Aratasa

Word order

Sentence word order

The basic word order for an intransitive sentence is SV, and for a transitive sentence it is SVO. This applies equally to transitive stative verbs, whose objects are in the dative case. Passive sentences typically have VS order, with the verb preceding the promoted subject. Adjuncts – datives, ablatives, and prepositional phrases – can be placed freely with respect to the core arguments.

Noun phrase word order

Participles (which serve the function of adjectives in Yivrian; see Yivrian adjectives) must follow the noun that they modify. Complements to participles, such as dative and ablative arguments, typically follow the participle, but they can be placed at the beginning of the noun phrase when focused.

Prepositional phrases also follow their noun heads. The case of the object of a preposition depends on the function of the prepositional phrase: objects of adnominal prepositions (those which modify a head noun) are in the nominative case, while objects of adverbial prepositions (those which modify the verb or the sentence as a whole) are in the ablative case.

When a noun is modified by both a participle and a prepositional phrase, the participle comes first. Yivrian does not allow stacking multiple participles on the same noun without a conjunction – there is nothing equivalent to English “big green leafy tree.” Multiple participles or prepositional phrases modifying the same noun must be separated by conjunctions.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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: 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: Ao 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:

• Ao manyala em Kiirith fayya “I wanted Kiirith to go” (lit. “I wanted that 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.

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

• 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:

• Ao peyyal Kiirith ef tos fayya “I told Kiirith that he was going” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘You go.’”)
• Ao peyyal Kiirith ef tofayya “I told Kiirith to go” (lit. “I told Kiirith, ‘Go!’”)
• 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.

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:

• Ao nayyal eth Kiirith fayya “I made Kiirith go” (lit. “I made that Kiirith goes”; equivalent to Ao fanyal Kiirith)
• 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:

• Ao akanyal ef Kiirith fayya “I ordered that Kiirith go”
• 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:

• 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.

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 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.