(no subject)
Oct. 29th, 2012 06:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moonflower77before the present tense marker -s-: -a-
tɣilɛskichɛn i am drinking
tɣilaskichɛn i want to drink, i am thirsty
tɣilqzokichɛn i was drinking
tɣilaɬqzokichɛn i wanted to drink, i was thirsty
t'ilɸsɛschɛn i am listening to him
t'ilɸsaschɛn i want to listen to him
t'ilɸsqzochɛn i was listening to him
t'ilɸsaɬqzochɛn i wanted to listen to him
identical to the future tense marker (-aɬ-/-a-). both may combine within the same lexical unit (word), but occupy different positions (8 for DES and 16 for FUT).
tɣilaɬqzaɬkichɛn i will want to drink
the DES and FUT markers could have the same origin, but their nature and functions are completely different. this is reflected in their respective positions: DES is optional (lexical), FUT is obligatory (grammatical). this is best illustrated by the negative forms, which are constructed by analytical means - DES remains in the lexical component, whereas FUT migrates to the grammatical component (auxilary verb), which takes on all obligatory grammatical information:
tɣilaskichɛn i want to drink (i am thirsty) -> qa?m ɣilaɬkaq tskichɛn i do not want to drink (i am not thirsty)
t'ilɸsaɬqzochɛn i wanted to listen to him -> qa?m ilɸsaɬaq tiɬqzuchɛn i did not want to listen to him
ɬɛmaɬqzonɛn he wanted to kill him -> qa?m ɬɛmaɬaq iɬqzunɛn he did not wnt to kill him
compatible with four tense-aspect forms: past imperfective, gnomic (atemporal) form, present specific and future imperfective. the most frequent in spoken itelmen is the present specific (= the desiderative is used to express wishes, which are usually mentioned the moment they arise). the most frequent in written texts is the past imperfective (= texts typically describe the past, including the protagonist's desire to perform a particular action). the future imperfectove (a wish or desire that is yet to appear later on) or the gnomic form (a desire to perform a particular action constantly, a desire that exists permanently and does not change) are used much more rarely.
Emɛmqut (1) kŋaɬxaɬqzoknan (2) Ememqut (1) wanted (2) to get married (2) (past imperf.)
the desiderative is incompatible with any resultative tense-aspect forms, that is, the past perfective or the future perfective. possible semantic reason: in many languages, including itelmen, past-tense desideratives tend to have a shade of irresultativity, e.g., "i wanted to write a book" tends to mean "i only wanted to write a book but never actually did so". morphological reason: the future perfect form and the hypothetical past perfect form would coincide, and any speaker of the language would prefer to interpret this form as the former rather than the latter. for example, tɬɛmaɬchɛn could mean "i will kill him" or "iwanted to kill him", but would be understood to mean the former.
itelmen desideratives have an inherent irresultative shade: tɬɛmaɬqzochɛn "i wanted to kill him" (past imperf. des.) implies "i did not kill him", in other words, the action had no actual result. similarly, one can say tɬɛmaɬqzaɬchɛn "i will want to kill him (but will not actually do so)" (future imperf. des.) or t'aņchpaɬqzaɬchɛn "i will want to teach him (but will not start doing so or will not continue to teach him until he has mastered the subject)" (future imperf. des.), but one cannot use the desiderative for the same future actions in their finished, resultative form.
there is no formal prohibition against joining the future tense marker -aɬ and the desiderative marker -aɬ, which are structurally identical, directly to each other, but this never happens in actual practice.
there are two verbs that are desiderative in themselves because the desiderative meaning is contained in the stem.
sqakɛs "to be sleepy, to want to sleep"
ksxakɛs "to be hungry, to want to eat"
for these verbs, only the indicative mood is possible, and only in the four tense-aspect forms that are compatible with the desiderative form of other verbs: past imperfective, gnomic (atemporal) form, present specific and future imperfective. the present specific is used most frequently.
xɛ?ņch (1) mwɛtatki (2) tsqaskichɛn (3) (i) will not (1,2) work (2), (i) want (3) to sleep (3)
tksxaskichɛn (1) kɬinnumiŋsx (2) (i) want (1) to eat (1), feed (me) (2)
the remaining three tense-aspect forms are used more rarely:
tsqaqzukichɛn (1) tutukichɛn (2) ɬalɛka (3) (i) wanted (1) to sleep (1), (i) could not (2) walk (3) (past imperf.)
this is further proof that the desiderative is incompatible with the idea of a finished result.
in any other contexts: -aɬ-
tɣilɛskichɛn i am drinking
tɣilaskichɛn i want to drink, i am thirsty
tɣilqzokichɛn i was drinking
tɣilaɬqzokichɛn i wanted to drink, i was thirsty
t'ilɸsɛschɛn i am listening to him
t'ilɸsaschɛn i want to listen to him
t'ilɸsqzochɛn i was listening to him
t'ilɸsaɬqzochɛn i wanted to listen to him
ilɸsqzomiŋsx you (pl.) listened to me
ilɸsaɬqzomiŋsx you (pl.) wanted to listen to me
ilɸsaɬqzomiŋsx you (pl.) wanted to listen to me
identical to the future tense marker (-aɬ-/-a-). both may combine within the same lexical unit (word), but occupy different positions (8 for DES and 16 for FUT).
tɣilaɬqzaɬkichɛn i will want to drink
t'ilɸsaɬqzaɬchɛn i will want to listen to him
ilɸsaɬqzaɬmiŋsx you (pl.) will want to listen to me
the DES and FUT markers could have the same origin, but their nature and functions are completely different. this is reflected in their respective positions: DES is optional (lexical), FUT is obligatory (grammatical). this is best illustrated by the negative forms, which are constructed by analytical means - DES remains in the lexical component, whereas FUT migrates to the grammatical component (auxilary verb), which takes on all obligatory grammatical information:
tɣilaskichɛn i want to drink (i am thirsty) -> qa?m ɣilaɬkaq tskichɛn i do not want to drink (i am not thirsty)
t'ilɸsaɬqzochɛn i wanted to listen to him -> qa?m ilɸsaɬaq tiɬqzuchɛn i did not want to listen to him
ɬɛmaɬqzonɛn he wanted to kill him -> qa?m ɬɛmaɬaq iɬqzunɛn he did not wnt to kill him
compatible with four tense-aspect forms: past imperfective, gnomic (atemporal) form, present specific and future imperfective. the most frequent in spoken itelmen is the present specific (= the desiderative is used to express wishes, which are usually mentioned the moment they arise). the most frequent in written texts is the past imperfective (= texts typically describe the past, including the protagonist's desire to perform a particular action). the future imperfectove (a wish or desire that is yet to appear later on) or the gnomic form (a desire to perform a particular action constantly, a desire that exists permanently and does not change) are used much more rarely.
Emɛmqut (1) kŋaɬxaɬqzoknan (2) Ememqut (1) wanted (2) to get married (2) (past imperf.)
ŋikɬaɬqzozɛn (1) kɬ?ɛchk'ɛŋɛ?n (2) wɛtatkas (3) he (1) wants (1) to sleep (1) (all the time), (he is a) poor (2) worker (3) (atemporal form)
a (1) Miti (2) nowaɬɛs (3) ktɸɬknɛn (4) nustaxchaX (5) qa?t (6) nuwasch (7) while (1) Miti (2) brought in (4) the food (3): the god (5) already (6) wanted (7) to eat (7) (present specific)
kemma (1) oɸtankɛ (2) t'iɬaɬkichɛn (3) ɛwun (4) tnuwaɬqzaɬkichɛn (5) āŋqa (6) sisxɛŋɛchX (7) kskax (8) i (1) am going (3) to the forest (2), probably (4) (i) am going to want (5) to eat (5), make (2nd p. sg.) (8) (me) some (6) small supply of food (7) (to take with me) (future imperf.)
the desiderative is incompatible with any resultative tense-aspect forms, that is, the past perfective or the future perfective. possible semantic reason: in many languages, including itelmen, past-tense desideratives tend to have a shade of irresultativity, e.g., "i wanted to write a book" tends to mean "i only wanted to write a book but never actually did so". morphological reason: the future perfect form and the hypothetical past perfect form would coincide, and any speaker of the language would prefer to interpret this form as the former rather than the latter. for example, tɬɛmaɬchɛn could mean "i will kill him" or "iwanted to kill him", but would be understood to mean the former.
itelmen desideratives have an inherent irresultative shade: tɬɛmaɬqzochɛn "i wanted to kill him" (past imperf. des.) implies "i did not kill him", in other words, the action had no actual result. similarly, one can say tɬɛmaɬqzaɬchɛn "i will want to kill him (but will not actually do so)" (future imperf. des.) or t'aņchpaɬqzaɬchɛn "i will want to teach him (but will not start doing so or will not continue to teach him until he has mastered the subject)" (future imperf. des.), but one cannot use the desiderative for the same future actions in their finished, resultative form.
there is no formal prohibition against joining the future tense marker -aɬ and the desiderative marker -aɬ, which are structurally identical, directly to each other, but this never happens in actual practice.
there are two verbs that are desiderative in themselves because the desiderative meaning is contained in the stem.
sqakɛs "to be sleepy, to want to sleep"
ksxakɛs "to be hungry, to want to eat"
for these verbs, only the indicative mood is possible, and only in the four tense-aspect forms that are compatible with the desiderative form of other verbs: past imperfective, gnomic (atemporal) form, present specific and future imperfective. the present specific is used most frequently.
xɛ?ņch (1) mwɛtatki (2) tsqaskichɛn (3) (i) will not (1,2) work (2), (i) want (3) to sleep (3)
tksxaskichɛn (1) kɬinnumiŋsx (2) (i) want (1) to eat (1), feed (me) (2)
the remaining three tense-aspect forms are used more rarely:
tsqaqzukichɛn (1) tutukichɛn (2) ɬalɛka (3) (i) wanted (1) to sleep (1), (i) could not (2) walk (3) (past imperf.)
ksxqzuɣɛn (1) Xɛŋɛkit (2) enstqzuɣɛn (3) (he) wanted (1) to eat (1), this was why (2) he asked (for food) (3) (past imperf.)
ti?n (1) sowrɛmja (2) ksxqzuzɛn (3) ɛdakoj (4) nanqalan (5) this one (1) wants (3) to eat (3) all the time (2), such a (4) glutton (5) (atemporal form)
ximɬx (1) k'ink'ɛx (2) ato (3) tsqaqzaɬkichɛn (4) start (2) the fire (1) (lit. turn on, switch on, open the fire) or else (3) (i) will want (4) to sleep (4) (future imperf.)
ti?n (1) sowrɛmja (2) ksxqzuzɛn (3) ɛdakoj (4) nanqalan (5) this one (1) wants (3) to eat (3) all the time (2), such a (4) glutton (5) (atemporal form)
ximɬx (1) k'ink'ɛx (2) ato (3) tsqaqzaɬkichɛn (4) start (2) the fire (1) (lit. turn on, switch on, open the fire) or else (3) (i) will want (4) to sleep (4) (future imperf.)
this is further proof that the desiderative is incompatible with the idea of a finished result.