(no subject)
Dec. 16th, 2012 03:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moonflower77the possessive and indirect-object conjugations form a special paradigm that stands separate from both the subject-object (transitive) and the subject (intransitive) conjugations and could be said to occupy an intermediate position between the two. it should be noted that this conjugation model can be applied not only to auxiliary verbs, but also to virtually any other verbs in itelmen (both subject and subject-object ones).
possessive conjugation
the verb forms the core of a three-part possessive structure, which is the equivalent of the russian possessor noun (prep.) + "to be" (appropriate tense form) + possession noun (nom.)
ēnnank chiskinɛn txtūm he has a boat [lit. at his' there is a boat], compare russian : у него есть лодка [lit. at, by, with him (there) is a boat]
the noun that refers to the possession takes the absolutive case, while the noun that refers to the possessor takes the locative case, or, sometimes, the possessive form.
the possession (object) is always third-person. as a result, the verb reflects only its number through the standard plural marker -? (compare: chizɣɛn there is one object [singular] vs. chizɣɛ?n there are several objects" [plural]).
when it comes to the person and number of the possessor, only the second person plural (-kisxɛn), third person singular (-kinɛn) and third person plural (-kipēnɛn) have special forms. all the other forms are identical, so the exact person and number of the possessor can be determined only if the corresponding pronoun has not been omitted.
the marker -p(ē), which is used to mark a plural possesor in the possessive conjugation or a plural indirect object in the indirect-object conjugation, is of note. it is unique to this conjugation paradigm and could be considered the third marker of plurality in itelmen, along with the glottal stop (the universal plural marker) and -sx (the special marker for 2nd-person plural).
there is one verb that can be conjugated only according to the possessive model: chikɛs "to be present, available (in sb.'s possession)"
present specific tense:
single possession
kəmmank chizɣɛn "i have (one object)" [lit. at mine there is ...]
knank chizɣɛn "you (sg.) have (one object)" [lit. at yours there is ...]
ēnnank chiskinɛn "he has (one object)" [lit. at his there is ...]
mizɣank chizɣɛn "we have (one object)" [lit. at ours there is ...]
tizɣank chiskisxɛn "you (pl.) have (one object)" [lit. at yours there is ...]
tXi?ink chiskipēnɛn "they have (one object)" [lit. at theirs there is ...]
multiple possessions
kəmmank chizɣɛ?n "i have (several objects)" [lit. at mine there are ...]
knank chizɣɛ?n "you (sg.) have (several objects)" [lit. at yours there are ...]
ēnnank chiskinɛ?n "he has (several objects)" [lit. at his there are ...]
mizɣank chizɣɛ?n "we have (several objects)" [lit. at ours there are ...]
tizɣank chiskisxɛ?n "you (pl.) have (several objects)" [lit. at yours there are ...]
tXi?ink chiskipēnɛ?n "they have (several objects)" [lit. at theirs there are ...]
the verb chikɛs can be conjugated in four of the tense-aspect forms: present specific, past imperfective, future imperfective and the atemporal (gnomic) form. it cannot take any of the resultative tenses, that is, past perfective or future perfective; in other words, the notion of possession (belonging) in itelmen is incompatible with resultativity.
e.g. chiqzukinɛn "he had (one object)" (past imperfective), chiqzuskinɛn "he has (one object) (constantly, permanently)" (gnomic form), chiqzaɬkinɛn "he will have (one object)".
there appear to be no forms for the imperative-hortative or subjunctive moods.
the verb ɬkɛs "to be" can also be conjugated according to the possessive model and used in the same way as the verb chikɛs. however, it has no present specific form, so that, for instance, "he has (one object) at the present moment" can only be conveyed using the verb chikɛs, as chiskinɛn. for the other tense-aspect forms, both the verbs can be used interchangeably: chiqzukinɛn, ɬqzukinɛn "he had (one object)"; chiqzuskinɛn, ɬqzuskinɛn "he has (one object) permanently, all the time"; chiqzaɬkinɛn, ɬqzaɬkinɛn "he will have (one object)".
the antipossessive, or negation of possession, is conveyed using the verb ņɛtu?ɬkɛs "to not be present, available (in sb.'s possession)", borrowed from the russian negative particle netu "not (present, available)". conjugated identically to chikes:
single possession:
kəmmank ņɛtusɛn "i do not have (one object)" [lit. at me there is no ...]
knank ņɛtusɛn "you (sg.) do not have (one object)" [lit. at you there is no ...]
ēnnank ņɛtuskinɛn "he does not have (one object)" [lit. at him there is no ...]
mizɣank ņɛtusɛn "we do not have (one object)" [lit. at us there is no ...]
tizɣank ņɛtuskisxɛn "you (pl.) do not have (one object)" [lit. at you there is no ...]
tXi?ink ņɛtuskipēnɛn "they do not have (one object)" [lit. at them there is no ...]
multiple possessions:
kəmmank ņɛtusɛ?n "i do not have (several objects)" [lit. at me there are no ...]
knank ņɛtusɛ?n "you (sg.) do not have (several objects)" [lit. at you there are no ...]
ēnnank ņɛtuskinɛ?n "he does not have (several objects)" [lit. at him there are no ...]
mizɣank ņɛtusɛ?n "we do not have (several objects)" [lit. at us there are no ...]
tizɣank ņɛtuskisxɛ?n "you (pl.) do not have (several objects)" [lit. at you there are no ...]
tXi?ink ņɛtuskipēnɛ?n "they do not have (several objects)" [lit. at them there are no ...]
may have the same tense-aspect forms as the verb chikes: e.g. ņɛtu?ɬqzukinɛn "he did not have (one object)" (past imperfective), ņɛtu?ɬqzuskinɛn "he does not have (one object) (constantly, permanently)" (gnomic form), ņɛtu?ɬqzaɬkinɛn "he will not have (one object)".
other verbs can also be conjugated according to this model. these are, first and foremost, verbs of feeling and sensation, such as ēŋqsxkɛs "to ache, to hurt", kst'awankɛs "to tingle, prickle, sting, scratch (of one's skin or throat)", as well as verbs that can be used as the functional equivalents of the verb chikɛs an may also mean "to be present, available (in sb.'s possession or at their home)": txzukɛs "to stand", solkɛs "to lie".
some other verbs may be used as well. all of them without exception are subject (intransitive) verbs. they can be used to construct phrases such as "my head aches", "his wife died", "her son smokes" and so forth. these are better understood when compared to the very similar possessive structures in russian, such as у него болит голова [lit. at, by, with him head aches], у него умерла жена [lit. at, by, with him wife died], у него ребенок курит [lit. at, by, with him child smokes]. in the broadest sense, this structure can be summarized as "something is happening to somebody". theoretically, any verb could be used here, even a subject-object (transitive) one, as in "his brother killed a bear" (russian equivalent у него брат убил медведя, lit. at, by, with him brother killed a bear), but this never happens in itelmen, where subject-object verbs do not take the possessive markers -kinɛn and -kip(ē)nɛn.
it must be noted that the possessive structure can be identified with all certainty only when the agent is 2nd p. pl., 3rd p. sg. or 3rd p. pl. for instance, a sentence like kəmman p'ɛch kansazɣɛn "my child smokes", is identical to the regular subject (intransitive) structure (compare: kəmman chizɣɛn ɸaɬch "i have a knife"). only in sentences such as tizɣin p'ɛch kansaskisxɛn "your (pl.) child smokes", ēnnan p'ɛch kansaskinɛn "his child smokes" or tXi?in p'ɛch kansaskɛpnɛn "their child smokes" the form of the verb clearly indicates that this is a possessive structure. in cases like these, the possessor pronoun does not have to be mentioned for disambiguation, and is, as a rule, omitted.
possessive conjugation
the verb forms the core of a three-part possessive structure, which is the equivalent of the russian possessor noun (prep.) + "to be" (appropriate tense form) + possession noun (nom.)
ēnnank chiskinɛn txtūm he has a boat [lit. at his' there is a boat], compare russian : у него есть лодка [lit. at, by, with him (there) is a boat]
the noun that refers to the possession takes the absolutive case, while the noun that refers to the possessor takes the locative case, or, sometimes, the possessive form.
the possession (object) is always third-person. as a result, the verb reflects only its number through the standard plural marker -? (compare: chizɣɛn there is one object [singular] vs. chizɣɛ?n there are several objects" [plural]).
when it comes to the person and number of the possessor, only the second person plural (-kisxɛn), third person singular (-kinɛn) and third person plural (-kipēnɛn) have special forms. all the other forms are identical, so the exact person and number of the possessor can be determined only if the corresponding pronoun has not been omitted.
the marker -p(ē), which is used to mark a plural possesor in the possessive conjugation or a plural indirect object in the indirect-object conjugation, is of note. it is unique to this conjugation paradigm and could be considered the third marker of plurality in itelmen, along with the glottal stop (the universal plural marker) and -sx (the special marker for 2nd-person plural).
there is one verb that can be conjugated only according to the possessive model: chikɛs "to be present, available (in sb.'s possession)"
present specific tense:
single possession
kəmmank chizɣɛn "i have (one object)" [lit. at mine there is ...]
knank chizɣɛn "you (sg.) have (one object)" [lit. at yours there is ...]
ēnnank chiskinɛn "he has (one object)" [lit. at his there is ...]
mizɣank chizɣɛn "we have (one object)" [lit. at ours there is ...]
tizɣank chiskisxɛn "you (pl.) have (one object)" [lit. at yours there is ...]
tXi?ink chiskipēnɛn "they have (one object)" [lit. at theirs there is ...]
multiple possessions
kəmmank chizɣɛ?n "i have (several objects)" [lit. at mine there are ...]
knank chizɣɛ?n "you (sg.) have (several objects)" [lit. at yours there are ...]
ēnnank chiskinɛ?n "he has (several objects)" [lit. at his there are ...]
mizɣank chizɣɛ?n "we have (several objects)" [lit. at ours there are ...]
tizɣank chiskisxɛ?n "you (pl.) have (several objects)" [lit. at yours there are ...]
tXi?ink chiskipēnɛ?n "they have (several objects)" [lit. at theirs there are ...]
the verb chikɛs can be conjugated in four of the tense-aspect forms: present specific, past imperfective, future imperfective and the atemporal (gnomic) form. it cannot take any of the resultative tenses, that is, past perfective or future perfective; in other words, the notion of possession (belonging) in itelmen is incompatible with resultativity.
e.g. chiqzukinɛn "he had (one object)" (past imperfective), chiqzuskinɛn "he has (one object) (constantly, permanently)" (gnomic form), chiqzaɬkinɛn "he will have (one object)".
there appear to be no forms for the imperative-hortative or subjunctive moods.
the verb ɬkɛs "to be" can also be conjugated according to the possessive model and used in the same way as the verb chikɛs. however, it has no present specific form, so that, for instance, "he has (one object) at the present moment" can only be conveyed using the verb chikɛs, as chiskinɛn. for the other tense-aspect forms, both the verbs can be used interchangeably: chiqzukinɛn, ɬqzukinɛn "he had (one object)"; chiqzuskinɛn, ɬqzuskinɛn "he has (one object) permanently, all the time"; chiqzaɬkinɛn, ɬqzaɬkinɛn "he will have (one object)".
the antipossessive, or negation of possession, is conveyed using the verb ņɛtu?ɬkɛs "to not be present, available (in sb.'s possession)", borrowed from the russian negative particle netu "not (present, available)". conjugated identically to chikes:
single possession:
kəmmank ņɛtusɛn "i do not have (one object)" [lit. at me there is no ...]
knank ņɛtusɛn "you (sg.) do not have (one object)" [lit. at you there is no ...]
ēnnank ņɛtuskinɛn "he does not have (one object)" [lit. at him there is no ...]
mizɣank ņɛtusɛn "we do not have (one object)" [lit. at us there is no ...]
tizɣank ņɛtuskisxɛn "you (pl.) do not have (one object)" [lit. at you there is no ...]
tXi?ink ņɛtuskipēnɛn "they do not have (one object)" [lit. at them there is no ...]
multiple possessions:
kəmmank ņɛtusɛ?n "i do not have (several objects)" [lit. at me there are no ...]
knank ņɛtusɛ?n "you (sg.) do not have (several objects)" [lit. at you there are no ...]
ēnnank ņɛtuskinɛ?n "he does not have (several objects)" [lit. at him there are no ...]
mizɣank ņɛtusɛ?n "we do not have (several objects)" [lit. at us there are no ...]
tizɣank ņɛtuskisxɛ?n "you (pl.) do not have (several objects)" [lit. at you there are no ...]
tXi?ink ņɛtuskipēnɛ?n "they do not have (several objects)" [lit. at them there are no ...]
may have the same tense-aspect forms as the verb chikes: e.g. ņɛtu?ɬqzukinɛn "he did not have (one object)" (past imperfective), ņɛtu?ɬqzuskinɛn "he does not have (one object) (constantly, permanently)" (gnomic form), ņɛtu?ɬqzaɬkinɛn "he will not have (one object)".
other verbs can also be conjugated according to this model. these are, first and foremost, verbs of feeling and sensation, such as ēŋqsxkɛs "to ache, to hurt", kst'awankɛs "to tingle, prickle, sting, scratch (of one's skin or throat)", as well as verbs that can be used as the functional equivalents of the verb chikɛs an may also mean "to be present, available (in sb.'s possession or at their home)": txzukɛs "to stand", solkɛs "to lie".
some other verbs may be used as well. all of them without exception are subject (intransitive) verbs. they can be used to construct phrases such as "my head aches", "his wife died", "her son smokes" and so forth. these are better understood when compared to the very similar possessive structures in russian, such as у него болит голова [lit. at, by, with him head aches], у него умерла жена [lit. at, by, with him wife died], у него ребенок курит [lit. at, by, with him child smokes]. in the broadest sense, this structure can be summarized as "something is happening to somebody". theoretically, any verb could be used here, even a subject-object (transitive) one, as in "his brother killed a bear" (russian equivalent у него брат убил медведя, lit. at, by, with him brother killed a bear), but this never happens in itelmen, where subject-object verbs do not take the possessive markers -kinɛn and -kip(ē)nɛn.
it must be noted that the possessive structure can be identified with all certainty only when the agent is 2nd p. pl., 3rd p. sg. or 3rd p. pl. for instance, a sentence like kəmman p'ɛch kansazɣɛn "my child smokes", is identical to the regular subject (intransitive) structure (compare: kəmman chizɣɛn ɸaɬch "i have a knife"). only in sentences such as tizɣin p'ɛch kansaskisxɛn "your (pl.) child smokes", ēnnan p'ɛch kansaskinɛn "his child smokes" or tXi?in p'ɛch kansaskɛpnɛn "their child smokes" the form of the verb clearly indicates that this is a possessive structure. in cases like these, the possessor pronoun does not have to be mentioned for disambiguation, and is, as a rule, omitted.