Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb: Difference between revisions
| Line 1,255: | Line 1,255: | ||
.. | .. | ||
== ... Four slots before the verb== | == ..... Four slots before the verb== | ||
.. | .. | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 3 November 2016
Welcome to béu
... The Verbal Moods
..
When people speak they have different intentions. That is they are trying to achieve different things by speaking ... maybe they are trying to convey information, or wanting somebody to do something, or not to do something, or they are just expressing their feelings about something. All these are examples of what is called moods. Different languages have different methods of coding their moods. Also the various moods of a languages cover a different semantic range compared to other languages.
There are 7 moods in béu ... 3 expressing themselves by changes to the root verb and 4 by periphrasis.
..
..
..
What are considered moods are shown by a green circle.
..
..
How the different moods and forms interact are shown above. [this will be explained in full later]
..
... The Infinitive
..
The maŋga is "the infinitive"
This is the base form of the verb ... not considered a mood. maŋga corresponds to what is called the "infinitive" in some languages or the "masDar" in Arabic.
About 32% of multi syllable maŋga end in "a".
About 16% of multi syllable maŋga end in "e", and the same for "o".
About 9% of multi syllable maŋga end in "au", and the same for "oi", "eu" and "ai".
Note that no maŋga end in "i", "u", "ia" and "ua"
"i" is reserved for marking verb chains, which will be explained later.
"u" is used for the imperative mood ... i.e. for commanding people.
"ia" is used for a past passive participle. For example ...
yubako = to strengthen
yubakia = strengthened ... as in pazba dí r yubakia => "this table is strengthened"
"ua" could be called the future passive participle I guess. For example ...
ndi r yubakua => these ones must be strengthened
To form a negative infinitive the word jù is placed immediately in front of the verb. For example ...
doika = to walk
jù doika = to not walk .... not to walk
..
... The indicative
..
Also called the R-form.
..
To make a verb in the indicative mood, you must first deleted the final vowel from the infinitive. Then add affixes that indicate "agent", "indicative mood", "tense", "evidentiality" and "perfectness". We will refer to these as slots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
..
.. Slot 1
..
Slot 1 is for the agent ..
One of the 7 vowels below is must be added. These indicate the doer..
Notice that there are 2 entries that represent the 1st person plural subject (i.e. we). The top one represents first person inclusive and the bottom one represents first person exclusive.
Note that the ai form is used when you are talking about generalities ... the so called "impersonal form" ... English uses "you" or "one" for this function.
The above defines the "person" of the verb. Then follows an "r" which indicates the word is an verb in the indicative mood. For example ...
doika = to walk
doikar = I walk
doikair and doikaur = we walk
doikir = you walk
doiker = you walk
doikor = he/she/it walks
doikur = they walk
..
.. Slot 2
..
Slot 2 is for the indicative mood marker.
..
At this point we must introduce a new sound and a new letter.
This letter has not been mentioned so far because it doesn't occur in any words as such. It only occurs in grammatical suffixes and it indicates the indicative mood.
If you hear an "r" you know you are hearing the main verb of a clause.
..
.. Slot 3
..
Slot 3 is for tense markers. There are 5 tense markers in béu
..
1) *doikaro => doikar = I walk (habitually)
| tunheu-n | doik-a-r-∅ | fafalaja | gò | nambo-n | ny-á-r-∅ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| align=center|walk-1SG-IND-AOR | "every afternoon" | CONJ | home-DAT | return-1SG-IND-AOR |
==> I walk to the townhall every afternoon and then return home
I call this the aortist tense. The word comes from Ancient Greek and means "indefinite" as it was the unmarked tense/aspect. (Actually thIs unmarked form had a past & nondurative meaning in Ancient Greek). I call this form aortist because it is usually represented by a null morpheme. In béu it has a sort of timeless tense (sometimes it is habitual) used for generic statements. For example ...
pyár jwadoi = "birds fly"
Actually you can say this tense has an underlying o which appears if there is an n or an s in the evidentiality slot.
| tunheu-n | doik-o-r-o-s | fafalaja | gò | nambo-n | ny-o-r-o-s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| align=center|walk-3SG-IND-AOR-EV2 | "every afternoon" | CONJ | home-DAT | return-3SG-IND-AOR-EV2 |
==> They say he/she walks to the townhall every afternoon and then returns home
2) doikaru = I will walk
This is the future tense
3) doikari = I walked
This is the past tense. This means that the action was done before today (by the way ... the béu day starts at 6 in the morning).
4) doikare = I walked
This is the near-past tense. This means that the action was done earlier on today (a good memory aid is to remember that e is the same vowel as in the English word "day")
5) doikara = I am walking
This is the present tense ... it means that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking.
..
It can be seen that béu is more fine-grained, tense-wise than most of the world's languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/66 and http://wals.info/chapter/67
..
.. Slot 4
..
Slot 4 is for the evidential markers (well three out of five are evidential markers)
..
There are three markers that cites on what evidence the speaker is saying what he is saying. However it is not mandatory to stipulate on what evidence you are saying what you are saying. In fact most occurrences of the indicative verb do not have an evidence marker.
The markers are as follows ...
1) -n
For example ... doikorin = "I guess that he walked" ... That is the speaker worked it out from circumstances/clues observed.
2) -s
For example ... doikoris = "They say he walked" ....... That is the speaker was told by some third party(ies) or overheard some third party(ies) talking.
3) -a
For example ... doikria = "he walked, I saw him" ...... That is the speaker saw it with his own eyes.
Note that the above evidential only co-occurs with the past tense and near-past tense. Actually when used with the near-past tense, e.a => ia. Hence when this evidential is used, we loose the distinction between "past" and "near-past".
Now there is a forth possibility for this slot ... and it is not actually an evidintial. Furthermore it has the same form as 3).
4) -a
For example ... doikorua = "he intends to walk" ... the agent in this case, of course, must be a sentient being (i.e. human).
Note that the above only co-occurs with the future tense.
5) -ø
This is the null morpheme. If the speaker doesn't know the evidential or deems it unimportant, then the null morpheme is used. According to corpus studies in béu, 60% - 70% of indicative mood verbs have the null morpheme.
..
It can be seen that the béu evidentiality inventory is quite substantial compared to other languages ... http://wals.info/chapter/78
..
.. Slot 5
..
This slot can have the "perfect aspect marker" yə or not (you can call the second case the null morpheme choise ... if you want)
..
The perfect tense, logically doesn't differ that much difference from the past tense,. but it is emphasizing a state rather than an action. It represents the state at the time of speaking as the outcome of past events. We have this aspect in English and it is realized as "have -en".
For example if you wanted to talk to John and you went to his office, his secretary might say "he has gone to lunch, this emphasizes the absence of John as opposed to "he went for lunch". The latter is just an action that happened in the past, the former is a present state brought about by a past action.
For another example ... "she read the book on geometry"
This doesn't specify whether she read it all the way thru or whether she just read a bit of it. Whereas ...
"she has read the book on geometry", implies she read the book all the way thru, but more importantly the connotation is that at the present time she has knowledge of geometry.
..
The perfect marker -yə was probably derived from ìa "to finish/to complete" in its verb chain form. It has been suggested that it could have been derived from yái "to have/to possess" in its verb chain form but this is now considered very unlikely. The perfect aspect occurs in roughly half of the languages of the world ... http://wals.info/chapter/68
..
Also it appears that 5 categories being appended to the verb is typical of languages of the world. See ... http://wals.info/chapter/22 [If I have understood the chapter properly]
..
... The imperative
..
You use the following forms for giving orders ... for giving commands. When you use the following forms you do not expect a discussion about the appropriateness of the action ... although a discussion about the best way to perform the action is possible.
..
For non-monosyllabic verbs ...
The final vowel of the maŋga is deleted and replaced with u.
doika = to walk
doiku = walk !
..
For monosyllabic verbs -hu is appended.
gàu = "to do"
gauhu = "do it" ... often só is added fot extra emphasis.
só gauhu = do it !
One verb has an irregular form.
jò = "to go"
ojo = "go" ... actually a bit abrupt, probably expressing exasperation, veering towards "fuck off" ... jò itself can be used as a very polite form.
..
The imperative cab be directed at second person singular or second person plural. When addressing a group and issuing a command to the entire group you sort of let your eyes flick over the entire group. When addressing a group and issuing a command to one person you keep your eyes on this person when issuing the command ... maybe saying their name before the command ... probably preseded by só which is a vocative marker as well as being an emphatic particle.
[ Note ... I think that in English, the infinitive usually has "to" in front of it, in order to distinguish it from the imperative. In béu too there is a need to distinguish between these two verb forms. However as the imperative occurs less often than the infinitive, I have decided to mark the imperative. ]
..
... The prohibitive
..
This is also called the negative imperative. Semantically it is the opposite of the imperative. It is formed by putting the particle kyà before maŋga.
kyà doika = don't walk
That is pretty much all there is to say about it.
..
... The optative
..
This form expresses a wish or hope of the speaker ... but there is no appeal for the addressee to act. Also it is not really giving information as such. It is more about letting the speaker express his emotions [ maybe "ventative would be a suitable name for it :-) ]
The form is introduced by the particle fò. This particle has no other uses. It always comes utterance initial.
It expresses wishful thinking. For example ... fò blèu doika = "Oh to be able to walk" ... fò sàu jini = "I wish I was clever"
This form is used for curses and benedictions ... by frequency of usage the former outnumber the latter by about 10 to 1. For example ...
fò gò diablos ò ʔaworu = "May the Devil take him"
There are some formula type expressions that are used in certain situations/ rituals that use this form.. For example xxx = "God save the king"
The most common use of fò is the greeting fò fales sàu gipi "may peace be upon you"
The verb form in this construction is usually maŋga. Most often hopes and wishes are for the future, but sometimes they are orientated towards the past (I suppose they should be called regrets in these cases). For example ...
"If only you had arrived yesterday"
In these cases the R-form is used after the particle gò.
"If only you had arrived yesterday" => fò gò diriyə jana
The table below shows the optative construction ... either with the particle fò plus maŋga OR with the particles fò gò plus the R-form.
..
... The suggestive
..
We have come across kái before. In chapter 2.10 we saw that it was a question word meaning "what kind of". It normally follows a noun being an adjective. For example ...
báu kái = what type of man ?
ò r báu kái = what type of man is he ?
ò r deuta kái = what type of soldier is he ?
nendi kái = this is what type ?
But just as a normal adjective can be a copula complement, so can kái.
ò r kái = what type is he ?
nendi r kái = this is what type ?
ʃì r kái = what type of thing is it ?
However when you see kái utterance initial you know that it has a slightly different function : it is introducing the "soliciting opinion" mood. For example ...
kái wìa nyáu nambon jindi = How about we go home now ? OR Let's go home now.
Now ... as with the "optative", the "soliciting opinion" mood is usually orientated towards the future and uses maŋga. However their are circumstances where you solicit opinion about past events [for example a group of detectives on a crime scene discussing the possible steps taken by the perpetrator]. In these circumstances the R-form would be used preceded by the particle tà ... [see the table in the section above]
The main thing about this mood is that the speaker is asking for feedback/advice/approval or disapproval. But it overlaps with the field "gently suggesting a course of action" somewhat.
..
... The interrogative
..
Also called Polar Questions. A polar question is a question that can be answered with "yes" or "no".
..
To turn a normal statement ( i.e. with the verb in its R-form) into a polar question the particle ʔai? is stuck on at the very end.
It has its own symbol (and I transcribe it as ʔai?) because it possesses its own tone contour.
I have mentioned this particle in chapter 1 (if you look back you can see its exact tone contour). Here is its symbol again ... 
And here is an example of it in action ...
... jono jaŋkori ʔai? = Did John run ?
..
ʔai? is neutral as to the response expected ... well at least in positive questions.
To answer a positive question you answer ʔaiwa "yes" or aiya "no" (of course if "yes" or "no" are not adequate, you can digress ... the same as any language).
Here is an example of a positive question ...
glá r hauʔe ʔai? = Is the woman beautiful ?
If she is beautiful you answer ʔaiwa, if not you answer aiya*.
..
To answer a negative question it is not so simple. ʔaiwa and aiya are deemed insufficient to answer a negative question on their own. For example ...
glá bù r hauʔe ʔai? = Is the woman not beautiful ?
If she is not beautiful, you should answer bù hauʔe**, if she is you can answer either hù hauʔe or glá r hauʔe
I guess a negative question expects a negative answer, so a positive answer must be quite accoustically prominent (that is a short answer ("yes" or "no") is not enough)
..
We have mentioned só already ... in the above section about seŋko. This is the focus particle. It has a number of uses. When you want to emphasis one word in a clause, you would stick hù in front of it***.
Another use for só is when hailing somebody .... só jono = Hey Johnny
You can also stick it in front of someone's name when you are talking to them. However it is not a "vocative case" exactly. Well for one thing it is never mandatory. When used the speaker is gently chiding the listener : he is saying, something like ... the view you have is unique/unreasonable or the act you have done is unique/unreasonable. When I say unique I mean "only the listener" hold these views : the listener's views/actions are a bit strange.
When stuck in front of a non-multi-syllable verb you get an imperative. For example ... só nyáu = Go home
só can also be used to highlight one element is a statement or polar question. For example ...
Statement ... bàus glán nori alha = the man gave flowers to the woman
Focused statement ... bàus só glán nori alha = It is the woman to whom the man gave flowers.****
Unfocused question ... bàus glán nori alha ʔai? = Did the man give flowers to the woman ?
Focused statement ... bàus só glán nori alha ʔai? = It is to the woman that the man gave flowers ?
..
Any argument can be focused in this way.
..
*These words have a unique tone contour as well ... at least when spoken in isolation. I suppose I should have given these two words a symbol each ... if I wanted to be consistent.
**Mmm ... maybe you could answer ʔaiwa here ... but a bit unusual ... not entirely felicitous.
***In English, when you want to emphasis a word, you make it more accoustically prominent : you don't rush over it but give it a very careful articulation. This is iconic and I guess all languages do the same. It is a pity that there is no easy way to represent this in the English orthography apart from increasing the font size or adding exclamation marks.
****English uses a process called "left dislocation" to give emphasis to an element in a clause.
..
The other type of question ... the content question was covered in the last chapter.
..
... The conflative
..
Also called the i-form. [By the way "conflative" is my term ... I thought I would join in the fun and make up a silly name myself]
I will only touch on this here. Nearer the end of this chapter there is a section that goes into this in a lot more detail. OK one quick example ...
to walk = doika
road = komwe
to follow = plèu
to whistle = wiza
From the above we could make three short sentences.
John walked => jono doikori
John followed the road => jonos komwe plori
John whistled => jono wizori
..
However as all three verbs seem to take part in the same action they can be combined. The first verb in the combination is normal (whether it is r-form, u-form, s-form or in fact manga).
The following verbs in the combination take a special ending ... -i for multi-syllable words and the schwa ə for mono-syllable words. So we get the form ...
John walked along the road whistling => jono doikori komwe plə wiʒi
..
..... Verbs & Valency
..
In the Western Linguistic Tradition we talk about intransitive verbs (for example "sleep") that have one participant (also called an "argument"). Also we talk about transitive verbs (for example "cut") which have two. Then we have ones with three arguments which are called ditransitive verbs. But I hate this nomenclature ... from now on I will talk about one-place, two-place and three-place verbs. And I will write it in shorthand form ...
Actually you can have [0000] as well. For example ....
..
| jono-s | jene-n | laigau | haun-o-r-a | eŋglaba-tu |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John-ERG | Jane-DAT | calculus | teach-3SG-IND-PRES | English-INST |
==> John is teaching calculus to Jane in English
..
The main thing is that you have to distinguish between the various arguments somehow. English uses position with respect to the verb to distinguish between the "doer" and the "done-to". The prepositions "to" and "in" are used to show what the roll of the other two arguments have. As you can see ... béu uses suffixes to distinguish between all the different arguments.
For various reasons ... it is not necessary to talk about [0000] in the grammer of a language.
[000] should be taken into consideration. However it is [00] and [0] that need the most attention. The rest of this section is about [00] and [0].
..
And now to introduce the S A O convention, this is just a way used to refer to the arguments of [0] and [00] ... the one argument of [0] is referred to as the S argument ... the argument of [00] in which the success of the action most depends is referred to as the A argument ... the argument of [00] which is most affected by the action is called the O argument.
..
O was probably chosen from "object", A from "agent" and S from "subject" ( I find this useful to keep in mind as a memory aid). However O does not "mean" object and A does not mean agent and S does not mean subject. I (and many other linguists) use the word subject to refer to either A or S. Easier to talk about "subject" that to talk about "A or S" all the time.
..
Now in English certain verbs appear to be [0] in some situations and [00] in others. These are called ambitransitive verbs. For example ...
..
1) The door opened
2) The old woman opened the door
..
We could say that the above are two different takes on the same situation. In (1) we have [0] and "door" = S ... in (2) we have [00] and "door" = O. So we can say "open" is an ambitransitive verb of type S=O.
..
3) The old woman knitted
4) The old woman knitted a sweater
..
We could say that the above are two different takes on the same situation. In (3) we have [0] and "old woman" = S ... in (4) we have [00] and "old woman" = A.
..
RMW Dixon calls "knit" is an ambitransitive verb of type S=A. I do not. I just say that "knit" is [00] but sometimes the O argument can be dropped if it is considered trivial. I don't think we are disagreeing about anything ... just I am using a different terminology ... well I want to be able to say that béu has no ambitransitive verbs.
Well ... anyway, putting aside what Dixon calls ambitransitive verbs of type S=A ... lets get back to (1) and (2). In béu "open" mapa is [00]. So how would we express (1) in béu. Well ... as in (4) where we consider the O totally unimportant and just drop it to get (3) ... why not simply drop the A. Well the problem is that the subject (S or A) must be represented in slot "1" of the indicative verb. How should we know what to put in here ( see Ch3.1.2.1 ) ? Well we could take the 3 person plural suffix -u- ... chances are that it is a 3rd person agent and the plural is more generic than the singular. This is what Russian does to make a sort of a passive. béus solution is to use a schwa. We don't know which of the 7 markings for person to use ... so everything sort of collapses in ... to the schwa ... an impersonal schwa.
..
"the door opened" => "the door was opened" = pintu mapəri (Actually I do not think the schwa symbol is distinct enough ... from now on I will use a dash) => pintu map-ri
..
Here are some examples of this construction [ I will call it the schwa construction from now on ]
beuba sw-r dían = "The language of béu is spoken here"
pí gaudoheu dè_sweno g-r = "In this factory telephones are made"
toilia bù ost-r pí duka dí = "Books are not sold in this shop"
pintu by-ru mapa = pintu r mapua = the door has to be opened
pintu bl-r mapa = the door can be opened ........... [ to understand this example and the one above it ... see Ch 4.7 ]
..
Note ... the schwa can not support any tone. And as it is only used in the grammer and not in any base words as such it was not introduced in Chapter 1 (as r was not). The schwa is in fact a cross ...
Also note ... Some people pronouns "schwa" + "syllable final rhotic" as "ø". These people also tend to give "ø" the proper tone. However the majority pronoun a schwa followed by a rhotic appoximant with neutral tone.
..
Now "door" is a man-made object and probably it exists in a place with many people around. So it is reasonable to expect there to be human volition involved when it opens. But what about when we get out into nature. When we see a river freezing. There is no agent to be seen behind this "freezing" ... it just happens. For this reason the verb "to freeze" doska is [0].
But now we have become clever ... we hold dominion over nature. Hence we need to derive a word for freeze that is [00]. And that deriration is arrived at by appending -n (historically this was -nau and even further back it was the independent word náu "to give")
Hence ...
moze doskori = the water froze
moze doskaniri = You froze the water
..
Actually any [0] can take this suffix and become [00]. Here are a few more examples ...
..
| pyà | to fly | pyàn | to throw |
| jó | to go | jón | to send |
| tè | to come | tèn | to summon |
| bái | to rise | báin | to raise |
| kàu | to descend | kàun | to lower |
| dài | to die | dàin | to kill |
| slài | to change | slàin | to change |
| diadia | to happen | diadian | to cause |
..
Six [00] can also take -nau as well and become [000]. They are ...
..
| flò | to eat | flòn | to feed |
| bwí | to see | bwín | to show |
| háu | to learn | háun | to teach |
| glù | to know | glùn | to inform |
| pòi | to enter, to join | pòin | to put in |
| féu | to exit, to leave | féun | to take out |
..
(Note : fyá "to tell" means basically the same as glùn but is less formal )
..
We have discussed mapa and doska so far. The first is considered basically [00] and the second one basically [0]. There is a third type of verb ... for this type it is hard to say if it is more basic as [0] or more basic as [00]. So these verbs have two basic forms. For example ...
..
cwamo hulkori = the bridge broke
deutais cwamo helkuri = the soldiers broke the bridge
..
Actually for the first example .. the chances are that the breakage was due to wear and tear caused by human activity. But the important thing is that it is non-volitional. Also there might have been no humans around when the bridge actually did break. So we can talk about the bridge breaking by itself ... as if by an act of nature. And another example ...
..
jono wiltore = John woke up (earlier today)
jenes jone woltore = Jane woke up John (earlier today)
..
There are about 40 of these pairs. If the [0] has u the [00] will have e ... if the [0] has i the [00] will have o.
So lets summarize these three typre of verb ...
..
..
So to wrap it all up about verbs and arguments ...
No verbs are ambitrasitive. They are either [0] or [00]. However it is easy to drop the A or the O argument from a [00] clause if either of them is considered trivial or is unknown.
Now in béu any [00] can be given a [0] meaning ( grammatically the structure is still [00] ) by making the the O argument tí ... meaning himself, herself, yourself etc. etc. However only animate A arguments do this. Hence ...
bàus tí timpori = the man hit himself ................. acceptable
*pintus tí mapori = the door opened itself ...... unacceptable
In English there are two ways to report on a door opening without mentioning any agent ... "the door opened" and "the door was opened"
In béu only one ... pintu map-ri ... which is just a two place clause with the A argument dropped. Comparable to how "the old woman knitted" is a two place clause with the O argument dropped.
..
In béu you can make a passive participle by suffixing -ia.
If you come across something broken and you know it was broken by human volition ... you would call it helkia.
If you come across something broken and you did not know how it was broken ... you would call it hulkia.
If you come across something frozen you would call it doskia. There is no such word as *doskania.
..
In béu you can make the so called obligation participle by suffixing -ua.
If you come across something that had to be broken ... you would call it helkua.
If you come across something that had to be frozen ... you would call it doskanua.
There is no such words as *doskua or *hulkua
..
The above method of presenting a verb like mapa all hint at human volition. To get rid of this connotation (to suggest that the event happened naturely) we must use lài "to become" plus an adjective. This is demonstrated below ...
Consider geuko = "to turn green" ... [00] ... derived from gèu "green"
1) báu lí gèu = The man became green .. ........................ natural
2) báu geuk-ri = The man was made green .................... human volition
3) báus tí geukori = The man made himself green
..
Now consider mapa = "to open" ... [00]
1) pintu lì mapia = the door became opened = the door opened .......... natural ................ [ here the agent could be anything ... the wind ... or even some fairy cái ... use your imagination ]
2) pintu map-ri = the door was opened ............................................... human volition .... [ this one implies that the agent was human but is either unknown or unimportant and the action deliberate ]
Note ... there is no (3) here as a door is non-human.
..
In either of the (1)'s wistia "deliberately/carefully" or wistua "accidently/carelessly" can be added after* lì. This automatically makes Agent => Human
The same for the (2)'s, but the incidence of wistua should greatly excede the incidence of wistia as "intention" is the default for this construction.
With (3) the connotation of intent is so strong that wistia/ wistua could be considered a bit infelicitous ... not impossible but indicative of a very unusual situation.
* or wistiwe or wistuwe if not immediately after the verb. [by the way ... wisto = mind/brain]
..
..... Short Verbs
..
In a previous lesson we saw that the first step for making an R-form is to delete the final vowel from the maŋga. However this is only applicable for multi-syllable words.
With monosyllabic verbs the rules are different. For monosyllabic verbs the R-form suffixes are simply added on at the end of the infinitive.
swó = to fear ... swo.ar = I fear ... swo.ir = you fear ... swo.or = she fears ...
Many béu speakers pronounce a glottal stop between the two parts, especially if they are speaking forcefully.
In my transcription a dot is inserted between the base and the suffixes. In the béu writing system the two vowels are simple written alongside.
..
..
For a monosyllabic verb ending in ai or oi, the final i => y for the R-form.
gái = to ache, to be in pain ... gayar = I am in pain ... gayir = you are in pain ...
For a monosyllabic verb ending in au or eu, the final u => w for the R-form.
ʔáu = to take, to pick up ... ʔawar = I take ... ʔawir = you take ...
..
However 37 monosyllabic maŋga are exceptions : they pattern exactly the same as poly-syballic verbs.
..
| ʔái = to want | |||
| mài = to get | myè = to store | ||
| yái = to have | |||
| jò = to go | jwòi = to to pass through, undergo, to bear, to endure, to stand | ||
| féu = to exit | fyá = to tell | flò = to eat | |
| bái = to rise | byó = to own | blèu = to hold | bwí = to see |
| gàu = to do | glù = to know | gwói = to pass by | |
| día = to arrive / reach | dwài = to pursue | ||
| lài = to become | |||
| cùa = to leave / depart | cwá = to cross | ||
| sàu = to be | slài = to change | swé = to speak, to say | |
| kàu = to fall | kyò = to use | klói = to like | kwèu = to turn |
| pòi = to enter | pyá = to fly | plèu = to follow | |
| té = to come | twá = to meet | ||
| wè = to think | |||
| náu = to give | nyáu = to return | ||
| háu = to learn |
..
For example ... pòr nambo = he/she enters the house ... not *poyor nambo
The above are also among the most common verbs as well. If you are serious about learning béu you should try and memorize them as soon as possible.
..
..... Copulas
..
There are two copula's ... sàu "to be" and lài "to become". You will see that they were listed among the 37 special short verbs. However they pattern differently from the other 35 as we shall see.
The three components of a copular clause have a strict order ... "copular subject" => "copula" => "copula complement" ... the same order as English in fact.
The copula subject is always unmarked.
..
However the indicative mood is not derived from the infinitive by the usual method. As you might remember the first 3 slots are mandory in the indicative form (the aortist tense being a null morpheme).
But for sàu and lài things are radically different. Below are the indicative forms for sàu and lài.
..
..
Note that the third column (under lài) are grammatically all R-form's ... even though they don't actually have any rhotic sound.
For sàu in the aortist tense, r is the complete copula. It is a clitic attached the the last vowel of the copula subject (however it is always written as a separate word). For example ....
tomo r tumu = Thomas is stupid
It takes the tone of the copula subject (if the copula subject has one).
If the copula subject ends in a consonant then rò is used. For example ....
géus rò solki = the green one is smoothe
Evidentials can be added as normal to these forms. For example ...
jene gáu rìs hauʔe = "They say old Jane used to be beautiful"
jono jutu lòn gáu = "I guess big John is becoming old" ... note that lón is considered mote appropriate than lán. If the timeframe of the action was a lot shorter then lá would be considered appropriate.
..
It is only the R-forms of the copula's which are irregular. All other forms are perfectly normal.
..
sàu bòi = Be good ................................................................. U-form
kodor sə kludado = He works as a clark ................................ I-form
..
Note that for copular clauses, the subject noun or pronoun can never be dropped, because the person/number information is gone (that is ... there is no component to the left of the "r"). For a normal verb ... if the subject is 1st or 2nd person ... then the pronoun is invariably dropped. For 3rd person, whether you have a proper noun, pronoun or nothing depends upon discourse factors.
wài r wikai tè nù r yubau = "we are weak but they are strong"
ʃì r helkia = "it is broken" [ ʃì hulki ]
..
Often the object of certain transitive verbs can be unceremoniously dropped if it is thought too trivial and/or unknown. For example solbara "I am drinking" is complete in itself [both in English and in béu] even though drink and solbe are transitive verbs. That is ... no need to say "I am drinking something" in English ... no need to say solbara efan in béu.
The copula subject in certain situations can also be dropped. The reason for this is the mirror image to the reason for dropping an object. Whereas the object is thought "too trivial" or "unknown" the copula subject is thought too "all encompassing". (English usually uses a dummy subject, "it" in similar situations)
When béu has no copular subject ... sər [ written as s-r from now on ] is the form of the copula used. ( Notice that this is what the 3sg indicative impersonal form of sàu would be if it were conjugated as a regular verb )
As with English, this construction is often used for the weather ...
fona = rain : fonia = rainy/raining : fonua = dry (well not raining). So ...
s-ra fonia = it's raining
..
Often when discussing the advisability of some course of action a construction containing s-r + one of the adjectives neʒi, boʒi or fàin + gò are used. For example ...
..
| səra | neʒi | gò | ny-e-r-u | jindi |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "it is"-PRES | necessary | CMPZ | return-2PL-IND-FUT | now |
==> It is necessary that you (pl) will return to home now ==> You (pl) must go home right now
| bù | səra | fàin | gò | sw-a-r-u | ifan | jindi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEG | "it is"-PRES | appropriate | CMPZ | speak-1SG-IND-FUT | anything | now |
==> It is inappropriate that I will say anything now ==> I shouldn't say anything now
| sər-u | boʒi | gò | jubu | j-u-r-u |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "it is"-FUT | optimum | CMPZ | nobody | go-3PL-IND-FUT |
==> It will be best if nobody goes
..
neʒi = necessary ................. the action is a vital part of some larger scheme (that will achieve some goal) ........... moze r neʒi LIFE.wo = water is necessary for life
boʒi = best ........................... the action will yield more benefits than other actions (or no action at all).
fàin = fitting/appropriate...... the action will be approved of by society at large (or at least the subsection society that is interested in the matter).
Note the two nouns ... neʒis = "a necessity and boʒis = "the optimum"
..
For new situations ... l-r is used instead of s-r. (Notice that l-r is what the 3sg indicative impersonal form lài would be if it were conjugated as a regular verb). For example ...
l-ra fonia = it starting to rain
The form l-r is quite a bit rarer than s-r.
..
OK ... So sàu and lài are the two copula's of béu.
There is another verb, that while not a copula, can function in a way similar to s-r.
While s-r connects an attribute ( adjective ) to the universe at large (well at least attaches an attribute to the local environment) y-r connects a noun to the universe at large. y-r is actually the 3sg indicativeimpersonal form of the verb yái "to have on you".
yái is often used to connect a human subject to a object (stupid English) object. For example ...
jonos yór kli.o = John has a knike
yái can also be used to connect a location subject to any physical object. For example ...
| tunheu-s | y-o-r-e | yiŋki | hè | yildos |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "townhall"-ERG | "have"-3SG-IND-PST | "attractive girls" | alot | morning |
==> the townhall had many attractive girls this morning*
This usage can become impersonalized (i.e. the locative subject can be deleted) and the meaning then becomes ... the physical object exists somewhere in the Universe. For example ...
y-r dèus = "there is a God" or "God exists"
This construction can be negated in two ways ...
bù y-r dèus = "there isn't a God" : y-r jù dèus = "there is no God"
..
Going back to the original example ...
y-r yiŋki hè = "There are many attractive girls" ............................................................................... [ they exist somewhere ... somewhere in the Universe ]
The above can be modified ... below we modify it with an "adjective phrase of location" tunheuʔe and an "adjective phrase of time" [Notice the tense of y-r must be adjusted to agree on the last one ]
(1) y-re yiŋki hè tunheuʔe yildos = "there were many attractive girls at the townhall this morning"..... [ this changes the meaning from "Somewhere in the Universe" => "a more Specific Locality" ]
Which actually means exactly the same as (2) tunheus yore yiŋki hè yildos
Which in turn means pretty much the same as the copula sentence (3) yiŋki hè rè tunheuʔe yildos = "many attractive girls were at the townhall this morning" ... so three ways to say the same thing.
But note ...
*tunheuʔe rè yiŋki hè yildos = "at the townhall this morning were many attractive girls"
The above construction that is allowed in English is not allowed in béu ... well you can't say "green is the man" in English
..
..... Six causative constructions
..
"John made Jane drink the water" is an English causative construction ... [Note on terminology ... we call "John" the "causer" and "Jane" the "causee"]
..
In a similar manner to English ... béu uses gàu (meaning "to do" or "to make") as the neutral term for coding causation. For example ...
(a) jonos gore solbe moze jenen = John made Jane drink water (earlier today)
..
| jono- | g-o-r-e | solbe | moze | jene-n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John-ERG | "do"-3SG-IND-PST | drink.INF | water | Jane-DAT |
..
Note that the causee gets the dative affix. Also note that maŋga immediately follows gàu, the maŋga object immediately follows maŋga. The causee can come anywhere but the string gore solbe moze can not be broken. There are 3 possible places where jenen can appear.
And another example ...
jonos gore náu onyo waulon jenen = John made Jane give the bone to a dog (earlier today)
Notice that we have two datives in this construction. The string gore náu onyo waulon can not be broken.
..
This construction implies that the causer was present when the event happened. We call it a "direct" causative construction.
There is another causative construction which doesn't imply the causer was present when the event took place. In fact it implies that the causer took some action which at a later time made the causee do what they did. The two actions very probably being linked by some sort societal connection (via other people).
(b) jonos gore gò jenes solbore moze = John had Jane drink water
The clause after gò ( i.e. jenes solbore moze ) has free word order.
The indirect causative construction is iconic ... separating the two verbs with gò reflects the separation of the two events ... both timewise and otherwise (i.e. there could have been a chain of protagonists involved).
..
There are 4 other causitive constructions in béu ... gàu is neutral as to how the causee views the action they are made to do.
If the causee is reluctant ... we use tumai "to squeeze" or "to press" instead of gáu.
If the causee is eager ... we use náu "to give" instead of gáu. For example ...
..
(c) jonos tumore solbe moze jenen = "John made Jane drink water" or "John forced Jane to drink water (earlier today)"
(d) jonos tumori gò jenes solbore moze = "John had Jane drink water" or "John arranged that Jane had to drink the water" ... (the drinking occurred earlier today, the causing of the drinking ... yesterday or before)
(e) jonos nore solbe moze jenen = "John let Jane drink the water (earlier today)"
(f) jonos nori gò jenes solbore moze = "John allowed Jane to drink water" or "John arranged for Jane to be able to drink water" ... (the drinking occurred earlier today, the arranging of the drinking ... yesterday or before)
..
Notice that in (a), (c) and (e) the maŋga must occur immediately after gàu, tumai or náu. This is the same as the French, Italian or Spanish causative constuctions. Here is a French example ...
..
==> I will make Jean eat the cakesje ferai manger les gâteaux à Jean 1sgA make+fut+1sg eat+inf the cakes prep Jean
..
(a), (c) and (e) have what is called a compound causative verb. (i.e. one clause) ... (b), (d) and (f) are what are called periphrastic causative constructions. (i.e. two clauses)
..
It is possible for the indirect paraphrastic construction to give the embedded clause an impersonal form. For example ...
jonos gori gò solb-re moze = "John had the water drunk" or "John arranged for someone to drink the water" ................. [notice : no causee]
..
..
In the above table, it can be seen that there are 6 causative constructions. There are 3 degrees of "volition" (the willingness of the causee) and 2 degrees of "directness" (did the causer act directly on the causee or through intermidiaries).
..
It is possibly to chain causative constructions together. For example ...
..
jonos flòn jodoi = John feeds the animals.
g-r gò jonos flòn jodoi = John is made to feed the animals.
(nús) gùr gò jonos flòn jodoi = they make John feed the animals.
gàu gò (nús) gùr gò jonos flòn jodoi = make them make John feed the animals.
by-r gàu gò (nús) gùr gò jonos flòn jodoi = it is necessary to make them make John feed the animals.
(gís) byír gàu gò (nús) gùr gò jonos flòn jodoi = you must make them make John feed the animals.
..
And 2 of these 3 causative verbs can be given impersonal forms ....
jenen g-ryə doika or g-ryə doika jenen = "Jane has been made to walk" or "somebody has make Jane walk
jenen tum-ryə doika or tum-ryə doika jenen = "Jane has been forced to walk" or "somebody has forced Jane to walk
Now náu "to give" is a strange word in that it never takes an impersonal form (see the section above). Instead the word mài "to receive/get" is used.
jene moryə doika = "Jane has been allowed to walk" ... [ as opposed to *jenen n-ryə doika ]
We will learn more about mài Ch 4.6 and Ch 4.7.
..
Another verb that we can mention here is penau meaning "to persuade, coax, convince, bring around, influence, sway"
penarua jene jonowo = "I intend to persuade Jane about John" = "I intend to bring Jane around to my way of thinking with respect to John"
(pás) penare jono jò nambon = "I got John to go home" = "I persuaded John to go home" .... [Note ... the maŋga does not immediately follow for penau ]
(pás) penare jono gò baba yor jò nambon = "I persuaded John that father should go home"
Also penau says nothing about the success of the action ... unlike the 3 other verbs we have considered where success is assumed.
..
..... The reciprocal construction
..
The reciprocal particle is bèn
jonos jenes timpur bèn = "John and Jane are hitting each other" = "John and Jane hit one and other"
Note ... lè "and" is not used when two nouns in the ergative case occur adjacent to each other.
The particle also comes after adjectives occasionally. For example ...
jono lè jene r ʔài bèn = John and Jane are the same.
No real reason why it should be added to the above sentence ... except that it is judged to sound good.
ʔáu bèn "to take mutually" is the béu expression meaning ... do the dirty deed, have relations, roger, root, shag, boink, slam the clam, thump thighs, pass the gravy, wet the willy, make the beast with two backs ... make love.
..
..... Four slots before the verb
..
We have already covered the indicative with the 4 slots for "agent", "tense/aspect", " r " and "evidentiality" at the end of the denuded infinitive. As well as the nuances given by these post verbal slots, there are a set of nine particles which give further nuances to the basic indicative verb. These are called (near-standers ?). These particles occur in 4 pre-verbal slots. However these particles are independent word, not affixes.
These are shown (along with the 4 post-verbal slots) below ...
... Slot 1
..
These two particles indicate probability.
màs = possibly
lói = probably
Of course they cover a wide probability range but the average probability gleaned from hearing màs would probably be around 50 %, and for lói, maybe up near 90 %.
..
... Slot 2
..
bù is a negative particle which has scope over the entire sentence ... equivalent to "not" in English.
awa gives a "habitual but irregular" (maybe best translated as "now and again" or "occasionally" or even "not usually") meaning to the main verb. Possibly related to the verb awata ? which means "to wander".
bolbo gives a "habitual and regular" (best translated as "normally" or "usually" or "regularly") meaning to the main verb. Possibly related to the verb bolboi which means "to roll".
juku is used for negating the perfect aspect. For example ...
joryə* = he has gone : juku jora = he hasn't gone :... juku jor = he never goes
joriyə = he had gone : juku jori = he hadn't gone
joruyə = he will have gone : juku joru = he will not have gone
It is as if, for -i, -e, -a and -u, juku is saying that the action didn't happen from the beginning of time to the time specified by the tense. As -iyə, -eyə, -ryə and -uyə are saying that the action happen at least once from the beginning of time to the time specified by the tense ... we can see how one is the negative of the other.
toili dé juku kludara = "I haven't read that book" or "I have never read that book"
By the way ... this negative construction mirrors what is done in Mandarin ... 没 méi or 没有 méiyǒu is used instead of 不 bù and the aspect marker 了 le is omitted.
..
* ... joryə is actually semantically jorayə ... there is no perfect aspect for the habitual tense in béu
Note that juku with the generic/habitual tense is translater by "never" in English : juku jor = he never goes : juku pyár fanfai = horses never fly
..
OK ... but if you are only allowed one of these five, how would you translate .. "I don't usually come to these parent-teacher meetings but ...."
Well you wont say ... awa tár to these parent-teacher nò twás _ ...."
..
... Slot 3
..
These are called aspectual operators or aspectual particles.
..
In English the nearest translations* are ʔàn = "still" and ʔès = "already".
Many many languages have equivalents to these two particles. For example ...
..
| English | still | already |
| German | noch | schon |
| béu | ʔàn | ʔès |
| French | encore | déjà |
| Mandarin | hái | yîjing |
| Dutch | nog | al |
| Russian | eščë | uže |
| Serbo-Croatian | još | već |
| Finnish | vielä | jo |
| Swedish | än(nu) | redan |
| Indonesian | masih | sudah |
..
ʔàn indicates ...
1) an activity is ongoing
2) the activity must stop some time in the future, possibly quite soon.
3) there is a certain expectation* that the activity should have stopped by now.
ʔès indicates ...
1) an activity is ongoing
2) the activity was not ongoing some time in the past, possibly quite recently.
3) there is a certain expectation** that the activity should not have started yet.
..
A very interesting thing about these two words is their negation. Either the particle plus verb can be negated (shown by one bar above the two word) or the verb by itself can be negated (shown by a bar above the verb).
If the verb is negated ... then, on the diagram ... the yellow place becomes white and the white space becomes yellow.
If the particle plus verb is negated ... then, on the diagram ... the dashed line representing now, is translated to the other side of the barrier that represents onset/cessation of activity.
..
..
As you see by above ... by changing whether the negator act on the verb plus the operator or whether the operator acts on the negator plus the verb, negative sentenced with ʔàn and ʔès give diametrically opposite meanings*** (the proper technical term is to call them "dual operators").
Note that there are 4 possible negative cases to choose from and a language only needs 2. I guess a language (to cover all negative cases) should have either "(a) and (c)" or "(b) and (d)" or "(a) and (b)" or "(c) and (d)".
For example, all Slavic languages prefer verb negation, hence they tend to have (c) and (d). In German, only (a) and (c) are allowed in positive declarations. Nahuatl has negation of the operator so uses (a) and (b). It can be said that English is an a/b language also. However in the negative English uses suppletive forms for the two operators ... "yet" for "already" and "anymore" for "still" ... hence "not yet" and "not anymore".
In béu, bù negates the whole sentence**** (or maybe I should say ... the whole clause). So béu is an a/b language as well.
In English, one of the functions of the perfect is to indicate that an action started sometime in the past and is still going on. For example ... "I have worked here for seven years". In béu this is indicated by ʔès ...
..
| ʔès | kod-a-r-a | dían | euca | yìa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| already | work-1SG-IND-PRES | here | seven | year |
==> I have worked here for seven years
..
And the corollary ...
..
| ʔàn | kod-a-r-a | dían | euca | yìa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| yet | work-1SG-IND-PRES | here | seven | year |
==> I will work here for seven more years
..
These constructions can be moved in time quite easily ...
..
| ʔès | kod-o-r-i | dían | euca | yìa | kyù | dai-o-r-i |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| already | work-3SG-IND-PAST | here | seven | year | when | die-3SG-IND-PAST |
==> He had worked here for seven years when he died
..
By the way when a length of time is mentioned but neither ʔès or ʔàn appears ...
..
| kod-a-r-i | dían | euca | yìa |
|---|---|---|---|
| work-1SG-IND-PAST | here | seven | year |
==> I worked here for seven years
..
| kod-a-r-a | dían | euca | yìa |
|---|---|---|---|
| work-1SG-IND-PRES | here | seven | year |
==> I am working here for seven years
..
In the above example ... we are told that the total work period is seven years, but we get no information about how far we are through this seven year period.
..
* However the English pattern is a bit irregular in that it has the particle "yet" which corresponds to ʔàn in some circumstances and to ʔès in other circumstances.
** I believe that this expectation is a connotation that will inevitable develop if you have prolonged usage of a particle with meaning 1 and 2.
*** I find this stuff very interesting. If you want to know more, read "The Meaning of Focus Particles" by Ekkehard König.
**** In béu the particle jù negates one element in a sentence (the element immediately following it). So instead of using (a) and (b) we might have had (c) and (d) in the form ... *?àn jù doika and *?ès jù doika.
..... A speaker of béu ... while recognizing the logic of *?àn jù doika and *?ès jù doika, would deem them ungrammatical.
..
... Slot 4
..
liga makes verbs which in themselves are quite compact timewise, more spread out. For example ...
..
| koʕia | to cough | liga koʕia | "to be coughing", "to have a coughing fit" |
| timpa | to hit | liga timpa | "to be hitting" or "to assault" |
..
liga is never used with verbs that typically have an inherent long time duration. For example ...
- liga glarua beuba kewe would be translated as "I intend to be knowing the language of béu well" ... Not really good English either.
lglarua beuba kewe = "I intend to know the language of béu well" ... is more felicitous in both languages.
..
liga gives an imperative slant to the main verb. Possibly related to the verb ligai which means "to stay" or "to lie". Now in the very best register of béu this particle is used for a certain poetic effect, it is used sparingly and is not necessary for understanding what is being said. However people that are L1 speakers of a language having a perfective/imperfective tend to over-use liga. This is not really a problem, it just shows that they are not L1 béu speakers. Conversely people that are L1 speakers of language that lacks this distinction tend to not use liga enough. Again ... no real problem.
..
teka is the opposite of liga. It means "momentarily". Possibly related to the verb telka which means "to slip a little bit". While in theory it can be used with almost any verb, it tends to be used disproportionately with a dozen or so verbs. For example ...
..
| bwí | to see | liga bwí ... | to watch over ... | teka bwí | to catch a glimpse |
| wòi | to think ... | liga wòi | to ponder | teka wòi | to think for a moment (mistakenly) |
| ʕái | to want | liga ʕái | to yearn for | teka ʕái ... | to have an urge |
..
... Restrictions
..
..
Certain members of slots 1,2 and 3 can only co-occur with a subset of the affixes in post-verbal slots 3 and 4.
YELLOW ... if you have màs or lói then in post-verbal slot 4 you can only have the -a that follows the future tense u (that is, the one that isn't really an evidential). However all affixes in slot 4 are not compulsary.
GREEN ... if you have awa or bolbo then in post-verbal slot 3 you can only have the aortist tense (the one that is the null affix).
RED ... if you have ʔàn or ʔès then in post-verbal slot 3 you can only have the present, future and past tenses.
BLUE ... we introduce another particle here ... juku meaning "never". It is a more emphatic negative than bù, but can only be used with the 3 perfect aspects in slot 3.
..
Most of the above restrictions don't need much comment. Hoewver in English there appears to be some conflation between "already" and the perfect aspect. For example "I've done it already". Maybe the reduced phonological prominence of the aspectual marker (i.e. "v") is a major contributing factor of this conflation. In béu ʔès and the three perfect aspectual markers are two different things.
1) When you use ʔès (or ʔàn) you are concerned about the onset/cessation of an event ... probably in the recent past or near future.
2) When you use the perfect aspect you are concerned about the state of the subject (A or S) which has resulted from some event that might be quite far in the past ... impinging on this is a stong "experential" connotation. For example ... if John has read a book on geometry, you can assume he has some knowledge of this subject. If he has been to London, you can assume he has many sounds and sights of London stored away in his memory.
..
Not to be confused with lò = "other" and kyulo = "again" These two particles come just in front of the verb. They are only used with the indicative verb and the maŋga.
..
... Joining clauses timewise
..
In béu the particle used for tying two nouns together and the particle used for tying two verbs (and consequently clauses) together are different. For example ...
jonos solbor ʔazwo lé moze = John drinks milk and water
As opposed to ...
jenes flora gò solbora = Jane is eating and drinking
jenes flora gò jonos solbora = Jane is eating and John is drinking
For adjectives ... gò is used for copula complements ...
ò r jini gò yubau = He is clever and strong
But for noun attributes ... simple junxtapositioning is used ...
bàu gèu tiji = the little green man
If you are interested in the above ... then the following webpage will also be of interest ... http://wals.info/chapter/64
..
1) The default conjunction is gò. Semantically gò is neutral. It has no implications of time but I list it here as it is involved in the derivation of conjunctions 5 and 6.
Actually if you were telling a story then the interclause particle gò would be interpreted as "and then" or "then". But this sort of "consequential" meaning can be thought of as derived from the linear narrative as opposed to the particle.
The following 5 particles join two clauses and define a certain time relationship between them.
..
If you wanted to emphasize that the unmarked action came before the marked action you would use ...
2) tàin = before .... [ tàin < tài "in front of" ]
pazba saikaru tàin pintu (saikaru) = "I will paint the table before (I will paint) the door"
*tàin pintu saikaru_pazba saikaru = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table" ... this construction is not allowed
tàin saiko pintu_pás pazba saikaru = "before painting the door, I will paint the table"
=> 
: 
..
If you wanted to emphasize that the unmarked action came after the marked action you would use ...
3) jáus = after .... [ jáus < jáu "behind" ]
pintu saikaru jáus pazba (saikaru) = "I will paint the door after (I will paint) the table"
*jáus pazba saikaru_pintu saikaru = "before I paint the door, I will paint the table" ... this construction is not allowed
jáus saiko pazba_pás pintu saikaru = "after painting the table, I will paint the door"
..
If you wanted to emphasize the simultaneousness of the two actions you would use ...
4) ʔéu = while, as .... [ ʔéu < ʔé "at" ]
pás pintu saikaru ʔéu gís pazba saikiru = "I will paint the door, while you paint the table"
*ʔéu gís pazba saikiru_pás pintu saikaru = "while you paint the table, I will paint the door" ... this construction is not allowed
ʔéu saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "while painting the table, you smoked"
..
If you wanted to emphasize that the first action will continue until the second action you would use ...
5) igo = until .... [ igo < í + gò ]
gís huʒiri igo dare saiko pazba = "you smoked until I started to paint the table"
*igo dare saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "until I started to paint the table, you smoked" ... this construction is not allowed
igo día saiko pazba_gís huʒiri = "until starting to paint the table, you smoked"
..
If you wanted to emphasize that the first action has been continuing all the time since the second action you would use ...
6) figo = since .... [ igo < fì + gò ]
gís ʔès huʒira figo care saiko pazba = "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"
| gí-s | ʔès | huʒ-i-r-a | figo | c-a-r-e | saiko | pazba |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| you-ERG | already | smoke-2S-IND-PRES | since | stop-1S-IND-PAST | painting | table |
==> "you have smoked since I stopped painting the table"
*figo care saiko pazba_gís huʒira = "since I stopped painting the table you have smoked" ... this construction is not allowed
figo cùa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira = "since stopping painting the table, you have smoked" ... [By the way ... figo ìa saiko pazba_gís ʔès huʒira = "since finishing painting the table, you have smoked" ]
Notes on grammar .... If you have two clauses, the particle must 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.
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 ???]
..
... Joining clauses otherwise
..
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.
òn toili nari jì gò ós pà klór = I gave her a book in order that she would like me.
The second clause is the <purpose> of the first clause .... òn toili nari is a clause : ós pà klóris a clause : jì gò ós pà klóris 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.
ò klár plùa òn nari toili = I like her so I gave her a book
The second clause is the <result> of the first clause .... No adverbial adjuncts in this construction
..
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.
ò klár sài gò pàn nori toili = I like her because she gave me a book
The second clause is the <reason> for the first clause .... ò klár is a clause : pàn nori toili is a clause : sài gò pàn 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) jindu = as soon as
15) tè gò = unless .... [the above 5 conjunctions .... should they use gò to separate the clauses : should they use plùa to separate the clauses ???) ..
16) 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
..
17) 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"
..
... Introducing Verb Chains
..
béu has a technique that integrates two clauses even further. It is called the "verb chain".
In certain situations it is considered unnecessary to include person-tense information on an active verb. If there are a number of verb concepts that can be thought of as partaking in sort of "composite" activity, then only the initial verb gets person-tense-evidentiality information. The non-initial verbs have the final verb of their base form deleted and the vowel i added. For example ... slanje (to cook) => slanji. If the verb only has one syllable, then the final verb of their base form (the only vowel) is replaced with a schwa and the word looses its tone. For example ... flò (to eat) => flə.
Below are three verb chains ... each one having a different time structure.
..
... Similtaneous Time
..
John walked along the road whistling => jono doikori komwe plə wiʒi*
..
to whistle = wiza
to walk = doika
to follow = plèu
road = komwe
..
We can also say ...
"John walked along the road whistling" => jonos komwe plori doiki wiʒi.
In fact there are six ways in which the three verbs can be arranged. The meaning of the sentence would be exactly the same in all six cases.
Note that "John" appears "naked" or in his "s-marked" form depending on whether the first verb is transitive or intransitive. The first verb has the full verb train ( it is "r-form" however later verbs in the chain are in their reduced form (i.e. their "i-form")
*Actually this sentence is more likely to be expressed as jono doikori komwewo wiʒi
..
... Interleaved Time
..
All afternoon I was writing reports and answering the telephone => falaja ú kludari fyakas sweno nyauʒi
..
afternoon = falaja
to write = kludau
report(noun) = fyakas
telephone(noun) = sweno
to answer = nyauze
..
Note .... in the first example the times of the different verbs were similtaneous, in this example the times of the different verbs are randomly interleaved throughout the afternoon.
It would also be possible to render the above as falaja ú sweno nyauzari kludi fyakas ... means the same thing.
Notice that in this example we have two verb-object-pairs, (kludau, fyakas) and (sweno, nyauze). While an object must stay next to its verb, there is a tendency for it to precede the verb when it is definite and to follow it when indefinite).
[ And with a change of tense ... "All afternoon I have been writing reports and answering the telephone" => falaja ú kludar fyakas sweno nyauʒi ]
..
... Sequential Time
..
Yesterday John caught, cooked and ate three fish => jana jonos holdori slanji flə léu fiʒi
..
yesterday = jana
to catch = holda
three = léu
fish = fiʒi
..
In this example, the three verb concepts happened in a definite order, and must be expressed in that order.
A verb chain must be contained in one clause. However the verb form used in a verb chain (the i-form ... both slanji and flə are considered the i-forms of the verbs slanje and flò ... even though there is no "i" in the form flə) can be used over multiple clauses. For example ...
"Yesterday John caught three fish, then cooked then and then ate them" => jana jonos holdori léu fiʒi _ slanji _ flə .... actually, is this a good idea (i-form over multiple clauses) ???
You can continue adding "i-form" verbs indefinitely. However if the subject changes, you have to go back to an "r-form". Also if the internal time structure of the composite action was to change, then one must revert to an "r-form". jana jonos holdori léu fiʒi _ slanji _ flə is definitely three clauses because of the mandatory intonation breaks. The object of the last two clauses is the same as the object of the first clause. However this need not be the case ( I can not think of a good example at the moment ??? ).
[ Note ... Although the verb chain is the common way to express when two actions happen at the same time, another method is possible. That is to make one of the verbs into an adjective. And then by placing this directly behind another verb you get an adverb. For example ... wizari doikala = I whistled while I walked] .... ???
Note that in these three examples, that the internal time structure of the composite action (i.e. simultaneous, interleaved and sequential) are never formally stated. Rather they are known due to the listeners knowledge of the situation being described.
The internal time structure of a situation is not always clear. But if it is thought necessary to clarify it one can always fall back to conjoining clauses with conjunctions.
..
... Motion Verb Chains
..
Verb chains are used a lot for verbs of motion. In certain languages (for example Cantonese, verbs do the job that prepositions do in European languages. Now béu does have a set of prepositions (the pilana). So for defining exactly what non-core NP's are doing in a sentence (that is everything that is not S, A or O) ... in béu this task is shared about equally between prepositions and minor verbs.
The rules are the same as stated in the previous section.
Now as you would expect, there are preferred orders. The diagram below shows the order that would probably be used for a future tense situation. Also this order would be preferred if someone was narrating a story and wanted to keep everything in sequence. For example ...
jene corua doiki pofe jwə london də => "Jane intends to walk through the forest to London" (from here)
jene cori doiki pofe jwə london də => "Jane walked through the forest to London" (from here)
However in other situations*, the actual sequence of individual events might be deemed less relevant, and there might be a tendancy to place the most important/surprising** event to the left. (No example)
kulua is leftmost, if present.
*For a verb chain that was ongoing. There would be a tendency for the first verb of unrealised part of the verb chain to take be in its base form with an n affix (perhaps preceded by gò). For example ...
jene core doiki gò pofe jwèn london də => "Jane has left on foot, she was intending to go through the forest and then on to London" ... [ there are actually two verb chains in this sentence ]
**This basically means that the elements most commonly used in verb chains appear towards the right (such as jò and té) and less common elements are towards the left ... types of locomotion would qualify here (actually doika is quite a common element, but maybe because it is deemed to be the same class as pyà, liwai, etc., it tends to be expressed quite early)
..
..
All the "Directional" verbs, "Types of locomotion" verbs and the "Haste" verb are intransitive.
All the "Relative motion" verbs are transitive (it sometimes looks like cùa "depart" and nyáu "return" are intransitive, they are actually transitive but the object ... has been dropped as it is obvious ... often "here").
..
The subject takes its ergative form or its naked form, depending on whether the first verb of the chain is transitive or intransitive. For example ...
ós byor (gò) kuluan nambo tə = He must hurry home .............................. ós as byó is transitive
ò kulor nambo tə = He hurries home ........................................................ ò as kulua is intransitive
ós london corua nambo tə = He will leave London and come home ......... ós as cùa is transitive
..
Now, just as in a non verb chain clause (i.e. if a noun appears to the left of the verb it is definite, if it appears to the right of the verb, it is indefinite), if a motion reference object is to the left of a relative motions verb it is definite, if it is to the right of a relative motions verb it is indefinite. This is demonstrated below ...
..
| nambo féu tə | to come out of the house | féu nambo tə | to come out of a house |
| nambo pòi jə | to go into the house | pòi nambo jə | to go into a house |
| nambo féu jə | to go out of the house | féu nambo jə | to go out of a house |
| nambo pòi tə | to come into the house | pòi nambo tə | to come into a house |
..
..
The directionals
..
Often jə or tə / bə or kə are tagged on at the end of a motion clause. Like a sort of afterthought. They give the utterance a bit more clarity ... a bit more resolution. For example ...
..
.............................. jaŋkori tə = "he ran towards us"
Note ... in the script the schwa is simply left out, so if you see a consonant standing by itself, you know that you have part of a verb chain.
If two directionals were to be used, jə or tə would follow bə or kə.
Obviously these 4 verbs often occur independently. In which case they are in their r-form.
this section is nothing to do with verb chains, just a bit to do with the usage of té and jò----
té is always intransitive. jò can be transitive or intransitive. For example ...
I am going to London => (pás) jar london ... however if the destination is not immediately after the verb í london (pás) jar
"I am going" or "I will go" => (pà) jaru
By the way ... if you go to meet somebody, jò and twá form a verb chain. For example ...
jò twə jono => to go and meet John
ojo twə jene => go and meet Jane (notice the irregular imperative)
..
..
* In contradistinction, when a origin comes immediately after the verb dwé "to come" the pilana -fi is never dropped.
..
..
HERE---------->---------LONDON
jó london = to go to London
jonos jor london = John is going to London
jonos jori cə london = John arrived in London (having travelled from here) ???
jono jori gò cùan london
HERE----------<---------LONDON
tè londonfi = to come from London
jono tor londonfi = John comes from London ....... ( in this case, it could be 20 years since John was last in London )
jono tori cə london = John comes from London ... ( in this case, John hs just arrived from London ) ..
.. When in verb chains, these 2 verbs tend to be the auxiliary verb. They are used where "up" and "down" are used in English.
bía = to ascend
kàu = to descend
CLIMB ʔupai kə = to climb down a tree
ʔupai CLIMB kə = to climb down the tree
CLIMB ʔupai bə = to climb up a tree
THROW toili kə = to throw down a book ???
These are also often inserted in verb chains to give extra information. The usually precede "come" and "go" when "come" and "go" are auxiliary verbs in the chain.
jò kə pə nambo = to go down into the house
jaŋkor kə pə nambo jə = he runs down into the house (away from us)
jaŋkor pə nambo kə tə = he runs down into the house (towards us)
The two above sentences could describe the exact same event. However there is some slight connotation in the latter that the descending happened at the same time as the entering (i.e. the entrance of the house was sloping ... somewhat unusual)
.. ..
..
He is lowering John down the cliff-face to the ledge => ós gora jono cliff gìa ledgeye ??
I dragged the dog along the road ??
joske pòi nambo = let's not let him go into the house ... there are 2 verbs in this chain ... jòi and pòi
jaŋkora bwá nambo dwía = he is running out the house (towards us) ... there are 3 verbs in this chain ... jaŋka, bwá and dwé
doikaya gàu pòi nambo jìa = Walk (command) down into the house (we are in the house) ... there are 4 verbs in this chain ... doika, gàu, pòi and jòi
Extensive use is made of serial verb constructions (SVC's). You can spot a SVC when you have a verb immediately followed (i.e. no pause and no particle) by another verb. Usually a SVC has two verbs but occasionally you will come across one with three verbs.
*Well maybe not always. For example jompa gàu means "rub down" or "erode". Now this can be a transitive verb or an intransitive verb. For example ...
1) The river erodes the stone
2) The stone erodes
With the transitive situation, the "river" is in no way going down, it is the stone. Cases where one of the verbs in a verb chain can have a different subject are limited to verbs such as erode (at least I think that now ??). Also the verbal noun for jompa gàu is not formed in the usual way for word building. Erosion = gaujompa
gaujompa or gajompa a verb in its own right ... I suppose that this would happen given time ??
I work as a translator ??? ... I work sàu translator ??
"want" ... "intend" ... etc. etc. are never part of verb chains ??
..
............... across & along & through
..
When in verb chains, these 3 verbs tend to be the main verb.
kwèu = to cross, to go/come over
plèu = to follow, to go/come along
cwá = to go/come through
komwe kwèu = to cross the road
komwe kwèu doika = to walk across the road
kwèu komwe doiki = to walk across a road
kwèu komwe doiki tə = to walk across a road (towards the speaker)
plèw and cwá follow the same pattern
Note ... some postpositions
komwe kwai = across the road = across a road
pintu cwai = through the door = along a road
Above are 2 postpositions ... derived from the participles kwewai and cwawai
komwe plewai = along the road
..
..
.............. here and there
..
awata = to wonder
jaŋka awata = to run around
..
............. bring and take
..
kli.o = a knife
kli.o ʔáu jə = to take the knife away
kli.o ʔáu tə = to bring the knife
ʔáu kli.o jə = to take a knife away
kli.o uʔau jə nə jono = take the knife and go give to John
kli.o uʔau tə nə jono = bring the knife and give to John
If however the knife was already in the 2nd person's hand, you would say ...
ute nə jono kli.o = come and give john the knife ... or ...
ute nə kli.o jonon = come and give the knife to john
Note ... the rules governing the 3 participants in a "giving", are exactly the same as English. Even to the fact that if you drop the participant you must include jowe which means away. For example ...
nari klogau tí jowe = I gave my shoes away.
Note ... In arithmetic ʔaujoi mean "to subtract" or "subtraction" : ledo means "to add" or "addition".
Note ... when somebody gives something "to themselves", tiye = must always be used, no matter its position.
..
The motion termini
..
día = arrive / reach
cùa leave / depart
The question about these is "how do they differ from -n and -fi ?"
The answer is that -n and -fi can sometimes mean "towards" and "away from".
día and cùa always mean "until" / "up to" / "all the way to" and "all the way from"
Also note that -n and -fi have a slightly more abstract usage ... for example -n indicated the dative for náu (to give) or bwinau (to show) etc. etc.
..
... Other Verb Chains
....... for and against
..
HELP = to help, assist, support
gompa = to hinder, to be against, to oppose
FIGHT = to fight
FIGHT jonotu = to fight with john ......... john is present and fighting
FIGHT HELP jono = to fight for John ... john is present but maybe not fighting
FIGHT jonoji = to fight for John ...........probably john not fighting and not present
FIGHT gompa jono = to fight against John
..
.......... to change
..
lái = to change
kwèu = to turn
lái sàu = to change into, to become
kwèu sàu = to turn into
The above 2 mean exactly the same
Note ...
paintori pintu nelau = he has painted a blue door
paintori pintu ʃìa nelau = he has painted a door blue
..
??? How does this mesh in with clauses starting with "want", "intend", "plan" etc. etc. ... SEE THAT BOOK BY DIXON ??
??? How does this mesh in with the concepts ...
"start", "stop", "to bodge", "to no affect", "scatter", "hurry", "to do accidentally" etc.etc. ... SEE THAT BOOK ON DYIRBAL BY DIXON
..
... IA and UA
..
| ìa | to finish, to complete |
| úa | to run out, to be exhausted, to be used up |
..
The first one being a transitive verb and the second one an intransitive verb.
Two fundamental concepts ... needed ever since humans started doing complex tasks and since humans started storing stuff for later use.
These two, as well as appearing in their "r-form" also appear as sentence final particles which could be analized as the final verb of a verb chains. Their forms are slightly irregular, but yə could be imagined as the i-form that ìa would take and wə could be imagined as the i-form that úa would take. These particles always appear to the extreme right of a sentence (but left of the @ particle). In the script, they are represented as simply y and w.
I finished building the house => (pás) nambo bundari yə
She finished off the cake => CAKE humpori wə
Notice that in the first example the object is fully formed (fully appeared) hence yə. In the second example the object has fully disappeared hence wə.
In some situations, either yə or wə would be appropriate.
For example "I finished reading the book" ... here the "pages to be read" have disappeared, but the "read pages" are at a maximum.
..
=> (pás) nambo bundari yə
..
There does not seem to be any diachronic connection with the two affixes (ia and ua) which turn nouns into adjectives.
kloga = shoe : klogia = shod : klogua = unshod, shoeless
So it seems that any hint of semantic familiarity is just due to co-incidence.
..
yə and wə would be the i-form of the verbs yái "to have" and wòi "to think" (check this one out ???) but as these never participate in verb chains, there is no confusion.
..
..
Actually ... what would actually constitite the O argument of ìa is worth discussing.
There is always some underlying verb being referenced by ìa even though it is not expressed.
nambo ia.iri @ = have you finished the house ? ... here the underlying verb is bunda "to build"
And as another example ...
CAKE ia.iri @ = have you finished the cake ? ... actually here we have two possible underlying verbs : gàu "to make" or humpa "to eat" ... the one which is appropriate would be known from the background knowledge of the situation.
You could analyse ìa as
1) Always having a complement clause as O argument (with the maŋɡa usually dropped because it is so predictable.
2) Sometimes having a noun as O argument, and sometimes having a complement clause as O argument.
If analysis (1) is accepted, then ìa is the only verb that doesn't ... sometimes ... take a noun as its O argument.
Using R.M.W. Dixon's terminology ... ìa would be the only SECONDARY VERB* in the language of béu.
Actually in this case I think there is no benefit in analyzing ìa as (1) or (2). I know this leaves things a bit messy ... i.e. "pehaps there is only one SECONDARY VERB in béu. But one of the characteristics of natlangs is that they ARE messy. Think of ìa as my tribute to the messiness of natural languages :-)
[ As there is no benefit in analyzing an electron as either a particle alone or a wave alone. I find it a bit baffling to hear linguists arguing at length over ... say ... what is the "head" of a prepositional phrase is. "head" is just a construct to make it easy for linguists to talk about languages ... unfortunately it is part of the human psyche to believe that if you have a name for something, then that something must exist ... but I am digressing a bit here. ]
* This term is explained in "Complementation, a cross-linguistic typology" by Dixon and Aikhenvald.
..
..
How these two particles impinge on the "perfect" aspects is worth discussing also.
The first example I used was ...
I finished building the house => (pás) nambo bundari yə
Perhaps in English it would be more usual to say "I have built the house" rather than "I finished building the house"
Now in béu ... "I have built the house" => (pás) nambo bundare ... which should we use ?
OK ... béu is a bit more "finely-grained" than most natural languages when it comes to shades of meaning on the verb.
Try not and worry about the distinction between the perfect aspect and the use of these "completive particles" too much.
But here are some pointers to get the proper shade of meaning.
1) If you want to emphasis the state of the object ... use a "completive particle".
2) If you want to emphasize the knowledge (experience) of the subject ... use the perfect aspect.
3) If you want to show "current state" of whatever ... use the perfect aspect. Especially with intransitive verbs ... (because, of course, there is no object that you can emphasize).
Some examples ...
wiske solbori wə => "he drank the whiskey up" or "he has drunk the whiskey" ... EMPHASIS => "the whiskey is finished"
solbore wiske => "he has drunk whiskey" .... EMPHASIS => "He has experienced drinking whiskey"
..
... Consequence Couplets
..
These have different from verb chains .... they are semantically different and have a different form.
Semantically ...
1) The second verb is a consequence of the first verb.
2) The O argument of the first verb is the S argument of the second verb .... well they would be if it was written out the long way as two connected clauses.
The form ...
1) Whereas with a verb chain, the first verb is in its r-form and subsequent verbs are in i-form, here the second verb is in r-form ... (one can never have more than two verbs in a Consequence Couplets)* 2) The first verb ends in the schwa, whether mono-syllabic or poly-syllabic.
3) Although written as two words, they must always be adjacent ... that is, no argument can come between the two verbs.
..
Example .... bla, bla, bla ....
*Although a Consequence Couplets can appear in a verb chain ... EXAMPLE ???
Note ... ia and ua that we covered in the previous section are a bit strange ... semantically they are Consequence Couplets but formally they are verb chains.
..
... Index
- Introduction to Béu
- Béu : Chapter 1 : The Sounds
- Béu : Chapter 2 : The Noun
- Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb
- Béu : Chapter 4 : Adjective
- Béu : Chapter 5 : Questions
- Béu : Chapter 6 : Derivations
- Béu : Chapter 7 : Way of Life 1
- Béu : Chapter 8 : Way of life 2
- Béu : Chapter 9 : Word Building
- Béu : Chapter 10 : Gerund Phrase
- Béu : Discarded Stuff
- A statistical explanation for the counter-factual/past-tense conflation in conditional sentences
