Pataxea: Difference between revisions

Line 113:

=== Nouns ===

Nouns in Proto-Azkali declined for 6 cases: the '''Nominative''', marking the object of a transitive or intransitive verb, the '''Ergative''', marking the subject of a transitive verb, the '''Accusative''' marking the direct object of a transitive verb and in past clauses, the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct objects of transitive verbs, the '''Genitive''', marking a relationship between two nouns, the '''Privative''', marking the lack of ownership specifically on a marked noun, and the '''Instrumental''', marking the noun as being the instrument by which the verb was accomplished (this can be a physical object or a concept).

Nouns in Proto-Azkali declined for 6 cases: the '''Nominative''', marking the object of a transitive or intransitive verb, the '''Ergative''', marking the subject of a transitive verb, the '''Accusative''' marking the direct object of a transitive verb and in past clauses, the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct objects of transitive verbs, the '''Genitive''', marking a relationship between two nouns, the '''Privative''', marking the lack of ownership specifically on a marked noun, and the '''Instrumental''', marking the noun as being the instrument by which the verb was accomplished (this can be a physical object or a concept). Neither Proto-Azkali verbs nor nouns nor adjectives were inflected, with all inflection being conveyed via particles.

Proto-Azkali had a split-ergative ~~morphosyntactical~~ alignment. In the future and present tenses, the nominative and accusative cases were used; in past tenses, the ergative case was used, and the accusative case acted as the absolutive case. Case marking appeared to have been conveyed via particles, shown below:

Proto-Azkali had a split-ergative morphological alignment. In the future and present tenses, the nominative and accusative cases were used; in past tenses, the ergative case was used, and the accusative case acted as the absolutive case. Case marking appeared to have been conveyed via particles, shown below:

{| class="wikitable"

|+Proto-Azkali case

Line 136:

|*gazi

|}

~~Contrasting with regular nouns, pronouns had distinct forms based on their case:~~

=== Verbs ===

Line 188:

Line 186:

|7

|this

|*~~anazgeri~~

|*anasgeri

|

|nazkuriz

Line 452:

Line 450:

|51

|tree

|*gra

|

|~~(almost certainly derived~~

| rowspan="2" |

~~from Mallo-Brausian)~~

|zamait

|-

|52

|forest

|*grablia

|

~~|(almost certainly derived~~

~~from Mallo-Brausian)~~

|zamaikon

|-

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 === Nouns ===
-Nouns in Proto-Azkali declined for 6 cases: the '''Nominative''', marking the object of a transitive or intransitive verb, the '''Ergative''', marking the subject of a transitive verb, the '''Accusative''' marking the direct object of a transitive verb and in past clauses, the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct objects of transitive verbs, the '''Genitive''', marking a relationship between two nouns, the '''Privative''', marking the lack of ownership specifically on a marked noun, and the '''Instrumental''', marking the noun as being the instrument by which the verb was accomplished (this can be a physical object or a concept).
+Nouns in Proto-Azkali declined for 6 cases: the '''Nominative''', marking the object of a transitive or intransitive verb, the '''Ergative''', marking the subject of a transitive verb, the '''Accusative''' marking the direct object of a transitive verb and in past clauses, the subject of intransitive verbs and the direct objects of transitive verbs, the '''Genitive''', marking a relationship between two nouns, the '''Privative''', marking the lack of ownership specifically on a marked noun, and the '''Instrumental''', marking the noun as being the instrument by which the verb was accomplished (this can be a physical object or a concept). Neither Proto-Azkali verbs nor nouns nor adjectives were inflected, with all inflection being conveyed via particles.
-Proto-Azkali had a split-ergative morphosyntactical alignment. In the future and present tenses, the nominative and accusative cases were used; in past tenses, the ergative case was used, and the accusative case acted as the absolutive case. Case marking appeared to have been conveyed via particles, shown below:
+Proto-Azkali had a split-ergative morphological alignment. In the future and present tenses, the nominative and accusative cases were used; in past tenses, the ergative case was used, and the accusative case acted as the absolutive case. Case marking appeared to have been conveyed via particles, shown below:
 {| class="wikitable"
 |+Proto-Azkali case
@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 |*gazi
 |}
-Contrasting with regular nouns, pronouns had distinct forms based on their case:
 === Verbs ===
@@ Line 188: / Line 186: @@
 |7
 |this
-|*anazgeri
+|*anasgeri
 |
 |nazkuriz
@@ Line 452: / Line 450: @@
 |51
 |tree
-|*gra
+|
-|(almost certainly derived
+| rowspan="2" |
-from Mallo-Brausian)
 |zamait
 |-
 |52
 |forest
-|*grablia
+|
-|(almost certainly derived
-from Mallo-Brausian)
 |zamaikon
 |-