Yes, people, it's finally here: the participles post! These have been completely changed in like the last week when I tore them down and remade them completely.
Participles are verbal adjectives, which may simultaneously modify nouns and verbs while also taking objects. Each verb has six: participles can have one of three tenses (present, perfect, and future), and one of two voices (active and passive). All verbs form their participles with the same ablaut and morphemes, though the specifics of some roots will result in different surface appearances, as the syllabic resonant expansion post above already showed. The endings are:
PRES.ACT: B, -ar-
PRES.PASS: B, -rīt-
PERF.ACT: L, -ṛt-
PERF.PASS: L, -iv-
FUT.ACT: B, -aśam-
FUT.PASS: B, -avay-
At first glance, the endings here have nothing to do with the endings used for verbal conjugation, but the -iv- of the perfect passive and the -v- of the future passive are actually connected albeit distantly to the -ib passive formant.
Before we get into the specifics, we might want to review what they look like. The following massive chart shows off several different verbs covering all of the possibilities. They are:
"to speak", which is 100% regular
"to hit", which demonstrates what happens when the root ends in -r but IS NOT an -ar root or -er root (they're almost exactly the same as above except in the perfect active)
"to live" and ver-
"to cheat" , which demonstrate what happens when the root is both an -ar root or -er root and ends in -r (if it ends in something else like wers-
"to defend" it has completely regular participles). Ignore the causative shades of nar-
's participles for now.
"to fill" which demonstrate what happens when a root ends in a syllabic ṛ
"to carry", which exemplifies roots that end in a syllabic that is not the rhotic
"to see", which shows off vowel-final i-roots, which mostly act like normal vowel-final roots (a lot of linking -y-'s) except in the perfect, where their long -au can break into -aw- (vowel-final u-roots like bu-
"be happy" are similar but with -oy- instead of -au-; this so long already that I'm gonna ignore them)
(Chart spoilered because of how frickin' huge it is)
The participles inflect like normal adjectives, but the present active in the 3rd declension indefinite accusative, genitive, and instrumental (I forgot to make one for this class but it's -na, by the way, with vowel stems long before it) has the anomalous form - arra- because normally these forms create the unacceptable *-arṛ(ṣu/bas/na).
With their formation out of the way, onto using them. All participles are thematic adjectives. They agree in class, number, definiteness, and case with their referents and may be used as simple qualifiers; though Pazmat participles can take entire clauses to translate:
"a cheating child"
"the book which is to be given"
"next to the man who was seen"
najiddarat ḥīsṛtaddarat woḥīm kāna
adult-DEF.PL-DAT live.at-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-3RD-DEF.PL-DAT only know.IMPERF-1S
I only know of the adults who lived (here).
mi jirgnīṣṣmi sīpṛtrīṣṣmi gdataubivyū?
who person-DEF.PL-INSTR fight-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-AR-DEF.PL-INSTR kill-PASS.PERF-3S
Who has been killed by those who were fighting?
The future participles often have a sense of allowing. This often has a negative meaning:
An adult who lets themselves be doubted
(lit. "An adult who will be doubted")
Participles may also be used on their own as nouns. Usually the adjective is in the -ar stem form:
ṣṇdararīṣṣ allā ūgya wṛthāya thawivyaṣṣi
travel-PTCPL-PRES.ACT-AR-DEF.PL.NOM many thing.DEF.PL-ACC beautiful-ATHEM-DEF-ACC see.PERF-3P
Those who travel have seen many amazing things
(All adjectives may be used this way, I could have dropped the noun for "thing" and just said ṣṇdararīṣṣ allā wṛthrīyya thawivyaṣṣi
ḥuyavayarīṣṣ ḥīsnayyōya nidhōya seyyaṣṣi
choose-PTCPL-FUT.PASS-AR-DEF.PL.NOM civic.duty-INDEF.SG-ACC large-AR-INDEF.ACC have-FUT-3P
The ones who are to be chosen shall hold a civic duty
ḥīsnayyō is a rather uniquely Pazmat noun that literally means "the state of being a citizen" but refers to the civic duty to their country and city the Paz believe that all citizens should fulfill. Shirking it is considered abominable, to the point where the Paz have very large reservations to things like moving to a new town and the like (traditionally, a moving Paz would perform a religious ceremony called bentarat the purpose of which was release them from their current civic duty and bind them to their new one). The word is derived thusly: ḥes- "to live at (+LOC)" > ḥīsan "citizen" > ḥīsnī "civic" > ḥīsnayyō
Pronouns may take participles (they are considered definite athematics) as well. They're often used with plural pronouns to give off a restrictive sense ("those of us who X"..., etc.):
udhusī sepaśamā, olva gwenīsa; udhusī kṇsaśamā, kodhrītīm fejīsa.
2P.NOM fight-PTCPL.FUT.ACC-ATHEM-DEF.NOM upwards stand-IMP.PL 2P.NOM die-PTCPL.FUT.ACC-ATHEM-DEF.NOM sit-PTCPL.PRES.PASS-ATHEM.INDEF-DAT wait-IMP.PL
Those of you who will fight, stand up; those of you who will die, remain seated
With the very basics out of the way, I'm going to take a short stop to explain some of the intricacies behind participial semantics for special roots.
roots take all six participles. This has two major implications:
1: Verbs with have intransitive meanings like "moan", "cry", "die", "rain", and the like can still form passive participles, even though something like "*having been died" doesn't make much sense. Well, their passive participles, as you saw a little earlier with nar-
, have causative meanings: sarjiv-
"having been made to cry", voystivrīṣṣva
"alongside those who have been forced to walk":
īyam qa sunnōpṛtrīṣṣva woḥīm nōvūtṛ ḥīsam
go-IMP.SG and prostitute.oneself-PTCPL.PERF.PASS-AR-DEF.PL-LOC only live-INFIN-GEN live.at-IMP.SG
Then go and live amongst those who have been forced to prostitute themselves just to live
If the action in question is simply an unsentient thing that "just happens", like "rain" or "fall", then the passive participle can often have an applicative meaning or even a locative meaning: vajarā oycivarā
can mean either "the tree which was made to fall" or "the tree (under/near/by/etc.) which (s.thing) fell.
One could also turn the verb causative and use the new causative verb's passive participle as well, which can serve to disambiguate the above situation: vajarā ūcēyivarā
is unambiguously "the tree which was made to fall" or the "the felled tree"
2: Root adjectives may also
form participles by dint of being roots. Their active participles can be used to show when something was that quality; the past and future are obvious, but the the present active, though it may seem superfluous, can give off a poetic flavor and can be used to give a gnomic sense:
"a great life" (normal adjective)
"a life which is great" (present active participle)
"a life which was great"
"a life which will be great"
The passive participles of root adjectives have a sense of becoming, not a causative one; "getting/becoming X'er" is often a good way to translate: wurfō jagrītō
"a boy who is becoming strong" > "a boy who is getting stronger", bīntū naudhivū woḥīm
"a problem which has only (woḥīm) gotten bigger", etc. To get a causative sense, you must form that root adjective's causative verb and then use its passive participles: wurfō jēgaṣrītō
"a boy who is made to get stronger".
Derived adjectives of course can not benefit from this at all.
The negative verb i-
's participles* are used with participles to negate them much like its infinitive negates other infinitives. However, its participles always agree in every way possible with the negated participle.
*yar- irit- awṛt- awiv- yaś- yav-
Going back to using participles, they may be used alone to add information to a sentence, many times taking different case forms depending on their usage. When like this they are usually inflected as athematic singulars, sometimes definite, sometimes indefinite. If they are agreeing with something though they are whatever class that thing is.
First of all, the dative can be used to adverbially modify actions like any regular adjective; this is most common with certain verbs like bent-
"to stop", and the participle is indefinite:
kajarīm bīntevyī qa ḥesrāsam eyī
drink-PTCPL.PRES.ACT-ATHEM-INDEF.SG-DAT stop.PERF-1S and house-DEF.SG-ABLOC go.AOR-1S
I stopped drinking and went out of the house
vīritnāva ḥesarīm vatēyyī sīmma sadhva mūtṛ marjhnāya śṛśnarḥī
I will continue to live in this apartment until I can find a better job
(lit. "I will look towards living in this apartment until I can find a job which is at being good")
With an instrumental participle, you can make an absolutive clause. This can be used to express an action before/after the main verb; the participle agrees in class and number with whatever the subject is (pronouns are athematic definites) BUT NOT case:
kādhṛtāmi Urbnāyīm fījevyū
sit-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-DEF-INSTR NAME-DAT wait.PERF-3S
Having sat down, she waited for Urbana
After sitting down, she waited for Urbana
Kūraseṣu mūlēyavyī karayaśamāmi Madharirūya jrūqīxīṣṣmi
NAME-ACC lie.down-CAUS.PERF-1S fill-CAUS-PTCPL.FUT.ACT-ATHEM-DEF-INSTR NAME-ACC water.jar-DEF.PL-INSTR
I made Kurasi lie down and then had Madharirū replenish the water jars
I made Kurasi lie down before having Madharirū replenish the water jars
This sentence has two tricky things about it: since the speaker is still the subject of the second clause (which happens to be a causative sentence), the participle karayaśamāmi is athematic to agree with them (since "I" is considered an athematic definite in Pazmat). In addition, the word jrūqīxīṣṣmi "water jars" is instrumental, but it is not agreeing with the participle and is indeed the object of the second clause: causative sentences put their displaced object in the instrumental.
With just a few changes, this sentence could mean something entirely different: Kūraseṣu mūlēyavyī karayaśamirūmi Madharirū jrūqīxīṣṣmi: "I made Kurasi lie down and then Madharirū made me replenish the water jars"
Zūjhramarā bādhivrāmi, urva śrayarīm vētvūya awiyaśva
NAME-NOM hurt-PTCPL-PERF.PASS-AR-DEF.SG-INSTR always do-PTCPL-PRES.ACT-DAT look-INFIN-ACC NEG.POT-1S.INCL
With Zujhramara injured, there's no way we can continue to do this
uḥḥīm murasāna klurēḥivāmi, nidhīm seuram yēna...
before dumbass-DEF.SG-INSTR dispose-PTCPL-PERF.PASS-DEF-INSTR large-DAT suspicious be.IMPER-1S
Having been abandoned before by that jackass, I'm pretty suspicious...
qrāsraḥarīmi jhāṣ wersirūyīm źāthovyaṣṣi
fear.for.ones.life-PTCPL.PRES.ACT-ATHEM-DEF.PL-INSTR 1S.ACC protection-DEF.SG-DAT pay.PERF-3P
Fearing for their lives, they paid me for protection
The privative provides a short way of negating this:
glīsrāya drēḥṛtrāsit jimanā bobodh
warning-DEF.SG-ACC hear-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-AR-DEF.SG-PRIV woman-DEF.SG.NOM vulnerable
Having not heard the warning that woman is vulnerable
śnṛḥavayāsit mētnīyyīm Nūdhrēmnāya sīyēyam
discover-PTCPL.FUT.PASS-ATHEM-DEF.SG-PRIV word-DEF.PL-DAT NAME-ACC have-CAUS-IMP.SG
Go and deliver these words to Nudhremana without being caught
(Lit. "Without being caught (in the future) cause Nudhremana to have these words")
A future participle can be used in a copular sentence to give off a vague sense of obligation (cf. Latin's gerundive) e.g narō adwar nruḥavayō
"A guard is to be sent (lit. thrown)
tomorrow" i.e "A guard must be sent tomorrow", but this is can also be expressed with the construction ḥṛsū na [clause]
e.g ḥṛsū na narō adwar nruḥibauyyū
, literally "It is needed that a guard is sent tomorrow".
The locative has one of the most important uses: it denotes, depending on the tense, either before an action, after an action, or during an action. The locative present participle usually means "while/when X'ing":
ḥuyirū jīmnīṣṣmi arsrītirūva, mūrdēmnāmi allirūmi mṛjhaṣṣi, kāraddmusi dūramuddmusi allu
statue-DEF.SG-NOM woman-DEF.PL-INSTR make-PTCPL.PRES.PASS-ER-DEF.SG-LOC precision-DEF.SG-INSTR absolute-ER-DEF.SG-INSTR work.AOR-3P cut-DEF.PL-PRIV unnecessary-3RD-DEF.PL-PRIV INTENSIVE
While the statue is being crafted by the women, they work with absolute precision, without any unnecessary cuts
Gṛddhrōmāva ḥesarāva vajrēmnāya slūyevyī
NAME-LOC live-PTCPL.PRES.ACT-ATHEM-DEF.SG-LOC woodworking-DEF.SG-ACC study.PERF-1S
While living in Grdhhroma I studied woodworking
I studied woodworking while I was living in Grddhroma
The past participle in the locative often means "before":
Kansṛtāva selqtāva ṣṇdarana
die-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-ATHEM-DEF.SG-LOC world-DEF.SG-LOC travel-DESI-1S
Before I die, I want to travel the world
Būramusī Māksrīṣrāmi vūyivusaram aṣīṣ awur zanvṇvyū
NAME-NOM NAME-INSTR cheat-PTCPL.PERF.PASS-3RD-DEF.SG-LOC 1P.INCL-ACC never doubt.PERF-3S
Before Buramusi was cheated by Maksriyara she had never doubted us
The future participle has the sense of "after":
Kwitrāva breqaśamāva jṛgōya nṛẓōya sayubbī
room-DEF.SG-LOC enter-PTCPL.FUT.ACT-ATHEM-DEF.SG-LOC feeling-INDEF.SG-ACC bad-AR-INDEF.SG-ACC have.STAT-1S
After I had entered the room I got a bad feeling
Ātrīḥarā kādhayavaṣrāva nucīm garḥam
NAME-NOM sit-CAUS-PTCPL.FUT.PASS-AR-DEF.SG-LOC quick-DAT kill.IMP.SG
After Atrihara has been seated kill (her) quickly
The ablocative can be used to negate these in a short way, but note that it often has a negative feeling e.g garḥṛtāsam
is "before (he/she) doesn't kill..." literally, but has a sense more of "before (he/she) fails to kill..."
One very important use is for relative clauses. Yeah, remember that genitive-infinitive construction a few posts up? That is less common than this method, and is indeed on the way out except in super-formal speech.
Forming a participial relative clause is easy: you just...use the participle like a normal adjective with any arguments of the relative clause inbetween the noun and the participle. If there are no other arguments then it looks exactly like a normal attributive participle. In other words, where English says "The man who sees the boy" and "The girl who ran to the store", Pazmat says "The man, seeing the boy" and "The girl, having run to the store" (in this last case, the literal English translation sounds like an absolutive but we already have seen that that would require an instrumental participle in Pazmat):
Royī na wurfōya, ūṣrāya kthreyarōya,otot
want.AOR-1S=SUB boy-INDEF.SG-ACC nothing-DEF.SG-ACC fear-PTCPL.PRES.ACT-AR-INDEF.SG-AC bring.AOR-2S
I want you to bring me a boy who fears nothing
(lit. "I want that you give a boy, fearing nothing")
However, remember this: Pazmat does not like to have a nominative in the relative clause. For instance, let's say you have the sentence "The woman sold the bag" and you wanted to relativize "the bag". In English you can just say "The car sold by the woman" or "The car which the woman sold" but Pazmat hates
this. To explain this hatred, let's try copying English:
*(?)Kṛtirū, jimanā soynṛtirū
bag-DEF.SG.NOM woman-DEF.SG-NOM sell-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-ER-DEF.SG.NOM
Seems simple enough...but who or what should the participle agree with? At first you would assume that it should agree with "bag", like it does above, since "bag" is the thing being relativized...but "woman" is the actual subject of the participial clause! Then maybe it should agree with it (...soynṛtarā
Well, rather than deal with that
mess, Pazmat just forces the original object to be the subject of the relative clause through passivization. In other words, Pazmat almost always
prefers to say "The bag which was sold by the woman":
Kṛtirū, jimnāmi soynivirū
bag-DEF.SG.NOM woman-DEF.SG-INSTR sell-PTCPL.PERF.PASS-ER-DEF.SG.NOM
Unfortunately we run into a problem here. This method can only relativize nominatives and accusatives. Anything above requires the genitive-infinitive construction...if it weren't for a new construction which blends the two. Said construction has only existed for about 100 years (barely any time linguistics-wise). It involves simply using the relative pronoun uźa
and then making an entirely new relative clause after it (using the participial method). So we can take this clause:
cṛsū frēthōva gwīnevyū
girl-INDEF.SG.NOM river-INDEF.SG-LOC stand.PERF-3S
A girl was standing by a river
And relativize "river" like so:
frēthō, uźav cṛsū gwīnṛtū
river-INDEF.SG.NOM rel-LOC girl-INDEF.SG.NOM stand-PTCPL.PERF.ACT-ER-INDEF.SG.NOM
A river by which a girl was standing
(lit. "A river, a girl having stood by which")
Another example, this time in a full-on sentence:
narōyīm uźat mūrdēmnāya draḥaśamā matarana
guard-INDEF.SG-DAT rel-GEN truth-DEF.SG-ACC hear-PTCPL.FUT.ACT-ATHEM-DEF.SG.NOM speak-DESI-1S
I wish to speak with a guard from whom (I) will hear the truth
Oh my god I've finally finished this. INCREDIBLE.
Like always I have no real idea where I'll go from here.