Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb

Welcome to béu

..... THE SEVEN 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]

..

... Manga

..

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 = I walk

This is the aortist tense ... the timeless tense. Used for generic statements, such as ... "birds fly".

Actually the final o is always dropped unless there is an n or an s in the evidentiality slot.

So *doikaro => doikar = I walk

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 the base form by itself can be used for giving orders.

gàu = "to do"

gàu = "do it" ... often só is added fot extra emphasis.

só gàu = 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.

..

... The advisory

..

Also called the S-form.

..

There is a form similar to the R-form. However it only has two slots. The personal pronoun slot and A slot that has "s". Basically it is used for giving advice. The speaker is not upset if the hearer doesn't act (as he would be if it was a command) and he is not upset if he doesn't get feedback/advice/approval/disapproval (as he would be if it was a hortative). He is simply giving the listener some advice and the listener can chew it over at his leisure ... or he can completely disregard what is said ... up to him/her. The advice could be for the common good or the good of the listener (not realy for the good of the speaker ... unless the speaker and the listener identify together ... in which case we are talking about the common good). Maybe this form is equivalent to "should" in English.

..

solbis moze = You should drink some water

solbas moze = I should drink some water

solbos moze = He should drink some water

For mono-syllables an be- is prefixed as well ...

jò = to go

bejis nambon = You should go home

bejas nambon = I should go home

bejos mambon = She should go home.

..

I simply call this the S-form instead of making up a silly name.

..

The R-form when used with náu "to give" results in two forms ... benis and benes that when followed by tà play an important role in the grammar of béu

benis means "you allow" or "let" [benes being the form used when talking to more than one person]

benis tà nambon jàr = Let me go home

benis tà nambon jùar = Let us go home (not including you)

benis tà nambon jòr = Let him go home

benis tà nambon jùr = Let them go home

It is usually only used with one of the 4 third parties listed above.

In linguistic jargon the benis tà form would be called the "cohortative". So we have ...

..

... 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 pás blèu doika = "if only I could walk"

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 diablos ò ʔáu = "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 tà.

"If only you had arrived yesterday" => fò tà diriyə jana

The table below shows the optative construction ... either with the particle fò plus maŋga OR with the particles fò tà plus the R-form.

..

... Soliciting opinion

..

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

..

... Other rubbish

A few languages use a hypothetical mood, which is used in sentences such as "you could have cut yourself", representing something that might have happened but did not.

"If you had done your homework, you wouldn't have failed the class", had done is an irrealis verb form.

..

Let me introduce three dependent clause types here ... the "when" clause, the reason clause and the purpose clause.

1) ... the "when" clause is intoduced by the particle kyù. For example ...

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

The English conditional particle "if"* is also translated as kyù

So ... "if I see Jane I will tell her" => kyù twaru jene ʃì òn fyaru also.

Now let's give the example sentence a habitual meaning ... say Jane fervantly supports Manchester United and the speaker always hears the latest results before Jane. So we have ...

kyù twár jene ʃì òn fyar = When I see Jane I will tell her.

*Other languages to conflate ? "when" and "if" are German (wenn) and Dutch (als). Actually if you really needed to disambiguate in béu you could use jindu meaning "as soon as" or fesʔa meaning "case"(as you can disambiguate in German, by using "sobald" and "falls")

* In English, there is another function for "if" ... it introduces a complement clause when the main clause verb is an "asking" verb. "whether" can also fulfill this function. The particle in béu that fulfills this function is wai.a. wai.a has only this function.

2) ... the reason clause is intoduced by the particle sài "because"

3) ... the "in order to" clause is intoduced by the particle gò "in order to"

XXXXXXX

As part of stand alone clauses

doikas = "should I walk" or "let me walk" or "how about me walking" or "can I walk" or "maybe I should walk"

doikis = "maybe you should walk" or "why don't you walk" or "how about you walking"

doikos = "let him walk"

doikos jono = "let John walk"

For transitive verbs ...

timpos baus waulo = let the man hit the dog

The negative subjunctive is formed by adding bù (or should that be jù). For example ...

bù doikos = best not to let him walk

They locked him up so that he would starve to death

They let him out at night so that he would not starve to death

The words kyò "show" and fyá "tell" follow the same pattern as 1) and 2) ... at least when the object is a noun and not a complement clause.

..

helga = life, helgai = alive, helgais = finite verb, helkas = a clause ( helkas <= helgaiskas ), swevan = a sentence

Lets take the solbe to explain these different forms. solbe is a maŋga and it would be found in the dictionary ... and if it was an English/ béu dictionary ... the translation "to drink" would lie alongside it.

An example of one of its (many) r.forms is solbori = He/she/it drank ....... so the r.form corresponds to a verb in indicative mood.

An example of one of its (handful of) s.forms is gò solban = I wish I could drink ....... corresponds to a sort of subjunctive mood.

..... The primary verb

..

If then the

A V2 that can take a thing.kas dead.kas sa.kas or takas as the naked noun.

1) ʔár wèu => I want a car

2) ʔár jó nambon => I want to go home

3) ʔár jís nambon => I want you to go home

4) ʔár tà gís timpiru ò => I want YOU to hit her/him

2) Is a very common construction ... the same subject for "want" and the second verb. The second verb is dead.

3) Different subjects for the two verbs ... not so common ... second verb is half-dead.

4) As the complement to ʔár gets more complicated there is more a tendency to use the tà construction.

Note that in béu there is no verb equivalent to "wish". You would use the construction ...

hà jau.e timpis ò = "if only you would hit him" to express this sentiment.

............

So in the above ... the construction as in 1) is used when the person doing the wanting, is also the subject (A or O) of the action required and the second action sort of "follows on" from the "wanting".

The construction as in 2) and 3) is used when the person doing the wanting is different from the subject (A or O) of the action required. The second action again sort of "following on" from the "wanting".

The construction as in 4) is used when the person doing the wanting is different from the subject (A or O) of the action required AND the second action DOES NOT "following on" from the "wanting".

..

..... Short verbs

..

In a previous lesson we saw that the first step for making an R-form or an S-form verb is to delete the final vowel from the infinitive. However this is only applicable for multi-syllable words.

With monosyllabic verbs the rules are different.

..

For a monosyllabic verbs the indicative endings and subjunctive suffixes are simply added on at the end of the infinitive. For example ...

swó = to fear ... swo.ar = I fear ... swo.ir = you fear ... swo.or = she fears ... swo.as = I should fear ... swo.is = you should fear ... swo.or = she should fear

..

For a monosyllabic verb ending in ai or oi, the final i => y for the R-form or an S-form. For example ...

gái = to ache, to be in pain ... gayar = I am in pain ... gayir = you are in pain ... and so on

..

For a monosyllabic verb ending in au or eu, the final u => w for the R-form or an S-form. For example ...

ʔáu = to take, to pick up ... ʔawar = I take ...ʔawir = you take ... and so on

..

..... The copula

..

There are two copula's ... sàu "to be" and lài "to become".

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 seperate 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

jono jutu bezos wistige = Big John should be more careful ...... S-form

kodor sə kludomau = He works as a clark ..................................... I-form

[ jono jutu lòs gáu = "They say big John is becoming old" : jono jutu belos gáu = big John should become old" ... if the S-form did not have the be- these two would have the same 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 beuba] 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 beuba.

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 ... sòr is the form of the copula used. ( Notice that this is what the 3SG indicative form of sàu would be if 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 ...

sòr fonia = it's raining

..

Often when discussing the "advisability of a course of action a construction containing sòr, one of the adjectives neʒi, boʒi or fàin and tà is used. For example ...

..

sòr	neʒi	tà	ny-e-r-u	jindi
"it is"	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	sòr	fàin	tà	sw-a-r-u	ifan	jindi
NEG	"it is"	appropriate	CMPZ	speak-1SG-IND-FUT	anything	now

==> It is inappropriate that I will say anything now ==> I shouldn't say anything now

sor-u	boʒi	tà	jubu	j-u-r-u
"it is"-FUT	optimum	CMPZ	nobody	go-3PL-IND-FUT

==> It will be best if nobody goes

..

neʒi = necessary

boʒi = best

fàin = fitting/appropriate

..

For new situations ... lòr is used instead of sòr. (Notice that lòr is what the 3SG indicative form lài would be if conjugated as a regular verb). For example ...

lòr fonia = it starting to rain

But lòr is quite a bit rarer than sòr.

..

OK ... sàu and lài are the two béu copula's.

There is another verb, that while not a copula, can function in a way similar to sòr. While sòr connects an attribute ( adjective ) to the universe at large (well at least attaches an attribute to the local environment) yór connects a noun to the universe at large. yór is actually the 3SG indicative form of the verb yái "to have on you". Now while sòr are only used in sentence initial position, yór can occur any position that a normal verb can. For example ...

jonos yór kli.o = John has a knike

But when occurring without a subject ... yór takes on its special role ... it becomes an "existential verb". For example ...

yór dèus = "there is a God" or "God exists"

This construction can be negated in two ways ...

bù yór dèus = "there isn't a God" : yór jù dèus = "there is no God"

As indeed the English existential construction can.

..

Often this construction has a location incorporated into it. For example ...

1) yór yiŋki hè = "There are many attractive girls" ............................................................................... [ they exist somewhere ... somewhere in the Universe ]

2) yore 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" ]

The existential construction with a location can be recast as a normal sentence having the verb yái "to have" ...

3) tunheus yore yiŋki hè yildos = "the townhall had many attractive girls this morning"

Which in turn means pretty much the same as the copula sentence ...

4) yiŋki hè rè tunheuʔe yildos = "many attractive girls were at the townhall this morning"

So three ways to say the same thing.

But note ...

5) *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

fàin ....... the action will be approved of by society at large (or at least the subsection society that is interested in the matter).

boʒi ...... the action will yield more benefits than other actions (or no action at all).

neʒi ..... the action is a vital part of some larger scheme that will achieve some goal.

Note ... neʒi = "necessary" => neʒis = a necessity : boʒi = "best" => boʒis = the optimum

..

..... Special short verbs

..

The above is the general rules for short verbs, however the 37 short verbs below the rules are different.

Their vowels of the infinitive are completely deleted for the indicative and subjunctive verb forms. For example ...

pòr nambo = he enters the house ... not *poi.or nambo

..

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		slòi = to flow	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

..

Note ... lài = to become : slài = to change ..... note conflation with "to flow" when in the indicative form.

Some nouns related to the above ... yaifan = possessions, property, flofan = food, gaufan = products, myefan = reserves, naufan = tax, tribute, gaufan = behavior.

gauwas = a task, a thing that must be done, gauyas = a deed, a thing that has been done

A particle related to the above ... yó ... a particle that indicates possession, occurs after the "possessed" and before the "possessor.

..

..... Verbs & Arguments

..

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. So ...

"the door opened" => "the door was opened" = pintu mapəri => pintu map-ri (Actually I do not think the schwa symbol is distinct enough ... from now on I will use a dash)

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 -nau

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	pyanau	to throw
jó	to go	jonau	to send
tè	to come	tenau	to summon
bái	to rise	bainau	to raise
kàu	to descend	kaunau	to lower

..

Six [00] can also take -nau as well and become [000]. They are ...

..

flò	to eat	flonau	to feed
bwí	to see	bwinau	to show
háu	to learn	haunau	to teach
glù	to know	glunau	to inform
pòi	to enter, to join	poinau	to put in
féu	to exit, to leave	feunau	to take out

(Note : fya "to tell" means basically the same as glunau 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 ...

..

cwana hulkori = the bridge broke

deutais cwana 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. So we can talk about the break braking by itself ... as 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 to 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 passive participles 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.

..

..... A SECOND VOICE ?

..

According to WALS [ http://wals.info/chapter/107 ] 56 % of the world languages manage without a passive. béu would be counted as one of these languages that lacks a passive voice.

But ... you might say ... you said béu has a passive in the last section. As in ...

"the door opened" => "the door was opened" = pintu map-ri

Actually languages have many different ways of decreasing the importance of the subject in a sentence. Maybe it is some sort of continuum with a canonical passive at the most extreme end. Anyway Dixon has drawn a line to demarcate what is passive and what is not. I find it a bit arbitary. But it is necessary ... imagine two linguists discussing "passive constructions" but each had a different definition of what a "passive constructions" was ...

R. M. W. Dixon has defined four criteria for determining whether a construction is a passive:

1) It applies to underlying transitive clauses and forms a derived intransitive.

2) The entity that is the patient or the object of the transitive verb in the underlying representation (indicated as O in linguistic terminology) becomes the core argument of the clause (indicated as S, since the core argument is the subject of an intransitive).

3) The agent in the underlying representation (indicated as A) becomes a chômeur, a noun in the periphery that is not a core argument. It is marked by a non-core case or becomes part of an adpositional phrase, etc. This can be omitted, but there's always the option of including it.

4) There is some explicit marking of the construction.

[ The above taken from .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice#cite_note-Ergativity-9 ]

If I was to make a canonical passive for béu I would have ended up with something like *pintu wamapori for "the door is was opened". The form I have is pintu map-ri (pintu mapəri). This form breaks all 4 criteria for being considered a canonical passive. It is more a sawn-off [00] construction.

..

Maybe I should stop calling it a passive ... maybe call it something like the "schwa form" from now on. I would not like to upset Robert ... but is it really important what we call it ... "A rose by any other name ...

But it is fit for purpose. It patterns with the two copula's in having no subject expressed in the verb so the possibilities for pronoun dropping are less than with a normal verb. But apart from that ... I don't see any problems.

The above leads us on to consider who or what is responsibly for an action ...

Consider geuko = "to turn green" ... which is [00].

1) báu lí gèu = The man became green ... this uses the adjective form of gèu and the "copula of becoming" làu. This form has no implication as to the humanness of the agent.

Agent => Anything and the action could be accidental.

2) báu geukəri = The man was made green ... this is the standard passive form. It strongly implies a human agent but the agent is either unknown or unimportant.

Agent => Human and the action deliberate (probably)

3) báus tí geukori = The man made himself green ... this form implies that there was some effort involved and definitely a deliberate action.

Agent => Human and the action deliberate

..

Now consider mapa = "to open" ... a [00].

1) pintu lí mapia = the door became opened = the door opened

Agent => Anything ... It could be that the agent was the wind ... or even some fairy cái ... use your imagination.

2) pintu mapəri = the door was opened

Agent => Human and the action deliberate ... It implies that the agent was human but is either unknown or unimportant.

Note ... there is no (3) here as a door is non-human.

..

In either of the (1)'s wistia "deliberately" or wistua "accidently" can be added after* lí. 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]

..

A discussion about the English passive construction [purely for amusement : nothing to do with béu]

..

Now you way wonder why I specified the second construction as 'subject' + 'passive verb' ... why not 'subject' + 'copula' + 'adjective' as in the first case.

Well there can be a difference in meaning between the two sentences. Suppose the lawn is habitually "mown" (albeit at longish intervals) by Jack. Then the second sentence tells us nothing about the present state of the lawn ... it could be quite overgrown. Now look at the first sentence ... imagine it has the same meaning as the second sentence but we were too lazy to mention the agent.

Can you see "an overgrown lawn" ... then think back to the first sentence when you first encountered it. Can you see see a "neat lawn". And then take in the meaning of the second sentence again and look back at the first. Can you see the "overgrown lawn" again. It is a bit like looking at one of these optical illusion ...

..

Now "mow" is a dynanic verb ... if you dwell on the concept you can see action, you can see people doing things. However "mown" is basically an adjective ... hence "is mown" (what I call a passive verb) is a "static verb". It has none of the movement associated with "mow". However we can resurrect this movement by using a "change of state" copula instead of the "static" copula. For example ...

..

Someone mows the lawn ..... active voice ......... dymamic

"The lawn is mown" ............. passive voice ....... static situation

"The lawn gets mown" ......... passive voice ....... dynamic situation

..

..... TO BE SORTED

..

The three types of Verb

..

Some concepts are naturally intransitive. Like "to shave". Well at least in béu it is very unusual to shave another.

Some concepts are naturally transitive. Like "to hit". It is worth remarking on when somebody hits themselves.

And there are also some concepts that appear in both manifestations. For example ... "turn", "spread", "rise/raise"

These three types of concept are represented in beu by three different types of verb.

V1) té = to come ... this is a intransitive verb

(Always accompanied by a naked noun)

V2) timpa = to hit ... this is a transitive verb

(Always accompanied by an s-marked noun and a^* naked noun)

^*Although sometimes the naked noun can be dropped for lack of interest. For example ...

jenes solbori = Jane drank (something)

V3) kwèu = to turn

Now this sometimes behaves like V1 and sometimes like V2.

..

A .. V1 Derivations

..

There are 5 deriuvation processes shown below ...

First from doika => doikaya This involves infixing ay before the final vowel.

Secondly from doika => doikana and doikaya => doikayana.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding ana.

Thirdly from doika => doikala and doikaya => doikayala.

This involves deleting the second part of the final vowel if it is a diphthong, and then adding la.

Fourthly from doikaya => doikaiwai.

This involves deleting the final vowel and y and adding iwai.

Fifthly from doikaya => doikaiwau.

This involves deleting the final vowel and y and adding iwau.

..

	doikaiwai		doikaiwau
	"that which has been made to walk" (A/N)		"that which must be made to walk" (A/N)

doikayana	<============	doikaya	============>	doikayala
"the one that makes walk" (N)		"to make to walk" (V1)		"causing to walk" (A)
		^
		\|
		\|
doikana	<============	doika	============>	doikala
"walker" (N)		"to walk" (V2)		"walking" (A)

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

..

B .. V2 Derivations

..

There are 5 deriuvation processes shown below ...

First from kludau => kludawau This involves infixing aw before the final vowel.

Secondly from kludau => kludana and kludawau => kludawana.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding ana.

Thirdly from kludau => kludala and kludawau => kludawala.

This involves deleting the second part of the final vowel if it is a diphthong, and then adding la.

Fourthly from kludau => kludwai.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding wai.

Fifthly from kludau => kludwau.

This involves deleting the final vowel and adding wau.

..

kludawana	<============	kludawau	============>	kludawala
"computer memory" (N)		"to be written" (V2)		"being written" (A)
		^
		\|
		\|
kludana	<============	kludau	============>	kludala
"writer" (N)		"to write" (V1)		"writing" (A)



	kludwai		kludwau
	"written" (A/N)		"which must be written" (A/N)

..

kludwai is the passive past participle, and kludwau is the passive future participle.

..

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

..

C .. V3 Derivations

..

haikana	<============	haika	============>	haikala
"breaker" (N)		"to break" (V3a)		"breaking" (A)



	haikwai		haikwau
	"broken" (A/N)		"that which must be broken" (A/N)

..

Note ... haikwai could very well have broken by itself. There is no connotation that an outside agent was responsible. The same with haikwau.

..

heukana	<============	heuka	============>	heukala
"breaker" (N)		"to break" (V3b)		"breaking" (A)

..

There are 4 derivational processes involved with V3a and 2 derivational processes involved with V3b. They have been already been explained in the sections on V1 and V2.

Note that we have 8 word forms in total.

kó = to see

kowa = to be seen

The subject of the active clause, can be included in the passive clause as an afterthought if required. hí is a normal noun meaning "source". However it also acts as a particle (prefix) which introduces the agent in a passive clause.

poʔau = to cook

..

When the final consonant is w y h or ʔ the passive is formed by suffixing -wa

In monosyllabic words, it is formed by suffixing -wa.

Note ... when wa is added to a word ending in au or eu, the final u is deleted.

Also note ... these operations can make consonant clusters which are not allowed in the base words. For example, in a root word -mpw- would not be allowed ( Chapter 1, Consonant clusters, Word medial)

..

... Valency ... 1 => 2

..

Now all verbs that can take an ergative argument can undergo the 2=>1 transformation.

There also exists in béu a 1=>2 transformation. However this transformation can only be applied to a handful of verbs. Namely ...

ʔoime	to be happy, happyness	ʔoimora	he is happy	ʔoimye	to make happy	ʔoimyana	pleasant
heuno	to be sad/sadness	heunora	she's sad	heunyo	to make sad	heunyana	depressing
taudu	to be annoyed	taudora	he is annoyed	tauju	to annoy	taujana	annoying
swú	to be scared, fear	swora	she is afraid	swuya	to scare	swuyana	frightening, scary
canti	to be angry, anger	cantora	he is angry	canci	to make angry	cancana	really annoying
yodi	to be horny, lust	yodora	she is horny	yoji	to make horny	yojana	sexy, hot
gái	to ache, pain	gayora	he hurts	gaya	to hurt (something)	gayana	painful ^*
gwibe	to be ashamed/shame/shyness	gwibora	she is ashamed/shy	gwibye	to embarrass	gwibyana	embarrassing
doimoi	to be anxious, anxiety	doimora	he is anxious	doimyoi	to cause anxiety, to make anxious	doimyana	worrying
ʔica	to be jealous, jealousy	ʔicora	she is jealous	ʔicaya	to make jealous	ʔicayana	causing jealousy

ʔoimor would mean "he is happy by nature". All the above words take this sense when the "a" of the present tense is dropped.

The above words are all about internal feelings.

The third column gives a transitive infinitive (derived from the column two entry by infixing a -y- before the final vowel).

The fourth column gives an adjective of the transitive verb (derived from column three entry by affixing a -ana ... the active participle).

When the final consonant is ʔ j c w or h the causative is formed by suffixing -ya.

Also when the verb is a monosyllable, the causative is formed by suffixing -ya.

Note ... when ya is added to a word ending in ai or oi, the final i is deleted.

Note ... when y is infixed behind t and d : ty => c and dy => j

..

Normally in béu, to make a nominally intransitive verb transitive, it doesn't need the infixing of -y. All it needs is the appearance of an ergative argument. For example ...

doika = to walk

doikor = he walk

ós doikor the pulp mill = he runs the pulp mill

doikyana = management ???

..

^*You would describe a gallstone as gayana. However you would describe your leg as gaila (well provided you didn't have a chronic condition with your leg)

..

Concatenation of the valency changing derivations ... 1 => 2 => 1 and 2 => 1 => 2

..

ʔoime

= to be happy

ʔoimye

= to make happy

ʔoimyewa

= "to be made to be happy" or, more simply "to be made happy

..

fàu

= to know

fa??

= to tell

fa ??

=

..

timpa

= to hit

timpawa

= to be hit

timpawaya

= to cause to be hit

..

Semantically timpa is direct action (from agent to patient). Whereas timpawaya is indirect, possibly involving some third party between the agent and the patient and/or allowing some time to pass, between resolving on the action and the action being done unto the patient.

..

In béu it would make sense to make the above distintion … simply by omitting the ergative noun.

….

SHE EATS …. SHE EATS TOAST

In béu it would make sense to make the above distintion … simply by omitting the non-ergative noun.

— How then to analyse the verbs FREEZE and EAT …. TRANSITIVE OR INTRANSITIVE ? Well lets just call it a process. Processes that admot different sets of arguments …

FREEZE X S=>X S ? / PASSIVE || the Passive means the same as X || “Dixon would say S=O AMBI”

EAT S S=>X / PASSIVE || “Dixon would say S=A AMBI”

..

..... Six causative constructions

..

béu is a bit unusual in that it has no morphological means to make a causative. A good example of a morphological causative is from Japanese ...

Kanako	ga	Ziroo	o	ik-ase-ta
Kanako	NOM	Ziro	ACC	go-CAUS-PAST

==> Kanako made Ziro go

You can see that the bit that makes this a causative "ase" has got lodged in the verb.

[ Note on terminology ... we will call Kanako the "causer" and we will call Ziro the "causee" ]

..

But maybe to say that béu has no morphological causatives is untrue. It has the following nine verb pairs ...

..

danau = to place

kyàu = to fall : kyaunau = to drop

Note that the top 7 are | => || and that the bottom 5 are || => |||.

..

Now it is well known that the processes involved in the making a morphological causative are rarely completely productive. So maybe béu with its 1 derived verbs is not such an outlier after all.

But apart from these nine verbs (which arguably show a morphological causative) béu uses what are called periphrastic means to express a causative. These are ...

..

(a) gari solbe moze jenen = I made Jane drink water

(b) gari tà jenes solbori moze = I had Jane drink water

(c) tumari solbe moze jenen = I made Jane drink water

(d) tumari tà jenes solbori moze = I had Jane drink water

(e) nari solbe moze jenen = I let Jane drink water

(f) nari tà jenes solbori moze = I allowed Jane to drink water

..

The causer is the new argument in a causative expression that causes the action to be done.

The causee is the argument that actually does the action in a causativized sentence.

..

In (a) and (b) the verb gàu = "to do" or "to make" is used.

In (c) and (d) the verb tumai is used. This verb has no other use apart from making this type of causative construction.

In (e) and (f) the verb náu = "to give" is used.

..

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 constuction. For example ...

je	ferai	manger	les	gâteaux	à	Jean
1sgA	make+fut+1sg	eat+inf	the	cakes	prep	Jean

==> I will make Jean eat the cakes

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).

..

Also notice that in (a), (c) and (e) the original subject is put in the dative case. In béu this is always the case ... whether the verb is intransitive, transitive or diitransitive (if the verb is ditransitive then this means the causative construction will have two datives ... a cause of confusion ? ... not really ... the original subject will be the latter of the two datives)

(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)

..

gari timpa jene jonon = I made John hit Jane

gari timpa glá òn = I made him/her hit the woman

To allow someone to do something.

..

If John was feeling a bit sick ... the teacher would say to him ...

"I give to you to go home now" => gìn nár nyáu nambon jindi

..

gì-n	n-á-r	nyáu	nambo-n	jindi
2SG-DAT	give-1SG-IND	return.INF	house-DAT	now

..

Now náu "to give" is a strange word. It is never put in the passive. Instead the word mài "to receive/get" is used.

So when John gets home he says to his mother ...

"I get to return home early by teacher" => mare nyáu nambon early hí teacher *

..

m-a-r-e	nyáu	nambo-n	"early"	hí	"teacher"
receive-1SG-IND-PST	return.INF	house-DAT	early	by	teacher

..

Note ... the particle hí is not used for anything else. So you come across it when you see jwè + maŋga or mài + maŋga ... well you might. Specifying the agent is not mandatory.

..

*Of course alternatively he could have used the direct voice and have said ... "teacher give to me to go home early"

..

..... 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.

..

..... 4 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".

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.

Possibly related to the verb ʔanto which means "to continue".

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.

Possibly related to the verb ʔesto which means "to start".

..

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.

..

^* 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	teka bwí	to catch a glimpse
wòi	to think	teka wòi	to think for a moment
ʕái	to want	teka ʕái	for a moment, to want

..

... 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.

..

..... Tying two clauses together

..

In béu we have live clauses and dead clause.

The head of a live clause is a verb in its declarative form.

The head of a dead clause is a verb in its declarative form.

A live clause has its main elements in any order, the S term is marked as the ergative. The A and O terms are unmarked.

A dead clause has word order VS or VAO, the O term being marked as the dative. The A and S terms are unmarked.

tàin = before

jáus = after

ʔéu = while, as

í kyù = until => iyu

fì kyù = ever since => fiyu

If the subjects (that is S or A) of two clauses are different then they can be conjoined timewise by using one of the above stand-alone particles. For example ...

1) jenes bwori jono ʔéu jonos fori nambo tí = Jane saw John as he was leaving his house.

Also ... as in English we can have the two clauses in the other order ...

2) ʔéu jonos fori nambo tí_jenes bwori ò = As John was leaving his house, Jane saw him

Notice that in this sentence, the second jono has been replaced by the pronoun ò ... in actual fact ... in 1) the chances are that jonos would be replaced by ós ... but this makes the sentence ambiguous.

John whistled as he left his house = jono wizori ʔéu ò fori nambo tí = *jono wizori ʔéu féu í nambo tí

---

Now if the subjects of two clauses are the same, one of the clauses can becomes a dead clause. Only a very short and simple clause can become a dead clause ... both ...

A) Any time,place or manner adjuncts will stop a clause collapsing to a dead clause.

B) An O argument that is longer than a single word.

When the above requirements are met ....

A) S or A is dropped completely.

B) The linker word is appended to the infinitive.

C) if there is an O it immediately follows the infinitive and has the dative marker -n affixed.

1) S while S ................... jono wizori ʔéu ò huzori ... (pronoun used in second clause)

=>jono wizori huzuaʔeu = John whistled while smoking ... (must drop S, the linker must be appended to the infinitive)

2) A O while A O ..... jonos timpori jene ʔéu ós huzori ʃiga ... (pronoun used in second clause)

=> jonos timpori jene huzuaʔeu ʃigan ... (must drop A, the linker must be appended to the infinitive. O must be a single word)

3) A O while S .......... jonos timpori jene ʔéu ò huzori ... (pronoun used in second clause)

=> jonos timpori jene huzuaʔeu ... (must drop S, the linker must be appended to the infinitive)

4) S while A O ........... jono huzori ʔéu ós timpori jene .... (pronoun used in second clause)

=> jono huzori timpaʔeu jenen .... (must drop A, the linker must be appended to the infinitive. O must be a single word)

John left his house whistling = Jonos fori nambo tí ʔéu wiʒia

wiʒia = to whistle

koʔia = to cough

huzua = to smoke

..

... 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.

..

Béu : Chapter 3 : The Verb

..... THE SEVEN MOODS

... Manga

... The indicative

.. Slot 1

.. Slot 2

.. Slot 3

.. Slot 4

.. Slot 5

... The imperative

... The advisory

... The prohibitive

... The optative

... Soliciting opinion

... The interrogative

... The conflative

... Other rubbish

..... Short verbs

..... The copula

..... Special short verbs

..... Verbs & Arguments

..... A SECOND VOICE ?

..... TO BE SORTED

..... Six causative constructions

..... The reciprocal construction

..... 4 slots before the verb

... Slot 1

... Slot 2

... Slot 3

... Slot 4

... Restrictions

..... Tying two clauses together

... Introducing Verb Chains

... Similtaneous Time

... Interleaved Time

... Sequential Time

... Motion Verb Chains

... Other Verb Chains

... IA and UA

... Consequence Couplets

... Index

Navigation menu

Search