Kôren language

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 14 Jul 2017 11:09

Vowels

Stressed syllables can have seven vowel sounds: [a, e, i, ɒ, o, u, ai].
Unstressed syllables can have seven vowel sounds: [ɛ, ɪ, ɔ, ʊ, ɛɪ].

When not stressed /a, i, ɒ, u, ai/ are pronounced: [ɛ, ɪ, ɔ, ʊ, ɛɪ], respectively.
They are always written <e, i, o, u, y>, respectively.

Stressed [e] can be either [ɛ] or [ɪ] when unstressed and stressed [o] can be either [ɔ] or [ʊ] when unstressed.
I don't know a better analyses than to analyse them as two different phonemes, both: /e - ɛ/, /e - ɪ/, and /o - ɔ/, /o - ʊ/. In the earlier language varieties they have apparently been pronounced distinctively.
When stressed, they are written <ê>, <î>, and <ô>, <û>, respectively. When not stressed they are written <e>, <i>, and <o>, <u>, respectively.

Diphthongs
There is one phonemic diphthong /ai/ that behaves phonotactically as any vowel phoneme, i.e. has one stress.

All other lines of vowels belong to different syllables and some kind of a hiatus appears between them.
e.g. ao '(s)he' /'a.o/
If none of the sounds in line is stressed, they are though pronounced very shortly and phonetically could be called a diphthong.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Jul 2017 20:17

Omzinesý wrote:[...]
The future marker is -i
peleki [pɛ'le̞kɪ] 'will kill'


The stative marker is -u
peleku [pɛ'le̞kʊ] 'is in the state of having killed'
peloku [pɛ'lokʊ] 'is killed'


The future is also used for imperatives.
peleki [pɛ'le̞kɪ] 'kill' [...]

Now I decided that the future will be marked by infix /ai/ <y> instead of suffix /i/.

pelek ['pe̞lɛk] 'kills/killed'
pelyek [pɛ'lai.ɛk] 'will kill'

So verbs have three infix slots, of which only the last one cannot realize as zero.
ROOT<FUTURE><FREQUENTATIVE><VOICE>
Omzinesý wrote:I'll remove the beneficient-topic voice, and use /ai/ <y> to mark volitional agent with agent-topic voice.

So munta pelek nosa. will mean 'A hunter killed an elk.' while munta pelyk nosa means 'a hunter killed an elk willingly'

The history of the suffix is that there has been a desirative infix /ai/. At that time, the voice system hadn't developed as far as that of the modern language, and the deciderative suffix appeared in the voice slot.

(1) *pelek 'kills'
(2) *pelyk 'wants to kill'

The desiderative later gramamticalized to two different funktions.
1. to the future tense - the same development as with English will 'to want' -> 'to be going to'
2. to the volitional - 'wants to do (non-factual - i.e. not known if ever does)' -> 'does willingly (factual, i.e. wants to do and does)'

The meaning 1. started appearing with other voices as well.
(3) pelyok 'will be killed'
This never happened with the meaning 2. So pelyok cannot mean 'wants to be killed'.

So there was the paradigm (4)

(4)
pelek 'kills' pelyk 'willingly kills/ is going to kill'
pelok 'was killed' pelyok 'is going to be killed'
pelik 'he thinks someone kills' pelyik 'he thinks someone is going to kill'
peluk 'there someone kills' pelyuk 'there someone is going to kill'

Later future form with the agent-topic voice was analogically levelled to be (5).
(5)
pel<y><e>k
kill<FUT><AG.TOP>

Thereafter pelyk only meant 'he willingly kills'
Thereafter analogy also formed (6) that has to /y/ infixes one for future and one for the volitional agent.
(6) pelyyk [pɛ'lai.ɛɪk] 'he will willingly kill'

Code: Select all

[s]Numbers 1. - 5. express the stages of grammaticalization.
Forms with * aren't used in the modern Kôrem anymore. 

[b]1. *pelyk 'AG.kill.DESIR'[/b]
non-factual -> factual
[b]2. *pelyk 'AG.kill.FUT'      pelyk 'AG.kill.VOL[/b]
in the future meaning, can also appear with other voices
[b]3. pelyok 'PAT.kill.FUT'     #pelyok 'PAT.kill.VOL'[/b]
non-future agent-topic voice marker starts to be used with the future marker 
[b]4. pelyek 'AG.kill.FUT'      pelyk 'AG.kill.VOL'[/b]
volitional agent-topic form starts to be used with the future marker as well
[b]5. pelyyk 'AG.kill.FUT.VOL'[/b]

AG 'agent-topic voice'
DESIR 'desirative mood' 
FUT 'future tense'
PAT 'patient-topic voice'
VOL 'volitional'[/s] 
Last edited by Omzinesý on 25 Jan 2019 16:23, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Jul 2017 20:57

Omzinesý wrote:Renewing the verb morphology:

I'l take off person agreement. The only obligatory grammatical morpheme is the voice/trigger marker. It is an infix left to the last consonant of the stem. Most verb roots are: CVC<>C. Some of the most frequent are just C<>C. Polysyllabic verbs always have the stress on the first syllable.

The voice markers/triggers are:
Agent topic: e
Patient topic: o
Indirect object topic: i
Location/instrument topic: u
Beneficent topic: y [ai]

An aspect marker for frequentative -l- can be added left to the voice marker.

So a typical verb is: CVCV<frequentative><voice>C.

munta pelek nosa.
'A hunter killed an elk.'

nosa pelok munta
'An elk got killed by a hunter.'

tevni peluk munta nosa
'In a forest, a hunter killed an elk.'

Nar Sotô pelyk munta nosa.
'For his wife, a hunter killed an elk.'

pel<>k 'kill'
munta 'hunter'
nosa 'elk'
tevni 'forest'
sotô 'wife'
nar 'his'

Munta pellek nosa.
'The hunter killed many elks.
'
The system of Kôrem is actually much simpler than that of English.

Verbs basically must code just one argument, i.e. the topic of the clause. It can be an agent, patient, experiencer etc. The verb form codes the role of the topic. So the clauses in (1) - (4) are all grammatical.
(1.a) munta pelek. 'A hunter killed.'
(1.b) munta pelyk 'A hunter killed willingly.'
(2) nosa pelok 'An elk died'
(3) munta pelik 'A hunter thinks dying happened.'
(4) tevni peluk 'a forest was died in'

It depends on the verb's semantics which arguments it usually takes and thus codes as subjects, e.g. sem<>t 'to think' usually has an experiencer as the topic and this has the marker /i/.
(5) Munta semit nosa 'The hunter is thinking about an elk.'

So the infixes aren't really voice infixes. I have just been calling them voices because I don't know a better term.
Agent-topic form, patient-topic form etc. of the verb could maybe do. Is the slot/paradigm then called topic-form slot/paradigm or topic-role paradigm?
Could orientation do? agent-orientation marker, patient-orientation marker etc??
Last edited by Omzinesý on 25 Jan 2019 16:24, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Jul 2017 22:12

Omzinesý wrote:So the infixes aren't really voice infixes. I have just been calling them voices because I don't know a better term.
Agent-topic form, patient-topic form etc. of the verb could maybe do. Is the slot/paradigm then called topic-form slot/paradigm or topic-role paradigm?
Could orientation do? agent-orientation marker, patient-orientation marker etc??
Diathesis would be the term I go with.
As far as I know, it just means the phenomenon of marking semantic roles by any means: voices, cases, word order...

So, the markers on verb could just be called diathesis markers. Because diathesis is so broad a term, it doesn't tell very much but it doesn't mislead the reader either.

e - agent diathesis marker, glossed AG
o - patient diathesis marker, glossed PAT

...
Last edited by Omzinesý on 25 Jan 2019 16:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 19 Jul 2017 17:07

What could I describe next?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 22 Jul 2017 11:20

Omzinesý wrote:...]Now I'm going with a future vs. non-future system. Beside them there is a stative perfect, but it is not a real tense, but rather expresses a state that somebody has after doing something. Stative perfects also resist complex argument structures. One can say: "I have murdered" i.e. "I am a murderer" or "He is murdered." but to say 'I murdered him.' the non-future tense is preferred. It's not ungrammatical to make stative perfects with transitive clauses, it's just rare.

[...]

The stative marker is -u
peleku [pɛ'le̞kʊ] 'is in the state of having killed'
peloku [pɛ'lokʊ] 'is killed'
[...
I would like to have a potential verbal stative as well.
But the indicative statives have the perfect meaning. Potential on the other hand usually has a present/habitual meaning. "He is able to do."
Would it be odd that they differed?
Or could they both be non-future and just lexical semantics and pragmatics define the tense?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 25 Jul 2017 17:38

From translation thread:
Omzinesý wrote:
GrandPiano wrote::eng: I had a dream last night that a monster was chasing me.
Kôrem
Asu pin urlu Sippa peski gu kosur lomi pukru (asu).
Sg1 have.EXPERIENCER last night.DEF dream REL chase.PLACE scary creature (SG1)

Lit. I have last night a dream which a creature chases (me) in.
Kôrem

Asu egir, masku pon.
Sg1 think<i.DIATH> therefore have<o-DIATH>
'Think therefore I am.'
Last edited by Omzinesý on 25 Jul 2017 18:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 25 Jul 2017 18:18

Kôrem has three markers for possessive relations. Earlier they have been head-marking but now I'm going to change them normal genitives.

Purely possessive relation, marker -b
'X is Y's own' (Y's house [that Y possesses]'

Meronymic or material relation, marker -g
'X is a part of the group of Ys' or 'X is made of Y' (window of the house, Y's hand, female author) or (wooden table)

Metonymic relation -r
'X is near to Y' (Gin Tonic, Y's house [where Y lives])



They can also modify verbs. This is a phenomenon something similar to incorporation. The genitive-word is always indefinite and has no own stress.

-g suffix means 'does being like X'

Ao pilsopig-egir.
Sg3 philosopher-GEN-think
'(S)he thinks like a philosopher.'

-r suffix is used for most object incorporations.

Paro kapbir-nosen
P coffee-GEN-drink
'Paro is drinking coffee.'

-b marker means doing something in somebody's service.

Asu keskab-munet.
SG1 village-GEN-hunt
'I'm hunting for the village.'

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 30 Jul 2017 13:02

Omzinesý wrote:Kôrem is very analytical with those verbs.
Verb sep has the directional meaning, no deictic or manner meaning.
Manner is coded by an noun in the instrumental function.
(Kôrem avoids indefinite specific topics, so a existential much appear 'There is a man, he...'.

ello pon, sep Segti bara.
ello p<o>n, s<e>p segti bara
man.INDEF exist.NFUT<PAT>, go.to.NFUT<AG> foot.DEF bar.INDEF
'A man walked into a bar.

Diathesis may be varied. Instrument and location are though coded identically on the verb.

Segti sup ello bara
segti s<u>p ello bara
foot.DEF go.to.NFUT<LOC/INSTR> man.INDEF bar.INDEF
'By foot was how a man went to a bar.

bara pon, sup ello Segti.
bara p<o>n, s<u>p ello Segti
bar.INDEF exist.NFUT<PAT>, go.to.NFUT<LOC/INSTR> man.INDEF foot.DEF
'A bar was walked in by a man.'

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Aug 2018 21:05

Omzinesý wrote:
02 Jul 2017 10:12
Renewing the verb morphology:

I'l take off person agreement. The only obligatory grammatical morpheme is the voice/trigger marker. It is an infix left to the last consonant of the stem. Most verb roots are: CVC<>C. Some of the most frequent are just C<>C. Polysyllabic verbs always have the stress on the first syllable.

The voice markers/triggers are:
Agent topic: e
Patient topic: o
Indirect object topic: i
Location/instrument topic: u
Beneficent topic: y [ai]
Suffix -i derives nominalizations

pelek 'he kills'
->
peleki 'killer'

pelok 'he gets killed'
->
peloki 'a killed one'

pelik 'he is killed for'
->
peliki 'one killed for'

peluk 'It is used for killing'
->
peluki 'a killing weapon'

User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 448
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Reyzadren » 08 Aug 2018 23:25

[+1] Glad to see someone else also using voices/triggers, as well as re-using/enhancing them upon nouns like this too.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 10 Aug 2018 17:57

Omzinesý wrote:
07 Jul 2017 10:44
Statives again

There is a class of lexical statives. They end in -u. They correspond to SAE adjectives. They can be as modifiers of nouns and as intransitive predicates (2). They cannot be used as nouns but a noun must be derived for that use (3). Like verbs, statives are stressed on the penultimate syllable.

(1) tasku 'beautiful'
(2) Sao tasku 'she/he is beatiful'
(3) taski 'a beauty'

Copular clauses can be formed by stative suffix -u, which is added to a noun (5). They are also stressed on the penultimate syllable (munáu).

(4) munta 'a hunter'
(5) muntau 'be a hunter'

I'm considering if verbs should be able to take the -u siffix as well. It's meaning could be 'stative perfect' to sit/ be seated vs. to sit down/to seat
Omzinesý wrote:
07 Jul 2017 10:44
Statives again

There is a class of lexical statives. They end in -u. They correspond to SAE adjectives. They can be as modifiers of nouns and as intransitive predicates (2). They cannot be used as nouns but a noun must be derived for that use (3). Like verbs, statives are stressed on the penultimate syllable.

(1) tasku 'beautiful'
(2) Sao tasku 'she/he is beatiful'
(3) taski 'a beauty'

Copular clauses can be formed by stative suffix -u, which is added to a noun (5). They are also stressed on the penultimate syllable (munáu).

(4) munta 'a hunter'
(5) muntau 'be a hunter'

I'm considering if verbs should be able to take the -u siffix as well. It's meaning could be 'stative perfect' to sit/ be seated vs. to sit down/to seat
So, there is no such lexical class as adjectives. Statives are like verbs but they can be used as intransitive predicates as well.

Statives don't usually have the diathesis markers. That's natural because they are intransitive anyway. The semantic role of their only argument is just "a being": ´"the one being beautiful", "the one standing" etc.

tasku 'is beautiful'
ronbu 'stands, is standing'

Causative/inchoative verbs can be derived from statives by adding a diathesis marker.

tasek 'makes beautiful'
tasok 'becomes beautiful'
tasik 'is made beautiful for'
...

roneb 'makes stand'
ronob 'stands up'

See that tasok can have an agent (marked without any oblique prepositions) but in most contexts it's interpreted to be an autonomous event.

Ao tasik. is a fully grammatical sentence meaning something like 'For her, something is being decorated'.

See that from Kôrem point of view the statives are not perfects, the derived verbs are rather starting points of the states.
Last edited by Omzinesý on 10 Aug 2018 18:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 10 Aug 2018 18:07

Statives can be used as pseudo-relative clauses, because they can be modifiers of nouns.

Nos ngatit ere ronbu pa.
SG1 see<DAT> SG2 stand there
'I saw you standing there.'

Nos ngatit re ere ronob pa.
'I saw you standing up there.'
Last edited by Omzinesý on 10 Aug 2018 18:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 10 Aug 2018 18:18

.
Last edited by Omzinesý on 25 Jan 2019 15:40, edited 16 times in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 10 Aug 2018 18:37

I see I still have not discussed consonant phonology much.

So there are 3 plosives, 1 fricative, 3 voiced fricatives/approximants, and 2 semivowels (a lateral and a nasal).

Code: Select all

p t k <p t k>
s <s>
β ɹ ɣ <b r g>
n l <n l>
Voiced fricatives are voiced plosives after /n/ and /l/.

/n/ assimilates with a following stop or fricative.

/n + p/ => [mp]
/n + t/ => [nt]
/n + k/ => [ŋk]

/n + β/ => [mb]
/n + ɹ/ => [nd]
/n + ɣ/ => [ng]

There is also a tendency for long distance assimilation of /n/ with the consonant of the following syllable.

/nop/ => [nop] or [mop]



Phonotaxis is basically simple (C)V(C).

All consonants can appear in all positions. The voiced fricatives (especially /β/ and /ɣ/) are though quite weak syllable-finally, and are often reduced to a kind of long vowel or diphthong.

/n/ and /l/ can also appear as syllable nuclei. Those syllables cannot though have a coda consonant. /n/ + a voiced fricative is especially frequent and Kôrem is apparently developing prenasalized stops. Syllable-initial stress though falls also on consonantal syllables.

Geminates are technically possible but they only appear in morphologically complex words where the consonants belong to different morphemes.
Last edited by Omzinesý on 29 Dec 2018 23:19, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 20 Aug 2018 15:44

Is having only one phonemic nasal but de facto having prestopped nasals very unnaturalistic? Unstable at least
Last edited by Omzinesý on 29 Dec 2018 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 20 Aug 2018 16:44

From the translations thread

"Please do not throw your cigarette butts on the ground!!! , and we're trying to help them quit. Thank you."

Ôl obeli nute sigareteg Lomba!!!
ôl ob<e>l-i nuta-e sigarete-g
Neg throw<AG>-IMPER/FUT butt-SOME cigarette-POSS DEF.ground
Please do not throw your cigarette butts on the ground!!!

node Sute Rila ipi ari lbel
n<o>de sute ipi ar-i lb<e>l
come.out<PAT> DEF.fish DEF.sea night and-they burn<AG>
The fish come out of the sea at night to smoke them

asu lpep kep ru ae pigep
asu lp<e>p k<e>p ru a-e pig<e>p
1 try<AG> CAUS.V<AG> COMPL 3-PL quite<AG>
and we're trying to help them quit.

The "topic" or trigger of the second sentence is 'the cigarettes'. The topic is just dropped.
The "topic" of the third sentence is 'we'. Fish are referred to with pronoun "ae", which well could also refer to the butts.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 29 Dec 2018 23:01

I'm editing the consonant system a bit.
Omzinesý wrote:
10 Aug 2018 18:37
I see I still have not discussed consonant phonology much.

So there are 3 plosives, 1 fricative, 3 voiced fricatives/approximants, and 2 semivowels (a lateral and a nasal).

Code: Select all

p t k <p t k>
s <s>
β ɹ ɣ <b r g>
n l <n l>
Voiced fricatives are voiced plosives after /n/ and /l/.

/n/ assimilates with a following stop or fricative.

/n + p/ => [mp]
/n + t/ => [nt]
/n + k/ => [ŋk]

/n + β/ => [mb]
/n + ɹ/ => [nd]
/n + ɣ/ => [ng]

There is also a tendency for long distance assimilation of /n/ with the consonant of the following syllable.
/nop/ => [nop] or [mop]

In word-final position, the nasal is alveolar [n] though it often nasalizes the preceding vowel and maybe weak itself.


Phonotaxis is basically simple (C)V(C).

All consonants can appear in all positions. The voiced fricatives (especially /β/ and /ɣ/) are though quite weak syllable-finally, and are often reduced to a kind of long vowel or diphthong.

/n/ and /l/ can also appear as syllable nuclei. Those syllables cannot though have a coda consonant. /n/ + a voiced fricative is especially frequent and Kôrem is apparently developing prenasalized stops. Syllable-initial stress though falls also on consonantal syllables.

Geminates are technically possible but they only appear in morphologically complex words where the consonants belong to different morphemes.
So there are 3 plosives, 1 fricative, 3 voiced fricatives/approximants, and 2 semivowels (a lateral and a nasal).

Code: Select all

p t k <p t k>
s <s>
β ɹ ɣ <b r g>
n l <n l>
Voiced fricatives are voiced plosives after /n/ and /ɹ/ is [d] after /l/. [d] is also written <d>.

/n/ assimilates with the POA of the following consonant.
/n/ and the consonant can be separated by a vowel.
/nop/ => [mop]

In the word-final position, /n/ is an alveolar [n], though it may nasalize the preceding vowel and be weak itself.


Phonotaxis is basically simple (C)V(C).

All consonants can appear in all positions. The voiced fricatives (especially /β/ and /ɣ/) are though quite weak syllable-finally, and are often reduced to a kind of long vowel or diphthong.

Geminates are technically possible but they only appear in morphologically complex words where the consonants belong to different morphemes.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2654
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Omzinesý » 29 Dec 2018 23:24

Reyzadren wrote:
08 Aug 2018 23:25
[+1] Glad to see someone else also using voices/triggers, as well as re-using/enhancing them upon nouns like this too.
How have you used them?

User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 448
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

Re: Kôrem language

Post by Reyzadren » 30 Dec 2018 01:01

Omzinesý wrote:
29 Dec 2018 23:24
Reyzadren wrote:
08 Aug 2018 23:25
[+1] Glad to see someone else also using voices/triggers, as well as re-using/enhancing them upon nouns like this too.
How have you used them?
In the most typical way possible [:D]
Note: If you want me to move this post to my own thread instead of yours, PM me.

:con: griuskant (the conscript is not shown here)

fuiroek zaefa zaesh ki omzinesy.
/'fuirɯk 'zˤefa 'zˤeʃ ki 'ɔmzˤinəsY/
child give-V gift to Omzinesý.
The children give a present to Omzinesy. //This is the reference sentence


These are 3 truncation sentences that have the same meaning: (Each sentence uses a different trigger on each verb; active, passive and circumstantial)

fuiroek zaefa. zaesh zaefan. omzinesy zaefand.
/'fuirɯk 'zˤefa. 'zˤeʃ 'zˤefan. 'ɔmzˤinəsY 'zˤefand/
child give-V. gift give-V-PASS. Omzinesý give-V-PASS-T3
The children give (something). The present is given. Somebody gives something to Omzinesý.


These are 3 sentences that show the "triggers/voices" re-used with a noun suffix.

fuiroek az zaefe. zaesh az zaefen. omzinesy az zaefend.
/'fuirɯk azˤ 'zˤefə. ''zˤeʃ azˤ 'zˤefən. 'ɔmzˤinəsY azˤ 'zˤefənd/
child is give-N. gift is give-N-PASS. Omzinesý is give-N-PASS-T3
The children are the givers. The present is the package. Omzinesý is the recipient.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

Post Reply