Yivrian syntax - Revision history

Jaspax: Updated from markdown source

2026-02-08T21:56:17Z

Updated from markdown source

Jaspax: Updated from markdown source

2026-02-08T01:25:04Z

Updated from markdown source

Jaspax: Updated from markdown source

2026-02-07T20:53:03Z

Updated from markdown source

New page

[[Category:Yivrian]] [[Category:Languages]] [[Category:Yivrian language]]


= Semantics of derived stems =

The morphological description of verb stem formation (see [[Yivrian verbs]]) presented the derived stems and their formation rules without much discussion of their semantics. This section discusses the meaning and use of each derived stem in more detail.


== The base form ==

The base form (''-ya'') is the default and most common verb form, and serves as the dictionary citation form. It is also the form whose semantics are most variable, since the lexical class (stative, durative active, or punctual active) and the specific thematic roles of the verb are properties of the base form.

For stative and durative active verbs, the progressive temporal aspect is the unmarked form and is used for ordinary predication. The simple temporal aspect has an inchoative reading, indicating the onset of the action or the entry into a state. For example, ''senyaa'' (the progressive of ''senya'' “to stand”) is the ordinary way to say “is standing,” while the simple form ''senya'' means “begins to stand” or “stands up.” For punctual active verbs, the simple temporal aspect is the unmarked form.


== The causative ==

A verb in the causative (''-nya'' for active stems, ''-hya'' for stative stems) indicates that the subject causes someone or something else to perform the action or enter the state described by the base verb. The resulting verb is always a punctual active verb, regardless of the class of the base verb. Thus, whereas ''peratya'' “to speak” is a durative active verb, ''peranya'' “to cause to speak” is punctual. The effect of the causative on valency and argument structure is discussed further in the section on valency below.


== The habitual ==

The habitual (''-vva'') indicates a recurring, customary, or generalized action. A habitual verb does not describe what is happening at a specific moment, but rather what tends to happen or is generally the case. The habitual is only formed from active verb stems, and the resulting verb is always durative, regardless of whether the base form is punctual or durative.

For example, ''Kiirith fa senyaa'' means “Kiirith is standing here (right now),” while ''Kiirith fa senavvaa'' means “Kiirith stands here (every Tuesday / after work / as a rule).” The habitual does not preclude the possibility that the action is also happening right now, but it does not assert it.

Because habitual verbs are always durative, they may take any of the durative temporal aspects (simple, progressive, cessative, prospective).


== The copular ==

The copular (''-(i)nya'') derives stative verbs from stems whose base form is active. The most common use of the copular is to form attributive sentences of the form “X has property Y,” where X is the subject and Y is the noun root put into the copular form. For example, the most natural way to say “Kiirith is cunning” is ''Kiirith rokiinyaa'', where ''rokiinya'' is the copular form derived from ''rok'' “falcon,” the root of the adjective ''rokil'' “cunning, treacherous.” This sentence can be paraphrased by ''Kiirith rokil eyi'', although this construction is considered marked and emphasizes the attribute.

A rarer use of the copular is to form equative sentences (“X is a Y”), most often when Y is a generic noun, as in ''Kiirith yiisainyaa'' “Kiirith is a man.”

Because copular verbs are stative, they take the stative temporal aspects (simple, progressive, cessative, prospective), and the progressive is the unmarked form. As with other stative verbs, the simple form has an inchoative reading: ''Kiirith rokiinya'' would mean “Kiirith becomes cunning.”

It is because of this analysis that the “true” stative verbs like ''haraya'' “to be beautiful” are considered by native grammarians to be copular verbs with the ''-ya'' ending. Whether one regards these as base forms or as copulars realized with the base ending is a matter of analysis rather than fact.


== The copular causative ==

The copular causative (''-hya'' applied to an active stem via the copular) is always transitive and is the causative equivalent of the copular. Its semantics are fairly straightforward: ''Al rokahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith cunning,” and ''Al harahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith beautiful.” Like other causative verbs, verbs in the copular causative are punctual active verbs.


= Valency and Thematic Roles =

This section examines the syntax and semantics of verb valency and the assignment of semantic roles to verb arguments in Yivrian.

Consider a simple intransitive sentence and a simple transitive sentence. In Yivrian these have the form:

* X verb
* X verb Y

That is, the default word order is SV for intransitive verbs and SVO for transitive verbs, including transitive stative verbs (where the object is in the dative case).

Being a nominative-accusative language, X is termed the “subject” in both cases, and in the transitive case X always has the higher (more agent-like) semantic role in an active sentence. Yivrian, like English, allows wide variation in the exact roles of the subject and object. For example, ''lupya'' “to fight” specifies an Agent subject and a Participant object, while ''otameithya'' “to amaze” has a Source subject and Theme object.

The exception to this is the transitive stative verbs (typically those expressing emotions or attitudes), which always designate their subject as the experiencer and their object (in the dative case) as the source. Thus, in ''Kiirith thoyyaa walus'', Kiirith experiences the fear while the wolf (''wel'', here in the dative ''walus'') is the source of the fear.

There are no true ditransitive root verbs in Yivrian – no verb requires more than two arguments, and verbs that accept more than two arguments always put one of them into a marked, oblique case rather than the unmarked nominative. Within this framework, there are two important operations on Yivrian verbs that change their valency.


== Causatives ==

A verb in the causative derived stem increases its valency by one, introducing the causative agent as another argument. Here is a simplified schema of the semantics:

* Z cause(X verb)
* Z cause(X verb Y)

English causatives use a separate verb of causation: “I make John stand; John makes Joe kiss Mary.” The Yivrian morphological causatives work differently. There is no separate verb of causation, but rather a single causative verb which indicates both the causation and the event caused. A simple intransitive verb has its number of arguments increased from one to two:

* Base: ''Kiirith senyaa'' “Kiirith is standing.”
* Causative: ''Al senanyaa Kiirith'' “I am making Kiirith stand.”

A transitive verb in the causative likewise becomes ditransitive. The argument that would be the object of the base verb is preceded by ''eth''. There are multiple possible syntactic analyses of ''eth'', but the most straightforward one is to consider it a causative preposition that marks the second object of a ditransitive causative verb. Additional arguments in oblique cases are not affected. A simple example:

* Base: ''Kiirith keihyaa gev'' “Kiirith is holding the book.”
* Causative: ''Al keihanyaa Kiirith eth gev'' “I am making Kiirith hold the book.”


== Passives ==

A verb in the passive voice reverses the arrangement of its core arguments. In a transitive active sentence, the object is promoted to the subject (in the nominative case), and the former subject, if it appears, is demoted to the ablative case. The default word order for passive sentences is VS, with the verb preceding its arguments. As with causatives, only the core arguments are affected by passivization, and oblique arguments are unaffected. For example:

* Active: ''Kiirith keihyaa gev'' “Kiirith is holding the book.”
* Passive: ''Keihyoa gev Kiirithon'' “The book is being held by Kiirith.”

The former subject (the agent) may be omitted, as is common when the agent is unknown or unimportant:

* ''Keihyoa gev'' “The book is being held.”

The passive morphology is also used with intransitive verbs, following the same VS word order. The passive is used in this case to emphasize the verb and de-emphasize or eliminate the subject. For example:

* Active: ''Kiirith harayaa'' “Kiirith is beautiful.”
* Passive: ''Harayoa Kiirith'' “Beautiful is Kiirith.”


=== Stative passives ===

The passive of transitive stative verbs has a distinctive syntax. Unlike active passives, the dative-case object of a stative verb is ''not'' promoted to the nominative when the verb is passivized. Instead, the object remains in the dative, while the former subject is demoted to the ablative as usual. The result is a construction with a dative argument and an ablative argument, but no nominative argument at all:

* Active: ''Kiirith thoyyaa walus'' “Kiirith fears wolves.”
* Passive: ''Thoyyoa walus Kiirithon'' “Wolves are feared by Kiirith.”

Here, ''walus'' (the dative of ''wel'' “wolf”) remains in the dative, and ''Kiirithon'' (the ablative of ''Kiirith'') marks the experiencer. As with active passives, the ablative agent may be omitted:

* ''Thoyyoa walus'' “Wolves are feared.”


= Complementizers =

Complement clauses in Yivrian are usually introduced by the complementizers ''em'', ''ef'', or occasionally ''eth''. All of these have essentially the same syntax, although their semantics vary and they are each constrained according to the sorts of verbs they complement.

''Em'' is called the ''volitive complementizer'' because it follows verbs like ''manya'' “to want” or ''nartya'' “to expect” and introduces the clause of what is desired or anticipated. ''Ef'' is the ''verbal complementizer'' because it follows verbs like ''peyya'' “to say” or ''pauratya'' “to send a message” and introduces a clause indicating what is said or communicated. There is some overlap between these two – for example, ''almoya'' “to think” may occur with either ''em'' or ''ef'' with little change in meaning.

The most straightforward use of the complementizers is after an appropriate verb with no other direct object. The clause following the complementizer is not marked in any particular way:

* ''Al manyala em Kiirith fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted that Kiirith goes”)
* ''Al peyyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I said, ‘Kiirith goes.’”

What follows ''ef'' is interpreted as a direct quote, and so retains the tense and temporal aspect that it had at the time of the utterance. Yivrian does not have anything like indirect discourse for reported speech, as English does in sentences like “I said that Kiirith came.” Likewise, the tense and temporal aspect of the clause following ''em'' is interpreted relative to the main verb – in the first example above, sometime in the past I wanted Kiirith to go right then.

The subject of the complement clause can also be moved to the main clause as the object. This is more common with ''em'':

* ''Al manyal Kiirith em fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted Kiirith that he goes”)

When this occurs with ''ef'', the interpretation is slightly different. Normally, the object of a verb of speaking is the person addressed, so the quote following ''ef'' is what was said to that person. For example:

* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef ol fayya'' “I told Kiirith that he was going” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘You go.’”)
* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef tofayya'' “I told Kiirith to go” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘Go!’”)
* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef fayya'' “I told Kiirith, ‘He(?) goes.’”

This last example is the most difficult, because it is superficially identical to the example given previously with ''em''. The difference arises because Kiirith is the person addressed and the clause following ''ef'' is what was said to him. Under these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Kiirith is the subject of the complement clause (even though that interpretation is required in the equivalent ''em'' construction), so the subject must be some unnamed third party that is topical enough that it needs no overt pronoun.

Alongside these common constructions is a less common but equivalent construction with ''eth''. As mentioned above, the most common use of ''eth'' is to indicate the object of a transitive verb in the causative. However, ''eth'' is also used in a less common periphrastic causative construction. This is usually with the verb ''nayya'' “to make,” but it may be used with other verbs such as ''akanya'' “to order.” Its syntax is essentially the same as that for ''em'':

* ''Al nayyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made that Kiirith goes”; equivalent to ''Al fanyal Kiirith'')
* ''Al nayyal Kiirith eth fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made Kiirith that he goes”)

With a verb like ''akanya'' “to order,” either ''ef'' or ''eth'' may be used, with a subtle difference in meaning:

* ''Al akanyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go”
* ''Al akanyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go (and he did)”

In the first example, the verbal complementizer ''ef'' merely indicates the contents of the command. In the second, the causative complementizer ''eth'' indicates that the command was actually carried out. This can also be used to form indirect but forceful commands with ''peyya'':

* ''Al peyya ol eth fayyan'' “I say that you will go (and you will).”

Such commands are common in official proclamations where both tact and definitiveness are needed.


= Pro-verbs ''eya'' and ''atya'' =

The verbs ''eya'' and ''atya'' are termed ''pro-verbs'' because they have a function analogous to the function of pronouns. When a lexical verb might be repeated several times in the same context, some occurrences of that verb may be replaced by one of the pro-verbs, to reduce redundancy and hasten speech. As with pronouns, there are general principles which govern when these verbs may be used.

* The first instance of any verb in a given context must occur in full. You cannot use ''eya'' or ''atya'' as the first verb in any context, except for when ''eya'' is functioning as the existential or equative verb – in that case ''eya'' is a full, lexical verb and not a pro-verb. There are no exceptions for ''atya''; when a generic verb like “do” is required as the first verb in a context, the full verb ''nayya'' is used instead.
* Verbs are not generally topicalized; as a corollary any pro-verb is assumed to refer to the most recent lexical verb. (This contrasts with pronouns, which may have topicalized antecedents other than the most recent noun phrase.)
* As an exception to the previous rule, verbs in subordinate clauses are not generally pro-verbalized, so a pro-verb may have an antecedent in a preceding main clause even if a full verb in a subordinate clause has intervened.

Pro-verbs agree with their antecedents in the distinction between stative and active verbs. ''Eya'' is the stative pro-verb, and may only be used to refer to another stative verb. Likewise, ''atya'' is the active pro-verb and only refers to active verbs. Neither of these verbs is specified for punctual/durative characteristics, but they adopt the temporal aspect system appropriate to their antecedent. (Note that ''atya'' in its base form is morphologically a punctual verb, but as a pro-verb it freely takes the temporal aspects of a durative antecedent.) The following sentences illustrate this:

* ''Kiirith harayaa. Datho keyi?''
* Kiirith is beautiful. Is Datho?

Here, ''eya'' must be used as the pro-verb in the second sentence, to agree with the stative verb ''haraya'' in the first sentence. ''Eya'' is in the progressive, again agreeing with the temporal aspect of ''haraya'', and it must be intransitive. ''Keyi Datho?'', with ''Datho'' in the object position, would be ungrammatical. (Note, however, that the pro-verb could be passivized to the grammatical ''Keyo Datho?''. See the preceding explanation of passives and intransitive verbs for why.)

* ''Kiirith thoyyaa walus. Datho keyi?''
* Kiirith fears wolves. Does Datho [fear them]?

Once again, ''eya'' is used to agree with the stative verb ''thoyya''. Here, however, ''eya'' is transitive and takes an object, agreeing with ''thoyya'' in this feature.

* ''Kiirith silmyaa. Datho katyi?''
* Kiirith is sleeping. Is Datho?

Here, the verb ''atya'' is used to agree with the active verb ''silmya''. Once again, ''atya'' must be intransitive in this sentence, and takes the progressive temporal aspect along with ''silmya''.

* ''Kiirith keyya eddaila. Datho katya el?''
* Kiirith hears his father. Does Datho [hear] him?

Again, the active pro-verb ''atya'' is required, and it is transitive and occurs in the simple temporal aspect, agreeing with ''keyya''.

These sentences offer simple illustrations of the principles for using pro-verbs in Yivrian. Things become more complicated when active and stative verbs are mixed in a single context. Speakers are generally uncomfortable mixing ''eya'' and ''atya'' in a single sentence, even when no ambiguity results. For example, the second sentence in the following example is judged ungrammatical by most speakers:

* ''Kiirith silmyaa ta daroyaa. *Ta Datho atyi ta eyi.''
* Kiirith sleeps and is happy. Datho also does [so] and is [so].

Because ''silmya'' is an active verb and ''daroya'' is a stative verb, there is no ambiguity about the fact that ''atya'' must have ''silmya'' as its antecedent and ''eya'' must have ''daroya''. Nonetheless, this type of sentence does not occur in Yivrian and is not accepted by most speakers. This is probably an extension of the rule that pro-verbs have the most recent lexical verb as their antecedent. Following that rule, the antecedent of ''atya'' must be ''daroya'', which is an illicit use of the active pro-verb with a stative referent.

As mentioned above, however, verbs in subordinate clauses are generally invisible to pro-verbalization, allowing for the following:

* ''Kiirith daroyaa lai silmyaam. Ta Datho eyi.''
* Kiirith is happy because he has slept. Datho also is.

Here, ''eya'' is allowed to refer to ''daroya'' because the intervening active verb is inside a subordinate clause. However, the following is also allowed:

* ''Kiirith daroyaa lai silmyaam. Ta Datho tyaas.''
* Kiirith is happy because he has slept. Datho also has.

In this case the active pro-verb ''atya'' occurs, which can only refer to the preceding active verb ''silmya''. This implies that sleeping is more pertinent than the resulting happiness, and this sentence would probably occur with an intonation pattern marking ''silmya'' as more topical than ''daroya''.

A final extension of pro-verbalization is brachylogy, whereby verbs may be omitted altogether. This is a more common feature in speech than in literature, although it is found in all genres to some extent. Usually a pro-verb will occur at least once before a verb is omitted altogether, suggesting a rough hierarchy of full verb > pro-verb > omitted verb. A brief example:

* ''Kiirith peyyaa eddeila, ta Datho atyi endailei. Tei Malmei al.''
* Kiirith is talking to his mother, and Datho is [talking] to her brother. But Malmei [is talking] to me.

Brachylogy is only permitted when all of the attributes of the omitted verb are the same as those of the preceding verbs or pro-verbs. If I wished to make the last sentence “But Malmei isn’t talking to anyone,” I would have to say ''Tei Malmei tyata kavel'', using a negative progressive form of ''atya''.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Yivrian]] [[Category:Languages]] [[Category:Yivrian language]]
 <span id="semantics-of-derived-stems"></span>
@@ Line 48: / Line 65: @@
 This section examines the syntax and semantics of verb valency and the assignment of semantic roles to verb arguments in Yivrian.
-Consider a simple intransitive sentence and a simple transitive sentence. In Yivrian these have the form:
+As described above, the default word order is SV for intransitive verbs and SVO for transitive verbs. Being a nominative-accusative language, the subject always has the higher (more agent-like) semantic role in an active sentence. Yivrian, like English, allows wide variation in the exact roles of the subject and object. For example, ''lupya'' “to fight” specifies an Agent subject and a Participant object, while ''otameithya'' “to amaze” has a Source subject and Theme object.
 The exception to this is the transitive stative verbs (typically those expressing emotions or attitudes), which always designate their subject as the experiencer and their object (in the dative case) as the source. Thus, in ''Kiirith thoyyaa walus'', Kiirith experiences the fear while the wolf (''wel'', here in the dative ''walus'') is the source of the fear.

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 == The copular causative ==
-The copular causative (''-hya'' applied to an active stem via the copular) is always transitive and is the causative equivalent of the copular. Its semantics are fairly straightforward: ''Al rokahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith cunning,” and ''Al harahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith beautiful.” Like other causative verbs, verbs in the copular causative are punctual active verbs.
+The copular causative (''-hya'' applied to an active stem via the copular) is always transitive and is the causative equivalent of the copular. Its semantics are fairly straightforward: ''Ao rokahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith cunning,” and ''Ao harahya Kiirith'' means “I make Kiirith beautiful.” Like other causative verbs, verbs in the copular causative are punctual active verbs.
 <span id="valency-and-thematic-roles"></span>
@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 * Base: ''Kiirith senyaa'' “Kiirith is standing.”
-* Causative: ''Al senanyaa Kiirith'' “I am making Kiirith stand.”
+* Causative: ''Ao senanyaa Kiirith'' “I am making Kiirith stand.”
 A transitive verb in the causative likewise becomes ditransitive. The argument that would be the object of the base verb is preceded by ''eth''. There are multiple possible syntactic analyses of ''eth'', but the most straightforward one is to consider it a causative preposition that marks the second object of a ditransitive causative verb. Additional arguments in oblique cases are not affected. A simple example:
 * Base: ''Kiirith keihyaa gev'' “Kiirith is holding the book.”
-* Causative: ''Al keihanyaa Kiirith eth gev'' “I am making Kiirith hold the book.”
+* Causative: ''Ao keihanyaa Kiirith eth gev'' “I am making Kiirith hold the book.”
 <span id="passives"></span>
@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 The most straightforward use of the complementizers is after an appropriate verb with no other direct object. The clause following the complementizer is not marked in any particular way:
-* ''Al manyala em Kiirith fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted that Kiirith goes”)
+* ''Ao manyala em Kiirith fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted that Kiirith goes”)
-* ''Al peyyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I said, ‘Kiirith goes.’”
+* ''Ao peyyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I said, ‘Kiirith goes.’”
 What follows ''ef'' is interpreted as a direct quote, and so retains the tense and temporal aspect that it had at the time of the utterance. Yivrian does not have anything like indirect discourse for reported speech, as English does in sentences like “I said that Kiirith came.” Likewise, the tense and temporal aspect of the clause following ''em'' is interpreted relative to the main verb – in the first example above, sometime in the past I wanted Kiirith to go right then.
@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 The subject of the complement clause can also be moved to the main clause as the object. This is more common with ''em'':
-* ''Al manyal Kiirith em fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted Kiirith that he goes”)
+* ''Ao manyal Kiirith em fayya'' “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted Kiirith that he goes”)
 When this occurs with ''ef'', the interpretation is slightly different. Normally, the object of a verb of speaking is the person addressed, so the quote following ''ef'' is what was said to that person. For example:
-* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef ol fayya'' “I told Kiirith that he was going” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘You go.’”)
+* ''Ao peyyal Kiirith ef tos fayya'' “I told Kiirith that he was going” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘You go.’”)
-* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef tofayya'' “I told Kiirith to go” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘Go!’”)
+* ''Ao peyyal Kiirith ef tofayya'' “I told Kiirith to go” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘Go!’”)
-* ''Al peyyal Kiirith ef fayya'' “I told Kiirith, ‘He(?) goes.’”
+* ''Ao peyyal Kiirith ef fayya'' “I told Kiirith, ‘He(?) goes.’”
 This last example is the most difficult, because it is superficially identical to the example given previously with ''em''. The difference arises because Kiirith is the person addressed and the clause following ''ef'' is what was said to him. Under these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Kiirith is the subject of the complement clause (even though that interpretation is required in the equivalent ''em'' construction), so the subject must be some unnamed third party that is topical enough that it needs no overt pronoun.
@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 Alongside these common constructions is a less common but equivalent construction with ''eth''. As mentioned above, the most common use of ''eth'' is to indicate the object of a transitive verb in the causative. However, ''eth'' is also used in a less common periphrastic causative construction. This is usually with the verb ''nayya'' “to make,” but it may be used with other verbs such as ''akanya'' “to order.” Its syntax is essentially the same as that for ''em'':
-* ''Al nayyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made that Kiirith goes”; equivalent to ''Al fanyal Kiirith'')
+* ''Ao nayyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made that Kiirith goes”; equivalent to ''Ao fanyal Kiirith'')
-* ''Al nayyal Kiirith eth fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made Kiirith that he goes”)
+* ''Ao nayyal Kiirith eth fayya'' “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made Kiirith that he goes”)
 With a verb like ''akanya'' “to order,” either ''ef'' or ''eth'' may be used, with a subtle difference in meaning:
-* ''Al akanyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go”
+* ''Ao akanyal ef Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go”
-* ''Al akanyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go (and he did)”
+* ''Ao akanyal eth Kiirith fayya'' “I ordered that Kiirith go (and he did)”
 In the first example, the verbal complementizer ''ef'' merely indicates the contents of the command. In the second, the causative complementizer ''eth'' indicates that the command was actually carried out. This can also be used to form indirect but forceful commands with ''peyya'':
-* ''Al peyya ol eth fayyan'' “I say that you will go (and you will).”
+* ''Ao peyya tos eth fayyan'' “I say that you will go (and you will).”
 Such commands are common in official proclamations where both tact and definitiveness are needed.
@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
 A final extension of pro-verbalization is brachylogy, whereby verbs may be omitted altogether. This is a more common feature in speech than in literature, although it is found in all genres to some extent. Usually a pro-verb will occur at least once before a verb is omitted altogether, suggesting a rough hierarchy of full verb &gt; pro-verb &gt; omitted verb. A brief example:
-* ''Kiirith peyyaa eddeila, ta Datho atyi endailei. Tei Malmei al.''
+* ''Kiirith peyyaa eddeila, ta Datho atyi endailei. Tei Malmei ao.''
 * Kiirith is talking to his mother, and Datho is [talking] to her brother. But Malmei [is talking] to me.
 Brachylogy is only permitted when all of the attributes of the omitted verb are the same as those of the preceding verbs or pro-verbs. If I wished to make the last sentence “But Malmei isn’t talking to anyone,” I would have to say ''Tei Malmei tyata kavel'', using a negative progressive form of ''atya''.