This document describes the syntax of gjâ-zym-byn, and its
inflectional morphology, what there is of it (a handful of verb
endings). Another document describes
its derivational morphology.
Typologically, gjâ-zym-byn (gzb) primarily follows object-verb-subject
(OVS) word order, and has a mix of head-final and head-initial
aspects: adjectives/adverbs follow the words they modify, and main
verbs follow auxiliary verbs, but postpositional phrases precede the
words they modify. It is an agglutinative language, with the vast
majority of morphemes consisting of one syllable (though some
noun roots are two or even three syllables, and some bound morphemes
in postpositions and conjunctions are only one phoneme); it has an index
of synthesis of 1.718
and an index of agglutinativity of 1.0. gzb
could be tentatively described as a fluid-S active
language (as opposed to accusative
or ergative),
though this label doesn't fit perfectly: it marks agents, patients,
experiencers, and so forth for fairly specific semantic roles rather
than abstracting many semantic roles into generic subject and object
syntactic roles.
As
for conlang
typology, gzb could be described as a whimsical,
idiosyncratic engelang, or a
highly schematic, non-naturalistic artlang. On Ray
Brown's Gnoli
Maxwell Triangle, gzb would probably be a greenish cyan, on or
near the upper left edge of the triangle, a little nearer the artlang
vertice than the engelang vertice. According to the Wikipedia
typology of artlangs, gzb is a personal
language; Rick Harrison's term "heartlang" might apply
as well. The terms "hermetic language" or "langue
close", used by Javant Biarujia, Robert Dessaix and Paul
Burgess, seem less apt for gzb; at this point in its history, anyway,
most of the corpus of gzb (consisting of entries in my journal) is
private and secret, but the language itself isn't, and the public part
of the corpus (original and translated literature) is getting fairly
significant. Its lexicon is primarily a priori, with a
moderate fraction a posteriori (mostly names of animals and
plants, taken from scientific Latin); the grammar is entirely a
priori, not based on any specific language or language family
(though there are scads of unintentional similarities to various
natlangs).
Basic root words are by themselves nouns. You can add suffixes to
make verbs, modifiers (adjectives/adverbs), conjunctions and
postpositions from them. Grammatical particles include a core set of
spacetime postpositions; several kinds of conjunctions; general
modifiers (adverbs or adjectives, according to context); pronouns; and
suffixes. A nominalizer clitic can turn the modifier particles and
postpositions into nouns.
Case, number, gender, tense, and mood aren't shown by grammatical
inflection or affix, but by postpositions and modifier particles.
Most aspect distinctions are marked with adverbial particles or
postpositions, but some with suffixes.
Syntactic roles (case) are shown by postpositions and word order.
Common sentence types include topic-comment, topic-state,
patient-verb-agent, and topic-verb-experiencer. There are no abstract
subject/object markers, consequently no passive voice. However, I
still find it useful to use the terms "subject" and
"object" in describing gzb grammar, each being an umbrella
term for several case roles with common morphosyntactic properties
(though the sets overlap a bit); pronouns in the subject cases can be
incorporated into the verb, and nouns in the subject cases can,
if they come at the end of a clause, omit the case postposition.
Nouns and pronouns in the object cases don't exhibit those
behaviors.
The phrases of a sentence (verb, agent, patient, object-of-attention,
experiencer, topic, state, comment, temporal and locative complements,
etc.) can generally come in any order, but object-verb-subject is the
default unmarked word-order, with temporal and local complements most
commonly preceding the object.
gzb is a verb-drop language; in sentences where the action, process,
state etc. is clear enough from the postpositional phrases used,
the verb may be omitted (and in some types of sentences there is
in fact no room for a verb).
Verbs
There are four basic verb forms marked by suffixes applied to a noun
root (usually a root signifying an action, process, state, or quality).
Or if the time of a narrative has been specified by a postpositional
phrase like the above in one clause, one can generally infer that each
subsequent clause's action takes place a little after that of the
last, and again {mje} is not needed except to show relative
time, that this clause's action takes place before the time of the
surrounding narrative; in this use (its most common use in modern gzb)
it's more like a perfect aspect marker than a past tense marker.
(Early on, I used {mje} and {ler} a lot more often.)
A day of the week mentioned generally refers to the past instance of that
day, unless the next such instance is specified by {ler}:
Within the first two types, there are many specific postpositions and
a handful of subordinating conjunctions which can mark verb arguments.
Case-like postpositions can be derived from almost
any root word followed by one of the three basic spatial postpositions
(most commonly {i}, "at, in").
These are some of the case-like postpositions used most frequently.
tu-i
agent
ĥy-i
patient (object affected by action)
kâ-i
object of attention
ʝâr-i
experiencer
mĭ-i
topic
ŋĭn-i
comment
jâ-i
in such a state
jâ-o
becoming
jâ-ř
ceasing to be, changing from
In active sentences, {-zô} marks the verb and {tu-i} and
{ĥy-i} typically mark the agent and patient. These are not the
same as subject and object in English and other Indo-European
languages; there is no passive voice for verbs. {tu-i} always denotes
an animate being who is intentionally doing something. {ĥy-i}
always denotes something that is affected by the action of the verb.
Some of the uses of the passive (e.g., saying that something
happens without saying who does it) can be rendered by use of
{mĭ-i} and {jâ-o}.
bĭm
ĥy-i
šyj-zô
ƥ
tu-i.
tub
PAT-at
clean-V.ACT
3
AGT-at
He cleans the tub.
bĭm
mĭ-i
šyj-bô
jâ-o.
tub
TOP-at
clean-ADJ
state-to
The tub becomes clean.
If the object of the verb is not really acted upon in some
way by the agent, another role marker is used for it: for instance,
{mĭ-i} or {kâ-i} for object of thought or attention:
ť
kâ-i
rĭm-van.
2
ATT-at
see-V.STATE
I see you.
ljâw-gjâ
mĭ-i
zym-zô.
observational.science-language
TOP-at
think-V.ACT
I think about linguistics.
If the subject is not actively, intentionally doing something, then it
is typically marked with {ʝâr-i} "experiencer" (if
animate) or {mĭ-i} "topic" (if inanimate, or if the
semantics of the verb are not consistent with experiencer marking).
šî'fy
mâ-dân
kâ-i
ku-van
de
kâ'θij-ram
ʝâr-i.
spirit
person-formerly
ATT-at
hear-V.STATE
HAB
Cathy-NAME
EXP-at
Cathy hears ghosts.
ij'mâks-gam
mĭ-i
sjum-van
terij-ram
ʝâr-i.
Emacs-NAME.G
TOP-at
thankful-V.STATE
Terry-NAME
EXP-at
Terry is grateful for Emacs.
{ŋâw-o} is used for the object (addressee or listener) of
a communication-verb:
dejv-ram
ŋâw-o
twâ-zô
Φǒ
{ť
hǒ}.
Dave-NAME
call-to
say-V.ACT
QUOTE
2
VOC
I said "Hey!" to Dave.
If the object of the verb didn't already exist,
but is created by the action, it's marked by
{ķĭn-o} (being constructed, put together from physical materials),
{krĭ-o} (being thought up, written, composed, etc.),
or {bĭŋ-o} (coming into existence).
The conlanger thinks up words for [into] the language.
gî'bu
i
θě'ku
tu-i
krĭ-zô
fî'suň
pe
mu
ble
bĭŋ-o.
beginning
at
God
AGT-at
create-V.ACT
Earth
and
universe
rest.of
existence-to.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The topic of a topic-comment sentence and the "object" of
some verbs of thinking and feeling are marked the same way, with the
postposition {mĭ-i}, which was translated in some sentences above
as "about".
râm
mĭ-i
pâ-źa-bô
ŋĭn-i.
cat
TOP-at
restless-AUG-ADJ
CMT-at
The cat is hyperactive.
râm
mĭ-i
zym-zô.
cat
TOP-at
think-V.ACT
I'm thinking about the cat.
râm
tu-i
zym-zô.
cat
AGT-at
think-V.ACT
The cat is thinking [about something unspecified].
râm
kâ-i
rĭm-van.
cat
ATT-at
see-V.STATE
I see the cat.
źum-la-zô
râm
ĥy-i.
touch-AFF-V.ACT
cat
PAT-at
I stroke the cat.
Some other theta-role postpositions:
ĉul-i
transitory object of performance
rjâ-i
object of quest or desire
čĭ-ř
copied from, extracted from, quoted from
θĭ-o
on behalf of, for the benefit of
θĭ-ř
by/with the help of
ĥun-i
with, together with, in company with
pě'ŝlĭ-i
focused body part or mental faculty
jĭrn-i
quantity, measure
{ĉul-i} is used for the direct objects of verbs like "sing", "read aloud", "perform",
and "play": transitory processes that are over when the action of the verb is over,
or which are the action of the verb re-conceptualized as nouns, or transitory
process-instantiations of more permanent abstract informational entities.
{rjâ-i}, object of quest, is used for the objects of verbs of
searching, desiring, requesting, etc., that are not necessarily
present or even existent, in contrast to {kâ-i}, object of attention,
where the object is generally within range of the experiencer's
senses.
With Brian's help I created an inflection paradigm for that conlang.
{pě'ŝlĭ} signifies the body part or mental faculty one's attention
is currently focused upon, or which is clamoring for attention. The
postposition {pě'ŝlĭ-i} is used in place of {kâ-i} or {mĭ-i} for
body parts in some contexts.
{mĭ-i} can mark different semantic roles depending on the particular
verb or the other postpositions it's used with. This was not
originally intended; it's one of the aspects of the language that
developed from use
rather than being deliberately designed.
When I find that some part of the language is more
complex or irregular than I intended, I don't necessarily change it;
if I've already learned to use it fairly fluently, I leave it alone
and just try to document the way I find that I actually use it.
The original design of gzb's case-postposition system was influenced
indirectly by Japanese and similar
topic-prominent languages
— not directly by a serious study of the language,
but by a few example sentences and a brief discussion in a linguistics
textbook. It was also influenced by my then-misunderstanding of the
linguistics term "topic", used in various senses by different schools
of linguists and in different branches of linguistics. The result
of these misunderstandings is that {mĭ-i}, though I've customarily
glossed it as the "topic postposition", has four or five main senses,
only one of which even roughly corresponds to the
topic marker
of a true topic-prominent language like Japanese.
{mĭ-i} is used with the "comment" postposition {ŋĭn-i} in verbless
sentences for simple
predication,
and similarly with the state and state-transition postpositions
{jâ-i, jâ-o, jâ-ř}. Here, it corresponds with the subject of English
copular sentences (with "to be" or "to become").
With verbs of thinking, feeling, and communication,
it marks the thing about which the
agent or experiencer is thinking, feeling or talking, corresponding to English
direct object or oblique object depending on the syntax of the
particular English verb.
It's also used to mark the inanimate
subjects of many stative verbs, in contrast with the experiencer
postposition {ʝâr-i} for animate subjects of stative verbs.
It can work as a kind of genitive postposition, e.g. marking
what a story is about or what is portrayed in a picture, in which
case it binds to the following noun rather than to the main
verb or the sentence structure as a whole; here it corresponds
to some senses of the English prepositions "of" or "about".
And for some stative verbs, such as locatives,
it can mark animate subjects as well.
Historically,
it used to mark the object of attention for verbs of perception, and
the animate subjects of all stative verbs; but few if any the texts on
this website use it in those archaic senses.
In the lexicon, many verb entries (though far from all, unfortunately)
contain an explanation of the verb's argument structure, like this:
žy-zô
to show, point out (person {tu-i} shows thing {kâ-i} to person {ĥy-i})
ĵulm-van
to deserve, to merit; {mĭ-i} deserves {ðĭ-i}
In the table below, these verbs' structures are indicated as "kâ-i
~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i" or "ðĭ-i ~~~ mĭ-i". A few other notes: {o/ř}
represents any motion postposition, and {i} represents any stationary
locative postposition. The arguments are listed in the order they
would typically appear in a sentence, with the subject at the end.
Note that the argument structures of verbs aren't cast in stone; for
instance, many argument structures with a {mĭ-i} place can substitute
{ʝar-i} instead if the argument is animate, and often some or even
all of the arguments can be omitted. Temporal and locative
complements can usually be added to almost any verb; {i} or {o/ř} are
listed as arguments below only if they often occur with a certain
class of verbs.
Argument structure
Typical verbs
mĭ-i
bly-van, flâň-van
tu-i
ķĭm-ca, pjylm-syl-môj
ʝâr-i
huw-van, fĭm-van
ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
ĥâ-zô, vâ-oŋ-zô, šâ-zô, tru-zô
kâ-i ~~~ tu-i
kâ-rĭm-zô, lju-zô, suŋ-hôw-ca
rjâ-i ~~~ tu-i
rě'ju-zô
mĭ-i ~~~ tu-i
zym-zô
mĭ-i ~~~ ʝâr-i
sjum-van, blâl-van
kâ-i ~~~ ʝâr-i
rĭm-van, ku-van, lym-van
rjâ-i ~~~ ʝâr-i
sru-van
ðĭ-i ~~~ mĭ-i
slân-van, wuŋ-van, ĵulm-van
krĭ-o ~~~ tu-i
lju-θaj-zô, gâm-zô
ķĭn-o ~~~ tu-i
vâ-oŋ-faj-fwa-zô
kâ-ř ~~~ tu-i
zym-ʝǒ-zô
ĥun-i ~~~ mĭ-i
gju-môj, ĝu-ðĭl-môj
pě'ŝlĭ-i ~~~ ʝâr-i
jyn-cô-van, žâw-van
kâ-i ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
žy-zô, ku-fwa-zô
(ŝâj-o) ~~~~ (ŝâj-ř) ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
kâj-zô
ŝâj-o ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
bwĭl-zô, ₣yjm-zô
ŝâj-ř ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
tâň-zô
ŝâj-ř ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ ʝâr-i
bwĭl-θaj-van
o/ř ~~~ tu-i
ruŋ-zô, ƴâ-zô, zyŋ-zô
o/ř ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
fyn-zô, ₣yjm-zô, čuj-zô
o/ř ~~~ mĭ-i
flu-van
i ~~~ mĭ-i
tyn-van, ty-van, su-van
ŋâw-o ~~~ mĭ-i / hǒŋ / Φǒ / mĭ-šar ~~~ tu-i
twâ-zô, gju-zô, grâm-zô
ŋâw-o ~~~ rjâ-i / hǒŋ ~~~ tu-i
lâ-zô
ĉul-i ~~~ tu-i
pĭw-zô, ŝrun-zô, lju-gju-zô
ŋâw-o ~~~ čĭ-ř ~~~ tu-i
grâm-zô, ĵĭ-zô
ŋĭn-i ~~~ mĭ-i ~~~ tu-i
kĭ-zô, zym-zô, twâ-zô
(jâ-o) ~~~ (jâ-ř) ~~~ ĥy-i ~~~ tu-i
₣âl-zô, ĉâm-zô
ðǒŋ
mĭ-van, nî'sâ-van, le-tǒj-van
hǒŋ ~~~ tu-i
zym-zô
hǒŋ ~~~ ʝâr-i
hyw-van, gwě'fu-van
This list is still incomplete, and I'm not sure there's not a simpler
way to analyze verbs' arguments structures or a more concise way to
present them.
Volitionality
{-van} verbs are not necessarily intransitive, and {-zô} verbs
are not necessarily transitive. The distinction is partly between
nonvolitional and volitional, and partly between static and dynamic.
{-zô} verbs always imply an animate agent. An agentive, dynamic
process will always be denoted with a {zô}-verb, unless it's
reflexive or reciprocal, and an agentless state will be denoted by a
{van} verb (if by a verb at all; or possibly by a postpositional
phrase or an adjective). Agentless processes (such as involuntary
acts like breathing and seeing, or "acts" of inanimate
objects like water flowing) are also denoted by {-van} verbs. I
haven't yet worked out the detailed rules for handling agentive states
(if it even makes sense to speak of such).
Changes in argument structure with opposite-suffixes
The opposite-suffixes
{-θaj} and {-cô}
have a more or less predictable effect on the argument
structures of verbs. With prototypical
ditransitive verbs
such as {bwĭl-zô}, "to give",
{-θaj} makes the source or recipient of the basic verb the
experiencer of a derived verb, leaving the patient the same, and
allowing the agent to be omitted, while {-cô} reverses the
action of the verb and leaves its argument structure the same.
With verbs of perception, {-θaj} makes the object-of-attention of
the stem verb into the topic of the derived verb, and allows
the experiencer to be omitted.
Not only topic-comment and experiencer-state structures allow
verbless sentences; several of the specific object postpositions
allow verbless agentive sentences, with the verb implicit in
the semantics of the object and the postposition.
{ķĭn-o} in particular is likely to occur in verbless clauses; in my
electronic corpus, it occurs with a verb only four times, versus nine
times in verbless clauses.
As noted before, {Ќ} (I, me) is the default
topic/experiencer/agent of a sentence. This applies at
the beginning of a text or conversation, when there is no previous
context.
When there is previous context, however, the default topic,
experiencer or agent of each sentence is the same entity as
was last explicitly marked as topic, experiencer, or agent. (This also
goes for subordinate clauses, whose subject defaults to be the same
as in the main clause.)
kâj-kô
o
ruŋ-zô
tam-ram
tu-i.
exchange-place
to
go-V.ACT
Tom-NAME
AGT-at
re
i
gâ-rjâ
ĥy-i
tru-zô
heŋ.
3.PLACE
at
thing-quest
PAT-at
find-V.ACT
not
Tom went to the store. [He] didn't find what he was looking for there.
A vocative phrase sets the default subject, as well:
This means that agentless processes and states have to be expressed
otherwise than with subjectless verbs, as in Esperanto's
"pluvas", "necesas ke...". If I translated those
literally with just a bare verb, the result would mean "I rain, I
am necessary that...", or depending on the context, it might
attribute these actions to any random entity that was recently
mentioned. Nor do I use a dummy subject as in English "It's
raining".
bly-van
pwĭm
mĭ-i
fall-V.STATE
water
TOP-at
Water is falling = It's raining.
jâln-van
purj
mĭ-i.
hot-V.STATE
environment
TOP-at
It's hot.
If the subject of the sentence comes last (as it usually does)
then the final postposition (agent, experiencer, or topic)
may be omitted.
{dě'dâ-lô} immediately precedes the quote-conjunction {Φǒ}, so it
needn't be explicitly marked as subject (in this case, agent) of
{twâ-zô}. The same is true for subjects preceding other
clause-scope conjunctions, such as
{kinq}
"and",
{hoqnx}
"that", and
{viqj-sqar}
"then, next".
Ditransitive verbs
In Indo-European languages, the term "ditransitive" is used for verbs
that are pretty much required to have both a direct and an indirect
object. I use the same term for verbs in gzb that usually if not
always occur with two different objects, though with gzb's theta-role
marking system, it's not always easy to say which of the core
arguments for a given gzb ditransitive would correspond to
a direct vs. an indirect object in another language; and gzb, like
English, is prone to dropping arguments that are obvious from context
(e.g., "Give it here" where the theoretically required "to me"
indirect object argument is omitted).
Probably the prototypical ditransitive verb in most languages is the
equivalent of "give": gzb {bwĭl-zô},
Here the gift is marked with {ĥy-i}, patient, and the recipient of the gift is marked
with {ŝâj-o}, coming-into-the-possession-of. Straightforward enough. The
verb {kâj-zô}
"buy/sell/trade"
has a similar argument structure, but can have additional arguments.
Here, the person being shown something is the patient {ĥy-i}, and
the thing being shown gets the attentive case postposition,
{kâ-i}. The simpler English equivalent is ambiguous (in how one
would analyze the cases of "me" and "a beautiful
picture", I mean, not in what it means), but the more formal
version would be "...showed a beautiful
picture to me", i.e. the picture is the direct
object; and the same would be true in the other Indo-European
languages I'm familiar with.
The thinking verb {kĭ-zô} "to deem / consider X to have quality Y"
adds an agent to what would otherwise be a simple topic-comment
sentence. E.g.,
In other words, the "direct" and "indirect" objects of {kĭ-zô} and
similar verbs are marked as topic and comment. ({kĭ-zô} also has an
alternate argument structure, where it takes an object subordinate
clause marked with {hǒŋ}.)
The verb {ðĭl-zô}, "to type or transcribe", is potentially
ditransitive in the second sense:
I'm transcribing this old book into an electronic document.
Here the objects are marked as {lju-i}, a kind of performative case
more specific than {ĉul-i}, and {om}, becoming-part-of. However, I'm
not sure {ðĭl-zô} actually qualifies as ditransitive since the
{om} argument is optional.
The opposite-suffix {-θaj} as used with some stems that form
ditransitive verbs makes the source/recipient of the basic verb the
experiencer of a derived verb, leaving the patient the same, and
allowing the agent to be omitted.
Giving and receiving are one process; {bwĭl-zô} and {bwĭl-θaj-van}
simply focus on different aspects of it from different participants'
perspective. The other opposite-suffix {-cô} does not necessarily
affect the theta-roles of the participants in the action of the verb,
but it changes the meaning of the underlying action:
A reflexive verb can occur with an explicit patient, topic or attentive
postpositional phrase; usually this signifies a body part or faculty of the
agent or experiencer, e.g.:
!maŋ
ĥy-i
šyj-ca
mwe
ť.
hand
PAT-at
clean-V.REFL
IMP
2
Wash your hands.
Ќ
im
tâlm
vin
kâ-i
rĭm-ca-ĉa
syj-i
rĭm-ca.
1
part.of
head
front-surface
ATT-at
see-V.REFL-tool
use-at
see-V.REFL
I see my face in [using] the mirror.
gě'dĭm
pen
šin
žâj-ŋĭw
kâ-i
byn-ca
mwe
Ł.
sleep.wake.cycle
every
end-of
moral.law-faculty
ATT-at
poke.around-V.REFL
IMP
3.GEN
One should examine one's conscience every night.
Because gjâ-zym-byn does not have a sharp distinction between direct
objects and oblique objects, the reflexive and reciprocal verbs formed
with {-ca} and {-môj} sometimes have as their reflexive objects
things which would be expressed with oblique objects or complements in
other languages. A few verbs tend to almost always take {-môj} when
the subject is plural.
hyr
srǒ
il
gju-môj
tam-ram
pe
ser'ě-ram.
hour
several
during
speak-V.REFL
Tom-NAME
and
Sarah-NAME
Tom and Sarah talked [with each other] for hours.
Logically, perhaps, {gju-môj} ought to mean "to talk
about each other". But one of my design principles for
gjâ-zym-byn is not to change something if I've already learned to
use it fluently, just because I later decide it's not perfectly
logical. I did not design any irregularity into the language
deliberately, but since my goal is to learn to use it fluently myself,
and not to devise a language that's easy for people in general to
learn, I'm perfectly happy with keeping any irregularity that creeps
into the language through my occasional carelessness, if I don't
notice it's irregular until I've already learned it.
Sequential verbs
Where the typical Indo-European language would use an auxiliary verb
followed by a particple or infinitive, gjâ-zym-byn just uses two
verbs in sequence. The second verb in the sequence has the role of an
infinitive, though it gets no special marking. Either verb can be
marked with {-van} or {-zô} according to its meaning.
âθ'ĭnz-wam
o
sru-van
ruŋ-zô.
Athens-NAME.P
to
want-V.STATE
go-V.ACT
I want to go to Athens. [= Athens, Georgia; the Greek one is
{a'θen'aj'ǒs-wam}, the one in Kentucky is {ej'θĭnz-wam}.]
dlu-van
heŋ
huw-van
Ł.
right-V.STATE
NEG
happy-V.STATE
3.GEN
One doesn't have a right to be happy.
mǒj
dlu-van
vǒm
rjâ-zô
huw-van
Ł.
but
right-V.STATE
yes
seek-V.ACT
happy-V.STATE
3.GEN
But one does have a right to seek to be happy.
Sometimes the first of a sequence of verbs is not a typical
auxiliary verb.
gjâ-zym-byn can optionally incorporate a subject pronoun
into the verb; it affixes between the verb stem and the verb suffix. For
serial verbs, the pronoun will generally only be incorporated into the
first of the series.
In gzb, sometimes a comitative phrase expressed with {ĥun-i}, "with",
will influence the verb form and/or the subject, making the verb
reciprocal or the subject plural, thus:
English would express these as "I played chess with Val" or "I went
there with Tom."
Aspect
gjâ-zym-byn does not have grammatical category of aspect as
such, but several aspectual distinctions are commonly
marked by affixes or by root words compounded into
verbs.
Cessative/Perfect:
ť
dâm-ř
grâm
kâ-i
lju-sun-zô
mje
θǒ.
2
authorship-from
message
ATT-at
read-finish-V.ACT
past
immediate
I've just finished reading your letter.
Progressive:
vâ-oŋ-vĭj-zô
ƥ.
digestion-into-time.period-V.ACT
3
He goes on eating.
Inceptive:
pĭw-gĭn-zô
θǒ
Ќ-ƥ,
nu-šar
vě'ty-θaj
ĥy-i
trâw-zô
mâ
kwǒ.
play-begin-V.ACT
immediate
1-3
moment-CONJ
doorway-OPP
PAT-at
strike-V.ACT
person
some
We had just started playing when someone knocked at
the door.
Iterative:
kyl-pwĭm-daj
rol-lol
čâ-ra-zô
lu'ĭs-ram.
box-water-mass
across.through-hither.through
swim-repeat-V.ACT
Louis-NAME
Louis swam [laps] across the pool several times.
Punctual/Semelfactive:
ķarm-nu-zô
ku-faj-źa
râm.
cough-moment-V.ACT
hear-able-AUG
cat
The cat coughed once loudly.
The adverb {de} already mentioned marks a habitual aspect.
tâŋ
pǒ
i,
nĭvĭn-šam
dâm-ř
θuň
reŋ
kâ-i
lju-zô
de.
life.period
DEM3
at
Niven-NAME.F
authorship-from
story
many
ATT-at
read-V.ACT
HAB
I was reading a lot of stories by Niven in those days.
{de} can also mark e.g. the day of the
week when something is regularly done or regularly happens.
See also the section on the
qualifier {jǒm} "most of,
mostly" for examples of its aspectual use with verbs.
Gerunds and Participles
There is no need for special morphology to mark gerunds, since the
root words for actions, events and processes are already nominal.
ty
oŋ
ruŋ
š-i-j,
vâ-oŋ-zô.
home
into
going
after-at-near
digestion-into-V.ACT.
Soon after coming home, I ate.
hwâwm
mĭ-i
suŋ-hôw-zô
rěbekě-ram
tu-i.
acting
TOP-at
know.how-CAUS2-V.ACT
Rebecca-NAME
AGT-at
Rebecca teaches acting.
When a verb is derived indirectly (e.g. from a postpositional phrase),
there is no root noun that means the same thing as the verb, so one can
use the nominalizer clitic {tǒj} to obtain such a gerund:
ĥun-pĭw
ðij
vâ-oŋ-tǒj
mĭ-i
gâw-zô,
mǒj
ce
heŋ.
meeting-play
before
digestion-into-NMZ
TOP-at
consider-V.ACT
but
this
not.
I considered eating before the party, but decided not to.
Any direct object must immediately precede the gerund; the verb or
comment on the gerund clause usually comes after the gerund.
₣ĭŋ
kyl-plân-za
ĥy-i
lĭn
žu-bô
mĭ-i
hum-ga-van.
string
box-foot-ADJ2
PAT-at
linking
careful-ADJ
TOP-at
deep-MET-V.STATE
It's important to tie [one's] shoestrings carefully.
Use {tu} "agent" and {ĥy} "patient" to form nominal participles.
lju
act or process of reading
lju-zô
to read; I read, he reads, ...
tu-lju
reader; person reading
ĥy-lju
the thing read
Note that this use of {ĥy} is not entirely consistent with the
way the verb {lju-zô} is used. Reading may affect the physical
book {twâ-cu-vuj} (in terms of slight wear and tear) but it does
not affect the text of the book {twâ-cu} (abstracted from its
instantiation in particular printed copies). So normally one would
use the attentive case postposition instead of the patient case:
twâ-cu
ĵyn-fwa
kâ-i
lju-zô.
sentence-system
interest-CAUS
ATT-at
read-V.ACT
I'm reading an interesting book.
twâ-cu-vuj
hân-bô
nâ-cô-bô
ĥy-i
lju-zô
žu-bô
mwe
Ł.
sentence-system-physical
old-ADJ
common-OPP2-ADJ
PAT-at
read-V.ACT
careful-ADJ
IMP
3.GEN
One must read rare old books carefully.
The first form (with {kâ-i}) emphasizes the content of the book
(and doesn't specify its format, whether it is printed, an etext, or
even an audiobook). The second, with {ĥy-i}, emphasizes the
physical act of handling the book, turning the pages. The first is by
far the more common way of marking the "direct object" of
{lju-zô}. So does {ĥy-lju} refer mainly to a physical book,
magazine, etc.? Not necessarily. {kâ-lju} would mean something
very different: "reading attention", or "act of
attention characterized in some way by reading". So it could not
refer to the "thing read" in the sense of the content of a
book as distinct from its embodiment in a particular copy of a
particular edition. Therefore {ĥy-lju} has to do double duty for
both senses, and in short {ĥy} is not so specific when acting as
a participle base as when it is acting as a postposition base. (If
necessary, one can be more specific by referring to {ĥy-lju-vuj},
physical thing read, or {ĥy-lju-vuj-cô}, abstract thing
read.)
One can add {-bô} to these nominal participles to form modifer
participles:
ƴâw-bâm
tu-pĭw-bô
kâ-i
pym-van.
dog-new
AGT-play-ADJ
ATT-at
amusement-V.STATE
I'm amused at the puppy playing.
rjuŋ
kâ-i
ħun-tôn-daj
kiŋ
tru-zô
tu-pĭw-bô
mâ-ĵĭn.
dragon
ATT-at
pine.tree-GNR-mass
among
find-V.ACT
AGT-play-ADJ
person-young
The children found a dragon [while] playing in the forest.
ĥy-tru
v-ř
ruŋ-zô
ĵwy-bô.
PAT-find
front-from
go-V.ACT
fast-ADJ
They ran away from what they found.
Experiencer participles
The root word {ʝâr}, "experiencer", also forms a kind of participles.
ʝâr-pym
one who is experiencing amusement
ʝâr-fĭm-cô
one who is experiencing sickness; a sick person or animal
gjâ-zym-byn has its own suitable terms for the functionally
distinct kinds of root morpheme; some of these correspond to
"parts of speech" in traditional grammar.
{gun} are content root-words; names of kinds of people, animals, things,
states, qualities, actions, processes, numbers, ideas, and so forth.
{gun} contain the vowels |î|, |ě|, |â|, |u|, |y|, or |ĭ| or their
nasal forms. Standing alone, or compounded with each other, {gun} fit into the
traditional category of nouns. In theory, this is the language's only
open class morpheme type
(but in practice, I'm still adding to the other classes from time to time
as well, though at a much slower rate; I even added more pronouns as late
as April 2005).
{jum} are modifier particles; they're used like adjectives &
adverbs (or articles) to change the meaning of a preceding word, or
specify which of several possible referents is meant. They contain
one of the vowels |ǒ| or |e|, and have allomorphic forms with the
nasal vowels |ǒň| or |eň| which occur after root words
with a nasal vowel (vowel harmony). (Because they obey vowel harmony
with respect to the preceding word, like suffixes, I call these
modifier particles clitics. Feel free to
yell at me if I'm using that term incorrectly.)
{ŋwĭm} are pronouns. Most are clicks or ejectives ({Ќ, ť}...);
a few look like {jum}, a consonant followed by |e|.
{ðujm} are conjunctions. They can have one of the oral
vowels |ǒ| or |e|, or the nasals |iň| or |oň|. Generally you can tell the
nature of a {ðujm} - whether it shows truth-values, causation or
evidence, or some arithmetic operation — by its vowel.
{čur} are spacetime postpositions. They contain one of the
oral vowels |i|, |o|, or |ř|. Case postpositions are formed by
combining a {gun} with an appropriate {čur}, nearly always just {i,
o, ř}. Complex spacetime postpositions can include an epenthetic
schwa (ě).
{Φyr} are suffixes. They contain one of the vowels |a| or |ô|.
They become nasal if the suffix attaches to a root that
contains nasal vowels.
Postpostions
The core postpositions are:
i
at, in, near, with; during
ř
from, out of; since
o
to, toward; until
One can make them more specific with various other single-phoneme
morphemes prefixed (for orientation) or suffixed (for proximity).
These prefixes and suffixes occur only with these core
spacetime postpositions, and never affix to any other morpheme.
Suffixes: being near, far or inside:
-m
in (part of)
-ŋ
in (contained by)
-n
touching the outside of
-j
near
-r
far from
-l
through, throughout, all through
So, for instance,
iŋ
inside
oŋ
into
řŋ
out of
im
part of
oj
toward but not (yet) at
ir
far from
řl
through (coming this direction, toward the speaker)
These morphemes show orientation about a center:
Relative:
v-
in front of
h-
behind
ĵ-
right
c-
left
k-
among, between
ĉ-
all around, surrounding
r-
at, to, from the other side of
l-
at, to, from this side of
s-
above
θ-
below
š-
after, later part of (time)
ð-
before, early part of (time)
Absolute:
b-
north
ħ-
south
ź-
west
g-
east
Example spacetime postpositions:
sij
above (not touching)
sin
on (touching the surface of)
siŋ
in the upper part of
(rî'mâ siŋ pě'pâ-daj, papers in the attic)
sim
in the upper part of
(Ќ sim šĭm-ŋĭw, my brain)
so
going above
son
onto
sřn
off of
θij
under (not touching)
θin
under (touching)
θo
going under
θř
from under
θoŋ
into the lower part of
ĵi
on the right side of
ci
on the left side of
vi
in front of
hi
behind
hiŋ
in the back part of
vř
from in front
vo
to in front
kin
between (touching the things it's between, e.g. a bookmark between pages)
kiŋ
throughout (mushrooms scattered through a forest)
il
through (a road going through a forest)
ol
through (a man walks through a forest)
rir
far beyond
ron
coming to touch the far side of
li
on this side of
ĉi
surrounding
ĉoŋ
into from all sides
źi
on the west side of
ħř
from the south of
i(ŋ)
during, while
ši
after
ði
before
ðo(n)
until, up to
šř(n)
since, from that time
Complex directions can be specified by using two of the prefixes
and inserting an epenthetic schwa between them, thus:
běźir
far to the northwest of
sěviŋ
in the upper front part of
Uses of "before" and "after" postpositions {ði} and {ši}
These "before" and "after" postpositions (and their derivatives) are
used not only with nouns and noun phrases denoting time periods, but
with words for other things that are conceived of as having their
extension primarily in time rather than space.
Several interesting characters appear in the early part of that story, but they disappear in the middle of it.
A few of the 357 postpositions one can form in this system don't make
any sense. But most of them are potentially usable in some situation
or other. For instance, {šom}, "becoming part of the ending
of" could be used if one is talking about reforming a calendar
system and reassigning some days from the beginning of one month to
the end of the previous month, or, less farfetchedly,
They added a question and answer session at the end of the convention.
Postpositions in {ĉ-}
Most of the spacetime postpositions are fairly straightforward, but
those in {ĉ-} require some more explanation. "ĉi"
refers to a position surrounding the object on all sides,
"ĉo" to motion of something that begins to surround the
object. Neither refers to going around something, circumnavigating
it. The adverbs "ŝwe" (widdershins) and
"ŝwe-θaj" (clockwise) can be used together with
"ĉi" or "ĉo" to indicate such motion.
rîmâ-źa
ĉ-i
tyn-van
pwĭm-daj.
house-AUG
around-at
place-V.STATE
water-mass
There is a moat around the castle.
rîmâ-źa
ĉ-o
ruŋ-zô
sî'ðyr-tla-cu.
house-AUG
around-to
go-V.ACT
fight-professional-system
The army surrounded the castle.
rîmâ-ĵwa
jeriĥo-wam
ĉ-i
ŝwe
ƴâ-zô
fy-bô
jisrael-šam-cu.
house-place
Jericho-NAME.P
around-at
widdershins
walk-V.ACT
seven-ADJ
Israel-NAME.F-system
The Israelites marched around Jericho seven times.
Directional adverbs
The particle {ķǒ} forms a base for making directional adverbs.
Spacetime postpositions in {-o-} or {-ř-} are suffixed to the
particle {ķǒ} to make directional adverbs. (Compare the morpheme
"-ward(s)" in English "towards", "northward", etc.; but this can also
make adverbs describing motion from a given direction.)
I sprang up from my bed to see what was the matter.
Compound postpositions
The abstract case markers all derive from a root word followed by a
basic {i, o, ř} postposition.
tu-i
agent
mĭ-i
topic
ŋĭn-i
comment
ʝâr-i
experiencer
The relationships shown by the English possessive or the Greek genitive are
shown in various ways in gjâ-zym-byn:
ŝâj
having stuff
ŝâj-i
of (belonging to)
lĭw
personal relationship
lĭw-i
of (related to)
dâm
authorship
dâm-ř
of (by)
The partitive genitive would sometimes be translated with the suffix
{-na} ("made of" the substance described by the root). A few other concepts
denoted by prepositions in other languages are denoted by suffixes here as well:
{-ta} "without", {-ja} "according to, fitting".
Some other useful non-spacetime postpositions:
muw-i
subset of; one of; out of; among
syj
use, utility
syj-i
with, using
gân
cause, reason
gân-ř
because of, on account of
kujm
motive, goal, purpose, reason
kujm-o
in order to, for the purpose of
ðĭ
relationship
ðĭ-i
in some unspecified relationship with
{ðĭ-i} roughly corresponds to Esperanto's generic
preposition "je". Its most common use is to mark the object
of a stative verb when the subject must be marked with {mĭ-i}
rather than {ʝâr-i}, and no other postposition seems more
precisely fitting for the object. The possession and ownership verbs
{ŝâj-van} and {wuŋ-van} are the most common such verbs.
{muw-i} is used to indicate that the entity or group of entities
denoted by one noun phrase is a member or subset of another set. It
translates among other things some uses of the English phrases
"one of", "some of", "among" and
"out of":
When used to describe the proportion of a given set with a certain
property or engaging in a certain action, the noun used before {muw-i}
doesn't need to be repeated after it, just the denominator.
Because of the humming noise I looked inside the skull, and found a swarm of bees in it.
Sometimes a serial postposition can be analyzed as involving an
omission of an obvious default noun between the first and second
postposition; for instance, the common sequence {dâm-ř kâ-i}
following an author's name:
A time-postposition following another postposition is a common pattern,
especially with the state-transition postpositions {jâ-ř} and {jâ-o}, but
also with some others; e.g.,
I should get out of here before I get totally frustrated.
These before/after time postpositions can follow various object-case
postpositions, in which case a default verb appropriate to that case
is usually implied; for instance,
Purposive postpositions such as {rjâ-i} "in quest of" and {kujm-o}
"for the purpose of" can also commonly follow other postpositions,
including the state transition postpositions:
Close the window-blinds so we can focus on the movie.
Modifiers (adjectives and adverbs)
Modifiers are formed from root substantives by addition of appropriate
suffixes. gjâ-zym-byn does not make a morphological distinction
between adjectives and adverbs, though in practice some modifiers
always modify verbs or modifiers. Modifiers, whether non-derived
particles or derived words, always follow their heads, with a handful
of exceptions: interjections like {hwǒ}, evidentiality adverbs derived with
-{pôm}, and ordinal
adverbs derived with {-saw}, which can optionally come at the
beginning of a clause instead of after the main verb.
If the root noun denotes a quality or state, use {-bô} to form
the adjective meaning "having this quality, being in this
state". Other suffixes can also be used with this kind of root.
bâm
newness
bâm-bô
new
bâm-za
of newness
bâm-tan
like new
bâm-cô
age, non-newness
bâm-cô-bô
old
If the root noun denotes a concrete entity or type of entity, {-bô}
and {-cô} wouldn't be appropriate, but other modifier derivations
are possible:
râm
cat
râm-za
pertaining to cats
râm-tan
resembling a cat
pwĭm
water
pwĭm-za
of water
pwĭm-tan
like water
but:
râm-rô
independent
pwĭm-rô
humble
{-rô} specifies an idiomatically selected quality of the root
substantive. It's similar to "-um" in Esperanto — not
all concrete roots have a defined {rô}-adjective.
If the root denotes an action or relation, certain other suffixes are
appropriate.
lju
reading
lju-fwa
causing to read
lju-faj
readable, legible
lju-gô
worth reading
If the root denotes a mindstate, an adjective formed with {-fwa}
describes the circumstances or qualities that conduce to it, and an
adjective formed with {-bô} describes the person who experiences it.
In gjâ-zym-byn most or all subjective qualities are named by a root
mindstate-word plus {-fwa}.
Some scoundrel has taken the small picture in a fraudulent way.
Predication
Modifiers as predicates normally occur with the postpositions
{ŋĭn-i} (comment) or {jâ-i} (state), with the noun phrase whose
referent they're predicated of marked by {mĭ-i} or (more typically)
left unmarked in final subject position.
Note, however, that in predicate position a root or stem
signifying a state or quality doesn't have to take the {-bô} suffix,
as it does in attributive position.
(There are archaic sentence in many texts, and in these grammar
documents, where a {-bô} adjective is used in predicate position.
Updating the grammar document and all its sample sentences to
reflect the current state of the language is an ongoing task.)
{ŋĭn-i} and {jâ-i} are interchangeable in many contexts; one rule
of thumb is that {ŋĭn-i} is used with more subjective qualities,
while {jâ-i} with more objective ones.
{jâ-i} also tends to be used for more transitory qualities, and
{ŋĭn-i} with more durable ones. Also, if the subject is an animate
entity marked by {ʝâr-i} "experiencer", then the predicate modifier
is marked by {jâ-i} or the state transition variants thereof, not
{ŋĭn-i}.
Comparative forms of modifiers and (especially stative) verbs are
formed with the suffixes {-sra} "more" and {-ĵar}
"less". Applied to modifiers formed from quality-stems,
they come before the {-bô} adjectivizing suffix:
hum
depth
hum-bô
deep
hum-sra
quality of being deeper than something else
hum-sra-bô
deeper
hum-ĵar-bô
less deep
hum-cô
height
hum-cô-bô
high, tall
hum-cô-sra
quality of being higher/taller than something else
hum-cô-sra-bô
higher, taller
hum-cô-ĵar-bô
less high, shorter
Applied to other modifiers, formed with suffixes other than {-bô},
the {-sra} and {-ĵar} normally come at the end of the word. For
instance, with the causative suffix {-fwa}:
prym
appreciation of beauty
prym-fwa
beautiful
prym-fwa-sra
more beautiful
but this is also possible, though rarer:
prym-sra
more intensely/vividly appreciating something's beauty
prym-sra-fwa
causing someone to more vividly appreciate something's beauty
With most other modifier suffixes this inversion wouldn't make sense,
though:
râm-tan-sra
more catlike
žâj-dô-ĵar
less sinful
pwĭm-da-sra
wetter
ðâ-ja-ĵar
less logical
lju-gô-sra
more worth reading
When turning one of these comparative modifiers into a stative verb,
replace {-bô} with {-van} or add {-van} after the comparative suffix:
hum-sra-van
to be deeper
prym-fwa-sra-van
to be more beautiful
gjâ-zym-byn doesn't have a morphologically distinct comparative
and superlative. If a comparative modifier or verb form occurs with
an explicit standard of comparison, it would generally be translated
into English as "more/less X" or "X-er"; if it
occurs with no standard of comparison, the implicit comparison may be,
depending on context, to the same entity in the past, or to some other
recently mentioned entity, or to all other things of the kind, or all
things of that kind that are in context at the moment. In the latter
cases it would be translated as "most/least X" or
"X-est". Inexplicit comparison can be in attribute form (a
modifier applying to a head noun or verb within a single noun phrase
or verb phrase) or predicate form (the modifier being in a separate
comment or state postpositional phrase, applying to a head noun that's
in a topic or experiencer postpositional phrase):
gzb has two ways of relating the head noun of the comparative modifier
or the subject of the comparative verb to the standard it's being
compared with. One is with the comparative conjunction {θe}
(as, than); this
is archaic, the
comparative conjunction usually being used now only for
equality-comparison. In this form the subject of the comparison is
linked within its topic postpositional phrase with the standard of
comparison:
Nowadays (since 2008), the standard of comparison is put in a separate
postpositional phrase marked with {dî'fu-i}, "compared
with". ({dî'fu} derives from the name of the Unix command
"diff".)
I have spoken with him more recently [than someone else has / than with other people recently mentioned].
There are a couple of kinds of qualified comparatives; they occur only
as predicates, not as attributes. Subset comparison corresponds to
English "one of the most/least...", and uses the subset postposition
{muw-i}:
Ranked comparison corresponds to English "the second-most X", "the
third-least Y", etc. It is unique in not actually using the suffixes
{-sra} and {-ĵar} at all, but an ordinal number in a comment phrase
with the compared quality in a generic relational phrase:
This gaming party is the most enjoyable party [I've been to]
this whole
tâŋ.
The comparative suffixes generally don't apply to entity stems.
However, they are occasionally used with number or unit-of-measure
stems, meaning "more than" or "less than" the amount specified by the
stem:
tĭm-sra
a set with more than a hundred members
tĭm-sra-bô
more than a hundred
gĭ-sra-gla i
later than eleven o'clock
kî'grâ-ĵar
less than a kilogram
With verbs (whether active or stative) derived from process stems, the
comparative suffixes mean "to do said action/undergo said process
more/less intensely":
These comparative action/process verbs can have explicit standards
of comparison with {dî'fu-i} or {muw-i} as well.
Equality comparison uses the comparative conjunction {θe} and some
sameness or similarity adverb on the stative verb, adjective, or
state-postposition:
Vera is more careful than her past self / than she used to be.
Or one could use {ler} "future" or a postpositional phrase specifying
a particular time period to be more specific about what other point
on an entity's world-line you're comparing its present self to.
Pronouns
The simple personal pronouns are:
Ќ
I, me
ť
you
Ł
"one", "they" (generic)
ƥ, ɱ
he, she, they (refers to spirits, humans, animals)
te, ŋe
it, they (plants, inanimate objects, abstractions)
{ƥ} points backward to a previously mentioned person or group, {ɱ}
forward to somone(s) not already mentioned by name. Similarly {te}
and {ŋe} point backward and forward to their referents.
Note there is no plural first person pronoun. "We" could be expressed by:
Ќ-ť
inclusive we: I and you
Ќ-ƥ / Ќ-ɱ
exclusive we: I and someone else, I and some others
Ќ-ť-ƥ / Ќ-ť-ɱ
very inclusive we: I and you and other(s)
The other pronouns can be marked plural by appending a quantifier
clitic, or a number adjective, but in some contexts this is not
necessary; ť, ƥ, ɱ can refer to plural antecedents even
without such explicit pluralization. Ќ would not be pluralized
with a number or quantifier, only in one of the ways mentioned above
(unless the speaker were a group mind or hive, perhaps). ("Royal
We" would be translated by appending a respectful affix to the
first-person pronoun.)
I have not been perfectly consistent about using {ƥ, ɱ} vs.
{te, ŋe} for body parts. I am leaning toward consistently using
the animate pronouns, but for now the animate and inanimate pronouns
are interchangeable for reference to body parts.
Various words formed with -lǒ, -nǒ clitics are relative and
interrogative pronouns.
mâ-lǒ
who, whom
mâ-nǒ
who? whom?
gâ-lǒ
which
gâ-nǒ
what? which?
The non-personal pronouns are:
ce
this, that; stands for a whole situation described previously
že
this, that; stands for a fact or situation about to be described
re
there; stands for a place-name
že
mĭ-i
gju-zô
ƥ
tu-i,
hǒŋ
gjâ
kǒ
mĭ-i
this
TOP-at
speak-V.ACT
3
AGT-at
that
language
DEM1
TOP-at
syj-faj
heŋ
źe
ŋĭn-i.
use-able
not
very
CMT-at.
She talked about how useless my language was.
ce
mĭ-i
sjum-van,
wǒj
Ќ
ĥy-i
hyw-fwa-zô
ce
gân-ř
this
TOP-at
thankful-V.STATE
because
1
PAT-at
know-CAUS-V.ACT
this
cause-from
luŋ
mĭ-i.
detachment
TOP-at
I was thankful for that, because it taught me something about detachment.
One can add modifiers to pronouns, indicating number,
gender, age, etc., if necessary to clarify which of several
previously-mentioned entities is intended.
!ť
pen
tu-i
ruŋ-zô
mwe
mruň
on.
you
all
AGT-at
go-V.ACT
IMP
mountain
to
Y'all go to the mountain.
vlym
bâm-bô
ĥy-i
kâj-zô
ƥ-ŝy
srǒ
tu-o
ƥ-mym
ŝâj-o.
clothing
new-ADJ
PAT-at
exchange-V.ACT
3-female
several
AGT-to
3-self
possession-to.
They buy new clothes.
Conjunctions
{gjâ-zym-byn} has several kinds of conjunctions.
One shows the relative truth or falsity of two independent clauses.
Words of this type are derived by compounding phonemes from a truth
table:
first clause
second clause
logic function
T
T
ŝ = TT, k = TF, p = FT, f = FF
T
F
F
T
w = T, (null) = F
F
F
oň = T, iň = F
So for instance:
kiň
and - TFFF
ŝwiň
or (inclusive) - TTTF
pwiň
or (exclusive), unless - FTTF
foň
neither/nor - FFFT
koň
equivalence; if and only if — both are true or both false. TFFT
(In practice, these are rarely used, except for {kiň}, and I don't think I've
ever used any of the 11 other conjunctions one could theoretically form from
this table.)
Another kind links two clauses and shows their causal relation (or
surprising lack thereof); like "because, therefore, however, but" in
English. They're also formed with a matrix.
Prefix elements:
ŝ-
logical cause
(therefore, because)
w-
effective cause
(therefore, because)
ʝ-
evidence, inference
(therefore, because)
m-
not hindered
(however, even though, in spite of, but)
Suffix elements:
-ǒn
1st clause, therefore (however) 2nd clause
-ǒj
1st clause, because (even though) 2nd clause
ĉu
pe
ðy
θe
fy
mĭ-i
sâm-van,
ŝǒn
2
plus
5
=
7
TOP-at
same-V.STATE
therefore.logically
fy
se
ðy
θe
ĉu
mĭ-i
sâm-van.
7
minus
5
=
2
TOP-at
same-V.STATE.
2 + 5 = 7, therefore 7 minus 5 = 2.
lju-sô
ŋĭn-i,
wǒn
kâj-zô
twâ-cu-vuj
reŋ
ĥy-i.
read-tending.to
CMT-at,
therefore.in.fact
transact-V.ACT
sentence-system-concrete
many
PAT-at
I am readful, so I buy many books.
{ʝǒj} and {ʝǒn} show a relationship between two clauses where the inferred truth of
one clause is deduced from the more obviously evident truth of the other.
He must have already gone, because I don't see his car.
zym-zô,
ʝǒn
bĭŋ-van.
think-V.ACT
therefore.inference
exist-V.STATE
I think, therefore (I deduce that) I am.
The {-ǒj} forms reverse the causal order:
râm
mĭ-i
pwĭ-cô-van,
wǒj
ƥ
mĭ-i
pwĭm-da
ŋĭn-i.
cat
TOP-at
delight-OPP2-V.STATE,
because.fact
3
TOP-at
water-full
CMT-at
The cat is miserable because it's wet.
{mǒn, mǒj} correspond to "although" and
"but"; there is a mirative element in one of the two clauses
joined by these, the truth of one clause being unexpected or
surprising in light of the truth of the other clause:
helenike-lam
mĭ-i
suŋ-van
heŋ,
mǒn
kun-hôw-ca
mje
te
kâ-i.
Greek-NAME.L
TOP-at
know.how-V.STATE
not,
although
know-CAUS2-V.REFL
PAST
3
ATT-at
I'm not fluent in Greek though I studied it awhile ago.
In these cases the two verbs not only have the same subject but have the
same kind of relationship to their objects: patient in the first case,
focus or topic in the second. But between verbs with different
subjects, or with the same subject but different relationships to
their object, the clausal conjunction {kiň} must be used to translate
"and".
In English one might say "I am writing and revising a new story", "a
new story" being the direct object of both verbs; but gzb has no
"direct objects" as such, just patients, objects-of-result,
objects-of-attention, and so forth. Here each verb has a different
relationship to its object and requires a different postposition to
mark it, so the pronoun {te} is used resumptively and {ĥy-i} shows
that {byn-zô} is modifying a now existing story, not creating a new
one like {lju-θaj-zô}.
Besides its core meaning of "multiplied by", {ke} is used
between non-mathematical nouns to mean "and", but implying a
closer, synergistic connection between the nouns or noun phrases
linked by it than {pe}.
ɱ-ĉu
mĭ-i
rě'ĵy
ke
rě'ĵy-θaj
jâ-i.
3-two
TOP-at
wife
and
wife-OPP1
state-at
They are wife and husband.
{ke} can also be used to link proper names of husband and wife,
co-authors, or collaborators; in this case the names are compounded
into one word with -ke- as a kind of hyphen, and the name suffix
{-ram} or {-šam} is usually only used once, not after each name.
One must distinguish embarrassment at violated privacy from embarrassment at talking about emotionally sensitive subjects.
{me} "raised to the power of" doesn't seem to have any
non-mathematical use attested yet. Perhaps it might find use as an
asymmetrical version of synergetic {ke}?
{se} and {ðe} are most commonly used in the corpus with numbers ({se}
is most commonly used in the phrase {gě'dĭm se-cĭ-pa}, day
minus-one'th = yesterday), while {pe} and {ke} are far more commonly
used with ordinary stems. This is probably because simply concatenating
numbers in compounds
multiplies or adds them,
according to their increasing or decreasing magnitude.
The range conjunction {zej} has primarily been used with number
words, signifying a range of numbers from one to another inclusive:
ðy zej fy
five to seven, i.e. the integers 5, 6 and 7 or the real numbers from 5.0 to 7.0 depending on context
I've recently (May 2010) discovered that {zej} can be used with any
pair of modifiers in the same semantic domain, not just with numbers.
It can express a transition from one state or quality to another
within a common continuum, or that various members of the set denoted
by the head noun have values for the meta-quality in a given range;
for instance:
The conjunction {šej} can sometimes be glossed as "also known as"; it
links two different names or descriptions of the same entity, or a
main title and a subtitle.
Correlatives, demonstratives, interrogative and relative pronouns
Question-words and relative pronouns are formed by attaching a clitic
to any root word. For instance,
nǒ
what?, which?
mâ-nǒ
who? [which person?]
nu-nǒ
when? [at which moment?]
vĭj-nǒ
when? [during what period?]
ru-nǒ
how? [in what manner?]
{nǒ} can be embedded into a verb.
?gâ-nǒ-ta-van.
thing-Q.WH-without-V.STATE
What am I missing?
?ryň-nǒ-zô
ť
tu-i.
action-Q.WH-V.ACT
2
AGT-at
What are you doing?
Relative pronouns are formed in a similar way with the clitic {lǒ}.
(Note that gjâ-zym-byn uses distinct relative and interrogative pronouns.
English, French, and Esperanto all make do with a single series of
pronouns for both relatives and interrogatives in wh-, qu-, and ki-
respectively.)
lǒ
which, that
mâ-lǒ
who, that
tyn-lǒ
where
The demonstrative clitics (this, that...) are similar in form.
kǒ
this near me
tǒ
that near you
pǒ
that far from us
Terms like "here", "there", "now", "then", and so forth are formed
by applying these clitics to various root words; usually a
postposition is required as well.
tyn kǒ i
here (at this place)
šun pǒ i
there (in that region)
tyn tǒ o
thither (toward you)
The distinction between {kǒ} and {tǒ} can be interesting with
respect to time:
nu kǒ i
now (at this moment when I am speaking/writing this)
vĭj tǒ i
now (during the period when you are hearing/reading this)
vĭj
tǒ
i
grâm
kǒ
ĥy-i
pî'râ-zô
mwe.
time
DEM2
during
message
DEM1
PAT-at
fire-V.ACT
IMP
Burn this message now [when you read it].
Terms like "anyone, everyone, no one", etc., are formed by following
ordinary root words with various quantifier particles or compounding with
number root words.
mâ pen
everyone
mâ-bâ
no one
mâ kwǒ
somebody, anyone
tyn pen
everywhere
vĭj-bâ
never
Definiteness
gzb does not mark definiteness pervasively with articles or
inflections as do English, French, Basque, and some other languages.
Nouns are by default unmarked for definiteness, though context will
usually clarify whether any instance of a class or a particular member
is meant. When context is insufficient, gzb has several particles
that can be used to mark definiteness or indefiniteness, including
the demonstrative particles and some of the quantifiers.
I'm thinking about houses in general. [about the category of houses]
Questions
Yes/no questions
Yes/no factual questions are formed by following the main verb with
{zǒn} (roughly equivalent to "ĉu" in Esperanto,
"-li"
in Volapük,
"-kah" in Malaysian,
etc.).
The questioned verb is often though not always fronted.
?ruŋ-zô
zǒn
ť
tu-i
pjylm-pwĭm-daj
o.
go-V.ACT
Q.YN
2
AGT-at
border-water-mass
to
Are you going to the beach?
Ordinarily the locative complement would come first, but questioning the verb
overrides this and shunts it to another position.
Questions with pairs of alternatives are formed using one of the
"or" conjunctions (ŝwiň, pwiň, hej, rej) and
placing the question particle {zǒn} just after the last of the
questioned alternatives.
?mjyl
rej
čĭm
zǒn
kâ-i
jyn-sra-van
ť
ʝâr-i.
honey
or
chocolate
Q.YN
ATT-at
pleasure-COMP-V.STATE
2
EXP-at
Do you get more pleasure from honey or chocolate?
Questions expecting a "yes" answer may insert {vǒm}
(yes, indeed, certainly) between the main verb and {zǒn};
similarly with questions expecting "no" and the negative
particle {heŋ}:
?mjyl
kâ-i
jyn-van
vǒm
zǒn
ť
ʝâr-i.
honey
ATT-at
pleasure-V.STATE
yes
Q.YN
2
EXP-at
You like honey, don't you?
?fĭm-cô-van
heŋ
zǒn
ƥ
ʝâr-i.
health-OPP2-V.STATE
not
Q.YN
3
EXP-at
She isn't sick, is she?
All of the aforementioned kinds of questions are usually answered with
{vǒm} (yes) or {heŋ} (no). However, {mwe} (necessary,
imperative) and {źǒ} (negative imperative) could be
used as emphatic forms in response to factual questions.
Questions asking for permission or advice either place the question
particle {zǒn} after an auxiliary verb,
?dlu-van
zǒn
ruŋ-zô
tyn
kǒ
ř.
right-V.STATE
Q.YN
go-V.ACT
place
DEM1
from
May I be excused?
...or use {mwe zǒn} or {źǒ zǒn} after the main verb,
Information questions or question-word questions (who, what, where,
etc.) are formed with the particle {nǒ} following a general word for
the kind of entity whose nature is questioned, and followed by a
postposition for the role said unknown entity plays in the sentence;
the questionized postpositional phrase almost always comes first, even
if it would normally follow other consitutents in an indicative
sentence.
Note the way the cause and purpose question-phrases relate to
the corresponding postpositions {gân-ř} "because" and {kujm-o}
"for the purpose of", derived from the same roots.
Some words take on a broader sense when used with the question-clitic
{nǒ} than they have in other contexts. For instance, {mâ} refers to
human persons, but {mâ nǒ} can question the identity of any animate
agent more generally; the speaker in the first three questions above
isn't necessarily assuming that the answer will refer to a human,
though it probably will. The most generic WH-question phrase is
{?gâ nǒ}, "thing which?"; but in most contexts a more specific
word would be selected; e.g.,
{gâ nǒ} is even a hypernym of {mâ nǒ}, in contexts where
the questioner is unsure whether the entity he's asking about
is even animate much less human.
The indefinite particle {kwǒ} is used along with {nǒ} to indicate
bewilderment or consternation:
{zǒn} and more rarely {srem} can question other elements of a sentence besides the verb:
?mě'zâ
ĥy-i
zǒn
vâ-oŋ-zô
ť.
corn
PAT-at
Q.YN
digestion-into-V.ACT
2
Is that corn you're eating?
Note the difference from {nǒ}, and the different placement of these
particles relative to the postposition:
?mě'zâ
nǒ
ĥy-i
vâ-oŋ-zô
ť.
corn
Q.WH
PAT-at
digestion-into-V.ACT
2
Which corn [or, what kind of corn] are you eating?
Subordinate clauses
Subordinate clauses are introduced with {ðǒŋ} or
{hǒŋ} (like "that" or "whether" in English),
or one of the causal (because/therefore)
conjunctions ({wǒn}, {wǒj}, etc.).
{hǒŋ} is used to introduce subordinate clauses
which are the object of the main clause.
?kun-van
zǒn
ť
tu-i,
hǒŋ
tyn
kǒ
o
ruŋ-zô
ƥ
tu-i.
know-V.STATE
Q.YN
2
AGT-at
that
place
DEM1
to
go-V.ACT
3
AGT-at
Did you know that he's coming?
Here, the subordinate clause introduced by {hǒŋ} is
the object of the main verb {kun-van} "know".
kun-van
heŋ,
hǒŋ
tyn
kǒ
o
ruŋ-zô
zǒn
ƥ
tu-i.
know-V.STATE
not,
that
place
DEM1
to
go-V.ACT
Q.YN
3
AGT-at
I don't know whether she's coming.
Note the use of the question particle {zǒn} within the
subordinate clause; this makes {hǒŋ} mean "whether" instead
of "that". It works much the same with {srem} as well:
The default subject in a {hǒŋ}-subordinate clause is the
subject of the main clause:
twâ-zô
tam-ram
tu-i,
hǒŋ
mwĭl-ŝra-van,
wǒn
ty
o
ruŋ-zô
say-V.ACT
Tom-NAME
AGT-at
that
sleep-about.to-V.STATE
therefore
home
to
go-V.ACT
Tom said he was sleepy, so he was going home.
{ðǒŋ} is used to introduce subordinate clauses which are the
subject (typically the topic) of the main clause. A {ðǒŋ}
construction is equivalent to a similar construction with {hǒŋ}
having the forward-reference pronoun "že" in the main clause
as a dummy subject (like "it" in similar senteces in English).
It is a truth
universally acknowledged, that a single man is in possession of a
good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
Relative clauses
In relative clauses the relative pronoun phrase (formed with {lǒ}) is
usually fronted.
źy-fwa
ŋin-i
ɱ
mĭ-i,
mâ-lǒ
tu-i
ruŋ-zô
"spâk'tov'i'ja-wam
ř
trip-CAUS
CMT-at
3
TOP-at
person-REL
AGT-at
come-V.ACT
Spactovia-NAME.P
from
That guy from Spactovia is really trippy.
kun-van
heŋ,
tyn-lǒ
i
ty-van
ƥ.
know-V.STATE
not
place-REL
at
home-V.STATE
3
I don't know where he lives.
Relative clauses can precede the main clause, as in English:
vĭj-lǒ
i
Ќ
tu-i
vâ-oŋ-zô,
vĭj-pǒ
i
lju-zô.
time-REL
during
1
AGT-at
digestion-into-V.ACT
time-DEM3
during
read-V.ACT
When I eat, I read. = I read while eating.
twâ-ŋĭn-zô
mwe
ť
tu-i
že
mĭ-i,
kujm-lǒ
i
vlym-ta-van
ť.
say-explain-V.ACT
IMP
3
AGT-at
this
TOP-at
goal-REL
at
clothing-without-V.STATE
2
Please explain why you've got no clothes on.
Restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses work the same way:
vĭj-lǒ
i
kâj-kô-źa
o
ruŋ-zô,
vĭj-pǒ
i
ser'ě-ram
kâ-i
ĥun-zô,
time-REL
at
exchange-place-AUG
to
go-V.ACT
time-DEM3
at
Sarah-NAME
ATT-at
meet-V.ACT
mâ-lǒ
tu-i
kyl-plâŋ
rjâ-o
rě'ju-kâj-zô.
person-REL
AGT-at
box-foot
quest-to
search-exchange-V.ACT
When I went to the store I met Sarah, who was shopping for shoes.
Miscellaneous modifier particles
Logic clitics
There are several clitic particles that change the truth-value
with which a phrase or clause is intended. Like other modifiers,
they're postpositive.
vǒm
yes, certainly
heŋ
no, not
fjǒ
yes and no; sort of; to some degree
še
maybe [facts]
be
maybe [intentions]
le
probably
ʝem
apparently, seemingly
nen
not as far as the speaker knows; possibly not
tǒlm
hyperbole/exaggeration marker
belm
irony or sarcasm marker
These express one's certainty about something being true or false,
real or unreal. {še} expresses uncertainty whether some
statement or description is true or not. {fjǒ} expresses a
belief that a sentence or description is valid to some degree, but not totally.
{be} indicates an uncertainty of one's own plans or intentions.
bĭŋ-van
vǒm.
exist-V.STATE
yes
I certainly exist.
mwĭl-van
heŋ.
sleep-V.STATE
not
I'm not asleep.
kyl
iŋ
râm
mĭ-i
zuň-cô-bô
še
ŋĭn-i.
box
inside
cat
TOP-at
life-OPP2-ADJ
maybe
CMT-at
The cat in the box might be dead.
Ќ
lĭw-i
lĭm
fjǒ
ŋĭn-i
ť
mĭ-i
1
relation-at
friend
FUZZY
CMT-at
2
TOP-at
You are to some degree my friend.
({lĭm} is a very strong word; the speaker probably would not feel a
need for such qualification with {kuln}. The incompleteness here is
probably depth of intimacy, not friendliness.)
In the above sentences, the particles modify a whole verb or comment
phrase. They can also be clitic'd to a word and used within a phrase.
kjĭ
ĥy-i
vâ-oŋ-zô
râm-vǒm
tu-i.
mouse
PAT-at
digestion-into-V.ACT
cat-yes
AGT-at
The definitely-cat eats a mouse.
There are also subjunctive/imperative words for "yes" and
"no", expressing one's desire or judgement rather than the
factual situation.
mwe
yes, must be, ought to be
źǒ
no, mustn't be
ť
ŋâw-o
twâ-zô
mwe
ce
mĭ-i.
2
call-to
say-V.ACT
IMP
that
TOP-at
I should tell you about that.
re
o
ruŋ-zô
źǒ
ť
3.PLACE
to
go-V.ACT
IMP.NEG
2
Don't go there.
suŋ-kě'ĝu-tla
ŋâw-o
twâ-zô
Φǒ
{*Φĭlm-van
źǒ.}
know.how-secret-professional
call-to
say-V.ACT
QUOTE
butterfly-V.STATE
IMP.NEG
"I don't want to be a butterfly!" I said to the sorcerer.
kiň
θě'ku
tu-i
twâ-zô
Φǒ
{bĭŋ-van
mwe
fu.},
kiň
bĭŋ-van
fu.
and
God
AGT-at
say-V.ACT
QUOTE
exist-V.STATE
IMP
light
and
exist-V.STATE
light
And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light.
I am positive that a definite maybe is probably in order.
{le} following the main verb of the sentence affects the truth-value
of the sentence as a whole; following a specific noun phrase, it
affects only its referent. For instance,
{ʝem} likewise can follow the main verb, expressing reservations
about the situation described by the sentence as a whole, or
follow another sentence constituent and modify only that:
It was apparently because of the storm that the ship sank.
{nen} is a reserved, hesitant {heŋ}; it signifies that the speaker
doesn't know of any particular evidence for a proposition, but won't
assert that it's not true.
See also the
section on derived validationality adverbs.
The derived validational adverb {ĵrĭw-pôm}, from the root
{ĵrĭw} "expecting, supposing", is something like a positive
equivalent of {nen}: "As far as I know..." or "I suppose but don't have
strong evidence that..."
Expressing probability and fuzzy degree of truth
A
fractional number
between zero and one, marked with the {-bô}
adjectival suffix, can modify one of the clitics {be, še, le, fjǒ}.
She had gotten a third of the way dressed when the phone rang.
Irony and Hyperbole
gjâ-zym-byn does not
use tone to mark ironic or
sarcastic remarks (or for any other purpose); instead, the particle
{belm} is used, typically following the verb (like the yes/no question
particles {zǒn} and {srem}) or at the end of a sentence, but
sometimes marking an ironically intended noun phrase. The last use
could sometimes be translated by the phrase "so-called" or
the use of quotation marks.
I put thirty-seven peppers in this stew [no, not really that many, but a lot].
Postposition-like adverbs
gǒ
presentative marker
hǒ
vocative marker
jej
enthusiasm marker
These are anomalous particles which have the form of {jum}, but can
act like postpositions; they can mark a noun phrase so as to stand
alone as a valid sentence by itself, and sometimes when they mark a
constituent of a larger sentence it may not require another
case-postposition. {gǒ} is a presentative particle, corresponding to
French "voici"
or "voilá", archaic English "lo" or "behold", or
Esperanto "jen",
drawing the listener's attention to something.
A noun phrase followed by {gǒ}, as a stand-alone sentence, can
function like a topic-comment sentence; this structure tends to be
more emphatic and informal than the topic-comment or comment-topic
form.
When it marks a constituent of a larger sentence, {gǒ} can be a kind
of topicalizer (in a different sense of "topic" than that with which
it's used for the gzb "topic postposition" {mĭ-i}).
{hǒ} is the vocative marker, following the second-person pronoun, a
person's name, or another appellation when one begins an utterance
addressed to them; it's not to be confused with the
object-of-communication case postposition {ŋâw-o}, which marks
someone's name (etc.) as the addressee of a communication-verb:
The vocative particle can mark a name or other appellation as a
stand-alone utterance, when one's just calling someone to get their
attention and not immediately saying something in particular to them:
{jej} is vaguely similar in meaning and use to the English
interjection from which its form is borrowed. It can work like {gǒ},
marking a noun phrase which thus stands alone as a valid utterance:
Or it can mark a constituent within a larger sentence; in this use it
overlaps in meaning with the affectionate and respectful attitudinal
suffixes, but tends to express a more excited, enthusiastic attitude;
it can in fact be combined with an attitudinal suffix.
But the third chapter is barely comprehensible and too idiosyncratic.
Quantifiers
These are typically used as nonspecific quantifiers with noun phrases.
When used to modify a verb, they (like number-adjectives in the same
context) mean the action is done so many times.
zen
only, no more than; no one but; (when not qualifying a number) single, sole, alone
kwǒ
some, any
srǒ
several
cǒ
few, little
reŋ
much, many, a lot
gle
enough, sufficient
jǒj
more, extra; again
pen
all, every, each
hǒl
whole, entire
jǒm
most of, the majority of
ðǒl
mostly
Note the contrast between {cǒ} (few, little) and {fe} (little,
slightly). {cǒ} modifies noun phrases, whether count or
noncount: {rî'zĭ cǒ}, a little rice, {θĭl
cǒ}, a few potatoes. {fe} modifies verb phrases or adjectives,
indicating that the action is done to a lesser than usual degree or in
a casual, haphazard way, or for a shorter than usual time, or that the
quality is present in a limited degree. {cǒ} used with verbs
means that the action is done a few times or for a short time. There
can be some overlap in their meaning vis-a-vis verbs. {reŋ} is
similarly indifferent to count/mass distinctions: {lî'klâ
reŋ}, a lot of milk; {cî'jyr reŋ}, many squirrels. (In
gzb there is little or no real distinction between count and noncount
nouns as in English, since {cǒ} and {reŋ} translate both
"few/little" and "many/much".)
could mean, "I read some more of Luke's Gospel" or "I read Luke's Gospel
again"; but probably the latter. For the former sense one would more likely
say {lju-zô jǒj fe}.
{kwǒ} is similarly polysemous, but not as often ambiguous.
The particles {zen} and {žǒŋ} are both glossed as "only". {zen} is
a quantitative "only"; it is used in sentences like "Only Tom came to
the party", "We have only four bananas left", and so forth. {žǒŋ}
could also be translated "merely" in many cases; for instance, when a
door has opened apparently by itself, you might say,
{ķe} describes an excess of a quality or action; to say there are too
many of something, use {reŋ ķe}. (I may change this.) "Too little" (quality)
and "too few" (quantity) are {ķe-cô} and {cǒ ķe}.
(Note that here {fy}, "seven", is the head of a noun-phrase rather
than an adjective as {fy-bô} in the previous sentence; in such a
context it doesn't represent the mathematical object "seven" but
rather a salient, recently mentioned set of seven things.)
{jǒm} and {ðǒl}
The modifiers {jǒm} and {ðǒl} have similar but distinct meanings.
{jǒm} indicates a subset, a set consisting of most of the members
of a superset denoted by the head noun phrase.
twâ-cu jǒm
most of the books
tu-gu jǒm
most of the voters, a majority
{ðǒl} on the other hand indicates a superset, mostly consisting of
members of the set denoted by the noun phrase modified by {ðǒl}. By
contrast, you might use {twâ-cu ðǒl}, "mostly books", to describe a
box of heterogeneous things including books, clothes, dishes, and
ceramic statues of frogs, or {tu-gu ðǒl}, "mostly voters", to
describe the set of people you polled on some political question.
These minimal pair sentences may contrast their meanings more clearly:
In the latter sentence, one is not asserting that one has read the
majority of Vance's works, but is implying that one is also reading
some other works by people other than Vance.
{jǒm} always means at least a 50%+1 majority, and may pragmatically
suggest a fairly large majority; {ðǒl} need not indicate a majority,
only a plurality — perhaps you might utter the second sentence above
if four of the last ten books you'd read were by Jack Vance, and you'd
read no more than three by any other author in this
{drulm}.
{jǒm} and {ðǒl} can modify postpositional phrases as well.
Matthew Hughes mostly resembles Jack Vance (= his style resembles Vance's more than that of any other author)
In some cases, {jǒm} or {ðǒl} following a postpostion can be
interpreted as modifying an implicit noun phrase between themselves
and the postpositional phrase; for instance,
In those days my work mostly involved software testing.
{jǒm} means that the ongoing action of the verb is mostly completed,
or that the now-completed action of a verb was mostly done within a
certain time-frame. It might be combined with other aspectual adverbs
or a temporal complement phrase for clarity.
In 2010 I wrote the bulk of that novel (but perhaps started it earlier and/or finished it later).
{ðǒl} is a relatively late addition to the language; in older
texts {jǒm} is sometimes used in the same sense {ðǒl} has now.
Conditionals with {bǒ} & {ĉǒ} (if)
This section needs a major revision Real Soon Now.
{bǒ} is used to close a conditional phrase or clause. It's often
used with the causal conjunctions {wǒn, ŝǒn, ʝǒn}, or as an alternative
to {kwoň} (the implication conjunction). It refers to an abstract
condition or is used in questioning an unknown condition.
Φĭlm
kâ-i
rĭm-van
Ł
ʝâr-i
bǒ,
wǒn
prym-van.
butterfly
ATT-at
see-V.STATE
3.GEN
EXP-at
if,
then
beauty.sense-V.STATE
If one sees a butterfly, one experiences beauty.
gjâ
mĭ-i
suŋ
jâ-o
sru-zô
bǒ,
wǒn
hyw-hôw-ca
language
TOP-at
know.how
state-to
want-V.ACT
if,
therefore
know-CAUS2-V.REFL
kiň
te
syj-i
gju-zô
mwe.
and
3
use-at
speak-V.ACT
IMP
If you want to be fluent in a language, you must study and speak it.
?tyn-nǒ
o
ruŋ-ť-zô,
ruŋ
bǒ.
place-Q.WH
to
go-you-V.ACT,
go
if
Where are you going — if you're going anywhere?
{ĉǒ} closes a counterfactual conditional - one knows such isn't the
case, but if it were, then...
suomen-lam
mĭ-i
suŋ-zô
ĉǒ,
wǒn
Finnish-NAME.L
TOP-at
know.how-V.ACT
if.counterfactual
therefore
Ќ
ŝâj-o
twâ-cu-vuj
"kalevala-gam
ĥy-i
kâj-zô.
1
possession-to
verse-system-concrete
Kalevala-NAME.G
PAT-at
exchange-V.ACT
If I were fluent in Finnish, I would buy a paper copy of the Kalevala.
Substituting {bǒ} for {ĉǒ} in the above sentence would result in meaning,
"When/if I become fluent in Finnish, I will buy a paper copy of the Kalevala."
Error correction particles
There are two error correction particles, used for correcting an
utterance partway through when one realizes one has made a mistake.
{Φej} deletes the previous word (tells the listener to please
ignore it), allowing one to utter some other word in its place.
{če} is a conjunction that reverses the normal word order
between its two arguments: so ADJ če NOUN is acceptable
though NOUN ADJ would be the normal correct order. Also related
is the hesitation particle {hem}, corresponding to "uh, um"
in English: "I haven't thought of the next word yet, but
I'm not done talking, be patient."
bě'gru
Φej
bě'jâ
řm
ʝym
mĭ-i
šul
jyn-fwa
ŋĭn-i.
beaver
excuse.me
bay.tree
out.of
leaf
TOP-at
spice
pleasure-CAUS
CMT-at
Beaver, I mean bay, leaves are a good spice.
suw-fwa
če
Φě'ĥu-bâm
tu-i
enjoyment.of.cuteness-CAUS
REV
elephant-new
AGT-at
ƴâ-cjaj-zô,
hem,
flâň-bô.
move.under.control-SPEC-V.ACT
um
shaky-ADJ
The cute baby elephant walks, um, sort of wobblily.
(I stole the idea for the particle {Φej} from Jeffrey Henning's
Fith, a stack-based
language that has particles which simply pop the top item, or all
items, from the stack and discard them. Unlike the
Fith conjunctions frong or skuunh, however,
{Φej} can't be expected to make the listener really forget the
previous word, since gjâ-zym-byn is a human language and the
language center of human brains doesn't work that way. So it's not
used to weaken severe insults into mild ones like the corresponding
Fith particles, but simply to ask pardon for slips of the tongue, as
above.)
I use {Φej} a lot when talking to myself in gzb,
and not infrequently in writing. {hem}, not so much.
{hem hem hem} is roughly equivalent to "blah blah blah"
in English, filler to represent speech or text whose exact content
is unknown or unimportant.
I've already washed seventeen windows. Someone else will have to wash the rest.
{θǒ} with a noun phrase denoting a time-period or event can mean
either "next" or "previous" depending on context. If context is
otherwise insufficient, {θǒ} is often used along with {mje} (past)
or {ler} (future). Modifying a verb, {θǒ} means "immediately, right
away".
He drank one glass of wine, then immediately started singing.
Evidentiality
The suffix {-pôm} derives evidentiality adverbs from root words or
compound stems referring to the source of information. Such
adverbs can be placed after a verb or a postpositional phrase,
or at the beginning of a sentence.
(Tom tells me that) that book isn't very interesting.
Evidentiality marking is optional and actually fairly uncommon in gzb,
though I'm trying to make myself use it more often in my writing when
appropriate.
Use of {-pôm} to form validational adverbs
{-pôm} can also produce validational adverbs; words expressing the
speaker's degree or kind of certainty about what they are saying.
Sometimes the difference between a validational and evidential adverb
is blurry:
hyw
memory, experience
hyw-pôm
I know this from experience / I remember this happening
źy
dream
źy-pôm
This happened in a dream / This didn't really happen, I just dreamed it, but it's interesting
(I dreamed (astonishingly) that:) Way out in front of my parents' house was a transformation machine.
(From a passage in my journal describing a dream weird even by dream standards.)
Use of {-pôm} to form attitudinal adverbs
When {-pôm} is used with a root
or stem for a mental state, it forms an adverb describing the
speaker's attitude to the situation described by the sentence or
utterance. No ambiguity with the use of {-pôm} to form
evidentiality adverbs is likely to result, as a mental state cannot be
construed as evidence for anything.
Interestingly, she has devised a conlang with fifty-three open
classes. (= She has devised a conlang with fifty-three open classes;
I want to know more.)
It appears, from a look at my online corpus, that I use {-pôm}
more often for attitudinals than for validationals, and more often for
validationals than for evidentials -- although {-pôm} was
originally used for evidentials, and its use was stretched to cover
validationals and attitudinals later. This is probably a function of
my primary uses of the language: in writing my journal, if gzb were
the sort of language where all indicative sentences are obligatorily
marked for evidentiality, the vast majority of sentences would be
marked as "direct experience" or "visual". But
occasions to obliquely mention my attitude to the situation expressed
by a sentence are far more frequent than occasions to mention how
(other than by direct experience, the pragmatic default in such a
context) I know about something. As for validationals, I find that
the most common (in)validational use of {-pôm} in my journal is
{źy-pôm}, "I dreamed this" (see example above). A
common pattern is to begin one paragraph with {źy-pôm} and
then, after recounting the dream, to begin another paragraph with
{hyw-pôm} "I experienced this".
