center| '''epu'''
  |align=center| somebody
  |align=center| '''efan'''
  |align=center| something
  |}
Eight of sixteen have plural forms. Six of these eight give you a choice ... use a special correlative form or use a generic noun with the relevant indefinite particle. For example ...
{| border=1
|align=center| '''ida'''
|align=center| anywhere
|align=center| '''iku'''
|align=center| anytime
|align=center| '''ipu'''
|align=center| anybody
|align=center| '''ifan'''
|align=center| anything
|-
|align=center| '''nda ín''' or '''inda'''
|align=center| any places
|align=center| '''nkyu ín''' or '''inku'''
|align=center| any times
|align=center| '''mpu ín''' or '''impu'''
|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| '''epu'''
|align=center| somebody
|align=center| '''efan'''
|align=center| something
|-
|align=center| '''nda èn''' or '''enda'''
|align=center| some places
|align=center| '''nkyu èn''' or '''enku'''
|align=center| some times
|align=center| '''mpu èn''' or '''empu'''
|align=center| some people
|align=center| '''fanyoi èn'''
|align=center| some things
|}
..
(Note to self : resolve the stuff below)
The columns are related to  the words ... '''dàn''' = place ... '''kyùs''' = time/occasion ... '''fanyo''' = thing
'''upu''' can mean "each person" and "all the people". If they act together '''uwe''' can be added. If they act individually '''bajawe''' can be added.


..
..

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"