TAM markers
It’s a bit surprising to realise that I’ve gotten this far without describing the TAM verboids, given their importance in Eŋes. Let’s fix that!
To summarise… there are 11 TAM verboids which can occupy the first slot after negation in the verb core. (The list has changed somewhat since the
last time I mentioned them.) Of these, seven trigger the ‘A’ forms of subsequent verboids, while the other four trigger their ‘B’ forms.
(I used to split up these forms further into ‘aspectual’ and ‘modal’ verboids, but language-internally there’s really no reason to distinguish the two.)
‘A’ triggers
Of the TAM markers which trigger ‘A’ forms, probably the most common is the progressive aspect
sar-. Its most basic use is for an action which is ongoing as of the time of reference:
Bsareserapi.
[bza.re.seˈra.pi]
b-sar-eserap-i
1s-PROG-eat-3s
I’m eating. /
I was eating. /
I’ll be eating.
Combined with another clause, it often marks simultaneous actions:
Basiwus basareserapi.
[ba.siˌwus.ba.sa.re.seˈra.pi]
ba-siw-us ba-sar-eserap-i
1p-PFV-talk 1p-PROG-eat-3s
We talked while eating.
A particularly common use is with perception verbs, where English would use subordination:
Blsoŋi sareserapi.
[bə̆ˌlzo.ŋi.sa.re.seˈra.pi]
b-lsoŋ-i ∅-sar-eserap-i
1s-see-3s 3s-PROG-eat-3s
I can see him eating.
However,
sar- may not be used with verbs with stative or punctual meanings. Thus *
iŋsarfoŋi ‘they are being there’ and *
bsarpkeyi ‘I am knocking it’ are unacceptable, but
iŋsarfesi ‘they are arriving there’ and
bsarpkeysi ‘I am beating it’ are fine. (As in these examples, moving to the corresponding iterative stem is a common way of rescuing such sentences.)
The habitual
fas- is pretty straightforwardly translatable as ‘usually’, ‘used to’, etc.:
Nwun sintowenar.
[nwun.sin.to.weˈnaʒ]
nwun sin-to-w·enar
water here-DEF.SG-AUX·warm
The water here is usually warm.
There’s not a huge amount more to say about it; habituals don’t seem to vary much cross-linguistically. It is worth noting though that the Eŋes habitual is not used for generic or law-like sentences. (These take unmarked aspect instead; see below. It does also mean that the second sentence
here was probably wrong.)
The marker
gi- is translatable as ‘can’, in the sense of ‘know how to’, ‘have the capacity to’:
Bgiʼesib.
[bɟiʔ.esˈib̚]
b-gi-esib
1s-can-swim
I can swim. /
I know how to swim.
Bgiʼeserapi.
[bɟiʔ.e.se.ˈra.pii]
b-gi-eserap-i
1s-can-eat-3s
I can eat. (said e.g. if one is not full yet, or if one has dietary restrictions)
The marker
rwelbu- is also translatable as ‘can’, this time in the sense of ‘may’, ‘be allowed to’:
Brwelbuʼesib.
[bə̆.rwel.buʔ.esˈib̚]
b-rwelbu-esib
1s-may-swim
I can swim. /
I may swim. /
I am allowed to swim.
Brwelbuʼeserapi.
[bə̆.rwel.buʔ.e.se.ˈra.pii]
b-rwelbu-eserap-i
1s-may-eat-3s
I can eat /
I may eat. (said e.g. if one has restrictions imposed by another on one’s eating)
How do you know whether to use
gi- or
rwelbu-? As a first approximation, if you can use English ‘may’, then
rwelbu- is more appropriate. At a second approximation, it basically depends on whether the ability is due to one’s own capabilities (
gi-) or is permitted by some other entity out of one’s control (
rwelbu-).
Sometimes the choice might be unexpected to an English-speaker, as in for instance:
Seʼnir barwelburwesiŋgi-ey.
[seʔˈniʒ ba.rwel.buɾ.we.siɲˈɟi.ej]
seʼnir ba-rwelbu-rwes-in-gi-ey
today 1p-may-collect-come-enter-3p
Today we can do the harvest.
The use of
rwelbu- suggests that this is allowed by, say, the weather being good. (Whereas in English it would sound very odd to use
may with regards to the weather — though it’s worth noting that the Eŋes consider weather patterns to be under supernatural control.) On the other hand
gi- would be actively wrong here, unless for instance it was a case of actual physical impairment (and even then it might have been caused by someone or something else).
The modals
gam- and
fasfin- are another pair with very similar meanings: they’re both translatable as ‘must’. Unfortunately, English has no convenient words to gloss the distinction (unlike with
gi-/
rwelbu-).
The difference between the two is essentially similar to that above:
gam- is to
fasfin- as
gi- is to
rwelbu-. That is, use
gam- if you have to do something due to some sort of internal pressure, whereas use
fasfin- if something or someone else is forcing you to do it.
Some examples might clarify. Parallel to those given above, we might say:
Bgamesib. I have to swim (…because I’m hot and want to cool down)
Bfasfinesib. I have to swim (…because I’m trapped on an island, or a man with a knife is forcing me to do it)
Bgameserapi. I have to eat (…because I’m hungry)
Bfasfineserapi. I have to eat (…because my hosts would be offended otherwise)
Of the first pair above, with those meanings,
fasfin- feels more natural to me (though see below for other meanings): it’s a bit weird to say ‘I must swim‘ in the first place, and if it
is said there’s probably some external reason for it. In the second pair, it’s the reverse:
gam- feels more natural, because generally you eat because your own hunger forces you to, not because of anyone else.
In colloquial speech, these markers are also used as an alternative to the full verb
√w-ses ‘want’. This is especially the case of
gam-: thus the most common interpretation of
bgamesib above would in fact be
I want to swim. In this case
fasfin- is not possible, since the wanting comes from the same person as the swimming.
On the other hand,
fasfin- is the usual way to talk about someone
else’s wants, almost invariably with another clause to state who the other person is. Changing the other verb can produce various other kinds of desiderative, for instance:
Aŋaʼni uceʼu bfasfinwalesib.
[aˌŋaʔ.ni u.t͡ʃeʔˌu.bvas.fin.wa.leˈsib]
aŋaʼ-ni uceʼu b-fasfin-wal-esib
DIST.person-FOC ask 1s-must-go-swim
That man requested that I swim. (i.e.
That man asked, I must go swim.)
Along similar lines, there is one more thing worth noting… there is an English literary usage in which ‘must’ can be used as past tense, where colloquial English would use ‘must have’ or ‘had to’. For instance:
Poul Anderson wrote:
I'd reserved at a big hotel nearby, where the staff would have seen everything and be blasé. Nevertheless I must fend off several well-intentioned remarks and glimpsed a number of raised eyebrows.
—Operation Luna (1999)
Since Eŋes, of course, doesn’t mark tense regularly, in such a situation it is perfectly natural to use a modal. An Eŋes speaker would probably translate this quote with something like
… băbugamwismopugwal … (the choice because, in context,
he doesn’t want to answer inconvenient questions, not because he couldn’t get away with it otherwise).
Another difficult — but annoyingly common — marker is
wraŋ- (variant form
wran-), for which we can distinguish four major uses. Probably the most straightforward is its use to introduce a simile: the verb with
wraŋ- is not to be taken literally, but acts as a comparison for the preceding clause. Thus one might say, for instance:
Fasesib trem wraŋwgiŋ
[fa.seˌsib̚.trem.wraŋˈwɟiŋ]
∅-fas-esib trem ∅-wraŋ-wgiŋ
3s-swim lizard 3s-like-be
He swims like [lit. as if he were] a lizard.
Closely related to this is its use to indicate the manner in which an action is formed (somewhat similar to the English adverbialiser ‘-ly’). This usage is seen in the following example from the 2024 Translation Relay (slightly adjusted for modern Eŋes):
[…] taŋsarusnunu wrantempaki.
[… taŋ.sa.rus.nuˌnu.wran.temˈpa.ki]
taŋ-sar-usnunu ∅-wran-tempak-i
DEF.PL-PROG-growl 3-like-attack-3s
[… they] growled aggressively [lit. as if to attack].
(Incidentally, note the odd subject marking here: in these sorts of constructions it is increasingly common to use a 3s null subject marker rather than the ‘correct’ 3p marker
iŋ-.)
Most commonly
wraŋ- is encountered alongside another clause (as in the above examples), but it can also be used on its own. Oftentimes this can be glossed by English ‘seem’, ‘apparently’ or even ‘must’, as in this example from the Conlang Fluency Thread:
bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 9:18 am
Stili anwase we ni towraŋwgiŋ.
[stiˈli.an.wa.se.we.ni tow.raŋˈwɟiŋ]
stili an-wa·se we ni to-wraŋ-wgi·ŋ
‘stele’ AGT-AUX·die seven FOC DEF.SG-seem-be
It looks like the Seven Kill Stele
In this usage
wraŋ- suggests that the statement is not known for sure, but rather is inferred from other, more direct evidence. (In this regard it overlaps somewhat with the preverbal evidential
tow-, though that has no such overtones of uncertainty.) Literally, the verb complex above could be translated ‘it appears to be’.
Finally, on occasion
wraŋ- can take on a meaning of ‘barely’ or ‘only just’. Another example from the 2024 relay demonstrates this:
[…] wranwniseʼ sfeʼlsefeynfas foŋ […]
[wran.wniˌseʔ.sfeʔl.se.fejn.fasˈfoŋ]
∅-wran-w·niseʼ s-feʼlsefeynfas foŋ
3s-barely-visible ACC-horizon be.at
[… it] was just visible on the horizon […]
What is the common thread behind these disparate meanings? I think it’s ultimately related to an idea that the speaker is in some way not fully standing behind their statement — somewhat akin to the subjunctive in languages with a true mood system. But to be honest I’m not entirely sure how
wraŋ- ended up with this particular range of meanings.
Arguably the
null marker can be treated as an aspect marker of its own, triggering ‘A’ forms. To a large extent it could be considered a ‘none of the above’ marker, but we can identify a few situations where it is used consistently:
- The null aspect is the usual choice for stative verbs, which are limited in their aspectual co-occurrence, and which in particular may not co-occur with the most common markers sar- and si-.
- As mentioned above, generic or law-like sentences take a null marker, rather than a habitual.
- Clauses with ‘irrealis’ meaning — negatives, questions, hypotheticals and the like — often take a null marker, even when a more specific aspect is available.
- In ‘close coordination’ constructions, generally the focussed verb takes an aspect marker while the other verb(s) have null marking, as in this example from the 2024 relay (again updated slightly):
Seŋoru siwumwamun, siwelessenfeŋ simayŋgar dyem.
[se.ŋo.ru.si.wum.waˌmun si.we.les.senˌfeŋ.si.majˈŋɡaʒˌdjem]
se-oŋo-iru ∅-siw-um-wa·mun, ∅-si-wel-essen-feŋ s-imayngar ∅-∅-dyem
ACC-3s.POSS-feather 3s-PFV-go.about.B-shake, 3s-PFV-go.B-fly-exit.B ACC-nest 3s-NULL-leave
[She] shook her feathers and flew out of the nest.
- The ‘reportive present’ (see below).
‘B’ triggers
The most common aspect marker triggering ‘B’ forms is the perfective
si- (alternately
siw-, especially before a vowel). The prototypical use of this form is for a completed, punctual event in the past:
Fey tosifŋim.
[fej.to.sifˈŋim]
fey to-si-fŋim
axe DEF.SG-PFV-break
The axe broke.
It is widely used of durative events too, especially when completed or seen as a whole. An example of this was already shown above, with
siwelessenfeŋ ‘flew out’. The only verbs which are intrinsically incompatible with the perfective are stative verbs: thus e.g. *
sifŋiŋ ‘it was broken’ is forbidden (as tempting as it might seem to an English-speaker).
As in the above examples the perfective usually has past time reference. It may also refer to a future event seen as a whole (though examples are hard to quote without context). However, it is incompatible with present time reference, even in the so-called ‘reportive present’: when reporting an action happening right at this moment, use the progressive (for durative actions) or no aspect marker at all (especially for punctual actions).
In combination with other clauses, the perfective generally indicates sequential events: for instance, as in the example above from the 2024 relay. This is especially prominent in narratives, in which the main line of the story will be mostly or entirely in the perfective.
The two markers
isay- and
wel- are the only TAM markers whose meanings are primarily temporal. We may describe
isay- as a perfect, denoting an action which took place prior to the time of reference; similarly,
wel- is a prospective, denoting an action which will take place later than the time of reference.
Used alone,
isay- takes on a similar range of meanings to the English perfect, denoting a prior state with current relevance:
Bisayeserapi.
[bi.sa.je.seˈra.pi]
b-isay-eserap-i
1s-PERF-eat-3s
I’ve eaten.
However, unlike English, it cannot denote states continuing to the present:
Sin bfoŋisay/*bisayfoŋisay dyoŋ mec us.
I have been living here for three years.
Also unlike English, it can act as a recent past tense, especially for actions which took place within the past day:
Ken bisayfeym seʼnir foŋ.
[ˌken bi.sayˈfejm seʔ.niɾˌfoŋ]
ken b-isay-feym seʼnir foŋ
late 1s-PERF-wake.up today be.at
I woke up/*have woken up late today.
Correspondingly, the prospective
wel- has much the same range as English ‘going to’, expressing an event which is about to happen.
However,
isay- and
wel- are more often found in combination with another clause specifying an event at some time. In this situation they may be translated by ‘after’ and ‘before’ respectively, or with a participle:
Nweleserapi, nwun nwabin ndodfin.
[nwe.le.seˌra.pi nwun.nwaˈbin.ndod̚.fin]
n-wel-eserap-i, nwun n-wa·bin ndo-dfin
2s-PROSP-eat-3s, water 2s-with·clean 2.ALN-hand
Wash your hands before eating. (lit.
… going to eat)
Disaywandiʼs bagisnimuri.
[di.saj.wanˌdiʔs ba.ɟis.niˈmu.ri]
d-isay-wa·ndiʼs ba-gi-isnimur-i
2p-PERF-be.ready 1p-can-begin-3s
Once you’re all ready, we can start. (lit.
You having been ready…)
In many cases they express a causal relation as well as a temporal one, indicating a reason or a purpose, e.g.:
Iŋsifemi iŋwelpkeysemey.
[iŋ.siˌfe.mi iŋ.wel.pʰkejˈse.mej]
iŋ-si-fem-i iŋ-wel-pkey-sem-ey
3p-PFV-arrive-3s 3p-PROSP-hit-die-3p
They came in order to kill them. (lit.
… going to strike them dead)
The form
wel- is transparently related to the andative verboid
wel- ‘going’; similarly
isay- is related to the venitive
yos(y)- ‘coming’. Although they have grammaticalised in different ways, these forms remain incompatible with each other: neither
wel- nor
isay- may be immediately followed by a motional verboid. In such a situation one must either omit the aspect marker, or choose a verb which does not require a motional marker (as in
iŋsimfemi above).
The last aspect marker is the repetitive
ye-. As with
wel- this is transparently related to another verboid, in this case
-ye ‘returning’. However the co-occurrence restrictions on
ye- are not nearly as severe as those on
wel-, though using
ye- and
-ye together is best avoided.
Most commonly this marker means ‘again’, as in this example from the 2024 Translation Relay (once again updated):
Kmatrob yeʼumndun, dantaŋsiweltuʼni.
[kʰma.tʰrob̚.jeʔ.umˌndun dan.taŋ.si.welˈtuʔ.ni]
kmat-rob ye-um-ndun, dan-tan-si-wel-tuʼn-i
wing-black REP-about-turn, so-DEF.PL-PFV-go-follow-3s
Again Blackwing turned, so [the others] followed.
It can also mean ‘still’, for instance:
Iŋyefoŋi.
[iŋ.jeˈfo.ŋi]
iŋ-ye-foŋ-i
3p-CONT-be.at-3s
They were/are/will be still there.
Negated, it means ‘no longer’:
Iŋmayefoŋi.
[iŋ.ma.jeˈfo.ŋi]
iŋ-ma-ye-foŋ-i
3p-NEG-CONT-be.at-3s
They were/are/will be no longer there.
(Thank God I’m finally done with this post after like three months!!)
