cws
Greetings Guest
home > library > journal > view_article
« Back to Articles ✎ Edit Article ✖ Delete Article » Journal
Smaconaescaelconaes Taaevodiél Nevtruam
2▲ 2 ▼ 0
Advanced Edievian Semantics
This public article was written by [Deactivated User], and last updated on 6 Apr 2023, 18:08.

[comments]
[Public] ? ?
[Public] ? ?
[Public] ? ?
[Public] ? ?
?FYI...
This article is a work in progress! Check back later in case any changes have occurred.
Menu 1. cosmae nes - it must 2. mimbae vs. remimae 3. Evidentiality
The following article is to outline semantic processes in Edievian that are more than the sum of their parts, or encode for more information than the underlying words express individually. This article does not concern itself with Edievian idioms or proverbs, but instead on grammatical structures and set phrases that often have extra connotations.

[edit] [top]cosmae nes - it must

Cosmae is generally defined as "to hold" (Though be careful, using it in the mediopassive means "to sprain"). When used with the complementizer nes, it instead comments on the likelihood of an action occurring, with either high or low probability. It is used exclusively in the third person singular for this purpose.

Cosmaen nes odbaond slaen hondren. There must've been frost last night.

Nacosmaéic nes rencen unáig. It couldn't be that you came here.

The second sentence can be contrasted against Naraféic renciat unáig. "You mustn't come here." in that the construction with cosmae ("nacosmaéic") encodes for more prohibition and less probability of an arrival, and therefore the second statement is one of almost surprise; "You couldn't have come here, how on earth did you?!" The sentence using rafae ("naraféic") is a statement of prohibition, but not of lack of likelihood. Therefore, the first sentence, using cosmae, connotes an even slimmer chance of one coming. There is a secondary meaning, as well, when conjugated in the negative future, as shown in the second example above ("Nacosmaéic..."). The negative future combined with cosmae nes adds an element of almost prophetic or pejorative prohibition to the action: not only is it unlikely, it's really bad, too. It is worth noting that the modal verb rafae "must" does not encode for probability as it does in English - rafae is used only for statement of obligation or prohibition.

[edit] [top]mimbae vs. remimae

Mimbae ("to pass") and remimae ("to experience") have different connotations relating to the agency of the topic of the sentence. Generally, mimbae encodes for a more accidental, or at least, non-purposeful, experience of something happening. Remimae, on the other hand, pushes more blame or intention on the experiencer. Differentiating between the two is important in terms of politeness. Both verbs generally occur in the third person, with number dependent on the activity that happened (a cold, SGSingular (number)
one countable entity
vs. bee stings PLPlural (number)
more than one/few
, for example).

Mimbaen fiso aec do aembant. I got a cold in November.

Remimaen fiso aec do aembant. I got a cold in November.

The first example, using mimbae, points to the experiencer (1SFirst person singular (person)
speaker, signer, etc.; I
) as having accidentally contracted a cold without any real input as to how it happened. The second, using remimae, indicates instead that the experiencer may deserve having gotten a cold, or had some agency in it occurring, perhaps from spending time with sick people or just not their washing hands. The following example better illustrates the difference in agency:

Odgión mimbaen ancagont aftuel ael. S/He was in a car accident yesterday.

Odgión remimaen ancagont aftuel ael. S/He was in a car accident yesterday.

The first example pushes the blame away from the experiencer; the driver (3SThird person singular (person)
neither speaker nor addressee
) was in the accident but was not the cause - perhaps they were rear-ended, or someone ran a stop sign. In the second sentence, the experiencer is much more likely to be at fault, perhaps being the one who ran a stoplight.

[edit] [top]Evidentiality

Though there is no grammatical marking for evidentiality in Edievian, it can be noted with some phrases. By no means are any of the evidentiality markers mandatory, but instead serve to indicate the source of information. Frankly, they are more like euphemisms or idioms than true evidentiality markers, but for the sake of practicality, we'll just pretend they are.

While they are free to occur in most locations within an utterance, they are most commonly found ahead of the verbal complex (the conjugated verb and any accompanying adverbs or mood marker).

MarkerTypeUsage
síis eb
/s̪iʃ ev/
Direct or inferential knowledgeSíis eb baonaengaortaen siáe fotrocpalt re. "The hospital burned down (and I witnessed it)."

Literally "by the eyes", this marker's usage indicates direct or inferential knowledge of whatever is being stated by means of sensory evidence. This can include statements that would not be verified with one's eyes, such as Síis eb cosmaen nes iabaéins gulaes o gaortgas. "There must've been a gas leak (because the room reeks)."

Due to its nature, using síis eb in reference to the future sounds exceptionally strange, and implies that the speaker is a seer (or crazy).
síis ve
/s̪iʃ ve/
HearsaySíis ve pemaéic siáe pavaon ol nevgión. "So I'm told, her sister is coming tomorrow."

Literally "by the ears", this marker's usage indicates hearsay knowledge of whatever is being stated. It does not encode for any connotations of truth or factuality, just a simple "so I've heard" or "so it was told to me". Unlike síis eb, there are no restrictions on verbal tense with síis ve.

✎ Edit Article ✖ Delete Article
Comments
privacy | FAQs | rules | statistics | graphs | donate | api (indev)
Viewing CWS in: English | Time now is 28-Mar-24 12:15 | Δt: 2496.5591ms