Proposal: PVS Version 2.01

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction
   1.1 Proposed Verb System (PVS) - The Concept
   1.2 The Normal Verb
   1.3 Further Basic Concepts
   1.4 Appearance and Word Order
2.0 The Helper Verbs
      2.0.1 The Modal Helpers
      2.0.2 The Non-Modal Helpers
   2.1 Conjugational Paradigms
      2.1.1 -e Paradigm
      2.1.2 -0 Paradigm
      2.1.3 -i Paradigm
3.0 Basic Helper Chain Principles: Tenses Using {Te} and {'E}
   3.1 Simple Imperfect Tenses Using {te}
   3.2 Displaced Tenses with {'e}
      3.2.1 {'e/a/o te} Forms
      3.2.2 {'e/a/o ta} Forms
      3.2.3 {'e/a/o to} Forms
   3.3 Doubly Displaced Tenses
4.0 "Intrinsic" Aspect and Aspect Endings
   4.1 The Continuous Aspect With {-an}
   4.2 The Punctual Aspect With {-me}
5.0 "Refining" Aspect and Aspect Endings
   5.1 The Perfective Aspect: {-ul}
      5.1.1 {-ul} With Non-Displaced Tenses
      5.1.2 {-ul} With Displaced Tenses
         5.1.2.1 Past-Displaced Tenses and {-ul}
         5.1.2.2 Future-Displaced Tenses and {-ul}
   5.2 The Predictive Aspect: {-ud}
      5.2.1 {-ud} With Non-Displaced Tenses
      5.2.2 {-ud} With Displaced Tenses
         5.2.2.1 Past-Displaced Tenses and {-ud}
         5.2.2.2 Future-Displaced Tenses and {-ud}
   5.3 The Progressive Aspect: {-ev}
      5.3.1 {-ev} With Non-Displaced Tenses
      5.3.2 {-ev} With Displaced Tenses
      5.3.3 Conclusion
   5.4 Aspect Marker Stacking
   5.5 Getting Around A2 Aspect
6.0 The Passive Voice
   6.1 Tabulation of the Forms of {se te}
   6.2 The Ablative of Agent
   6.3 Examples of Usage
   6.4 Voice and Explicitly Marked Transitivity
7.0 The Middle Voice
8.0 "There is"
9.0 The Usage of Modal Helpers Other Than {te}
   9.1 Tabulated Conjugation of {gul}
   9.2 Specific Examples of the Usage of the Existing Regular Modals
      9.2.1 {gul} - To Be Able To
      9.2.2 {pas} - To Be Allowed To
      9.2.3 {zol} - To Have To
      9.2.4 {res} - "To Ought To"
      9.2.5 {yev} - To Want To
      9.2.6 {ri} - Might
      9.2.7 {xi} - The Subjunctive Marker (Would)
   9.3 {di} and {li}
   9.4 Double Modification of Verbs
   9.5 Two-Modal Tenses and Paradigm
      9.5.1 Examples of Double Modals
      9.5.2 The Passive Voice With Double Modals
10.0 Giving Orders, Asking Questions, and Negation
   10.1 Giving Order and Advice
      10.1.1 Idiom of Command
      10.1.2 Command With {di}
   10.2 Asking Questions
      10.2.1 Idiom of Interrogation
      10.2.2 Questions With {li}
   10.3 Negation
11.0 Adverbs and the PVS Superverb
12.0 PVS Verbal Adjectives with {ki}
13.0 The Independent Meanings of the PVS Helpers
   13.1 Modals As Proverbs
   13.2 {'E} As an Independent Verb "To Have"
   13.3 {Ge} as the Idiom for "There Is"
   13.4 {Se} As an Independent Verb "To Be"
14.0 Tenses for Time Travel
15.0 Pedagogy
16.0 Conclusion

1.0 Introduction

At this point in the language's development, PVS has been thoroughly documented and tested. The purpose of this document, then, is to re-collect and explain the PVS verb system in its entirety in the form which has become the de facto current standard. Over time during its phase an a proposal, PVS has undergone some natural evolution as well as tinkering, and these elements are integrated into this proposal. This proposal is organised in sections for ease in accepting, rejecting and putting it on hold in a piecemeal fashion so that more establish parts of the porposal might conceivably be accepted, while more experimental parts be left more on hold. Becuase the PVS concept, like the NGL concept, is modular design, it shold not cause too much damage to do it this way :).

contents

1.1 Proposed Verb System (PVS) - The Concept

PVS, as the title of this section implies, stands for "proposed verb system". This contrasts with VTs (Vector Tense System), and TVS (Traditional Verb System), the other two proposals. PVS's name is undescriptive, its sole purpose is to name the system. Any elements which were accepted into the Tokcir language would lose the PVS moniker and just be treated as normal Tokcir grammar.

As has been stated, the concept behind PVS is modular design. PVS is designed to be usable at a complex level and yet be usefully learnable at a simple level. To that end, it encases layers of complexities. in addition, it is set up to be easily expandable and modifiable within its basic concepts. PVS works by dividing all verbs into normal and helping verbs, and sequestering all voice, aspect, mood and tense into the helping verbs. Inflection for number and person may be a property of normal verbs or else of pronouns; PVS does not specifically address this aspect of verbs.

PVS permits some irregularity and a pinch of illogic :). This is deliberate, as it is felt this actually adds to the system, when done in moderation. In some sense, this attempts to be Art and much as Science :).

contents

1.2 The Normal Verb

Normal verbs are all verbs except PVS helpers. As part of the PVS proposal, I am making a separate proposal that the standard Tokcir verb inflections for persona and number be formally accepted. This is not necessary in order for PVS to be accepted, but this inflectional system has long-standing precedent and I feel it should be more formally accepted. The principles:

- inflection goes:

verb[person][number]

- person is obligatory is number is non -0 (i.e., non-generic).

- person inflection:

-o - first person
-a - second person
-e - third person

- number inflection:

-0 - generic number (number is treated as irrelevant or to be read from context)
-m - singular number (implies the existence of others from which one is contrasted)
-r - paucal number (paucal means "few". Its implications are exclusive in some contexts - for example, {-or} means "we (exclusive)" excluding the addressee, otherwise it contrasts few from many or implies and stresses only a small number of items)
-s - plural number (implications are inclusive and carries a connotation of many)

- The above represents the base Tokcir verb system. Any verb system operates on top of this. Call this NVS, for Native Verb System. The NVS verb has the Generic tense, and all proposed verb systems must have a "null state" which preserves this generic tense. Verbs in the generic tense are timeless, or take their time entirely from context or from the use of vocabulary items as makeshift time markers - much like in Mandarin Chinese. PVS obeys this proposed requirement by not requiring that any of its helper verbs be used in conjunction with a normal verb. A normal verb with no PVS helpers accompanying it is a piuse NVS verb.

contents

1.3 Further Basic Concepts

In PVS 0.1, the original release, grammatical terms (like the names of aspects, etc.) were done in a completely nativised system, ie.e., all the terms and concepts were parochial and unique to the PVS way of conceiving the verb. In 1.0, all the terms were proper linguistic terms chosen for their universality. In 2.0 I take a middle track. I go back to the idea in 0.1 of having a parochial mental framework, as I think it is important for every lanaguage to have its own way of thinking about itself - I don't think universalisations can ever be completely appropriate, as we see when we run across misfits in some languages where some linguistic form is not properly characterisable and can only really be understood on its own terms. At the same time, however, I will attempt to give the terminological parallels in normal linguistic terminology.

contents

1.4 Appearance and Word Order

This section is copied verbatim from PVS 1.0 proposal. I'll reuse these concepts.

A PVS verb consists of a string of helpers and their appropriate pendants, followed by the verb itself, a standard NGL verb, which inflects for person and number. These parts make in total what shall be referred to in this proposal as the superverb (V). The parts of the superverb are the preverb (p) (the string of helpers - it is always called the preverb, even if it is moved to the end of the clause), the Verb (v) (the NGL root verb itself), and the inflection (i). The inflection is always a suffix of the Verb. However, there are two possible positions in the clause for the preverb. Ordinarily, it should immediately precede the Verb. However, perhaps for rhetorical reasons, the preverb may be moved to the end of the clause, German fashion. One reason one might want to do this is, as I say, rhetorical; it makes the listener listen carefully to the whole clause before the entire meaning of the verb becomes clear. It is essentially a device for forcing listener attention, although to avoid antagonising the audience, it should only be used when the rhetorical flow clearly indicates peak listener attention anyway. So in a sentence appearing:

S D V O.

You could write:

S D p vi O.

or:

S D vi O p.

The first is the preferred form.

Making a question using the i no V paradigm in PVS is slightly different than normal. The "no" is inserted between the preverb and the Verb of the *un*broken inflection:

S D p no vi O?

contents

2.0 The Helper Verbs

This section outlines the helper verbs of PVS and their paradigms for conjugation. Helper verbs come in two basic groups - modal and non-modal. Every PVS helper chain, or preverb, contains at least one modal verb, and the modals go at the end of the chain. The most common modal verb is {te}, which carries the indicative mood, and means something like "do". All modal verbs are given with an approximate English translation which should be enough information to use them accurately. The non-modal verbs are used for certain kinds of aspect (perfect, pluperfect, that kind of thing) and to indicate non-active voice (passive or middle). They too have independent meanings, which will be proposed here but which may or may not be accepted at the group's discretion. When non-modal PVS helpers are used in their independent meanings, they may be treated as normal rather than helping verbs except that they retain their ability to inflect for tense and should not take NVS endings but instead rely on pronouns.

contents

2.0.1 The Modal Helpers

te - "do" (indicative mood)
li - "do?" (interrogative mood)
di - "do!" (advisory/imperative mood)
xi - "would" subjunctive mood
ri - "might"
gul - "can"
zol - "must"
pas - "may"
res - "should"
yev - "want to"

contents

2.0.2 The Non-Modal Helpers

'e - "have" (active voice)
se - "be" (passive voice)
ge - "exist" (middle voice)

contents

2.1 Conjugational Paradigms

All PVS verbs conjugate fairly similarly, with the vowel e or i indicating the present tense, the vowel o indicating the future tense, andthe vowel a indicating the past tense. They are grouped into a number of families, which we will go over in this section. Inflection is solely for tense, and there are three marked tenses: past, present and future.

contents

2.1.1 -e Paradigm

Inflection is by modification of an internal vowel.

Members: te, 'e, se, ge

Paradigm: {te}

present: te
past: ta
future: to

contents

2.1.2 -0 Paradigm

Helpers do not necessarily have an ending. Inflection is by addition of an ending. Verbs ending in -0 are either generic or present tense depending on context, i.e., by not inflecting a -0 paradigm helper you can avoid conferring a tense on the verb as a whole, unless the modal is part of a chain that contains non-modal verbs, in which case it is taken to automatically have present tense.

Members: gul, zol, pas, res, yev

Paradigm: {gul}

generic/present: gul
present (emphatic/explicit): gule
past: gula
future: gulo

NOTE: -0 paradigm verbs may not take aspect endings if they are in the generic/present (i.e., -0 ending) form.

contents

2.1.3 -i Paradigm

-i paradigm verbs are a hybrid of -e and -0 paradigm. Inflection may be either by modification of an internal vowel or by addition of an ending. These verbs were originally conveived as being -0 paradigm (when only {xi} and {ri} existed) but a "condensed" form quickly natually arose by analogy with the -e paradigm (since the -i paradigm verbs end i a vowel) and subsequently new forms were addd to the paradigm ({di} and {li}). A this stage, I am proposing both forms to be valid. The -0-like form is the Explicit form, and the -e-like form is the Implicit form.

Members: di, li, xi, ri

Explicit paradigm: {xi}

generic/present: xi
present: xie'
past: xia'
future: xio'

Implicit Paradigm: {xi}
generic/present: xi
past: xa
future: xo

NOTE: The implicit form is preferred for {di} and {li}, and is the less formal tone preferred for all members of -i paradigm.

contents

3.0 Basic Helper Chain Principles: Tenses Using {Te} and {'E}

This section is largely excerpted from Verison 1.0 and edited.

In discussing tenses, we will be referring to certain facets of aspect, the imperfect, perfect and predictive aspects, as being part of the tense of the verb. For PVS this is a more convenient way to think of these things, because these aspects arise entirely from the sequence of tenses of the helpers in the preverb. This is where we flesh out the idea of "helper chains" - a chain of helper verbs in a certain order which imparts its qualities of mood, voice, aspect and tense to the verb as a whole. There is more to say on this topic - the use of modals other than {te} is slightly more complicated, in that it is possible to have a generic tense, plus, it is possible to stack more than one modal in the preverb to combine their meanings. furthermore, it is possible to use other markers than {'e} to mark "referred times" in making "displaced tenses" - the fundamental means of creating aspects like the Perfect in PVS. Substituting another helper than {'e} produces a different voice, for example, where {'e} retains the default active voice, {se} turns the construction into a passive one.

The key concept in understanding PVS displaced tenes is that they are all about narrative sequence. In a chain of more then one helper, each helper before the last points to a narrative layer, starting relative to the "speaker's present". Each subsequent helper after the first but before the last refers then to a narrative layer relative to the one pinted to by the preceeding helper. The tense of the last helper in the chain "displaces" the action of the verb relative to the last narrative layer referred to - present is on the layer (and generic in this context is assumed to be present), past before it, future after it. The use of PVS helper chains is to establish and keep straight multi-layer narrative sequences.

Te and 'e working together produce active, participative (punctual in traditional linguistic terms), indicative verb forms. As it is the sequence of tenses that establishes the final tense transmitted to the verb, these examples can be generalised to all other cases of combined helpers. 'E te, however, is the "base form," and it is helpful to look at its literal meaning in determining the literal meaning of other non- 'e te combinations.

Functionally, 'e may be considered a mere tense marker.

In this section, examples will be provided to illustrate the application of the forms.

contents

3.1 Simple Imperfect Tenses Using {te}

Basic indicative verbs need "te" in order to conjugate and not be generic. Te acts as a sort of "verb marker". The present tense form of the verb te may be optionally omitted for present tense imperfect active punctual verbs, but it is understood to be present. Using suf, drink, for our examples:

Suf:
pres: te suf - is drinking
past: ta suf - was drinking
fut: to suf - will be drinking

Example:
"I am having a cup of coffee."
Translation (explicit te):
Te sufom l kafe.
Translation (generic with implicit te):
Sufom l kafe.
Note:
Literally, this is "Do drink-I a coffee." Also note: kafe is a "strong
borrowing" of "coffee." It is just too irresistible not to do.

Example:
"I was having a cup of coffee, when suddenly George burst in."
Sentence:
"I was having a cup of coffee."
Translation:
Ta sufom l kafe.

contents

3.2 Displaced Tenses with {'e}

The displaced tenses are the complex tenses of the PVS system. Verbs marked only with te, or some other single modal, are automatically imperfect, that is, the action of the verb takes place in the time being referred to. When there is only a single helper in the preverb, the tense of that helper establishes the narrative time, the time being talked about, in relation to the speaker's present and places the action of the verb squarely on that time.

When there is more than one helper, the situation is slightly different. If there are two helpers, the tense of the first helper establishes the narrative time (the time being talked about). The tense of the second helper establishes the action of the verb in relation to the narrative time, not to the speaker's present. That is why these tenses are referred to as "displaced" tenses - if the second helper is in the past or future tense, the action of the verb is displaced either backwards or forwards from the narrative time. This creates the perfect and predictive tenses. Displaced tenses are especially useful in establishing the levels and sequence of a narrative.

When there are three helpers, the situation is capable of becoming complex. Three helpers in a row do occur, and under reasonable circumstances - when the verb is in the passive voice and modified by two non-{te} modals (which are allowed to modify eachother), there are three helpers in the preverb - se and the two modals. Ordinarily, redundant forms are used to avoid creating prohibitively complex tenses (more on these later - it is simpler than it sounds). However, if non-redundant forms are used, it is possible to create tenses which are quite complex and sophisticated. These would almost never be employed in every-day use because of their difficulty - but nevertheless, they are both possible and legal, and in this section a couple of them will be discussed briefly.

contents

3.2.1 {'e/a/o te} Forms

These are the redundant forms alluded to above. 'E te, for example, places the narrative time in the speaker's present using 'e, and then says that the action occurs in the speaker's present using te. This is precisely the function of te alone. For this reason, the specific form "'e te" is never used, and neither is "'a te" (equivalent to "ta") nor the form "'o te" (equivalent to "to"). These forms are not given a special meaning because it is necessary and useful that they should be redundant. For example, when constructing the passive, the tense of the marker se is used to calculate the overall tense of the verb the same as 'e would be. This is an economy measure which greatly assists in constructing displaced passive tenses. However, it leaves the question of how one represents the simple imperfect tenses in the passive voice. Easy - you just use the redundant form. So "se te" is exactly like "te" except that it is passive - similarly, "sa te" is the passive past imperfect (equivalent to passive "ta") and "so te" is the passive future imperfect (equivalent to passive "to").

contents

3.2.2 {'e/a/o ta} Forms

These backward-displaced forms are the perfect tenses. They place the action of the verb in the past of the narrative time. They often carry a connotation that the action has just been completed recently, especially with the present perfect, although this impression is easily modified by context, and an adverb of time needs to be employed to give more precision than that supplied by context alone.

'A Ta:

The pluperfect. Places the narrative time, the time we're talking about, in the past, and places the action of the verb into that time's past. Nearest English equivalent is "had done".

Example:
"Peter had already left by the time Mary called."
Translation:
Peter already {'a ta atibe} by the time Mary {ta dieme}.

Note: This translation, like many others I will use, is actually in English with the relevant NGL parts in brackets. This is so that I can establish fairly complex contexts for the verb without potentially having to coin many new words, and for ease and clarity of representing complex situations (which come across better in the English language we all know rather than in the nascent and less-familiar Tokcir language).

'E Ta:

The present perfect. This tense places the action in the past while focusing on the present, creating a sense that the action of the verb is fairly recent. The nearest English equivalent is "have done".

Example:
"I have put out the cat, and now I'm off to bed."
Translation:
I {'e ta asuazom} the cat, and now I {te tibeom} to bed.

'O Ta:

The future perfect. This tense places the narrative time in the future, and displaces the action of the verb to some time _before_ that future time. As a general rule, that action still occurs in the speaker's future. It exists some time in the interval between the narrative future time and the speaker's present. The nearest English equivalent is "will have done".

Example:
"Before you leave the Army, you will have learned discipline."
Translation:
Before you {to atibeam} the Army, you {'o ta danam} discipline.
Note:
The PVS version likes for the verb atibe to be explicitly placed in the future tense, rather than leave that to context. It establishes a clear narrative parallel with dan, which occurs in the future but before atibe.

contents

3.2.3 {'e/a/o to} Forms

These forward-displaced forms are predictive tenses. They are among the more exotic features of the PVS system. They place the action in the narrative time's future. Because these tenses presume to predict the future, even more so than the simple future imperfect does, they carry a connotation of rock-hard certainty. This has important implications for the practical meanings of each of the three possible configurations.

To understand why the predicitve tenses imply such certainty, it is necessary to look at the literal meaning of their base 'e/'a/'o to forms. 'E to means literally that you have a future event. What does this having mean? Well, for the perfect tenses, it meant that the event was in the narrative time's past - that is, that in the narrative time, you have completely acquired the event (added it to your personal history, if you like). Saying that you actually have a future action implies a sense of destiny. In order for you to actually have the event, it must be absolutely certain that this event is going to occur.

'E To:

At first glance, 'e to seems to conflict with the imperfect "to"; after all, both put the action of the verb in the present's future. However, I believe that it is justified to say that the different construction of "'e to" gives it a somewhat different connotation that "to," and I believe that that connotation fills a useful role in the language.

The usefulness of the 'e to form comes from its certainty. The certainty of the 'a to form (see below) comes from the event being in the narrative's future but in the speaker's past, so the speaker can have certain knowledge that the event will come to pass. In the present, such certainty comes from unshakable faith - and generally implies that the event will occur very soon, since it is the near future that is the easiest to predict. Although an adverb of time is needed to make this explicit, 'e to generally works like the form "is going to do" in English, or (especially) like the form "je vais partir," "I'm going to leave," in French. It can be particularly useful in establishing future sequences.

Example:
"I am going to take out the garbage [just now] before we head out to the game."
Translation:
I ('e to asuazom) the garbage before we (to atibeos) for the game.

'A To:

The past predictive. It places the action in the future of a past narrative time. The action of the verb almost certainly occurs in the speaker's past (in the interval between the narrative time and the speaker's present). Since the speaker can have factual knowledge of that time, he can be very certain of what lay in that time interval. As with all the predictive tenses, evidentiary morphemes should be particularly useful in conjunction with the past predictive.

Example:
"Especially after his infamous bender that ended up causing 50,000 worth of damage to downtown Richmond, nobody would have expected that this young man, this George Washington, would one day become President of the USA."
Sentence:
This young man would one day become President of the USA.
Translation:
This young man {'a to wirdenem} President of the USA.
Note: Actually, the "'a to" form translates very closely as "was going to." It would not be appropriate at all to use the subjuctive "xio'" for this sentence, as the sentence is stating a known fact, not a hypothesis.

'O To:

The future predictive. Of the three, it implies the least sense of certainty or direct knowledge; more, it is simply a second layer of future time which is useful in setting up future sequences.

Example:
"Trust me, you will be just going to leave, when what do you know, the phone will ring."
Sentence:
"You will just be going to leave."
Verb translation:
You {'o pesig to atibeam}.
Note: "pesig" is an adverb of time. It is inserted into the preverb to make it pertain to the inner level helper "to."

contents

3.3 Doubly Displaced Tenses

While most verbs use one or two helpers, helpers may be stacked beyond two, producing ever more intricate and refined tenses. The effect of having three helpers is that barring redundant forms, it is possible to have tenses which are displaced twice instead of once (i.e., reference a narrative level from another narrative level, and place the verb in relation to the referenced level). Doubly displaced forms, although rarely necessary (and often too complicated to be really desirable) allow considerable refinement in the narrative sequence.

Examples of doubly displaced forms are the plu-pluperfect ('a 'a ta), the past's past's past (used for multiply layered past-time narratives), the past-present-predictive ('a 'e to - the past's immediate future), the past-present-perfect ('a 'e ta - the past's immediate past), the past future perfect ('a 'o ta - the past's future's past), and the future-past-predicitve ('o 'a to - the future's past's future). The list can be extended on and on, and as these forms are somewhat rare, I will not enter into a detailed discussion of their usages at this time. They are almost always used in the context of a passage that is already laden with fairly temporally complex singly-displaced forms.

contents

4.0 "Intrinsic" Aspect and Aspect Endings

PVS verbs have something called "intrinsic aspect" which is a quality of the entire preverb construction, hence "intrinsic. The intrinsic aspect can be understood by looking at the two English aspects to which it has the most in common. Look at these sentences:

1. "He is running down the street"

2. "He runs ever day at this time"

The first has what is called a "punctual" aspect, the second a "continuous" aspect. Notice that English defaults to the continuous.

PVS calls the first construction "participative" and the second "stative". The PVS understanding has broad-reaching implications which should produce some differences from English. "Participative" aspect focuses on an event taking place, being _performed_, at the time the verb refers to. It says nothing about whether the performance might expect to be repeated or not - it doesn't care. It invites you to focus on this specific action. Stative verbs are more nebulous. When a verb is stative, it implies that the action being referred to is a "state" of the subject - that it is something the subject performs repeatedly over some period of time, or that the action referred to is actually an inherent quality of the subject, and that is what you are being asked to focus on, not some specific performance of the action.

PVS demands that all verbs carry one of these aspects. PVS further says that if no aspect is specified, the default implicit aspect is participative, if at all possible. However, there are two markers by which the intrinsic aspect may be marked explicitly. The marker is a suffic which is added to the first verb in the helper chain. If that should be a -0 modal, the modal cannot have a -0 ending. The markers are {-me} for the participative (puncutal) aspect, and {-an} for the stative (continuous) aspect. {-an} is needed to mark the stative aspect, but {-me} is optional to mark the participative aspect. The effect of explicitly marking the participative aspect with {-me} is the emphasise this aspect and make it emphatic.

contents

4.1 The Continuous Aspect With {-an}

Here are some contrastive examples of where you should employ the continuous.

Punctual Example:
"I am eating eggs for breakfast."
Translation:
I {te pairom} eggs for breakfast.

Continuous Example:
"I eat eggs for breakfast every Wednesday."
Translation:
I {tean pairom} eggs for breakfast every Wednesday.

The second example, referring to a repetitive action, uses the continuous.

Punctual Example:
"We are heading down to the park to play baseball."
Sentence:
"We are going to play baseball." (slight change in sense, but same context)
Translation:
'E to zueror :baseball:.
Note: The paucal number is used because the person being addressed isn't being included; perhaps the speaker is teling her Mom her plans :-).

Continuous Example:
"We are going to play baseball in a leage."
Translation:
{'Ean to zueror } baseball in a leage.
Note: This needs the continuous because it is referring to a set of league games, not to a specific event. Note also that the -an marker goes on the first helper, 'e, not on the "to." The use of the present predictive implies that this is a firm, near-term plan. However, "to" could be used just as easily, only changing the connotation slightly.

contents

4.2 The Punctual Aspect With {-me}

This form is somewhat redundant, and exists mainly for emphasis/clarification purposes. For example, you might use it to order someone to do something right now, or you might use it to contrast what you are doing right now with what you usually do.

Example:
"Billy, come in for supper!"
"But Mom, I'm playing baseball!"
Translation:
Billy, {teme 'utibeam} for supper!
But Mom, {teme zuerom } baseball!

Example:
"What are you drinking?"
"I'm drinking tea right now, but I usually drink coffee."
Translation:
Sufam dine?
{Teme sufom} tea, but {tean sufom} coffee.
Note: No need for the "right now" or "usually" qualifiers. When you say this sentence, you would probably put the most stress on the -an and -me syllables.

contents

5.0 "Refining" Aspect and Aspect Endings

This is a ressurection of PVS Supplement 5, which I had previously dropped, and which I now want to drag out again. This part of the PVS proposal may be freely rejected, or left provisional were the rest of the system accepted. However, I want to make it available for experimentation again, because it proposes some idioms I do somewhat like, upon reflection. Most of this section is copied verbatim from Supplement 5.

PVS currently has two aspect markers, in addition to the system's ability to strongly imply aspect through its abilty to diffientiate between time of the verb and time of focus of attention through the displaced tense system (which is really more about establishing narrative sequence). The two aspect markers are {-an}, the stative (continuous), and {-me}, the participative (punctual). {-an} is used to mark an action as being habitual, on-going, or a state of being... its fuction is to broaden the "focus" of the verb from a single event to something more repetitive or nebulous. I have compared it to the verbal equvalent of a shotgun to the punctual, or "participative"'s rifle. {-me} marks the punctual. PVS verbs are (generally) participative by default, but may be stative or "fuzzy" by context. Due to the flexibility of the unmarked form, {-me} was coined to allow the verb to be explicitly and emphatically marked as punctual. {-me} often works together with {-an}. An example of how this works is:
{Tean sufom :tea:, newiy eco ilianxih kafeac suafom teme.}
"I usually drink tea, but this morning I'm drinking coffee."
Without the {-an} on the first {te}, the phrase {te sufom :tea:} sounds like "I'm drinking tea", which is not actually the case. The {-me} on the second {te} is not strictly necessary, it serves an emphatic role.

The advantage of this over the generic is that the continuous is tensed. So you can have a sentence like:
{Tan hakifeom, newiy tean galfafeom fuyo.}
"I used to play hockey, but now I only play golf."

The generic mainly ought to be used in Tokcir mainly to denote cases where the verb seems timeless. Admittedly, the generic has taken up some of the role envisioned for {-an}.

This supplement (5) introduces three new aspect markers, which I'm going to try out. The first two mirror funtions inherent in the displaced tenses and are designed to refine a bit the meaning of any particular displaced tense contruction. These are {-ul}, which I shall name the "perfective", and {-ud}, which I shall name the "predictive". The third one is the odd man out; it is {-ev}, the progressive.

contents

5.1 The Perfective Aspect: {-ul}

Theoretically, this marker is suppose to signal that the action is no longer occuring, that, to borrow from VTT theory, the verb vector exists entirely in the past with no overlap with the present (actually, with no overlap with the PVS time of reference). This has different effects depending on whether or not the tense is displaced.

contents

5.1.1 {-ul} With Non-Displaced Tenses

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the greatest postential use of {-ul}, to my mind, is on non-displaced tenses. To illustrate how this combination works, we will start by going through an example in detail. For our example, we will use the sentence, {Te pairom}, "I'm eating." Applying {-ul}, the sentence becomes:

{Teul pairom.}

What does this mean? Well, with a non-displaced tense such as {te}, the meaning of the modal and the aspect marker conflict. {te} spears the action someplace in the middle; it says that the time of reference is the present, and that the action of the verb is occurring at this time. {-ul}, on the other hand, says that the action is completed, in the past.

The resolution to this conflict is somewhat arbitrary, but produces a useful form which I actually put to good use as a shortcut in my journal. My solution is that {te} + {-ul} says that the action is just complete or completing; in Jerry's vector thinking, it pinpoints the end of the verb vector exactly on the mu, the present.

Of course in using this combination in expressions, mathematical precision isn't required. For the sake of general use, {teul} mean "just finished doing." If not always literally true when used, the form still allows the speaker to strongly emphasise the very recent nature of the action. {Teul pairom} means, therefore, "I just ate," in the closest English idiom.

This form is used in two situations, either when it is literally true, i.e., the action is just finishing, or when the speaker wants to strongly emphasise the recentness of a completed action. The perfect form that would ordinarily be used is still {'e ta}.

{-ul} works in an exactly analogous fashion with {ta} and {to}. {taul} means "had just done" and {toul} means "will have just done". So, for example, {Taul pairam.} means "You had just eaten."

Examples:

{Gaul te robfeom cike Leslie ta u'tibem.}
"I had just finished getting dressed when Leslie arrived."
NOTE: {gaul} is a middle voice past marker plus {-ul}. I'm using middle voice + {robfe} as an idiom for "to get dressed."

{No 'e reso xirfeom ezo sac, teul pairom.}
"I'm not going to be able to go swimming with yous, I just ate."
NOTE: This is an example of an {-ul} that is not literally true but is being used idiomatically to emphasise recentness. {No 'e reso} means literally "ought not to be going to," the reason why this particular aspect is chosen is because Zumirtok tends to like to construct its modal tenses in such a way as to literally pinpoint the time of the action of the verb whose action is being discussed. {xirfe} is "go swimming"; I constructed as a sport as per the Fun and Games module, using {-fe}.

contents

5.1.2 {-ul} With Displaced Tenses

In these cases the situation gets more complicated. It is necessary to treat separately the cases where the action of the verb is displaced to the past of the time of reference or to the future of the time of reference. We will start with the past. Looking only at singly displaced tenses, this gives us the basic forms {'a ta}, {'e ta} and {'o ta} to look at.

contents

5.1.2.1 Past-Displaced Tenses and {-ul}

We will proceed to analyse this situation in a manner analogous to the way we tackled the previous case in 2.1.1. Our example will be {'A ta hapxuem}, "She had been sleeping." Applying {-ul}, we get:

{'Aul ta hapxuem.}

Looking at this, at first it appears redundant. The displaced tense says the action of the verb happens in the past of the referenced time, and the {-ul} likewise says that the action happens in the past of the referenced time. But there is a small distinction which makes these forms have some potential use, if only for emphasis. What {'a ta} does, really, is to pinpoint the action of the verb at some time in the past of the time we're talking about (i.e., it's basically a pluperfect). But, it does not say _explicitly_ that the action referred to can no longer be occurring in the referenced time - it only implies it, and one can imagine situations where one might use {'a ta} to refer to some action that might still be ongoing in the refernced time. {-ul}, on the other hand, says that the action is definitely complete. The net effect of combining a past-displaced tense and {-ul} is to point out and emphasise the completeness of the action. So, the full meaning of our example, {'Aul ta hapxuem}, is "She had been sleeping (but she wasn't sleeping any more)."

Example:

{'Eul ta hapxuem cike ace da'ac ta feam.} "She was sleeping when you made that noise (but she isn't anymore)."
NOTE: {'eul ta} gets transcribed into English somwhat differently than {'e ta}... {'e ta hapxuem} would be more like "she has been sleeping." The tenses here don't quite mesh... this form is rather idiomatic, and is chosen to imply stongly the results of the action in question.

contents

5.1.2.2 Future-Displaced Tenses and {-ul}

There are three cases in this category: {'a to}, {'e to}, and {'o to}. Let us use {'A to pairom.} as our illustrative example. The {-ul} form would be:

{'Aul to pairom.}

This form is contradictory, and the contradiction is not resolvable. {'a to} says that the action of the verb takes place in the past's future ("was going to" type forms), whereas {-ul} says that the action of the verb has to be already completed by the time of reference. The event cannot be completed in the past and yet occur in the past's future. I choose to stipulate that the forms treated in this section cannot take {-ul}, that these are nonsense forms and that they shall not be assigned an idiomatic meaning.

contents

5.2 The Predictive Aspect: {-ud}

This marker has the opposite basic meaning from {-ul}, that is, it says that the action of the verb is not yet begun from the point of view of the time of reference. The consequences of employing this marker must again be broken down into cases.

5.2.1 {-ud} With Non-Displaced Tenses

For our discussion example, we will take {Te atibeor}, "we (not including you) are leaving." The {-ud} forms is:

{Teud atibeor.}

What does this mean? Well, again {te} and {-ud} seem to be saying contradictory things; {te} places the action in the present, while {-ud} says the action hasn't begun yet. My solution to the paradox is the say that the consequence of having both is to say that the action is just beginning or just about to begin. In vector talk, the intersection of {te} and {-ud} places the beginning of the verb vector squarely on the mu. So, {teud atibeor} means "we are just about to leave." It's literal meaning is that we are in the middle of the very beginning of the act of leaving. If one takes liberties with the literal truth, {-ud} serves to emphasise the immediacy of a future action, translating approximately as "just about to." {'e to} type forms are still the default forms for dealing with "going to" type forms, {te} forms plus {-ud} is only used to strongly emphasise the immediacy of the action in question.

contents

5.2.2 {-ud} With Displaced Tenses

For these forms, again we must discuss separately the cases where the tense is past displaced or future displaced. We will look only as singly displaced tenses here.

5.2.2.1 Past-Displaced Tenses and {-ud}

This case covers forms like {'a ta}, {'e ta} and {'o ta}. Here again, as with {-ul} + future displaced tenses, the effects of {-ud} and past displacement create an unresolvable contradiction that makes the form nonsense. Take:

{'Eud ta pairem.}

The {'e ta} root places the action of the verb in the past, and yet {-ud} says the action hasn't started yet in the time of reference. I choose not to assign an idiom to this; these forms are nonsense and are not used.

contents

5.2.2.2 Future-Displaced Tenses and {-ud}

These would be {'a to}, {'e to} and {'o to}. For our example here, we will take {Jason 'e to pirdoem l dame.}, "Jason is going to look for a job." The {-ud} form is:

{Jason 'eud to pirdoem l dame.}

This form appears redundant; {'e to} places the action of the verb in the future, and {-ud} says that the action hasn't begun yet in the time referenced by {'e}. However, the slightly different emphasis of {-ud} serves to create a possibly useful idiomatic implication to this form. What {'eud to} serves to do is to say that he will look for a job, but to place the emphasis on the explicitly stated fact that he hasn't started looking yet. In general, with future-displaced forms, the use of {-ud} serves to shift the emphasis from the fact that an event is going to occur to the fact the it hasn't occured yet.

contents

5.3 The Progressive Aspect: {-ev}

{-ev} says explicitly that the action in question is ongoing at the time of reference. It can be applied to any sort of tense. It would most commonly, however, be applied to a non-displaced tense.

5.3.1 {-ev} With Non-Displaced Tenses

With non-displaced tenses, {-ev} simple marks the aspect as progressive, so {taev tibeom}, "I was going" versus {ta tibeom}, "I went." Ordinarily, PVS doesn't care too much about this distinction in emphasis, using {ta} indiscriminately for both. But I've been thinking about this for a long time, and have had a nagging feeling of a vacuum, so I'm going to try this for a little while. {-ev} is used when there is an implicit or explicit "when" clause somewhere that concerns the verb, something that could have a dramatic impact on the action of the verb. Example:

{Danny taev tibem inh'ol q ru' u'cik sa te sugem wi' kuajad.}
"Danny was crossing the road when he was hit by a car."

{-ev} will be optional for the time being and will exist to be played around with. I've used it a couple of times in my journal in places where it felt like it was filling an important semantic role, and I have used it once in my Genesis translation:
{& q Kasmog Dia' taev tibe ko q injy vode.}
"and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

The sense I get from the narrative is that God is moving over the face of the waters while he is performing the acts of creation outlined in the section, and so I want to do something to capture this sense of progressiveness, so as not to give the impression that he did this as a sequential action after the acts of creation.

contents

5.3.2 {-ev} With Displaced Tenses

The effect of using {-ev} with a displaced tense is to give it a connotation that displaced tenses do not ordinarily have: that the action of the verb is ongoing in the time of reference. Example:

{'Aev ta xietfem.}
"He had been out driving (and still was out)."

contents

5.3.3 Conclusion

{-ev}, like all the aspect markers dealt with in this supplement, is something whose utility and use will have to be worked out with time... I have used them a bit in my journal, like I say, and I am reasonably pleased with the results thus far... But it will take some practical usage before I decide if these are things the PVS system needs or not, and therefore I need to unveil these forms publically so I can make use of them in public postings to facilitate this practical use.

contents

5.4 Aspect Marker Stacking

In the original rules, it was stipulated that a preverb could take only one aspect marker. With these new markers I need to re-address that rule; tentatively, I want to revise the rule. It is obvious that a verb cannot take both {-an} and {-me}, a verb cannot be both punctual and continuous. It is equally obvious that a verb can only take one of {-ul}, {-ud} or {-ev}, they describe mutually exclusive states. However, I think that it ought to be possible for a verb to take, for example, both {-an} and {-ul}... therefore I am arranging these markers into two groups, A1 and A2.

A1: -an, -me
A2: -ul, -ud, -ev

The rule is that a verb can have only one marker from A1 and only one marker from A2, and that the A1 is agglutinated before the A2 if two are going to be used. So, {teanul} is a legal form, but {teanme} and {tevme} are not, {teanme} because it has two A1 suffixes and {tevme} because the A2 preceeds the A1, which is the incorrect order; the correct order would be {temev}.

contents

5.5 Getting Around A2 Aspect

If we want to dispose of the system outlined in Section 5 of this proposal once again, the solution is the same one proposed before: the use of adverbs, which are accepted General Vocabulary morphemes included in the verb chain.

contents

6.0 The Passive Voice

This section is copied essentially verbatim from Proposal Version 1.0, as there are no major changes, although a quick edit was done.

The PVS system contains provisions for a passive voice. When a verb is in the active voice, you get straight-forward, ordinary sentence structures, where the subject of the sentence (nominative case noun phrase) is the actor of the verb, and the object of the sentence is either directly (accusative case noun phrase) or indirectly (dative case noun phrase) the recipient or _patient_ of the verb's action. The passive voice turns this way of looking at the verb on its head. In the passive voice, the nominative, the subject of the sentence, is the recipient of the verb's action, and the actor cannot be referred to directly at all (although its existence is implied). The actor may be referred to indirectly using the NGL ablative of agent. The passive voice serves two functions:

1) It handles "fuzzy actor" situations, where there was definitely an agent of the verb's action, but for some reason, perhaps lack of knowledge or perhaps due to the complexity of the situation, it is either impossible to name the agent, undesirable to name the agent, or else very difficult
2) In cases where the agent is clear and easy to refer to, the passive voice serves a distancing function. _Generally_, I believe it is established, distancing is bad style in NGL, but there are legitimate reasons for wanting it occasionally, nevertheless. The passive voice is PVS's contribution to distancing.

The marker for the passive voice is {se}. In passive forms, the helper se is always the first to appear in the preverb. Se has tense, and marks narrative time in exactly the same manner as 'e does, so the function of a particular tense constructed with se is exactly the same as the analogous 'e form. Regardless of the actual helpers used to construct a tense, the sense of the tense comes from that of the 'e te form to which the tense is related. {Se}has a rough indepentent meaning of "be." By saying that the subject is the verb, it is saying that it is the recipient of the verb's action.

Note that the passive is not quite the same as making the verb intransitive with -ex. Further, an intransitive verb cannot be made passive. Take for example "sase," "death." The intransitive is "sasex," "die."

Example:
"He is going to die."
Translation:
To sasexem. (or "'E to sasexem" for more immediacy)

More on this in section 6.4.

contents

6.1 Tabulation of the Forms of {se te}

I will show how two-helper passive tenses are constructed using "se te." The forms would be exactly analogous for a regular modal form such as "se gul." The forms get more complicated for three-helper combinations, like "se xi yev," but those combinations will be dealt with in the section on double modals.

Imperfect Forms:

se te - present imperfect
sa te - past imperfect
so te - future imperfect

If you recall, these are the redundant forms discussed for 'e/'a/'o te. Now they serve a purpose - they allow the existence of imperfect passive forms.

Perfect and Predictive Forms:

se ta - present perfect
sa ta - pluperfect
so ta - future perfect

se to - present predictive
sa to - past predictive
so to - future predictive

contents

6.2 The Ablative of Agent

It is possible to specify the agent of a passive form using the NGL ablative of agent. Since NGL doesn't have an ablative or instrumental case, the ablative of agent is taken care of by an expression. To render the ablative, render the noun in the dative case and precede the noun phrase with the preposition {wi'}. An example of the ablative of agent is:

Randy wi' John sa te sasexem. ("Randy was being killed by John.")

More on why the verb is marked with -ex in section 6.4.

{Wi' John} is an ablative of agent. John is in the dative case by word order (it would have to be "wi' Johnad" any place where case needs to be marked).

contents

6.3 Examples of Usage

Imperfect Forms:

Example:
"Right before my eyes, Jimbo was being eaten by a rabid zebra."
Sentence:
"Jimbo was being eaten by a rabid zebra."
Transalation:
Jimbo {sa te pairem} {wi' :zebra:ad} rabid.
Note: This is more a rhetorical use of the passive than anything.

Example:
"10 mL of tert-butylamine will be added via syringe."
Translation:
10 mL of {terti-butilamin} {so te :add:e} via syringe.
Note:
This is both a distanced and a "fuzzy actor" situation. The passive is used because there _is_ an actor, but both due to the traditions of scientific objectivity and due to the fact you might not necessarily know or care who the adder is (maybe it's a big research group), you prefer not to specify.

Perfect Forms:

Example:
"Oh, Officer, is there any news about my darling Billy-Ray?"
"Ma'am, I'm afraid your husband has been killed by a pack of hungry beavers."
Sentence:
"Your husband has been killed."
Verb translation:
Your husband {se ta sasexem}.
Notes:
This is an example of the passive as distancing. Divorced from the context, furthermore, (say, if Billy-Ray turned up dead with a knife wound, but the cops don't know who did it), this can also be a "fuzzy actor" situation.

Example:
"By the end of the day, 50,000 cows had been turned into steaks and shoe leather."
Sentence:
"50,000 cows had been turned into steaks and shoe leather."
Verb translation:
50,000 cows {sa ta fes} into steaks and shoe leather.
Notes:
Although distancing is a partial motivation in this case, by far the most compelling reason for choosing the passive here is the "fuzzy actor" - explaining who did what to process all those cows would likely be awkward and time-consuming, and the reader would likely already know who did it from the context of the passage (perhaps a story about working in a meat-packing plant).

Predictive Forms:

Example:
"At the time the passengers abandoned the sinking ship in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic, nobody suspected that very few of them would eventually be rescued."
Sentence:
"Few would be rescued."
Verb translation:
Few (sa to mexuer).
Notes:
This is a fuzzy actor case, with some distancing motivation. Also note that the English sentence is a bit ambiguous; is it that nobody was thinking they wouldn't be rescued and, by God, they were eventually rescued after all (justifying those God-fearing folks' pluck/stupidity), or did nobody at the time suspect the awful and inevitable truth? (In either case they suffered from a startling lack of imagination, but it serves for the example.) In English it needs a bit of clarification; the form is rather hypothetical sounding. The PVS past predictive passive (or passive forward-displaced past tense, if you like) makes absolutely no bones about it, in the translation I have given. They are all going to die. The past predictive is mercilessly inevitable.

contents

6.4 Voice and Explicitly Marked Transitivity

I feel that it is necessary to harmonise the relationship between PVS voice and the verb markers -it and -ex. I hope to do that by laying down how PVS conjugated verbs interact with these forms when they occur together. This may involve fiddling with the rules for -it and -ex somewhat, and I apologise. However, I feel that in good conscience I cannot avoid proposing something like this.

For this section, it is necessary to make a distinction between an intransitive sentence and an intransitive verb. For example, the sentence:
"He is writing."
is intransitive, because the verb has no object. However, the verb is not intransitive, because you can write a sentence like:
"He is writing a book."
where the verb does have an object. So to avoid confusion, when I refer to an intransitive verb, I am referring to a verb like "die" which can never have an object (actually can never have an agent, as its subject is actually its patient). A verb like "write," which may have an object shall be referred to as transitive, regardless of whether I gave it an object in any particular example.

There is one important fact to note: the PVS passive voice always implies the existence of an agent, and thus can only be applied to transitive verbs. Therefore, you cannot have passive voice forms of "die" (active "sasex") or "to be born" (active "konulex"). So:

Example:
"Christine was born in 1970.
Translation:
Christine ta konulexem 'u 1970.

In the active voice, marking a verb with -ex (and without -it) implies that it is not capable of having an agent (i.e., is intransitive). An intransitive verb, while it has the basic form of the active voice, has, however, some features in common with the passive voice. An intransitive verb, whether it is inherently intransitive or derived that way by ending it with -ex in the active voice, has its subject (naturally, a nominative noun) as the patient of the verb, just like in the passive. Where it departs from the passive voice is that it cannot have an agent, whereas a PVS passive verb must have an agent, implicit or explicit.

Marking an active verb with -it makes it transitive (alternatively this can be done more explicitly with -exit, but if you do that you don't have the option to omit the object). With an active verb, implying the existence of an agent automatically implies the existance of an object. If you mark a verb with -it, you have to supply a subject (agent)... but the object is optional (it is considered to exist, but it doesn't have to be specified...), allowing the active voice to be used for "fuzzy patient" situations the same way the passive is used for fuzzy actor situations.

In the passive voice, that action of the suffixes -it and -ex changes, a change which represents a unique feature of PVS. The active voice may use both endings, because the active voice is used for that strange, fuzzy world of the intransitive verb. However, the preferred form for the active voice is "-it." In the passive voice, you _cannot_ end a verb in -it (you may end it in -exit, but if you do, you have to use the ablative of agent and specify an actor), because -it demands the specification of an actor. In the passive voice, specifying the actor is optional. The suffix -ex still demands the presence of a patient, (just as does the passive voice itself), but further, picks up the passive's implication of the exisitence of the (not necessarily specified) agent. In the passive voice, -ex derives transitive verbs.

Let's look at the effect of this with the derivitives of "sase," death. The intransitive form is "sasex," "die," and it may only be rendered in the active voice.

Example:
The moose was dying.
Translation:
Ku :moose: ta sasexem.

The transitive form is "saseit," "kill." In the passive voice, however, "kill" becomes "sasex!"

Example: (Active)
Reggie killed the moose.
Translation:
Reggie saseitem q :moose:.

Example: (Passive)
The moose was killed (by Reggie).
Translation:
Ku :moose: wi' Reggie sa te sasexem.

Similarly with ka'nsasexit, "murder":
Active:
"Kim murdered Ruth."
Kim ta ka'nsaseitem Ruth.
Passive:
"Ruth was murdered."
Ruth sa te ka'nsasexem.

contents

7.0 The Middle Voice

The middle voice works in practise much like the passive voice, except it is marked with the helper verb {ge} which has the approximate meaning of "to exist". The middle voice was introduced in Supplement 4 and since has developed a palce in the literature, both for the use od {ge} as an idiom for "there is", and directly. This section shall copy much directly from Supplement 4.

The PVS active voice and passive voice are fairly easy and familiar. In the active voice, the verb points to both an agent and a theme. In the nominative-accusative system of NGL, in the active voice the agent is marked with the nominative and the theme with the accusative. You have to have an agent, but in intransitive structures there doesn't necessarily have to be a theme. In the passive voice, the verb no longer has the ability to point to an agent (or, to put it bette,r the "valence", or importance, of the verb is reduced). The verb points only to a theme (patient), which is represented by the nominative. The agent can be pointed out using a prepositional structure, the ablative of agent, but this is purely optional. However, you must specify a theme. The advantages conferred by the passive voice are that it can serve in a distancing function, it can be used in cases where the agent is fuzzy or unclear or you just don't want to mention it, so you can say what happened without saying what caused it, and since the word in the nominative position is commonly taken the be the focus or topic of a sentence, this device can be used to move the focus onto the recipient of the action instead of the instigator (although this third purpose can be accomplished in NGL by fronting as well, so the passive is not as important in this role in NGL as it is in English). Example:

Active Voice:
You can say:
{Ku demos 'e ta dieme q Senator.}
"The people elected the Senator."
You _cannot_ avoid saying something about who elected the Senator, even if it is nothing more than using the inflection on the verb to say "they." Note that the verb inflection agrees with the {demos}.

Passive Voice:
You can say:
{Ku Senator wi' q demos se ta diemem.}
"The Senator has been elected by the people."
Note that the inflection on {diem} agrees with {Senator}, and that the agent, the people, is specified using a prepositional phrase with the agent in the position of the indirect object.
You can also say:
{Ku Senator se ta diemem.}
"The Senator has been elected."
Note that nothing at all is said about the agent. My actual opinion could be something snarky, like, "the Senator was elected by special interests," but I don't have to actually lie to avoid getting in trouble.

My take on the middle voice is that it points to both an agent and a theme, like the active voice, but like the passive voice points only to the nominative. The effect of this is that the agent and the theme are the same thing, making the middle voice behave like a reflexive.

Lets compare and contrast. The verb is "wash," which we shall derive from {limpa}.

Active Intransitive:
{Te limpaxom} - "I am washing."
Passive*:
{Se te limpaitom} - "I am being washed."
Note: The passive doesn't preclude the possibility that you could be cleaning yourself, but if you use the passive it is generally assumed that the theme is not the agent.
*Passives are always derived as "transitive," as the meaning of {-it} is actually to derive a verb which is given a theme, and passives always have themes, just not always agents.
Middle*:
{Ge te limpaitom} - "I am washing myself."
The subject, "I", pointed to by the {-om} inflection, is also the object - i.e., the agent is also the theme. Note that this functions basically like a reflexive.
*Middles always derive with {-it} when the verb has to be derived from another part of speech in Tokcir.

A possible use of this is for things like saying what your name is. One possibilty is to say:
{Te nomjeom Estven.}
literally "I have the name Stephen."
However, one can be a little more oblique, by saying what name you prefer to be called, whether this is your real name or not. So:
{Ge te diemom Celwi.}
literally "I am called by me Chlewey."
Note: The middle voice does not preclude the possibility that others might do the action as well, in fact, in this case it somewhat suggests it.
Finally, and you would not likely use this to refer to your own name, you can use the passive voice to say what people at large call someone:
{Se te diemem "zuminintnta."} literally "He is called 'idiot boy.'"

Some of Jack Durst's responce to the foregoing which illuminates the Middle Voice:

> My take on the middle voice is that it points to both an agent and a
> theme, like the active voice, but like the passive voice points only
> to the nominative. The effect of this is that the agent and the theme
> are the same thing, making the middle voice behave like a reflexive.
Exactly. The middle voice is to the patient of a transitive sentence as the passive is to the subject. The middle voice decreases the valency of the patient, allowing it not to be expressed or to be expressed as an ablative. It does not nessicarily point reflexively to the subject (though this is the most common use) but rather provides a grammatical way of saying "I Washed it" without implying the "it". In a ditransitive sentence, the middle voice has the effect of raising the dative to an accusative. For example:

Active:
Med 'a te u'durom q kaz.
"I gave the box to him."

Passive:
Med sa te u'durem q kaz.
"The box was given to him."

Middle:
Mec ha te u'durom wi' q kazad.
"I gave to him the box."
The former dative has the full valency of an accusative, with the patient demoted to an ablative. Of course, the patient can be non-expressed
Mac ha te u'durom.
"*I gave to him"
This dosn't nessicarily imply a reflexive, but rather allows the ditransitive verb to not express what was given. In many cases, however, especially with regular transitive verbs, the unexpressived accusative is logically equivilant to a reflexive.

The middle and passive voices of an intransitive sentence are logically equivilant. This construction is called the antipassive, usually this construction is done with a passive.

> *Passives are _always_ derived as "transitive," as the meaning of
> {-it} is actually to derive a verb which is given a theme, and
> passives always have themes, just not always agents.
Not linguistically sound; intransitive verbs have perfectly valid passives (well, antipassives) in a system with a middle voice.

Jack Durst, in reply to my reply to the above:

> I assume we
> have to refer to the ablative in this case as an ablative of
> patient... Can you give me an example of when I might strongly prefer
> a form like this over its active or passive equivalent? I shall think
Um, linguistically, it tends to occur when the dative is more focus than the accusative. For example:

"Did you give the box to Bill? --No! I'll be giving the box to *Jim*."
In this case, the dative is verry strongly focused by being the information which supports the negative; so it's raised to the accusative and fronted for emphasis.

Of course, it's also used in a wide varriety of semantic devices, just like the passive.

> about it myself, but I'm interested in having your view as well. Now,
> let's see if I can give back the effect of the middle voice on
> ditransitive verbs:
Yup, that's correct.

> So, if I want to say "I gave to myself" you have to say {ha te
> u'durom moc} (cannot omit the {moc}) because {deur} is ditransitive.
> Is that right?
Yes, that's perfectly correct.

> Can you give an example of an anti-passive? I'm not sure if I grasp
> this at all.
It dosn't exist in English. Immagine, though, if the passive of "I sleep" ("*was sleep") was grammatical, meaning something equivilant to "There was a sleeping."

An antipassive asserts an action and nothing else; and is generally equivilant to "There is/was a <verb>ing" or "It happened that <verb> occured." in English.

---------

Me again:

A major idiomatic use of the middle voice, besides as a substitute for the reflexive, is in discussing things like the weather, which don't have actors... to say "it is raining, we would say {ge te pu}. More or less "rain is happening".

contents

8.0 "There is"

I propose {ge} as the idiom for "there is". As in {Dia' ta toke "di ge xu" & ta ge xu} - "God said 'let there be light', and there was light". See section 13.3 .

contents

9.0 The Usage of Modal Helpers Other Than {te}

This section is copied essentially verbatim from 1.0 with some minor editing.

In any of the examples given so far, the indicative modal "te" could have been replaced by any other modal, giving a verb with exactly the same tense, voice and aspect, but with the additional modal sense. Like the helper {te} itself, modals mark the verb and if one is present, it is always the innermost helper (closest to the verb when the preverb is positioned in front of the verb, i.e., farthest to the right). Like te, only one of any kind of modal can be in the preverb - so te te and gul gul are not allowed. Unlike te, however, the other modals can modify each other, and more than one different modal can legitimately be included in the preverb. The rule followed is that outer modal modifies inner, and the cumulative sense of the modals in the preverb is transmitted to the verb. While it is possible to have three or even more modals in the preverb, the majority of situations should be taken care of by one or two. This proposal shall illustrate the way one and two modal scrutures work. The operation of three-modal structures should be able to be deduced from the rest of the proposal should the need arise.

contents

9.1 Tabulated Conjugation of {gul}

{Gul} is exemplary of the conjugation of all the other modals. This table will show not only the imperfect forms, but the perfect and predictive forms as well. This should serve to illustrate how conjugation with regular V1 modals follows exactly the forms of conjugation with te.

Active Forms:

gul(e) - present imperfect
gula - past imperfect
gulo - future imperfect

'e gula - perfect
'a gula - pluperfect
'o gula - future perfect

'e gulo - present predicitve
'a gulo - past predicitve
'o gulo - future predicitve

Passive Forms:

se gul(e) - present imperfect
sa gul(e) - past imperfect
so gul(e) - future imperfect

se gula - perfect
sa gula - pluperfect
so gula - future perfect

se gulo - present predicitve
sa gulo - past predicitve
so gulo - future predicitve

contents

9.2 Specific Examples of the Usage of the Existing Regular Modals

9.2.1 {gul} - To Be Able To

Example:
"After payday, I will be able to buy groceries."
Translation:
After payday, {gulo 'ukuiporom} groceries.

Example:
"After every payday, I am able to buy groceries."
Translation:
After payday, {gulean 'ukuiporom} groceries.
Note:
With the continuous ending -an, the qualifier "every" is not needed.

Example:
"He had not been able to help me."
Translation:
No 'a gula voem moc.

contents

9.2.2 {pas} - To Be Allowed To

Example:
"As soon as you finish your chores, you may leave."
Translation:
As soon as {xo feas} your chores, {paso atibeas}.
Note:
Although the English version uses the present tense of "may," in PVS it is more proper to use the future tense if in fact the action alluded to will/would occur in the future time. The subjunctive xo feas is necessary for the first verb because it is a hypothetical condition implying choice. If you wanted the first clause to sound more like an order, you would employ "to" instead of xo.

Example:
"May I get you a drink?"
"Yes, you may."
Translation:
Pase no 'usauzom l suf?
Dak, pase'am.
Note:
The second line is an example of the use of PVS modals as proverbs. A normal verb ending can be tacked on separated by a glottal stop (').

contents

9.2.3 {zol} - To Have To

Example:
"I have to be at school at 9:00."
Translation:
Zolean estnom 'u danka ne supo.
Note:
The use of the continuous implies that I have to be at school at 9:00 every morning. Estn means to be at a place.

Example:
"After that misunderstanding with the RCMP, I had to leave the
country."
Sentence:
"I had to leave the country."
Translation:
{Zola atibeom} the country.

contents

9.2.4 {res} - "To Ought To"

Example:
"You should go home and get some rest."
Translation:
{Rese tibeam} home and get some rest.

Example:
"You should leave soon, before my husband comes home."
Translation:
'E reso atibeam, indis :husband:o maf 'utibem.

contents

9.2.5 {yev} - To Want To

Yev is a shortened-down form of "yevza." In PVS, yevza can never act in a modal sense, unless it is referring to some dependent clause.

Example:
"I will have wanted to go home."
Translation:
'O yeva tibeom mafad.

contents

9.2.6 {ri} - Might

Ri is stolen straight from the regular verb {ari}, and hence is unwitrtingly the source of the entire irregulat -i paradigm :).It performs the same function as the modal "might" or "could" in English; it says that such-and-such a thing is possible.

Example:
"If you do not treat it with respect, that gun could go off accidentally."
Sentence:
"That gun could go off accidentally."
Translation:
That gun {rio' jiyuem} accidentally.

Example:
"Jason might have committed the murder."
Translation:
Jason {'e ra ka'nsaseitem}.
Note:
"Ra ka'nsaseitem," "he might have been murdering," would imply speculation about Jason's activities at a certain time, rather than a conversation over "whodunnit."

contents

9.2.7 {xi} - The Subjunctive Marker (Would)

Xi marks the NGL subjunctive mood. The subjunctive has to be employed whenever examining a hypothesis. Simply to state baldly that something "is possible" requires ri - xi is used whenever the consequences of an action are examined and weighed in any fashion. Take this example from section 6.2.2:

Example:
"As soon as you finish your chores, you may leave."
Translation:
As soon as (xio' feas) your chores, (paso atibeas).

Xi is required in the first verb of that sentence, because the sentence looks at the consequences of doing your chores. The subjunctive is necessary in if/then statements. Only the "if" side of the statement needs to be in the subjunctive.

Example:
"If you help me with my math, I'll help you with your French."
Translation:
('If 'e xio' voam moc) with my math, (xio' vom mac) with your French.
Note:
For the first verb, either the present tense ("if you help me right now...") or the future tense could have been employed instead of the present predictive. The present would have been perfectly correct, but would have conveyed a sense of great immediacy to the desired help. Using the future would have been perfectly fine and understandable, but using the present predictive for the first verb places it more explicitly before the offered reciprocity.

Xi is also frequently used to ask questions. For "would you like" questions (and for "I would like"), using xi makes the question more distanced and less blunt; it may be employed to ask for something especially politely, perhaps if the social circumstances are a bit awkward.

Example:
"Would you like a cup of coffee?"
Translation:
Xi no yevzam l kafe?
Note:
This can also employ xio', although xio' would tend to imply "would you like a cup of coffee _later_?"

Xi is also used in if-then questions. The subjunctive is always used in the test part of the question.

Example:
"Would he leave if I asked him?"
Translation:
Rio' atibem ke, 'if med xi rayom?
Note:
More or less literally: "Might he leave if I would ask him now?" I'm using ke as a question marker, sticking it at the end of the principle clause.

contents

9.3 {di} and {li}

These two are dealt with in Section 10.

contents

9.4 Double Modification of Verbs

A verb may have two or more modals, provided one of them isn't te. If there are two, the first one always pertains to the second and the second in turn, with its modified meaning, pertains to the Verb. Similarly with three - outer modals modify the next one in, until you get to the Verb. The are two rules about what modals you can combine (other than that you can't combine them with te, because the regular modal already contains the whole meaning of te, and so it would be redundant):

1) In the particular context, the combination of modals has to make sense.
2) Two of the same modal may not be placed next to eachother.

In this section, we will look exclusively at combinations of two modals. Due to the enormity of the task, not all permutations and ramifications will be covered; only a few exemplary forms will be explored. Finally, even restricting the discussion to two-modal combinations, there is still the possibility that three helpers will end up in a row because of se being used to mark the passive voice. We will explore how to use redundancy to force three-helper forms to mimic exactly two-helper tenses (which are the tenses used in the vast majority of situations).

contents

9.5 Two-Modal Tenses and Paradigms

We will use the combination {zol gul}, approximately "must be able to," for our examples in this section.

Tenses are constructed in exactly the fashion they are for 'e te, looking only at the sequence of tenses in the two modals to calculate the over-all tense. The tenses have the same specific meaning as they do in their base 'e te forms. Redundancy is employed to generate imperfect tenses.

Zol Gul:

zol(e) gul(e) - present imperfect
zola gul(e) - past imperfect
zolo gul(e) - future imperfect

zol(e) gula - perfect
zola gula - pluperfect
zolo gula - future perfect

zol(e) gulo - present predictive
zola gulo - past predictive
zolo gulo - future predictive

contents

9.5.1 Examples of Double Modals

Example:
"Why has Charlie had his jacket on all evening?"
"He has had to be able to leave at a moment's notice."
Sentence:
"He has had to be able to leave at a moment's notice."
Translation:
He {zol gula atibem} at a moment's notice.
Note: Charlie's still around and has his jacket on, hence the perfect rather than the pluperfect.

Example:
"I am carrying around this canteen in case I get thirsty."
Verb translation:
"I (te dasom) this canteen for when I {xio'an zol sufom}.
Notes:
The second verb is using "must drink" (zol suf) as an expression for "get thirsty." The xi is used because this is a conditional sentence in the sense I mean it. Using the subjunctive creates the sense that you may or may not get thirsty. In addition, the suffix -an extends this to the possibility that you may get thirsty a number of times.

contents

9.5.2 The Passive Voice With Double Modals

This section presents a paradigm for constructing the simple imperfect, perfect and predictive tenses with passive-voice stacked modals. In this situation, and when you actually have three modals, you will want to make simple tenses, as per the two-helper 'e te paradigm, almost all of the time. Fortunately that is very easy using redundant tense combinations. All you have to remember is that in the PVS preverb, any present tense modal adjacent to the verb, or any present tense modal adjacent to a present tense modal adjacent to the verb (and on like that) have zero effect on the tense of the verb. The tense of the verb is determined entirely from those helper(s) preceding these redundant helpers. Se zol gul is exemplary of the use of redundancy in three-helper combinations to produce simple tenses.

Se Zol Gul (to have to be able to be):

se zol(e) gul(e) - present imperfect
sa zol(e) gul(e) - past imperfect
so zol(e) gul(e) - future imperfect

se zola gul(e) - present perfect
sa zola gul(e) - pluperfect
so zola gul(e) - future perfect

se zolo gul(e) - present predictive
sa zolo gul(e) - past predictive
so zolo gul(e) - future predictive

Note that the variation is purely in the first two helpers in order to create the predictive and perfect tenses (with gul remaining in the present tense) and purely in the first helper to create the simplest imperfect tenses (with zol gul both in the present).

Example:"Why was Charlie carrying around that goddam cell phone?"
"He had to have been able to be reached because he's on call."
Sentence:
"He had to have been able to be reached because he's on call."
Translation:
He (sa zola gul :contact:) because he's on call.
Note: This is the pluperfect, using a redundant form to make it with three helpers. Note the use of passive for fuzzy agent.

contents

10.0 Giving Orders, Asking Questions, and Negation

These topics are dealt with separately because they can be dealt with idiomatically as well as through explicit grammatical devices.

10.1 Giving Order and Advice

There are two basic ways to do this, by using idiom or using the modal {di}.

10.1.1 Idiom of Command

Weak commands can be couched using the subjunctive combined with a question. An example could be:

"Would you come with me?"
{Lo xi tibeam ezo moc?}

where it is understood this is _not_ a request even thought it is phrased like one.

A strong commend can be made by combining a flat indicitive statement in {te} with tone, or made even stronger by using the future in {to}. E.g.:

"You will come with me!"
{To tibeam ezo moc!"}

contents

10.1.2 Command With {di}

The modal {di} can be used to give advice or commands. Its strength is intermediate, and it would not be impolite, for example, to use {di} to urge a superior to do something, nor would it be too weak to give a command to an inferior - it's all in the tone. Using the future tense {do} makes the statement stronger; {do} would be rude to a superior and establish formal command with a subordinate. By analogy, {da} is used to make the mood more tentative, deferential and advisory E.g.:

"Help me lift this table"
{Di voam moc be wajefe eco mes.}

contents

10.2 Asking Questions

Again, there is both idiomatic and explicit grammatical resources to call upon for this task.

10.2.1 Idiom of Interrogation

Questions can be asked simply by making normal sentences and apeaking in an interrogative tone/relying on context. In addition, the i no v idiom can be employed. To do this, the PVS helper chain must directly preceed the verb, and the negation particule, {no}, is inserted between the preverb and the verb, rather than being placed before the preverb as would be the case in a conventional negative. Although it would also be possible for such a structure to be indicative, it would be much more normal for it to be interrogative and would normally be heard/used as such.

Example:
"Has she left yet?"
Translation:
{'E ta no atibem beh?}

contents

10.2.2 Questions With {li}

The modal {li} can be used to ask questions. Inclusion of {li} anywhere in the chain makes the statement a question. When {li} is employed it should ordinarily by convention be the first modal verb in the chain. Unlike {di}, {li} can comfortably have any tense and does not use tense for a "strength" idiom. Examples:

"Did you send my parcel?"
{Li ta gicuam subowo?}
"Were you happy with the service?"
{La suram be q abrisci?}
"Will you come with us?"
{Lo tibeam ezo roc?}

contents

10.3 Negation

Negation in PVS simply uses an extention of the general language verb negation. In NVS, to negate a verb preceed it with the negation particle {no}, so, e.g., if {tibe} = "go", {no tibe} = "not go". If the verb has any PVS helpers, you preceed the helpers with {no} to negate the verb. So, if {te tibeom} means "I am going", {no te tibeom} means "I am not going".

contents

11.0 Adverbs and the PVS Superverb

This discussion is copied verbatim from Version 1.0

The particulate nature of the PVS verb raises a problem: which part of the verb does the adverb refer to? It can make a difference. The way PVS handles this problem is to say that an adverb can be included into the preverb. If the adverb is freely floating around the sentence, separate from the preverb, then it is always considered to properly refer to the *first* _modal_ helper in the preverb (if this happens to be te, then it is the same as having the adverb refer to the Verb itself). If the adverb is subsumed into the preverb, then it pertains the part of the superverb it immediately precedes, whether that part is a preverb modal helper (an adverb subsumed into the preverb may not pertain to a non-modal helper and therefore may not precede a non-modal helper), another adverb, or the Verb itself.

Example:
"The speech was so boring that I quickly wanted to leave."
Sentence:
"I quickly wanted to leave."
Translation:
Yeva atibeom vonig.

Example:
"The firefight was heating up, so I wanted to leave quickly."
Sentence:
"I wanted to leave quickly."
Translation:
Yeva vonig atibeom.

The rule is that adverbs may not pertain to non-modal helpers. There is an exception to this rule: the adverbs of time. The adverbs of time I coined in version 0.1 were:

pes - in a short time
ulat - a long time from now
deh - a short time ago
oteg - a long time ago

These were coined to add precision if necessary to PVS's three-tense inflectional system. For this proposal I have decided to propose to have them changed, adding the adverbial ending -ig. The reason for this is to make adverbs in the preverb stand out more, so as to avoid confusion. The new list:

pesig - in a short time
ulig - a long time from now
dehig - a short time ago
otig - a long time ago

Because these adverbs add information about the tense of the verb, they are able to apply to non-modal as well as modal helpers. An un-bound adverb of time applies to the first helper in the preverb that it can logically apply to, regardless what it is. A bound adverb of time applies to the helper it immediately precedes (and of course may not precede a helper that it could not logically apply to). Adverbs of time may not precede the Verb, as the Verb has no tense of its own. In the case of the present imperfect where the te is dropped, the te need not be stated explicitly, however, in order to use an adverb of time - the adverb is simply placed before the verb, and is _considered_ to precede the implicit te.

Example:
"A long time ago, back when I was a boy, I had never smoked a cigarette."
Sentence:
"(A long time ago) I had never smoked a cigarette."
Translation:
Otig, inxl 'a ta itanitom l vurkanser.
Note:
Otig is affecting the tense of the helper 'a. I couldn't resist coining the word "kanser" for cancer. I know it's inappropriate, and I'm sorry. However, I simply could not resist the derivation: cigarette = vurkanser = "cancer stick"

Example:
"I had smoked a cigarette a long time ago." (saying that at the time being talked about, she'd only ever smoked one cigarette in her life, and that was a long time ago)
Translation:
'A otig ta itanitom l vurkanser.

contents

12.0 PVS Verbal Adjectives with {ki}

The topic of verbal adjectives is something that was supposed to be in the 2.0 proposal but when I forget. Basically, "native Tokcir" supplies one way to derive an adjective from a verb - you can add the ending {-i}, which derives an adjective from any part of speech. So for example, applying it to the verb {tok} you get {toki}, which can mean "spoken" ({q vaib toki}, "the spoken word") or "speaking" ({l loar toki}, "a talking bear"). Very often context disambiguates the possible meanings, but I found in my fairly extensive efforts at composition that relying on context for the meaning you want can be very annoying and sometimes I wanted the ability to pass on more verbal information in the adjective. So, since I wanted it and this _is_ an invented language :P, I built a module for PVS that adds this optional ability.

The way it works is by taking the ability of {-i} and isolating it in a single word, {ki}. {Ki} may only be used on verbs, and it makes and verb that follows it adjectival. Other than that, it works exactly like {-i}. So our examples above could be re-written:

{q vaib ki tok} - "the spoken word"
{l loar ki tok} - "a talking bear"

{Ki}, as you can see, works like a relative conjunction, or like the French "qui" (in fact, it was chosen to resemble the Tokcir word {ke}, which in turn seems to have been chosen to resemble the French "que", as I _know_ from our conversations on the list that Jack was influenced by French in some of his coinings for the Ogden set words and other early vocab). So if you read {q vaib ki tok} literally as "the word who talk" you will not be far off. {Ki} acts as the subject of the verb and relates it to the noun it modifies, in this case {vaib}.

It is decreed to be grammatical to omit subject/verb agreement when using {ki}, as the "subject" is forced by {ki}. So you say {q vaib ki tok}, not {q vaib ki toke}. It is further decreed that it shall be considered ungrammatical to use a form like {q vaib ki toke}.

The useful thing about {ki} is that you can use _any_ PVS morpheme between it and the verb. This allows you to get more precise verbal information if you want. So, for example:

{q vaib ki se zol tok} = "The word which must be spoken"

MODIFICATION:

That above is the most basic form of the PVS verbal adjective. Before we get on to the condensed forms you may have seen in some of my work - {kite} and {kise} - I want to propose a modification to the way {ki} works. Rather than just being {-i} moved into a free-standing word, I want {ki} to specifically mark the active voice, and specifically be in the generic tense. So, {l loar ki tok} is "a talking bear", in the sense of a bear with the ability to talk, not one talking right now necessarily. And {q vaib ki tok} is nonsense - it would mean "a word that has the ability to speak" or something like that. The means that {ki} alone will take over most places that have previously used {kite}.

{Kite} still exists, but now has the sense of "right now". So if I say {Di retoita q loar kite tok}, "ask the talking bear", I mean that the bear is talking right now. If I used {ki}, the bear might or might not be talking right now. You could just as easily say {q loar ki te tok} - {kite} is just an idiosyncratic irregular contraction. It is not any longer parallel with {kise} and {kige} which now have their own very specific functions which are, in fact, parallel with {ki} alone, not {kite}.

If you want to put something in the passive voice but remain in the generic, timeless tense, you can use the condensed form {kise}. So, to say "the spoken word" i would say {q vaib kise tok}. If I wanted to say "the word being spoken _now_", it would be {q vaib ki se te tok}.

If you want to put something in the middle voice but remain in the generic tense, you would use {kige}.

Anyway, I hope that's fairly clear, and I hoope it improved this part of PVS. I have never felt completely comfortable with this verbal adjective system, and yet I have never felt comfortable without it, before I came up with it I felt something severely lacking in the language in this area, and I hope with this small modification, {ki} and its pendants becomes more comfortbale and logical to use.

contents

13.0 The Independent Meanings of the PVS Helpers

The PVS helpers have meanings even when not directly connected to a regular verb. The non-modal helpers se and 'e _are_ semi-regular verbs, and the modals are able to have an independent existence in a proverbial function.

13.1 Modals As Proverbs

Any modal or PVS preverb (which is focused on a modal, the last helper in the preverb) may function as a proverb, that is, just as a pronoun stands in the place of some understood noun, a proverb stands in the place of some understood verb. There are two common ways in which PVS modals are used without a Verb. One is in answering a question (where the verb is understood from the question). The other is in "verbing" a noun whose applicable verb is easily understood to be present. When a verb is omitted, the tokor potentially has two options; he may take the inflection from the omitted verb and place it on the last helper in the preverb (usually setting it apart with a '), or else drop it and depend on context for the full meaning. In the simplest case you can use simply {Te} ("Do") for "yes" and {No te} ("don't do") for "no".

Here is an example of using a proverb to answer a question. Note, of course, that one could simply answer "yes" or "no" in a lot these cases, or repeat the entire verb; the proverbial option is a middle path.

Example:
"Do you play baseball?"
"I do, but not often."
Translation:
{Tean zueram } baseball?
{Teanom}, but not often.
Note:
The verb {zuer} is omitted in the answer.

Another potentially bigger use of the proverb is for "verbing" nouns. Note that this is a distinctly informal form; in proper NGL, you should really seek to always include the appropriate verb. Here are some examples.

Example:
"Sarah was playing baseball."
Translation:
Sarah {ta'em} baseball.
Note:
The verb :play: in this case is simply understood and omitted, its inflection moved to ta.

Example:
"Wendy speaks Tokcir, but Rudy doesn't."
Translation:
Wendy gulem Tokcir, newiy Rudy no gulem.
Note:
The first clause is literally "Wendy can NGL." In this idiom, the omitted verb is understood to be "tok," "read and write." In the second verb, not only is the verb "tok" omitted, but the noun NGL (which in the first clause is verbed), is also understood and can be omitted.

Example:
"You won't have to go on the ride, but you should."
Translation:
No zolome :ride:am, newiy resome'am.
Note:
:Ride: marked with the explicit punctual is being used as an idiom for "go for a ride." In the second clause the :ride: is omitted as understood, but the -me ending is still needed for agreement in order to get the best sound.

contents

13.2 {'E} As an Independent Verb "To Have"

The independent meaning of 'e is "have"; as the basis form for every tense/aspect more complext than the imperfect, its meaning of "have" has an impact on the interpretation of a great many PVS tenses regardless of whether it is actually employed. Its practical independent use is limited; for example, "have" in the sense of "I have the remote control" would actually use "das," "hold," rather than 'e.

contents

13.3 {Ge} as the Idiom for "There Is"

{Ge} most literally means something like "to exist". Thus, it makes a perfect idiom for "there is". At this point it might be useful to examine how the non-modal helpers conjugate independently, using {ge} as the example. At this point this part of the grammar is fuzzy and may in future be clarified.

Conjugation of Independent {Ge} Without a Modal (There Is)

ge - present (there is)
ta ge - past (there was)
to ge - future (there will be)

'e ga - perfect (there has been)
'a ga - pluperfect (there had been)
'o ga - future perfect (there will have been)

'e go - present predictive (there is going to be)
'a go - past predictive (there was going to be)
'o go - future predictive (there will be going to be)

Conjugation of Independent {Ge} With Modal {Zol} (There Must Be)

zol(e) ge - present imperfect
zola ge - past imperfect
zolo ge - future imperfect

zol(e) ga - present perfect
zola ga - pluperfect
zolo ga - future perfect

zol(e) go - present predictive
zola go - past predictive
zolo go - future predictive

Example:
"Look, there's a moose!"
Tranlation:
Te 'ayhoitam, ge :moose:!

contents

13.4 {Se} As an Independent Verb "To Be"

{Se}, unlike {je}, means explicitly "be", and acts as an "equals sign", connecting two nominative nouns. It is useful any time you need to disambiguate {je}'s "be" and "have"meanings, or any time you want to establish the equality of two items without establishing primacy in the way that {je}'s nominative/accusative set up does. It can also link a noun to an adjective, although this is ordinarily more the role of {je}.

The verb se is irregular in terms of aspect. Instead of the unmarked form being inherently punctual, the unmarked form of se is inherently continuous. Se forms complex tenses in exactly the same way as 'e, and may also use the te paradigm of completely regular verbs (i.e., the past imperfect can be "sa" or "ta se," and the pluferfect can be "'a sa" or "'a ta se"). The completely regular form marks the inherently punctual form of the verb.

Example:
"Who is the Prime Minister of Canada?"
"The PM is Jean Chrtien."
Translation:
Ku Tiugabrisor Oltoni Kanadai sem mane?
Ku T.O. sem Jean Chrtien.

Example:
"What did Brian Mulroney do?"
"Brian Mulroney was the Prime Minister of Canada."
Translation:
Brian Mulroney ta fem dine?
Brian Mulroney saem q Tiugabrisor Oltoni Kanadai.

Example:
"Helen is loud and obnoxious."
Translation:
Helen {sem} loud and obnoxious.
Note:
This is making a statement about Helen's basic character as perceived by the tokor.

Example:
"Helen is being loud and obnoxious."
Translation:
Helen {te sem} loud and obnoxious.
Note:
This is making a statement about Helen's behaviour at the time in question, and makes no comment on her general disposition.

contents

14.0 Tenses for Time Travel

This is copied verbatim from Version 1.0

In science fiction stories, characters like to complain in passing that natuaral languages don't handle the temporal dislocation of time travel well. I have decided to try and achieve at least a partial address of the problem. It is not an entirely impractical exercise - it may be useful for some kinds of temporal displacement that occur in the real world as a result of dementia or coma.

As I see it, one of the big problems of tenses in time travel is how to express the timeline as you have experienced as opposed to the real timeline of the universe. For example, say I'm an unethical time traveler from 1998 talking to a guy in 1950 about an event in 1975. Do I talk about what happened (looking at time from the perspective of my life), or do I talk about what _will_ happen (looking at time from the perspective of objective reality)? The second is more correct, but the latter is more intuitively satisfying; it can be tough carrying on a narrative using tenses that are ass-backwards from the way you actually experienced the events.

To resolve the quandary a little, I hereby decree that a regular PVS preverb always positions the actions of the verb in _real time_ in relation to the tokor's current temporal location, unless there is a compelling contextual reason to drop this requirement. _Perceived_ temporal relation is marked with the suffix -za on the initial helper of the preverb (being suffixed after any aspect marker). So, if I am from 2002, in 1950, and talking about the Kennedy asassination, I can say:

Ku Inrg so te ka'nsasexem. ("The President will be murdered" - real time")
Ku Inrg saza te ka'nsasexem ("The President was murdered" - tokor's life perspective)
(See section 6.4 for a discussion as to why murder is marked with -ex in the passive voice.)

You may also combine the two by using two preverbs with the verb. The second preverb is marked by prefixing et`- to its first helper. So you can also have:

Ku Inrg so te etsza te ka'nsasexem.

Rather like the fact that a preverb unmarked for aspect is inherently (but not entirely) punctual, a preverb unmarked for perceptuality is inherently, but not entirely, concrete. In normal situations, the relationship of events that the tokor perceives to be real coincides with that which he experiences. So in the vast majority of circumstances, the concrete form is _simulataneously_ the perceptual form. In time-travel scenarios, sometimes it might be nice to be able to mark a preverb _explicitly_ as concrete, in order to establish by contrast that the perceived and real timelines differ. The explicit concreteness marker is -wa, and it attaches to the preverb in the same manner as -za. So you can have, using the example above:

Ku Inrg sowa te ka'nsasexem. ("The President was murdered." - explicit real time perspective)

The most explicit form available is:

Ku Inrg sowa te etsza te ka'nsasexem.

contents

15.0 Pedagogy

This is copied verbatim froim Verison 1.0

In this section, I will outline a rough lesson plan for teaching PVS, as a part of an "NGL course," to beginners. I think that while it offers its sophisticated users a complete and powerful tool for expression, PVS may be learned in its rudiments with great ease, and command built up gradually over time. Further, I think that one could learn to use PVS, even have an excellent command of it, without even having anything other than an intuitive understanding of the principles behind it. What I attempting to put before you here is a basic course for interested people ordinary people without linguistic background.

Rough, step-wise chronology of an NGL course, focusing on the learning of the verb system:

1) Teach about the pronouns of NGL (for Anglophones, at least, the paucal could be introduced in exercises later in the course, so as not to get into too much unfamiliar territiory all at once). Explain about inflection for person and number, and how it lets you leave off the pronoun subject if you want. Mark some verb examples with te in order to expose the students to this, but don't try and explain it yet unless someone asks about it.

2) Explain about marking the verb with te, show the present/past/future forms, and explain that you can drop initial present-tense te. Get the students doing some exercises. With just this amount of command, the students have an unsophisticated, but useful and understandable, grasp of the PVS system.

3) Introduce negation with no, and the p no v idiom for making a question. Discuss the other ways of making a question as well, as part of the larger NGL course of which this outline is only part. Work some commands into examples.

4) In PVS, the stative/participative distinction is important. Anglophones oughtn't to have too much trouble with it, but many allophones will need extra work on this, and inappropriate use of the stative and inappropriate failure to use the stative will likely prove to be common in L2 speakers. So early on, the stative marker -an should be introduced and explained, and the stative aspect should appear in numerous examples throughout the course, with the aim of helping students to develope an intuitive feel for it. The explicit participative marker -me should appear in examples later on in the course, when people are more comfortable with stative marking. Look for a "teachable moment."

5) Introduce one of the regular modals (definitely not {xi}, choose an easy one like gul). Show how it inflects, how it modifies the meaning of the verb, and how it takes the place of te in front of the verb. Now, periodically throughout the course, introduce the modals one or two at a time, and give copious examples of their usage. Work modals into examples of all verb structure types, after explaining them with {te}.

6) Introduce the perfect tenses with {'e ta}. These should be the easiest displaced tenses to grasp. When the students have had a chance to get a good grasp of these (give it at least a class), start explaining the predictive tenses with {'e to}, taking care to give more time individually to these difficult tenses than you gave to the perfect. Although it is not entirely accurate, it is probably sufficient if the class can grasp these as meaning "was going to," "is going to," and "will be going to." Finally, explain why the {'e te} forms don't mean anything different than the {te} forms, and say that this is important. Don't go into any great detail at this point, unless there is a demand that you do so.

7) By this time, {'e} and {se} should be appearing in examples and exercises with their independent meaning. Here discuss their conjugational eccentricity. Start showing modals being used a proverbs.

8) Introduce the use of some double modal combinations. This is the place to introduce the concept that it is the sequence of tenses of the markers, and the meaning this sequence derives from its base 'e te form, rather than the actual identity of the helpers, that determines tense-aspect.

9) Introduce the passive voice and the ablative of agent. Towards the end of this lesson, use the passive with some double modal combinations, and show how with three helpers you arrange to get the non-displaced and singly displaced tenses the students are used to.

10) Advanced topics. This could be part of the higher-level NGL course. The general purpose of this section is to get students used to the finer nuances of the system, such as appropriate use of the subjunctive mood, the continuous aspect and explicit punctual marking, using adverbs of time to refine the meaning of the preverb, etc. Much of this will have been touched upon earlier - here is where you fill in the gaps and work on sophistication. Doubly displaced tenses and the interaction of the passive and active voices of PVS with the markers -ex and -it should be discussed. There should be an even stronger emphasis in this section than before on practical experience in reading, writing, speaking and comprehension. For the student's amusement, oddities like perceptual/concrete marking may be covered.

contents

16.0 Conclusion

This essay represents a solid proposal for a verb system, which could be adopted in whole or in parts... some parts of it are rather concrete, while other parts, such as the new aspect markers and the middle voice, while having had some use, are still experimental. Due to the modular nature of this proposal, however, were any of it to be accepted, I don't mind dealing with it in a piecemeal fashion and making compromises and modifications to suit others...

Naesverig,

Stephen DeGrace
kise behestrìt 2002 kanasu 15.e

contents

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1