Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:00 am
What we call "variables" and a "constants" the Tim Ar called igús hóntá (sg.kîs hóntá) 'countenances, (facial) expressions' and irúdkar (sg.tîdkar) 'skulls'. Exponents and powers are iurëĝ ar (sg.ïrëĝ, cf. my earlier remarks on simple operations); similarly, roots are ésa (sg. [/b]séḫ[/b]).
The derivative is called the hadál ḫaług 'mountain man, mountaineer'; to take the derivative of an expression is to ḫaług 'climb' it. The integral is edaoł 'cargo, a consignment' (this is, senso strictu, a plural noun but in mathematics jargon it is often reänalyzed as a singular); you don't "integrate" an expression, you ëdkana 'audit, inventory' it instead. The partial derivative is a dïg 'billy goat' and the partial integral ratsó 'scum' (though the verbs haług and ëdkana are still used).
I’d be quite curious to know if any of these terms have any kind of sensible etymology — or do they all fall in the ‘essentially random’ category?
- The idea behind variables and constants is that facial expressions go over the skull and are subject to variability, whereas the skull itself is essentially fixed (constant).
- Exponents and powers are simply nominalizations of the appropriate operators (see the earlier post).
- The derivative of a function is just the rate of change at a given point, the slope of the tangent line. The metaphor is climbing the slope (of a mountain).
- The integral is the area under the curve, so it's like that is a storehouse with the "cargo" (area) underneath.
- The partial derivative relies on the mountain metaphor again, like how goats are able to get footing on impossible grades.
- ratsó is one of the essentially random ones. I was scrolling through my lexicon and I found it and the thought of using the "pond scum" glyph amused me greatly.
(mathematics) to total, to sum (to), to reach, to make
Etymology. From Proto-Beheic phrase *ʔal e 'to stand there', fused into a single term. sad /sàθ/ [sàθ] v.
to work for, to be in s.o.'s pocket
to brown-nose, to flatter
Etymology. From Proto-Beheic *kas 'fall down' + *-ɹ- 'BENEFACTIVE'. tal /tàl/ [tàl] n. (pl.arl /àɹl̩/ [àɹl̩])
colony, planned remote settlement
Etymology. From Classical Khaya dal 'village'. The Classical Khaya were another people group encountered by the early Tim Ar-O peoples and dominated various segments of the population at various times; this term is a relic of those interactions.
Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 12:29 am
Reported speech in CT is indicated using the anaphoric hae:
Saman áłag hae hé, hae ĝreg eḫrîr hé.
saman
speak
áłag
DISC.PRF
hae
that
hé
3SG
ĝreg
ignite
/ḫerîr
PL/straw
hé
3SG
'he said (that) he is burning the straw'
Tiḫkór irü hae hétság ĝus łn hé.
tiḫkór
command
irü
CONT.PRF
hae
that
hétság
obey
ĝus
1SG
łn
2SG
hé
3SG
'he ordered you to obey me'
I want to be sure I understand this...I understand the "he said (...) " part.
But in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?
...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.
keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?
...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.
The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).
I'm rather curious to hear how your conception of CT pronouns is—would you mind providing your analysis? Interesting to see an outside observer's perspective.
keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?
...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.
The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).
I'm rather curious to hear how your conception of CT pronouns is—would you mind providing your analysis?
For the most part, I can't remember the majority of what I'd been thinking at the time (this is as true of this post in this thread, as any other thread anywhere on the internet)...but from what scraps are still available to me, in my brain and on paper, I can offer this:
If you'd asked me at the time, I might have been able to provide it - it was mostly bound up in how the persons in
hé ĝreg /ḫerîr hé
3SG ignite PL/straw 3SG
vs
ĝus łn hé
1SG 2SG 3SG
were ordered, with an action verb and an object (which was also the location of the verb) framed/bookended by the 3SG.....while the latter had no such thing: it was all bookends, no books - which is a nice look all its own.
Yes, it was probably that shallow of a thought. Based on what of my notes I can find from around then, I was reading about Piraha again, as well as the recced article about Moloko, and more from the former than the latter, I framed the question's second option as "he said (obey me (you will) ) "
I wish I could remember why I thought hae was handling it when the 1st Person wasn't present...but I didn't jot it down, so it slipped my mind; sorry.
Interesting to see an outside observer's perspective.
I wish I had more of a perspective to offer; sorry. Normally I try to make sure I understand things at least nominally when a new post is made (though we both know that what I think I understand, is sometimes correct and sometimes not; no worries)...and it was upon that perceived understanding that I made the observation and questions to which you replied recently.
keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:02 amBut in the second example, is it a case of.....its not the 1st Person, so it gets handled by hae ?
...or is it "he said (obey me (you will) ) " ?
i thought i had a good grasp of how CT handled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, particularly in terms of where they go in a sentence...til just now; sorry.
The latter. I'm sorry for any confusion (and for not posting here for a month).
keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:38 pm
the recced article about Moloko
Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.
I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
Re: Keenir's scratchpad - 1-vowel naming lang (numbers only)
Post by bradrn » Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:14 pm
keenir wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:57 pm
When you asked, I wasn't sure about allophony...I had been thinking this could be the closest I get to completing a One Vowel Project...but I had no thoughts about how to do allophony or wherein to aim, but I at least had a thought about where to place stress.
Languages with only one or two underlying vowels always have many more at the surface level. For instance, Moloko has an underlying vowel inventory /a (ə)/ (with the latter epenthetic), but a surface vowel inventory of [a ɛ œ ɔ ə ø ɪ ʊ i u]. Similarly, Abkhaz has /a ə/ realised as [a e o ə i u], and Kaytetye Arrernte has /a ə/ realised as [a ə i o u]. Usually the allophony is related to the surrounding consonants: e.g. /əj/ might be realised as .
keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:38 pm
the recced article about Moloko
Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.
I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm
Hmm, which one’s that? I like Moloko.
I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118
Oh, Friesen’s grammar. I thought you were talking about something different.
sorry; i didn't mean to mislead or cause a misunderstanding.
keenir wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:30 pm
I thought I had it bookmarked, but it turned out to be a saved file (pdf) in my computer.
(i can see if i can figure out how to send a copy to you if you like)
it was here: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/118
Oh, Friesen’s grammar. I thought you were talking about something different.
sorry; i didn't mean to mislead or cause a misunderstanding.
Over at the Other Place, chris_notts wrote:deictic distinctions [Ed.: in some Mayan languages] (this/that, here/there, …) are not marked by individual words or morphemes but are split between a distance neutral deictic trigger word which determines the function (presentative, adverbial, adnominal, …) and a series of clause final particles (not necessarily adjacent) which mark location
I have restructured CT deictics to work similarly. They are binarily composed in the way chris_notts describes.
The three trigger words: ma – default rel – presentative tó – topical
The proximal deictics: rmé – no, none dú – one, some, any, few iglí – any of these l – certain, specific híl – certain of these en – all hí – all of these gí – this/that/these/those
The medial deictics: réam – no, none dúi – one, some, any, few híehí – any of these é – certain, specific éhí – certain of these dám – all dáma – all of these gía – this/that/these/those
The distal deictics: réa – no, none dúe – one, some, any, few gíhí – any of these néa – certain, specific níehí – certain of these m – all gímí – all of these tó – this/that/these/those
Presentatives give a sense of "here is X", "here goes X", "there's your X":
áge rel dołar iglí
áge
COP
rel
PRST
dołar
estate
iglí
one.of.those.PROX
'here's one of the estates (in question)'
áge rel kôr n łn gí
áge
COP
rel
PRST
kôr
problem
n
GEN
łn
2SG
gí
this.PROX
'well, here's your problem' — Jamie Hyneman, MythBusters
But you can also embed them into non-copular sentences:
łántá dúhłë łn, Amrołïs, rel tálga mío gía
łántá
be.able
dúhłë
eat
łn
2SG
Amrołïs
NAME
rel
PRST
tálga
ground
mío
via
gía
this.MED
'here, Ambrosius, you can eat from the ground' I've been listening to "Ambrosius" by Gnome for like the past two hours on repeat
The difference between ma and tó is a little hard for me to describe. Closest I can come to it is that ma tends to refer to things in physical space whereas tó is more abstract. If you're discussing possible new flats to move into, you would be more likely to use ma to refer to places you've been to and tó for places you're looking into but haven't actually visited. If I'm talking about my many cousins, I'd use ma to refer to them and tó if I were to get exasperated and exaggeratedly say "this one went home, this one stuck around, this one drove off I don't know where! It was confusing!". I don't know. It's weird.
Also thinking about implementing serial verb constructions into CT. It'd make discourse structure a lot easier but also more interesting.
Over at the Other Place, chris_notts wrote:deictic distinctions [Ed.: in some Mayan languages] (this/that, here/there, …) are not marked by individual words or morphemes but are split between a distance neutral deictic trigger word which determines the function (presentative, adverbial, adnominal, …) and a series of clause final particles (not necessarily adjacent) which mark location
He also said it on this place:
chris_notts wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:27 pm
Cross-posting something I submitted on CBB about a real feature of some Mayan languages which I thought was cool enough to steal for my latest conlang. …
'he brought the book, he came here to bring the book (but he and/or the book is no longer here)'
There is some nuance:
toḫ irü ałríhka Łési Uál l
toḫ
hand.over
irü
CONT.PRF
ałríhka
PL/money
ü
DEF
Łési
NAME
Uál
NAME
l
at
'Jesse gave Walt (the) money, Jesse handed money (over) to Walt (who still has it/used it for relevant reasons)'
níir irü ałríhka tîh Uál Łési
níir
take
irü
CONT.PRF
ałríhka
PL/money
tîh
give.to
Uál
NAME
Łési
NAME
'Jesse gave Walt some money (who still has it/used it for relevant reasons)'
Also compare how this might differ from simple conjunction of clauses:
tíhom áłag öd uh áłag érí
tíhom
dance
áłag
DISC.PRF
öd
and.V
uh
sing
áłag
DISC.PRF
érí
3PL
'they danced and sang'
tíhom áłag uh érí
tíhom
dance
áłag
DISC.PRF
uh
sing
érí
3PL
'they performed, they put on a performance'
hôu irü hé öd tégé ĝús
hôu
discern
irü
CONT.PRF
hé
3SG
öd
and.V
tégé
come.to
ĝús
1SG
'he achieved (an) understanding, and (then/therefore) I went there'
ḫôu irü hé tégé ĝús
hôu
discern
irü
CONT.PRF
hé
3SG
tégé
come.to
ĝús
1SG
'I tracked him here'
This can get ridiculous:
túl éden ihtiḫ egno edlmári gagné náaḫl érí
túl
begin
éden
drive
/tiriḫ
PL/wheel
egno
chase
/delmári
enemy.combatant
gagné
catch
náaḫl
kill
érí
3PL
'they began to pursue the enemy soldiers'
Confusingly, there are certain derivational morphemes that precede the referent and look a whole lot like verbs, but are bound—they can only coöccur with a referent, no words can intervene, and can (in some cases) take objects of their own. These themselves can be made part of a serial construction:
tr súlag hé łn
tr
CAUSE.STATE
súlag
joy
hé
3SG
łn
2SG
'you make him happy'
okseĝ idmísto tr súlag hé tr súlag ĝús łn
okseĝ
finance
idmísto
vacation
tr
CAUSE.STATE
súlag
joy
hé
3SG
tr
CAUSE.STATE
súlag
joy
ĝús
1SG
łn
2SG
'your paying for his vacation made him happy, which made me happy'
Also note that you can call the same verb multiple times in the same construction.
I'm trying to get back in the conworlding/conlanging groove, both for here and for the Akana relay. I have been bushed the past couple weeks for reasons I only partially understand.
--------------------------------
So I really want the Tim Ar to have an involved caste system (tël hugú, roughly 'census-ology'). I'm not sure how this develops aside from a few facets: I do know that the Caber dynasties had some influence in it and that a few millennia later Bleffys Udd has a hand in propping it up. The form I want it to have is basically a three-metric scheme: What I term méri 'origin', akrár 'station', and këmêm 'guild'. (I don't use "race/ethnicity", "varna", and "jati"; that wouldn't quite map.)
Méri
The term méri (pl.émri) is here glossed as 'origin'. It's not exactly race or ethnicity—the classifications aren't strictly by blood quantum/genetic, though that is a component of the system. From most to least prestigious:
- hía (< CK fi-a 'person of ten')
- uíráha (< CK wita-ha 'person of the mountain')
- konrín ('northerner')
- kía (< CK ki-a 'person of six')
The descriptor hía corresponds to the various descendants of the PTO cultural complex: The Tim Ar themselves, the O, the gPangin, and related peoples. Uíráha is a general term for certain favored peoples in the Empire (the hía themselves are actually a subset of uíráha, but they're worth mention separately), while the term konrín was appropriated by Bleffys Udd to refer to certain groups within the Empire who had willingly submitted to assimilation or were otherwise entrenched by that time; kía is basically a wastebasket taxon for "none of the above".
Specific uíráha constituents include the Caber (kên), the Täptäg (támreg), the peoples of the Mziddyun (all thrown together as sáĝir), the Kgáweq' (láhiḫ—and that is actually a cognate term), and those known as eglór—persons of one- to three-quarters hía heritage, regardless of any other ethnic makeup. It is sometimes possible for one to get "promoted" from eglór status to hía. (The Tim Ar have a system similar to plaçage—you can enter into a semi-formal arrangement with a member of another guild, station, or origin; this gives your placée and family some legal recourse upon your death and in some cases it was able to secure a legal status of hía for your children.)
Being from a specific méri limited your options in society quite a bit vis-à-vis social stratification (q.v.).
Akrár
Akrár, here glossed 'station', is roughly analogous to what you would consider social class in Western-style systems. The following stations exist; I've given some general examples of occupations whose guilds you'll find as members, though this is not a comprehensive list.
- oími (aristocracy) – administrative, land-owning, judges, legislators, gigabusiness, old money, hawaladars, high military officers, supra-local politicians
- oisog (academics) – lawyers, investigators, accountants, bankers, scientists, apothecaries, engineers, architects, educators, researchers, journalists, archivists, historians, military intelligence, creative arts
- łores (commoners) – white-collar jobs, desk jobs, office jobs
- kalahíes (vulgar commoners) – pink-collar jobs, jobs in the service industry, creatives, the gig economy as primary, law enforcement
- soł (thralls) – blue-collar jobs, manual labor, agricultural workers, the energy industry, mining, professional sports
- uígúa (untouchables) – the dirty jobs
You do find military among the ranks of the oími, oisog, and łores—or really most of the stations—but many of the actual boots on the ground (think the front-liners, the marines, black ops, SEALs) are considered uígúa, at least temporarily. Military service often presents roads for advancement of social status; it's one of the few ways that basically anyone has a chance to climb the social ladder. While deployed, the soldier is considered uígúa. If he musters out with a sufficient track record or demonstration of skill, he can often be "promoted" or "assigned" to an appropriate guild (q.v.). Similarly, while being educated, practitioners of medical care are considered uígúa. Medical work is another rare means by which one can be "promoted" or "assigned", though it's also somewhat more difficult to do so this way. (There are also medical guilds that just happen to be uígúa.)
To a first approximation, the difference between łores and kalahíes is, in many respects, "Would this job hire me without five years of experience/a Bachelor's degree"? Continuing this thread, you can think of oisog kind of like Master's- or Doctorate-level. The soł are often chattel; even if they're not formally owned by another (or the state), they're heavily discriminated against regardless. However, even they are considered better off than the uígúa—this descriptor covers jobs of the sort oft featured on Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe and also includes death-, disease-, and bodily-fluid-related professions generally. This deserves special mention because there are very strict rules on hygiene, so you'll get things like an oisog doctor ordering around some uígúa attendants who do the actual work with the (contagious) patient. This causes much needless overcomplication. (The term uígúa itself comes from Classical Khaya wiqhu-a 'people of 12', from the base in which the Khaya counted. As you might guess, the Tim Ar ended up Uno Reverse Carding them.)
The interplay between méri and possible akrár works this way:
- Hía can be oími, oisog, or łores
- Uíráha can be oisog, łores, or kalahíes
- Konrín can be łores, kalahíes, or soł
- Kía can be kalahíes, soł, or uígúa
Këmêm
The këmêm (pl.egumêm), or 'guild', is the endogamous extended unit to which one belongs and within which one is generally expected to marry. There are too many of these to list, and they operate to varying degrees of specificity. For example, the Úulïd guild are expected to become master chefs, whereas the Tálgahkáhan are specifically theoretical and megastructural engineers, and the Îłtáaî are daredevils and performance artists; on the other hand, you get guilds like the Këlogmê, who constitute basically all restaurant personnel within a given major metropolitan area. In some cases, a locative element is present to one degree of specificity or another; a number of egumêm originated from regional (or sometimes even intra-city!) professional societies, trade guilds, or unions.
You're supposed to marry within your këmêm; any children of that union will be of the same këmêm. However, it is acknowledged that children from mixed-këmêm unions will exist; the rules regarding plaçage are still being ironed out, but generally you default to the méri, akrár, and këmêm of your mother. The exception to this is if the father is at least half-hía (i.e. at least one grandfather was hía); in some situations this can "override" expectations of heritability—though often only in legal force upon reaching adulthood or upon death of the father. You can make one of your placée's children your primary heir, but you'll only do this if a) you have no legitimate children of your own or b) you have judged your legitimate heirs unworthy—though such a move is not to be taken lightly; you're basically insinuating that your flesh and blood is such a failure that you had to go outside the guild to find someone suitable.
"Mŭy Bǎhon" in STK glyphs (slightly outdated version)
----------------
I suppose I should do some work on the other languages of Tethír and its environs.
Proto-Lakes
/m n nʲ/
/p pʰ b t tʰ d tʲ tʲʰ dʲ k kʰ g q qʰ ɢ/
/f v s z/
/ɹ j w/
/a ə Ø/
(C)(g/r/j/w)V
*wØ, *jØ > *u, *i
This may have implications in that some of the daughters treat the high vowels like consonants instead of vowels, at least in some situations.
When appearing in second position in the onset, *g is given to assimilation in voice/aspiration to an adjacent stop: thana + *-g- = thkhana. This does not happen with fricatives, which themselves voice: sarya + -g- = sgarya (phonetically zgarya)
Some Things that can Happen:
- Heavy onsets attract stress, which becomes pitch accent; the cluster is then lost, phonemicizing tone
- *u *i just…drop, wholesale (maybe after palatalizing something?)
- Broad and slender! Woo!
- *wa, *ja > *ɔ, *ɛ with *wə, *jə > *o, *e
Proto-Lakes is henceforth Proto-Vyə (Archaic Vyə vyə, augmentative of vyə́ 'highlands, piedmont'), at least until I sort out the phonology of Classical Vyə. This is ultimately the source from which Jädewan sprung.
Archaic Vyə actually is attested from very shortly after Proto-Vyə was spoken. The main phonological developments between Proto-Vyə and Archaic Vyə were:
1. Pitch accent developed. The earliest complex onset or bivocalic sequence "won" the stress; otherwise it went to the initial.
2. *u *i deleted when *w *y and/or *u *i were in the following syllable.
3. If the initial two or final two syllables shared a vowel, the first deleted.
4. A lot of final high vowels were lost. Sometimes this "stranded" a glide *w *y, which then syllabified.
5. Under pressure from the existence of *f, *w fortited to v.
6. When a consonant cluster formed that didn't involve *-g-, assimilation in voicing regressed.
Not all words had a tone, but generally you could have a maximum of one (bar compounds and the like). Examples of minimal sets include:
kryá (< *kirya) 'soul, essence' vs. krya (< *kriya) 'apricot' phəġvá (< *phəġwa) vs. phə́ġva (< *phəġawa) vs. phəġva (< *phəġəwa) vyə́ (< *əwyə) 'plain, foothills' vs. vyə (< *əəwyə) 'Vyə Mountains' kyáv (< *kuyaawi) ' vs. kyav (< *kayawi) phá (< *pha) 'to twirl' vs. pha (< *phaa) 'javelin, lance'
Dgvə́gvə khsatk bhrágəvg
dgvə́
man
-gvə
VOL
khsadh
temple
-k
ACC
bhagə
see
<r>
PST
-vg
M
'the man looked at the temple'
See that M? That is the masculine subject marker. It means the agent of the verb is male. You can suffix -vg to an accusative noun to imply a male object as well.
The nominal augmentative in Archaic Vyə descended from reduplication in Proto-Vyə: *khadhu > khádh 'room', *khá~khadhu > khsadh 'temple'. The descendant of *=gəfə was -gvə, a volitive marker. *=ki lived on as an accusative marker -k: khsadh 'temple' + -k 'ACC' > khsatk 'temple.ACC'.
When two stops of the same place stood together thanks to infixes or other phonetic shenanigans, the second changed to s (or, if it was labial, f or v, and usually the latter)—cf. the example of khsadh above.
Ignore the below, it's for recordkeeping purposes only:
There was also an *a- inceptive in PV that led to some lexicalization shenanigans. Basically, when the first vowel of the original verb stem was *a, the *a- prefix would delete, but after attracting the tone. This led to a lot of derivations, analogical forms, and general idiocy. Note that some idiomatic forms exist.
*a-phasra > aphsrá 'start, begin; step in' + K- > khphsra 'would begin' *a-wəgi > avə́g 'copy, mimic' + K- > gavə́g 'would imitate' *a-sikyəra > askyə́ra 'begin to eat' + K- > gaskyə́ra 'would begin to eat' *a-radgasra > radgásra (> aradgásra by analogy) 'begin to feed' + K- > garadgásra 'would begin to feed'
The a- forms won out for the inceptive. By analogy, we get forms like: phsra 'plan to' vəg 'establish, found' skyəra 'convene for a meal, gather together to eat' rdgasra 'hand out (originally food), dispense, parcel out, assign'
ġyabrəgv khrə́k gvrəgivg
ġyabrə
1SG.M
-gv
VOL
khrə́
3SG.INAN
-k
ACC
g-
IRR
vəg
establish
<r>
PST
-vg
M
'I would have established it'
There was also an experiential in -rg (< *-irgi), implying some sort of great effort, focus, or effect on the doer:
ġyabrəgv khsyə́k skyə́rarg
ġyabrə
1SG.M
-gv
VOL
khsyə́
quinoa
-k
ACC
skyə́ra
swallow
-rg
EXP
'I (m.) ate the quinoa'
qhúgv khrə́k phsrárg
qhú
1SG.F
-gv
VOL
khrə́
3SG.INAN
-k
ACC
phsrá
do
-rg
EXP
'I (f.) have done it, I have seen it done, I have achieved it'
…rav qhú rgú dírghə́k khsirə́rg…
rav
and
qhú
1SG.F
rgú
in.like.manner
dírghə
animal
-k
ACC
khsyə
change
<r>
PST
=rg
EXP
'…and I became as an animal…'
Here's a good example of the differences in practice:
qhúgv sárigirg
qhú
1SG.F
-gv
VOL
sárig
serve
-rg
EXP
'I have served' (i.e. and I did it because it fulfills me)
