Tag: sodna-lɛni

Continuing with Gary’s list:

43. The children ran after Jack.

“run after” means chase, or go behind. I visualize it like so: children —> Jack —>. So Jack is simultaneously the destination of the first arrow, and the thing moving for the second arrow.

This is essentially two sentences, one for each arrow. This requires turning the second into a relative clause: The children go towards Jack who goes.

43. hɨsna noyotni Jack ma otni.

notɨŋi says that the children go towards Jack rather than to Jack. But I hate that sentence. Let’s try again. We could use a clausal conjunction between the two: Jack goes, so the children go towards Jack.

43. Jack otni nɛnsi hɨsna noyotni maveya.

Hmm. Not as awful as the first. Another idea: we could say that the children go along Jack’s path towards Jack.

43. hɨsna danotni tona da Jack noyotni maveya.

I like this better. Stringing together verbs like this requires that the subject be the same for each verb. Here the subject for both verbs is hɨsna “the children”. dantɨŋi means to go along a path.

And we can simplify that a little by using the non-specific daka instead of the class 4 noun tona:

43. hɨsna danotni daka noyotni Jack.

In Kēlen:

43. ñi mīsi rā Jack mīrien;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list:

42. I usually sleep soundly.

OK. Talking about sleep. What is sleep? I think it can be a location or destination, someplace that one is travelling inside of while asleep. And since it is not a point destination, I think aŋi is the verb to use. So, aŋi syɛɬɛ would be “to go to sleep”. But in “sleeping soundly”, we’re talking about being in “sleep” for a time, so adding eya to aŋi turns the destination into a location.

For “soundly” I am going to use tadya “downwards” (or “deeply”). (And what else is done “soundly” anyways?) And for “usually”, I will use ɨnavi “often”.

42. lene eyaŋi syɛɬɛ tadya ɨnavi.

In Kēlen:

42. ñalla anxēie anhē ānen anxūna;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list:

39. Henry’s dog is lost.
40. My cat is black.
41. The little girl’s doll is broken.

No dogs. Just cats. Bah. And Mada (a nice generic name) will be the “owner” of said cat, which is lost. And “lost” is an adjective, just like “black” or “broken”. The difference here is that “lost” and broken” are presumably temporary states, so the verb tɨŋi is used, while “black” I will assume is a permanent state (i.e. the cat really is black and didn’t just roll around in some soot), so the verb tɛndɛ, one of the “to be” verbs, is used.

Possessive, alienable possessives at least, are formed using a pronoun that agrees in class and motility with the possessed noun, like so: POSSESSED PRONOUN POSSESSOR. If the possessor is also a pronoun, the first pronoun often disappears.

39. idɛl ha Mada tɨŋi do dɛstɛ.

40. idɛl le tɛndɛ siye.

41. gyɛdɨdɛn dɨdɛn laki ɨsa tɨŋi gubɨdɛn.

In Kēlen:

39. ñi Māra matūmsēma marō;

40. la matūmsēle maxē;

41. ñi malāca mīña jacīpēmma jahūwa;

Questions?

Oh, and since this is three sentences, there will be no post tomorrow.

Continuing with Gary’s list:

38. Directly opposite stands a wonderful palace.

Directly opposite. Right. So we have a location, then something dividing that location from another location, and the second location is across from the first location. So, from here (where I am standing, or where I am saying you will be standing if you follow directions properly), facing perpendicularly across the street, stands a wonderful palace. Or, from here, facing perpendicularly across the river, stands a giant tree.

So, we have a giant tree (no palaces!): mɛdɛ nonno in sessile singular (for a class III noun). And it stands across something: mɛdɛ nonno sɛdɛ susi alamya or mɛdɛ nonno alansɛdɛ susi. Yes, susi can mean “here” and “somewhere” and therefore any unspecified location.

But this does not yet convey “directly opposite”, so we will add an adverb kadeya, related to the word for “mirror” to convey this idea.

38. mɛdɛ nonno alansɛdɛ susi kadeya dɛstɛ.

In Kēlen:

38. la jamēþa jōnōna rūjālme ānen anñūna;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list:

37. You must write more neatly.

Oh my. Writing. I am not sure if the people who speak sodna-lɛni even have writing. If they do, it is a specialist skill. And since this sentence is especially about the physical skill of forming letters, I think I will use mɛh-aŋi as the verb for turning ink into letters, or writing.

So, ink. That’d be a class III, motile plural (’cause it is a liquid), so syetɨdi would be the proper form. Letters would also be class III, and in the sessile plural (multiple letters), so ɨlkɨni. This gives us syetɨdi mɛhaŋi ɨlkɨni so far.

“You” would be the source in this case, and in the motile singular ŋidi.

“More neatly” is the adverb mɨdeya modified by no “more”.

And “must”…. “Must” will work like “should”, except with ka.

37. ŋidi syetɨdi mɛhaŋi ɨlkɨni mɨdeya no dɛstɛ ka.

You must make ink into letters more carefully.

In Kēlen:

37. ñarra jīlki ānen ankēλa nā cī;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list, and thinking this one-a-day format is working fine, since I can schedule these in advance:

36. You have come too soon.

“Come” uses the verb ono, which requires a source, namely “here” (susi). So that leaves “too” modifying an adverb “soon” (galaba). Well, if no is “more”, then I think alam will be “too much”. The adverb alamya “across” when used with the adverb nadya and a “to be” verb with an adjective as destination means “wholly, completely”, so I think it is entirely reasonable to have it mean “too much” or “too” when modifying another adverb in a different context.

36. susi ŋidi ono galaba alam.

In Kēlen:

36. ñi riēn rā þō il anniþen nāpie;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list, and still experimenting with a one-a-day format:

35. We should eat more slowly.

“Eating” as ingesting uses the verb ono, which requires a source, namely one’s belly, kye. From a previous post, we determined that the evidential dɛstɛ with the hortative ki makes a suggestion. And in another previous post, we decided to make the adverb-modifying adverb no, which here will modify the adverb tosi “slowly”. So:

35. lɛnna kye gogɨdiya ono tosi no dɛstɛ ki.

Food should go more slowly to our belly.

In Kēlen:

35. hēya ñanta anhōhi anjīlni ānen antōxa nā;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list, and still experimenting with a one-a-day format:

34. Lovely flowers are growing everywhere.

OK, “growing”. Remember back in post #3 of this series when I said that olaya and tadya were not going to be prefixable, and then I made an exception for tadya + tɨŋi when it came to rain in post #6 of this series. Well, here we are in post #15, and I am going to make another exception. olaya can be prefixed to tɨŋi in order to describe plants growing (going up out of the ground). But not for sunrises or children getting taller, ok?

34. maladɨdi syoɬɨdi olatɨŋi nadi soti.

In Kēlen:

34. ñi jamāli jaxōλi jajāēli sūnnarien;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list, and still experimenting with a one-a-day format:

33. This mist will probably clear away.

“Away” again. OK, using pɛsi, what is the source? A nebulous (sorry) “here”? If so, I think I will make it “the mist” (syaggaga) rather than “this mist” (ha syaggaga). And probably is giya I think. It could be dɛga as that is for a certain future, or a very probable one, so just using dɛga might be enough for “probably will”, though I tend to use it more for “certainly will”. giya has more to do with potentiality and ability, so it is more like “possibly will/could”. So, let’s stick with giya. Except, I don’t really like using giya by itself for this, so let’s use it in conjunction with the adverb noya, which can be used to mean “much” or “many” of an adjective with the “to be” verbs. And since noya is modifying giya rather than pɛsi, it will take the form no and follow giya.

33. susi syaggaga pɛsi giya no tɛlɛ.

In Kēlen:

33. pa ankīhāe rēha ñi anxāhi rūjapēxa;

Questions?

Continuing with Gary’s list, and still experimenting with a one-a-day format:

32. The two boys are working together.

Hmm. “are working”. That definitely implies motion, though it is motion in place. I suppose this can be expressed with a “to be” verb, using an abstract noun like “labor” as the destination: The two boys are standing in labor together. Yes. I like that. OK.

“Two boys” is the subject: kodna ɛnna. The verb is sɛdɛ, which is the default “to be” when humans are the subject. Labor, or rather “work, project”, is a class IV noun, kɛbɛdan, in the sessile singular. “Together” is the adverb nɨki:

32. kodna ɛnna sɛdɛ kɛbɛdan nɨki.

The two boys are working together.

In Kēlen:

32. ñatta jakēwīke jānīke ā mamōīñi ēnne;

The two boys are working together. (The two boys are making joint work.)

Questions?