The Leha thread

[akam chinjir]

I just realized that isn't the best example because "us" here is an indirect object rather than a direct object.

I'm used to that being called an applied object, fwiw. Though you don't seem to be treating applied objects as direct objects?

[Travis B.]

I just realized that isn't the best example because "us" here is an indirect object rather than a direct object.

I'm used to that being called an applied object, fwiw. Though you don't seem to be treating applied objects as direct objects?

An applied object appears to be something different, where an oblique argument is promoted to being a core argument by an applicative.

[akam chinjir]

I just realized that isn't the best example because "us" here is an indirect object rather than a direct object.

I'm used to that being called an applied object, fwiw. Though you don't seem to be treating applied objects as direct objects?

An applied object appears to be something different, where an oblique argument is promoted to being a core argument by an applicative.

Yes, I was referring to analyses of the English double object construction as an applicative construction, which promotes an indirect object to direct object, with (benefactive and change-of-possession) semantics characteristic of applicatives in many languages. (An important source for this sort of analysis is Pylkkänen, What Applicative Heads Apply To.)

But that doesn't really matter for Leha, if you've got applicatives that work that way, you've got sentences that could use duplicate person marking.

[Travis B.]

I'm used to that being called an applied object, fwiw. Though you don't seem to be treating applied objects as direct objects?

An applied object appears to be something different, where an oblique argument is promoted to being a core argument by an applicative.

Yes, I was referring to analyses of the English double object construction as an applicative construction, which promotes an indirect object to direct object, with (benefactive and change-of-possession) semantics characteristic of applicatives in many languages. (An important source for this sort of analysis is Pylkkänen, What Applicative Heads Apply To.)

But that doesn't really matter for Leha, if you've got applicatives that work that way, you've got sentences that could use duplicate person marking.

Actually, now that I think of it, I could have applicatives be used to mark indirect objects in that way. I had not thought of that.

[Travis B.]

I think I'll do this - dative arguments are marked either with we, which marks dative or benefactive meanings, or with an applicative construction, e.g.

Linuyetu wete ficeri zose.
give-EGO-1S DAT-OBJ.PL bird-PL seed
"I am giving the birds seed."

Linutteyetu ficeri zose.
give-APPL-OBJ.PL-EGO-1S bird-PL seed
"I am giving the birds seed."

[Travis B.]

Leha does not have compounding per se, but possession is commonly used in it to express what compounding is used to express in other languages. Furthermore, nouns may be used as stative verbs to express meanings similar to English -y, -like, or -ish. This is seen in particular with the color words, which are listed both as stative verbs and as nouns.

Conversely, verbs may be nominalized by simply using their stems as nouns, even though normally nominalization takes place by placing the verb after a noun in a relative clause.

For instance:

Disse notjo xara soozane.
cat smell-DIR meat fish-ATTR
"The cat is smelling the fishy meat."

Dissen sooza ta waalu howane zohu sooza sake.
cat-POSS.3 fish and bear brown-ATTR eat-REP fish big-ATTR
"Otters and brown bears eat big fish."

Kiva gaam visdu nuhe wene honne.
green EQU-DED color good-ATTR DAT-ATTR grass
"Green is a good color for grass."

Note that in the above, the plural is generally only used for actual quantities of a noun; when speaking of a noun in general, the plural is not normally used.

[Travis B.]

Here are some more examples:

Waalu duulnatejo tor riidhin sellari.
bear scare-PST.PFV-OBJ.PL-DIR ABL die-CAUS-POSS.3 wolf-PL
"(I saw) the bear scare the wolves away from its kill."

For an example of the use of inverse marking (as humans are higher on the animacy hierarchy than non-human animates):

Waalu zonajowi yod.
bear eat-PST.PFV-DIR-INV man
"(I saw) the bear eat a man."

[Travis B.]

Maas zohinayetuwi yindu.
mother eat-CAUS-PST.PFV-EGO-1-INV chicken
"My mother made me eat chicken."

Zohidanayetu yindu.
eat-CAUS-PASS-PST.PFV-EGO-1 chicken
"I was made to eat chicken."

[Travis B.]

Subordination is constructed with verbs and nouns which take nominalized clauses as arguments or as possessums. Verbs often used for this include:

be for (dative, benefactive)	we	"in order to", "so as to"
along with (comitative)	ver	"along with"
sit (locative)	ja	"where"
conditional	faw	"if"
at (time)	deey	"when"
be like	sal	"as"

Constructions consisting of both verbs and nouns used for this include:

sit (locative), place	ja suun	"instead of"
come from (ablative), reason	tor loogan	"because"
at (time), front	deey raban	"before"
at (time), back	deey mikan	"after"

[Travis B.]

Some examples of subordination include:

Coow beem ja se disse neyan.
mouse inhabit-DED LOC NOM cat know-NEG
"(I deduced that) the mouse lives where the cat doesn't about."

Coow duuldam tor loogan se disse zoyi.
mouse scare-PASS-DED ABL reason-POSS.3 NOM cat eat-PSABL-INV
"(I deduced that) the mouse is scared because the cat might eat it."

[Travis B.]

When there is a 3rd person pronominal topic, the comment is preceded by null - this solves some issues with distinguishing transitive verbs with topical 3rd person pronominal subjects from antipassive* verbs with non-pronominal 3rd person subjects.

* i.e. transitive verbs with the direct object omitted; there is no antipassive voice per se.

[Travis B.]

Zonajo fice.
eat-PST.PFV-DIR bird
"(I saw that) it (topic) ate a bird."

Fice zonajo wa.
bird eat-PST.PFV-DIR 3S
"(I saw that) it (non-topic) ate the bird."

Zonajowi fice.
eat-PST.PFV-DIR-INV bird
"(I saw that) the bird ate it (topic)."

Fice zonajowi.
bird eat-PST.PFV-DIR-INV
"(I saw that) the bird ate it (non-topic)."

Fice zonajo.
bird eat-PST.PFV-DIR 3S
"(I saw that) the bird ate."

As we see here, with a transitive verb, when there is a non-topical 3rd person pronominal agent, it is necessary to mark it with a full 3rd person pronoun lest it be ambiguous with an intransitive verb.

[Travis B.]

Relativization of direct objects is carried out by treating the direct object as a special topic (one that is always highest on the person/animacy/topicality hierarchy, higher than even 2nd or 1st persons), and marking the verb as inverse, as shown below:

Siba seldatdanahu dike xiqerohine yod.
deer throw-APPL-PASS-PST.PFV-REP rock carry-PST.IPFV-INV-ATTR man
"(I heard that) the deer was hit by the rock carried by the man."

[Travis B.]

I have decided to add an attributive marker to verbs, -(n)e, for the disambiguation of relative clauses from serial verbs, allowing serial verb constructions a much freer word order (specifically serial verbs can come any place after the main verb rather than just right after it).

[Travis B.]

Guse linutejo qari leeyine wiyahite jaari.
sky give-PAT.P-DIR thing-P many-AGT.P-ATTR grow-CAUS-PAT.P person-P

Qa nuhe gaatowtejo jaari linudatlawe Guse.
thing good-ATTR exist-APPL-NEG-OBJ.P-DIR person-P give-PASS-APPL-ABIL-ATTR sky.

Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi.
die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS

[Pedant]

Guse linutejo qari leeyine wiyahite jaari.
sky give-PAT.P-DIR thing-P many-AGT.P-ATTR grow-CAUS-PAT.P person-P

Qa nuhe gaatontejo jaari linudatlawe Guse.
thing good-ATTR exist-APPL-NEG-OBJ.P-DIR person-P give-PASS-APPL-ABIL-ATTR sky.

Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi. Riidhi.
die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS die-CAUS

...okay, I've been seeing this particular chain of words pop up in a lot of different languages on this board, and while I'm not a greenhorn anymore I'm still fairly new. What precisely did this text start out as?

[Kuchigakatai]

...okay, I've been seeing this particular chain of words pop up in a lot of different languages on this board, and while I'm not a greenhorn anymore I'm still fairly new. What precisely did this text start out as?

It's the text of a stele allegedly erected by 17th-century Chinese peasant rebel Zhāng Xiànzhōng during his two-year murderous rule of the province of Sichuan. I think people here use it as one of those MurderIsTheBestSolution type of dark-humour jokes as TvTropes would put it (see the quote from Dragon Age at the beginning of that article for another example).

[Pedant]

It's the text of a stele allegedly erected by 17th-century Chinese peasant rebel Zhāng Xiànzhōng during his two-year murderous rule of the province of Sichuan. I think people here use it as one of those MurderIsTheBestSolution type of dark-humour jokes as TvTropes would put it (see the quote from Dragon Age at the beginning of that article for another example).

...cool.

[Travis B.]

Dohaduh jajo guse,
father-POSS.P-POSS.1 LOC-DIR sky

Voraya sayjo.
name-POSS.2 holy-DIR

Regaya nom.
country-POSS.2 come

Nuzaya fiya
will-POSS.2 make

ja kahha sal guse.
LOC earth as sky

Linutteya ja qusa sane villeduhan qusa,
give-APPL-PAT.P-2 LOC day PROX-ATTR bread-POSS.P-POSS.1-POSS.3 day

ta wiguteya rehhuriduh,
and forgive-PAT.P-2 trespass-P-POSS.P-POSS.1

sal wigunyetu vodi rehhune nintu,
as forgive-AGT.P-EGO-1 DIST-P trespass-P-ATTR ALL-P-1

ta boselutetu ni fibba,
and lead-PROH-PAT.P-1 ALL tempt

ta cellitetu tor jow.
and rescue-PAT.P-1 ABL bad

Tor loogan vodaya gaajo rega vode,
ABL reason DIST-POSS.2 EQU-DIR country DIST-ATTR

ta conne vode, ta qeba vode,
and power DIST-ATTR and glory DIST-ATTR

we paa yuune ta paa yuune
DAT time all-ATTR and time all-ATTR

Amen
amen

[Travis B.]

Now that I think about it, I should probably make modals not part of the verb itself but rather separate verbs, to make the verbal complex not be such a kitchen sink.