Particle wan

Today's entry is about the particle wan which means "it is needed, it is necessary". This particle is used in Kareyku in a similar way as the English construction "it must needs", but with some differences due to Kareyku's own grammar phenomena.

It is an invariable particle which precedes the verb it modifies. So for example the following sentence:

pileh qappakas
I eat fish.

Turns to:

pileh wan qappakas
I need to eat fish.

Just as easy. The question now is how to create a sentence of the likes of "I need you to eat fish", in this case we would change the flow of the verb (the suffix) but include a possessive pronoun preceding the particle. So:

pileh ikanwo wan qappadas

I need you to eat fish.

The meaning here that it is one's need that the other person do the action, note that the flow is quite simple "you eat fish", and the possessive pronoun would be modifying the particle, the needing of something. So it is my needing that you eat it.

shinwo wan shain tanakash

I think he needs me to speak to them.

This one is more complicate, but the analyses is the same. It is his need / I speak (to) them. Notice how the object pronoun in this case can't be confused with the possessive as the possessive will be preceding the particle, leaving "shain" only to mean "to them". The transition of the verb marks a flow from a 1st person singular to some other person, which is being explicitly marked by the pronoun in this case.

A simple lesson for today and one more particle to get to know.

Kareyku verbs, Direct/inverse voice

Recently I've decided to lean towards a direct/inverse voice in Kareyku. This would allow for potentially better structures and leads to new options in expression. I've decided the flow should follow a hierarchy, so with this new plan the transitions would be:

1. 1st > someone, -ka
2. 2nd > someone (3rd, 3rd.a), -da
3. 3rd > someone (3rd.a), -ta

So, in this new pattern I've decided to name '3rd.a' as a different 3rd person from the one mentioned as a kind of 'someone else'. This would go for the direct voice, the inverse voice would reverse the flow, so, with the inverse you would have:

1. 1st < someone, -talka
2. 2nd < someone, -talda
3. 3rd < someone, -talta

 So in this new plan there is more clarity but at the same time I've managed to preserve the ambiguities. And the infix only reverts the hierarchical flow in 1 step. So a sentence would look like:

qorikas, qoritalkas?

I love you, do you love me?

With the proper evidentials. It is worth noting that the inverse could be taken as "do you love me" or even "am I loved?" if you decide to use the 3rd.a, as a kind of impersonal or passive construction.

qoritaltan

Someone loves him, I hear.

If clarity is needed, pronouns should be used. Maybe pen toritalkas? would appear clearer to avoid confusion, although context may make them unnecessary.

The Conditional

Kareyku has a Conditional mood used for polite asking and suppositions as well. Actually this and the Future Tense actually stem from a quite particular development in Kareyku grammar. It is believed that Old Kareyku actually only distinguished between Realis and Irrealis moods. Part of this can be seen in that the "pure" verbal themes seem to be the Present Simple for the Realis mood and the Future/Conditional for the Irrealis which split into two early in Kareyku's history. The distinction originally was that of "what really happens" and what "didn't really happen".

The first development of Kareyku grammar seems to be the Past Tense, which stems from the Present (note that both use the same particles) plus a Reportative Evidential, that is to say the -n. This seems to point to the origin of Past as a reporting of the Present, "they say this happened". For the Irrealis "that has not really happened" it split into two from the same root, the "has not happened yet", i.e. the Future and the "has not happened but could", i.e. what would evolve to the Conditional. Interestingly enough they come from an Old K. *-kœː- for the positive and *-kœːi- with i-umlaut for the negative, which extended its root thus; *-kœː- > *-kœːʲœ-; and *-kœːʲœi- with expected turns towards o-coloring and e-coloring for positive and negative.

Thusly we arrive to the Conditional:

1. expressed by infix -ko-
2. expressed by infix -do-
3. expressed by infix -to-



For the positive and:


1. expressed by infix -keye-
2. expressed by infix -deye-
3. expressed by infix -teye-


For the negative. Whence specialists believe that the original sequence -ko/-ki was positive Conditional, Irrealis, or Theoretical mood, and negative Future. In Classic and Archaic poetry the positive conditional is often employed as a refined positive future, with the sense "this could come to happen". All this is in agreement with the fact that Kareyku culture considers certainty as undesirable or otherwise impolite, so you can say for instance that "the stars will not fall" but "the Sun could always rise", asserting a truth unchecked in the positive is irrespectful to both humans and nature alike.

The Future Tense

Under the new development of Kareyku we would only have 3 transitions according to hierarchy. The Future Tense would be expressed then:

1. expressed by infix -keyo-
2. expressed by infix -deyo-
3. expressed by infix -teyo-

Pretty simple, this would get us such constructions as:

qappakeyo I will eat
othoriteyo He will protect

Further developed with evidentials:

qappakeyos  I will eat (fact)
shain othoriteyon I hear he will protect them
tanadeyoch You will speak to him (I assume)

As for their negative forms:

1. expressed by infix -ki-

2. expressed by infix -di-

3. expressed by infix -ti-

pileh qappakis I will not eat fish

shain tanakilcha I will obviously not talk to them

Relative clitic

The equivalent of a relative clause is dealt in Kareyku with a Relative clitic. The clitic is attached as a normal suffix at the end of the noun and the declension if any. The clitic is -ja and such examples exist as:

neru-ja          kerim        qappa-ta-l     pileh

person-REL    never       eat-4T-EVD     fish

"A person who is known to never eat fish"

The clitic is highly productive and somewhat related to the topic marker, -ejen.

Karey-ja            tan-ey-ta          poko-lyo

Kareyku-REL     speak-IMP-4T    house-LOC

"The Kareyku spoken at home" or "The Kareyku as spoken at home"

Impersonal infix

Kareyku has an impersonal infix -ey- attached to the verb. So for example, in sentences:

     tan-ey-te               penwo          poko-lyo

speak-IMP-4T.NEG   you-POSS       house-LOC

This can be translated into "He doesn't speak at your house" or "One doesn't speak at your home". In addition the -ey- infix can be used to make a kind of irrealis construction approximate to subjunctive.

shin          ikanwo      tyasa      tan-ey-ta

3RD.SG     I-POSS        prefer     speak-IMP-4T

I prefer he didn't speak

Pretty simple, but it can be used in so many constructions and variations, also compounded with the evidentials and others.

Noun Declensions

Kareyku has a number of declensions for the noun (and some even more verbs). It is interesting to note that while there are 2 cases which could be identified with the dative, there is no accusative. This has lead many specialists to believe that Kareyku cases are only post-positional. But the classical nomenclature prevails.

Case	Suffix	Example	Translation
dative/allative	-lto	pokolto	towards the house
dative benefactive	-kume	pokokume	for the house
translative	-bara	pokobara	through the house
locative	-lyo	pokolyo	at the house
comitative	-ndi	pokondi	with the house
abessive	-wan	pokowan	without the house
causative	-beki	pokobeki	because of the house
genitive	-ban	pokoban	of the house
possessive	-wo	pokowo	of the house
instrumental	-qa	pokoqa	by means of the house
inessive	-lte	pokolte	inside the house

The two kinds of datives and the two kinds of genitives bear subtle differences. The first dative is mostly an allative actually and indicates direction, so for instance 'komalto chone!' 'come here!' or simply 'komalto!' can be used as an order. While the other would be used as 'I have a flower for you' or what is the same 'for your benefit'. The first mostly used in the sense of direction, as in a letter sent to, but the latter as in it was given to.

While in the case of the genitives the possessive implies only possession in that something belongs to someone or something. So pokoban tolke the house's woodpiece would be a piece of wood which is part of the house and constitutes it, while pokowo tolke would mean a piece of wood that belongs to the same owner of the house or the family inhabiting the house.

Then you have the use of the comitative vs. abessive, ikan pendi 'you and I' vs. pokowan ikan han 'without my house I'm nothing'. But this is not intruding with the instrumental sense of 'with' which would require the instrumental proper.

The causative can be used with nouns and with verbs. For example laníyabeki ikan tanatas because my heart tells me so, and in the verb it is the causative mood, qappabekikan I fed him. Finally a distinction is made between the locative and the inessive. So we can have Ikan pokolyo I'm at home, but Shin pokolte He's inside the house.