Sentence for Dissection

[AuLekye'ung]

I ate your flying ikran when the palulukan dove to the tree.

Oe-l y<am>om nga-yä tsw<ol>on ikran-it a krr palulukan-il t<ol>awng ne utral-it.

How terrible did I do this time?

[Lance R. Casey]

I ate your flying ikran when the palulukan dove to the tree.

Oe-l y<am>om nga-yä tsw<ol>on ikran-it a krr palulukan-il t<ol>awng ne utral-it.

Oel yolom ngeyä ikranit atswusayon krr a palulukan tolawng ne utral
I-ERG eat‹PFV› 2SG-GEN banshee-ACC ATTR-fly‹PTCP› time SBRD thanator-INTR dive‹PFV› to tree
I ate your flying banshee when the thanator dove to the tree

Notes:
1) *tswon is likely to be tswayon (see here onwards)
2) there's vowel shift in the genitive forms of the pronouns
3) the participial infix is ‹us› and it is my feeling that the resulting word would require the attributive maker (but I may be wrong)
4) when using a krr/krr a, the a goes on the side of the time-defining clause (as it stands, the focus would be on the thanator's actions)
5) I can't see how tawng could be transitive, so no case markings
6) *trying to conjure up a situation where this phrase may actually be needed*

[AuLekye'ung]

Irayo.

Replies to notes:
1) I've always used Taronyu's dictionary http://content.learnnavi.org/taronyu/NaviDictionary.pdf which states that it is Tswon, but it could have changed, I guess.

2) Thanks, I didn't know that.

3) I don't quite understand why it is <us>.

4) Right, typo.

5) Dumb mistake.

6) Good luck.

[Lance R. Casey]

3) I don't quite understand why it is <us>.

You're using the present participle of a verb (-ing) to describe a noun: "flying ikran". As such, the participle form functions as a verbal adjective. We have an example^* of the ‹us› infix in kerusey, which means "dead": it is literally "not living", formed from the verb rey live. Such forms may well be considered "true" adjectives for the sake of syntax and morphology, which is why I've included the attributive affix -- but there are as far as I know no examples to settle it either way.

Another possibility is to be more verbose and say, "I ate your ikran that was flying":

oel yolom ngeyä ikranit a tswarmayon


* and, probably, zusawkrr future < *zusa'u(a) krr

[kewnya txamew'itan]

1) *tswon is likely to be tswayon (see here onwards)

As stated in that thread, I disagree with you on tswon/tswayon but we'll leave my reasons out of this one, suffice to say I have them.

Secondly, you used <ol> in yom when keye'unga said that he "ate", in ate the important part is the fact that it happened in the past, not that it is completed so <am> is probably more appropriate.

Tawng is definitely not being used perfectively and <am> would certainly be more appropriate unless you believe that tense/aspect/mood infixes should be assumed like effectuals (which I don't).

So I would write oe-l y<am>om nge-yä ikran-it a-tswuson krr a palulukan t<am>awng ne utral

[AuLekye'ung]

Could I possibly get an explanation of the whole participle thing for things like "flying"?

I don't quite understand how and when to apply <us>.

Irayo for what you've already explained.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

<us> is the participial infix. This means that it makes verbs into participles.

[/linguistics lingo]

A participle is a verb that is behaving like an adjective.

so ikran a-tsw<us>on means the flying ikran.

This is distinct from the imperfective <er>, for example:

Eywa t<us>ìng lu is different from Eywa t<er>ìng.

The first means that Eywa is giving where giving is an adjective and is sort of like saying "Eywa is a giving person" without the person, the second means that Eywa is giving right now but the action is continuous as in "Eywa is giving presents to the little children" (which could take a while).

Did that help?

[AuLekye'ung]

Did that help?

Immensely.

Irayo, ulte Eywa ngahu.  (Wish there was a way to say You have my thanks, but I can only get Ngaru lu oeyä...  no word for just thanks or gratitude.)

EDIT: Would have to be Lu ngaru oeyä whatever.  Lu has to come before the noun with that has.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

Irayo = thanks, it's a shortened form when used on it's own.

So your phrase works.

[AuLekye'ung]

Hooray!  I created two more nonsensical sentences to be dissected!  And a short phrase!

Sentence 1:
In the long night the running hunter has the mighty spear.
Mì txon ayol lu taronyuru atusul tukru afkeu.

I imagine I'm missing something between the prepositional phrase and the second half of the sentence.

Sentence 2:
Is the flying blue ikran diving to the ground?
Tswuson ikran aean terawng ne kllte srak?

Does anything need suffixes in this sentence?  Ikran or ground?

Phrase:
The dancing palulukan is dancing in the forest.  You must eat him soon.
Sruseua palulukan lu srereu mì na'rìng.  Ngal zene yìyom futa.

1) Did I put the infixes in the correct spot in sreu?

2) Does zene need anything?

3) Did I do eat right?  Would ìyev have gone better, or something completely different?

4) Did futa work there?  What would have worked better there?

Irayo to any who wish to help!

[kewnya txamew'itan]

-2. correct although the lu should probably be right at front, in front of the "mì txon ayol". The preposition is part of the clause so no need for any connection.

-1. It should be tswuson-a, participles behave exactly like adjectives as far as we know. Other than that correct.

0. Almost right. Zene is modal so yom needs <iv>, to combine it with <ìy> you get either <iyev> or <ìyev>, take your pick.

1. Yes, I like the "obvious edit is obvious" type phrase though. 

2. It is modal so the verb following needs <iv>

3. <ìyev> is needed so that it is both subjunctive and immediate.

4. I think you could have done it with futa and then you wouldn't need the <iv> so <ìy> would have been enough rather than <ìyev>.

[AuLekye'ung]

The tswuson-a was a typo - I did know that that was supposed to be there, just missed typing it in.

1. Yes, I like the "obvious edit is obvious" type phrase though.  Tongue

What do you mean?

So, cut the futa and leave yom as yìyom?  Not sure what the conflicting sentences in 2-4 meant.

[Lance R. Casey]

Some points:

• mì triggers lenition, so txon > ton
• on a note of personal taste, I would drop the final u in taronyuru
• "is verb-ing" is an anglicism; you only need ‹er› for the ongoing meaning, not lu
• futa (=fì'u-t a) does not work there, because there is no following subordinate clause, and with zene, the subject is intransitive (nga zene yìyevom pot)
• since iyev/ìyev could come from either ‹ìy› or ‹ay›, you could state ye'rìn explicitly

[AuLekye'ung]

Didn't know that, thanks

Eh.  I guess it sounds a bit better.

That makes sense, thanks for pointing that out.

I wasn't sure how to use po, since it meant he/she.  I didn't think I could make it into "him".

Where is ye'rìn coming from?  You mean yom ye'rìn?

[Lance R. Casey]

I wasn't sure how to use po, since it meant he/she.  I didn't think I could make it into "him".

"Him" is simply the objective counterpart to "he", so affixing the accusative -t(i) (in this case) is enough.

Where is ye'rìn coming from?  You mean yom ye'rìn?

It's the adverb "soon".

[AuLekye'ung]

Quote from: Keye'unga Au on Today at 17:58:45
I wasn't sure how to use po, since it meant he/she.  I didn't think I could make it into "him".

"Him" is simply the objective counterpart to "he", so affixing the accusative -t(i) (in this case) is enough.

Quote from: Keye'unga Au on Today at 17:58:45
Where is ye'rìn coming from?  You mean yom ye'rìn?

It's the adverb "soon".

Irayo.

So, again, for "You must eat him soon."  Ngal zene yom ye'rìn pot.

[NeotrekkerZ]

"Must" is an intransitive verb, so you cannot use the ergative/accusative.  That being the case, "him" must be in the dative:

Oe zene yivom ye'rìn poru.

Yom takes the <iv> infix since it follows another verb.

EDIT:  Sorry, Oe should be Nga.

[AuLekye'ung]

So, if I have an intransitive verb like must or want, the following verb has to have <iv>?

And, why does "him" have to be in the dative?

[NeotrekkerZ]

Whenever you have a two-verb combo(want to go, must eat, can think, etc.) the second has to take <iv>.

And, why does "him" have to be in the dative?

This came up in one of the correspondences with Dr. Frommer.  Basically, if you have an intransitive verb(a verb that does not take a direct object) then the subject does not take the ergative.  Since you cannot have an accusative without a corresponding ergative that must mean that the "direct object" takes the dative.

This was my interpretation of the correspondence anyway.

EDIT:  After reviewing the correspondences, I do not believe we have enough syntax formulation to correctly translate "you must eat him soon" for the same reason we don't know how to translate " you can feed her to him."  We don't know how to combine the endings when there is an intransitive verb paired with a transitive verb that is taking direct and indirect objects.

Good question.  My head hurts now...

[Lance R. Casey]

So, if I have an intransitive verb like must or want, the following verb has to have <iv>?

Not because they're intransitive, but because they're modals.

And, why does "him" have to be in the dative?

It doesn't. Zene may be intransitive, but yom is not, and "him" is the object of the latter (the subject is understood from the preceding clause).