Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Verbs

            In Fĺuðét verbs are modified by very little except by adverbs, so I will talk about large parts of adverbs with verbs, and vice versa. The most important things the adverb shows are tense and perfectiveness, which are shown together in a set of three particles combined in certain ways. Habitualness is also implied by certain imperfective markings. The three particles can be combined not only to show present, past, and future, but also mixtures of the three (e.g. past imperfective, present imperfective, and future perfective all together as one).
            There are six rules that define how the three particles can be combined to make the different combinations of perfectiveness and tense. These rules were once very regular, and are used that way in very formal speech, or old texts, but most of them have irregular forms (albeit fairly regular ones); these are shown in parentheses after the regular form. There are only three forms of tense, for which the three particles are: past: po, present: þe, future: .
            Alone these particles are each the perfective of their tense, so þe is present perfective, po is past perfective, and is future perfective. Where applicable in combinations þe always comes before po and , and po always comes before . Now for the rules.
           
1. A particle can be doubled to form the imperfective of its tense.
þe + þe = þeþe (þeþ) - present imperfective
popo (pop) - past imperfective
fŕfŕ (fŕf) - future imperfective

Fiéþ     veću        popo.
ref-1 cause to walk  imp.pas
I was walking.

            The present imperfective is one that is always used as a present habitual (“I eat food” vs. “I used to eat food” or “I am eating food”).

2. A particle can be placed between two of another particle to form the imperfective of both of their tenses.
þe + + þe = þefŕþe - present/future imperfective
þepoþe (þepþe) - present/past imperfective
pofŕpo - past/future imperfective
þeþepofŕfŕ (þeþofŕfŕ) - present/past/future imperfective

Pi źédð þefŕþe.
2    know imp.pre.fut
You do and will know (but you didn’t).

            Here is the first example of two things: particle order and multiple tenses. Particle order is a little simpler than multiple tenses and was explained well enough, I believe up above, but multiple tenses may need an English example to clarify. So, if we use þefŕþe, in a sentence about a dog eating fish, it would come out like “The dog eats (fish), and will be eating fish” (remember present imperfective is used as the habitual). This set also has a special one: þeþepofŕfŕ which is basically the same thing, except with all three particles.

3. A doubled particle can be put before a single particle to show the imperfective of the doubled particle’s tense and the perfective of the single particle’s tense.
þe + þe + po = þeþepo (þeþo) - present imperfective/past perfective
þeþefŕ (þeþwhŕ) - present imperfective/future perfective
popoþe (popþe) - past imperfective/present perfective
popofŕ (popŕ) - past imperfective/future perfective
fŕfŕþe - future imperfective/present perfective
fŕfŕpo (fŕfo) - future imperfective/past perfective

Eþ ðidoś feśéwiboć þeþepo.
1     make    abl-toy      imp.pre-per.pas
I have made a toy and (now) I make them (all the time).

            These are the mix of one perfective and one imperfective tense. These are the second example of multiple tense, and particle order, which I just spoke about.

4. A doubled particle can be put before two single particles to show the imperfective of the doubled particle’s tense, and the perfective of the singles’ tenses.

þe + þe + po + fŕ = þeþepofŕ (þeþofŕ) - present imperfective/past/future perfective
popoþefŕ (popþefŕ) - past imperfective/present/future perfective
frfŕþepo (frfŕþo) - future imperfective/present/past perfective

Fifĺ  źit                popoþefŕ.
3.ref cause to travel imp.pas-per.pre-per.fut
He was traveling, he is traveling (now), and he will be traveling (in a while).

            I seem to have a lot less to say about the verb tenses than I did about word order, but I suppose that’s probably because the tenses are all just the same things arranged differently.

5. A particle surrounded by two of another particle with one of another particle following them shows the imperfective of the surrounding and the surrounded particles’ tense and the perfective of the final particle’s tense.

þe + po + þe + fŕ = þepoþefŕ (þepþefŕ) - present/past imperfective/future perfective
þefŕþepo (þefŕþo) - present/future imperfective/past perfective
pofŕpoþe (pofŕpe) - past/future imperfective/present perfective

            fĺ       þwébét  bét þefŕþepo                  réþu fĺ       fe     ćobu    po.
            3.nom vegetable eat  pre.imp-fut.imp-pas.per but     3.nom 3.acc like-nes pas.per          
            He eats, will eat, and ate vegetables, but he did not like them.

            It may seem like it wouldn’t be very useful to have a “present/past imperfective/future perfective”, or even a “future imperfective/past perfective” and I agree it wouldn’t be, but (and this is for all of the preceding and the following combinations) as I said before present imperfective is basically a habitual; this is also generally the case for past and future when in combinations. So the “present/past imperfective/future perfective” would be used less for “I was eating, I eat, and I’m going to eat”, but more “I used to eat, I eat, and I’m going to eat”, which is still probably not used much, but it is made easy, and so, can be used to make nice clarifications and distinctions.

6. Particles can be put together to show the perfective of the particles’ tenses.
þe + po = þepo (þpo) - present/past perfective
þefŕ (þwhŕ) - present/future perfective
pofŕ () - past/future perfective
þepofŕ (þepŕ) - present/past/future perfective

foðét      śéwi þepo.
your.child play   pre.per-past.per
Your child played and is playing.

Like rule 2, rule 6 also has the all-three-particles outlier, but this one fits into the rule better.

One of the few if not the only thing that is attached directly to verbs is the marking of intentionality. Intentionality is also deeply connected to affectivity and perceptivity. These are determined lexically, and should be fairly easy to figure out without a definition telling you: most verbs are affective, but some verbs namely those of perception (see, feel, hear), are perceptive, which means they take a patient rather than a focus.
Affectivity has little affect on verbs’ use, but perceptivity with the help of intentionality affects when verbs can be made intransitive or passive. Affective verbs are intentional by default, and perceptive verbs are unintentional by default, but both can be changed. Unintentional, perceptive verbs can be made intransitive, but not passive. If they are made intentional (see > look, hear > listen, feel > touch) then they can be made into the passive, but not the intransitive. Huh, let’s make a table.


Affective
Perceptive
Intentional
Passive or Intransitive (default)
Passive only
Unintentional
Passive or Intransitive
Intransitive only (default)

Affectivity and perceptivity are determined lexically, but intentionality is shown with a prefix. An affective verb can be made unintentional by adding tĺf- to the beginning, or a perceptive verb can be made intentional by adding þiś-.

There is one more thing on verbs, and it too is one of the few things attached directly to verbs. Verbs can be made into two types of nouns: the gerund and the agent. The gerund is made by treating the verb as a noun, and the agent is made by adding the suffix -boć to the end of the verb and using it as a noun. -boć is also a very useful derivational suffix with nouns, which I will talk about in that post.

Now, Dunta, what’s new?

So this is the world so far. It has changed a lot since my last post on it. I am making the migrations of the early people, so I can make sketches of their cultures and languages and evolve them to the time that I want to focus on most where I will develop the languages and culture.
The black dots on the map are tribal people or small villages unless they are surrounded by a colored boundary with orange dots, then they are towns under the rule/alliance of the orange dots which are more cities or highly populated areas. At this point the map is far from finished, and a lot of the boundaries are imperfect or not there, and overall this is mostly a plan to show major migrations; I wouldn’t say each and every dot is actually a single city, but it might be a couple.
I’ve put the earliest migrations during a glacial movement, so that is why the climate is in such flux.