Béu : Chapter 6: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:07, 15 May 2015

..... Verb Chains

..

When 2 (or more) actions are considered inextricably tangled up in each other, béu forms a verb chain.

In a verb chain, usually the "most surprising" (i.e. the verb that conveys the most information) comes first and takes the normal ending (i.e. infinitive, indicative, subjunctive or imperative). If all the verbs in the verb chain are contiguous, then the remaining verbs are in the infinitive form. However if the non-final verbs in a chain are separated from the main verb, then it takes a different form. This form is called the iape. For the iape delete the final verb of the infinitive and add -ia for monosyllables and -i for non-monosyllables.

Verb chain rules ...

1) When two (or more) infinitives come together, they are considered verb chains.

2) A verb chain can only have one subject. ^*

3) When one verb is separated from the first one(s) it must take the special "chain" form.

4) Always the initial verb, takes the indicative, subjunctive and imperative verb forms, thus setting the mood for the entire chain. The following verbs are ...

if following the initial verb => infinitives ... hipe

if separated from the initial verb => iape

For example ...

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 ??

..

.. Balanced

..

For example ...

1) YESTERDAY FISH CATCHur poʔi flìa = Yesterday they caught some fish, cooked the fish and then ate the fish.

2) ALL AFTERNOON kludari REPORT ANSWERi PHONE = All afternoon I was writing reports and answering the telephone.

3) ALL EVENING solbair CHAMPAIGN flìa CAVIAR = All day we were drinking champaign and eating caviar.

The internal time structure of the chain must be worked out from knowledge of the situation described. The above sentences have the following time frames ...

1) The actions were probably one after the other. That is some catching occurred, followed by some cooking followed by some eating.

2) The actions here are not simultaneous but interspersed randomly throughout the afternoon.

3) The actions here could be interspersed randomly, but also could be overlapping somewhat.

..

.. Unbalanced

..

Now all the above were examples of "one off" or "balanced" verb chains ( "balanced" in the sense that all the verbs have about the same likelihood ). A more common type of verb chain is one in which some common verb is appended to a clause to give some extra information. Examples of these verbs are ... "enter", "exit", "cross", "follow", "to go through", "come", "go", etc. etc. etc.

..

. enter and exit

..

When in verb chains, these 2 verbs tend to be the main verb. They are used where "into" and "out of" are used in English.

pòi = to enter

bwá = to exit

nambo bwá dwé = to come out of the house

nambo pòi jòi = to go into the house

nambo pòi dwé = to come into the house

nambo bwá jòi = to go out of the house

bwá nambo dwía = to come out of a house

pòi nambo jìa = to go into a house

pòi nambo dwía = to come into a house

bwá nambo jìa = to go out of a house

nambo bwá jaŋka dwé = to run out the house (towards us)

bwá nambo jaŋki dwía = to run out a house (towards us)

..

. 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

ROAD kwèu = to cross the road

ROAD kwèu doika = to walk across the road

kwèu ROAD doiki = to walk across a road

kwèu ROAD doiki dwía = to walk across a road (towards the speaker)

plèw and cwá follow the same pattern

Note ... some postpositions

road 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

ROAD plewai = along the road

..

. come and go

..

When in verb chains, these 2 verbs tend to be the auxiliary verb.

Obviously they often occur as simple verbs.

"come", "go", "up" and "down" are often stuck on to the end of an utterance ... like a sort of afterthought. They give the utterance a bit more clarity ... a bit more resolution.

The below is nothing to do with verb chains, just a bit to do with the usage of dwé and jòi.

..

HERE------------>--------LONDON

londonye jòi = to go to London ... however if the destination immediately follows jòi -ye is dropped^*. So ...

SIMILAR TO ADVERBS + GIVE ... LIGHT GREEN HI-LIGHT

jòi london = to go to London

jòi twè jono = to go to meet John

^* In contradistinction, when a origin comes immediately after the verb dwé "to come" the pilana -fi is never dropped.

..

HERE----------<---------LONDON

dwé londonfi = to come from London

dwé jonovi = to come from John

..

. ascend and descend

..

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

gùa = to descend

CLIMB ʔupai gìa = to climb down a tree

ʔupai CLIMB gìa = to climb down the tree

CLIMB ʔupai bía = to climb up a tree

THROW toili gìa = 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.

jòi gàu pòi nambo = to go down into the house

jaŋkora gàu pòi nambo jìa = he is running down into the house (away from us)

jaŋkora pòi nambo gìa dwía = he is running 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)

..

. here and there

..

awata = to wonder

jaŋka awata = to run around

..

. bring and take

..

kli.o = a knife

kli.o ʔáu jòi = to take the knife away

kli.o ʔáu dwé = to bring the knife

ʔáu kli.o jìa = to take a knife away

kli.o ʔauya jòi náu jono = take the knife and go give to John

kli.o ʔauya dwé náu jono = bring the knife and give to John

If however the knife was already in the 2nd person's hand, you would say ...

dweya náu jono kli.o = come and give john the knife ... or ...

dweya náu kli.o jonoye = 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.

..

. 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

..

..... The sides of an object

sky nambon = above the house

awe (rá) nà sky nambon = the bird is above the house .... sometimes nà can be left out as well ... awe sky nambon = the bird is above the house (a phrase) the NP (the bird above the house) ....

earth nambon = under the house

face nambon = front of the house

arse nambon = behind the house

kà = side

aibaka = a triangle

ugaka = a square

idaka = a pentagon

elaka = a hexagon

ò atas nambo = he/she is above the house ... however if "house" is understood, and mention of it is dropped, we must add ka to atas ... for example ...

ò ataska = he/she is above

daunika = underneath

liʒika = on the left hand side

luguka = on the right hand side

noldo, suldo, westa, istu niaka, muaka faceside backside etc. etc.

..... The verb complex or verb phrase

Also often called the predicate. Called the jaudauza in béu

The predicate is made up of ...

1) one of two particles that show likelihood which are optional.

In the béu linguistic tradition they are called mazebai. The mazebai are a subgroup of feŋgi (the particles)

2) one of five particles that show modality. These are also optional.

In the béu linguistic tradition they are called seŋgebai. The seŋgebai are a subgroup of feŋgi (the particles)

3) a gomua (a full verb)

... mazebai

These appear first in the predicate.

These particles show the probability of the verb occurring.

1) màs solbori = maybe he drank

2) lói solbori = probably he drank

You could say that the first one indicates about 50% certainty while the second indicates around 90 % certainty

... seŋgebai

These appear next in the predicate.

These particles correspond to what is called the "modal" words in English. The five seŋgeba are ...

1) sú which codes for strong obligation or duty. It is equivalent to "should" in English. In English certain instances of the word "must" also carries this meaning.

2) seŋga which codes for weak obligation. It is equivalent to "ought to" in English. (Note ... in certain dialects of English "ought to" is dying out, and "should" is coding weak obligation also)

3) alfa which codes for ability. It is equivalent to "can" in English. As in English it means that subject has the strength or the skill to perform the action. Also as in English it codes for possibilities/situations which are not dependent on the subject. For example ... udua alfa solbur => "the camels can drink" in the context of "the caravan finally reached Farafra Oasis"

4) hempi which codes for permission. It is equivalent to "may" or "to be allowed to" in English. (Note ... in certain dialects of English "may" is dying out, and "can" is coding for permission also)

5) hentai means knowledge. It is equivalent to "know how to" in English. (Note ... in English certain instances of the word "can" also carries this meaning)

The form that these seŋgeba and the main verb take appears strange. Where as, logically, you would expect the suffixes for person, number, tense, aspect and evidential to be attached to the seŋgeba and the main verb maybe in its infinitive form, the seŋgeba do not change their form and the suffixes appear on the main verb as normal. This is one oddity that marks the seŋgeba off as a separate word class.^*

Some examples ...

1)

a) sú -er => you should visit your brother

b) sú -eri => you should have visited your brother

c) sú hamperka animals => you should not feed the animals

d) sú hamperki animals => you shouldn't have fed the animals

Note these are the tenses allowed in a jaudauza súa

2)

a) seŋga humper little => you ought to eat a little

b) seŋga humperi little => you ought to have eaten a little

c) seŋga solberka brandy => you ought to not drink brandy

d) seŋga solberki brandy => you ought to have not drunk that brandy

Note these are the tenses allowed in a jaudauza seŋgua

3)

a) fuà -or => he can swim across the river

b) fuà-ori => he could swim across the river

c) fuà solborka => he can stop drinking

d) fuà solborki => he could stop drinking

Note these are the tenses allowed in a jaudauza fùa

4)

a) hempi bor festa => "she may go to the party" or "she can go to the party" or "she is allowed to go to the party"

b) hempi bori festa => she was allowed to go to the party

c) hempi borka school => he is allowed to stop attending school

d) hempi bori school => he was allowed to stop attending school

Note these are the tenses allowed in a jaudauza hempua

5)

a) hentai bamor car => "she can drive a car" or "she knows how to drive a car"

b) hentai bamori car => she knew how to drive a car

c) hentai boikorka car => He has the ability not to crash the car

d) hentai boikorki car => He had the ability not to crash the car

Note these are the tenses allowed in a jaudauza hentua

^*Two other oddities also marks off the seŋgeba as a separate word class. These are ...

1) When you want to question a jaudauza containing a seŋgeba you change the position of the main verb and the seŋgeba. For example ...

bor hempi festa => "may she go to the party" ... shades of English here.

2) All 5 seŋgeba can be negativized by deleting the final vowel and adding aiya. For example ...

faiya -or ??? => he can't swim across the river

Note ... sometimes the negative marker on the seŋgeba can occur along with the normal negative marker on the main verb to give an emphatic positive. Sometimes it produces a quirky effect. For example ...

jenes faiya humpor cokolate => Jane can't eat chocolates (Jane lacks the ability to eat chocolates) ... for example she is a diabetic and can not eat anything sweet.

jenes fa humporka cokolate => Jane can not eat chocolates (Jane have the ability not to eat chocolates)... meaning she has the willpower to resist them.

jenes faiya humporka cokolate => Jane can not not eat chocolates (Jane lacks the ability, not to eat chocolates) ... meaning she can't resist them.

There are 5 nouns that correspond to the 5 seŋgeba

anzu = duty

seŋgo = obligation

alfa = ability

hempo = permission or leave

hento = knowledge

Note on English usuage (in fact all the Germanic languages) ... the way English handles negating modal words is a confusing. Consider "She can not talk". Since the modal is negated by putting "not" after it and the main verb is negated by putting "not" in front of it, this could either mean ...

a) She doesn't have the ability to talk

or

b) She has the ability to not talk

Note only when the meaning is a) can the proposition be contracted to "she can't talk". In fact, when the meaning is b), usually extra emphasis would be put on the "not". a) is the usual interpretation of "She can not talk" and if you wanted to express b) you would rephrase it to "She can keep silent". This rephrasing is quite often necessary in English when you have a modal and a negative main verb to express.

... wepua

We have already mentioned the two mazeba at the beginning of this section.

Actually there is another particle that occurs in the same slot as the mazeba and it also codes for likelihood. This is wepua and it constitutes a subgroup of feŋgi (the particles) all by itself.

1) más solbori = maybe he drank

2) lói solbori = probably he drank

3) wepua solbori = he must have drank

You could say that while the first one indicates about 50% certainty while the second indicates around 90 % certainty, the third shows 100% certainty.

3) Indicates that some "evidence" or "background information" exists to allow the speaker to assert what he is saying. It also carries the meaning "there is no other conclusion given the evidence".This obviously has some functional similarities to the -s evidential. However the -s evidential carries less than 100 % certainty ...

solboris = I guess/suppose he drunk

wepua never appears in front of the first two seŋgebai. This is the difference between wepua and the mazebai.

The word wepua is derived from pè meaning "to need". pòi means necessities.wepua can be thought of as meaning something like "being necessary" or "of necessity".

.... -fa, and -inda

These all form adjectives. The first might have some connection with a seŋgeba.

i.e. solbe = to drink

moze = water

moze solbefa = drinkable water

Maybe related to fua "can".

moze solbinda = water worth drinking

There is also another suffix, but this one can be said to be unrelated to "like" kinda

Maybe related to kinda "to like".

.... Case frames

I was originally going to give the word klói "to see" the following case frames {k, ∅} {s, ∅} {∅}

In the first the A argument would be marked by the non-canonical -k affix and would mean "see"

In the second the A argument would be marked by the canonical -s affix and would mean "look at" or "observe".

In the third, it would mean "be visible"

However we would have ...

pàk nambo klori = I saw the house

pás nambo klori = I looked at the house

However the above 2 would be the dame if the pronoun would be dropped, so I decided against the {k, ∅} case frame and klói having the meaning "look at"

Also the {∅} case frame was dropped as ...

klori nambo could mean "the house is visible" but also "he saw the house" (I like the idea of dropping 3rd person A pronouns as well as 1st and 2 nd person A pronouns)

Actually is it possible to drop 3rd person A pronouns ??

So we are left with the case frame {s, ∅}. As with all words with the single case frame {s, ∅} it is possible to drop the either of the 2 arguments when they are known by background. If only one is given, which one it is is of course known (i.e. does it end in an s or not) ... so there should be no confusion ???