Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Languary 2
So here we go with Day 2 of Languary.

Talking about the first person singular forms for verbs brings up the issue of pronouns.

The first person singular pronouns are:

Subjective       Objective               Possessive adjective     Reflexive

hay /heɪ/         hayer /heɪɜ/           haym /heɪm/                 hayerhay /heɪɜheɪ/

There are two first person plural pronouns. The first form refers to all of those present who are participating in or could participate in the conversation:

Subjective       Objective               Possessive adjective     Reflexive

hayk /heɪk/     hayker /heɪkɜ/       haykm /heɪkm/             haykerhay /heɪkɜheɪk/

The second form refers to those whom the speaker represents:

Subjective       Objective               Possessive adjective     Reflexive

huyk /haɪk/     huyker /haɪkɜ/       huykm /haɪkm/             huykerhuyk /haɪkɜhaɪk/

Both first person plural forms use the same verb forms which, using tark as our example are:

tark’k = we stop

tarkak = we are stopping

tarkyuk = we will stop

tarkayuk = we will be stopping

yutark’k = we plan to stop

yutarkak = we are planning to stop

yutarkyuk = we will plan to stop

yutarkayuk = we are going to be stopping/ we are planning to be stopping

tarkowk = we stopped

tarkaowk = we were stopping

yutarkowk = we planned to stop

yutarkaowk = we were planning to stop

yutarkowk = we had planned to stop

yutarkaowk = we were going to be stopping/ we were planning to be stopping

Note that when the basic verb form ends in ‘k’ the ‘k’ sound is supposed to be repeated and not extended in the simple present tense forms. In practice, in informal situations many speakers do not use the second ‘k’ sound in these cases.

When someone wants to indicate that they are speaking on behalf of a portion of those people present, the combined form haykhuyk   / heɪkhaɪk/ is used.


  • 1
I like the two first person plural pronouns!

Thank you!

I also now have 15 sounds. I found out today that Received English has 44, and my Macquarie Concise Dictionary (considered an authorative Australian one) lists 47.

Yes, usually figured at 13.

I see that you're using a different transliteration here than for Calenyena, e.g., «uy» for /aɪ/ ...or am I misremembering? Does C. have that diphthong at all?

Your spelling /ɜ/ as «er» surprised me a bit, as there's no /r/ sound in the phone written ɜ. /ɜ/ is pretty close to /ə/ (schwa) except that it's usually written to represent a vowel with at least some stress on it. Unless you speak an R-less dialect -- dropping your r's, so farther and father sound alike [the vowel in father might be held a little longer] -- the «er»s in her and turn, and in hayker, would be transcribed as /ɝ/, where the attached hook indicates R-coloration.

Edited at 2016-01-03 04:11 am (UTC)

Calenyena isn't mine, it's aldersprig's.

I am running my transliteration from page xv of the Third Edition of The Macquarie Concise Dictionary because they talk about the sounds I hear when I speak.

They list ɜ as "ɜ as in 'pert' /pɜt/" and I am following them because that means I know what sound I'm talking about.

«Calenyena isn't mine, it's aldersprig's.»

Ooooops, sorry!!

Macquarie Dictionary: Oh, right, I forgot that you're Australian. The trouble as I see it is, lots of readers who aren't R-droppers will not know what sound you're talking about, but just see, for example, "yutark", and pronounce or think it as /'jutɑrk/. (I may have mentioned some time ago how extremely baffled I was by Kipling's "How to say some of the names in The Jungle Books": Baloo as BAR-loo? Where the heck did that "r" come from?)

Yes, it'll be in the notes, but it's still like having a note saying casually "When I say 'right' I mean 'left'": it's too hard to keep track of something that far off the long-ingrained habit. Would you consider some unambiguous, or at least less ambiguous, notation such as "yutaak" or "yutahk"?

I will consider changing the notation - it might even be necessary as I accumulate more bits.

We're R-droppers?

Judging by your example from Macquarie, yes. Let's see what's on the Web... OK, this looks pretty reliable:

«The major features of AusE pronunciation are: (1) It is non-rhotic. ...»

That is, R-dropping. "Rhotic" is derived from "rho", Ρ ρ, the Greek counterpart of our letter R r.

And now I need to inflect my verbs some more.

I know how to do the plural from the singular, but first I need the singular...

I plan to stick with Macquarie's notation for the time being, although a little digging suggests that the system it uses is being replaced by other users with something considered more accurate (and developed more recently). That would change the annotation to /ɜ:/.

All the examples I can find are spelt 'er' in English.

«There are two first person plural pronouns.
«The first form refers to all of those present who are participating in or could participate in the conversation:
«The second form refers to those whom the speaker represents:»

Called first person plural inclusive and exclusive, respectively. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity

Of course someone, some where does this in real life! :)

I should also reread the stuff on dual number.

Dual number came up in conversation in the last few days, totally unrelated, and I don't think I'd heard of it before ever.

  • 1