Please Don't be Angry

Please Don't be Angry
http://sites.google.com/site/psalmofdreams/Home/introduction-to-babel-grammar/please-don-t-be-angry


Nobody Can Make Me go Home
http://sites.google.com/site/psalmofdreams/Home/introduction-to-babel-grammar/nobody-can-make-me-go-home


Epistle LXVII: I’m still not leaving

My Dearest Fhermáta

I don’t know why everyone wants me to leave. And I don’t know why everything seems to think that just if you come to visit suddenly I’ll pack my bags and leave my one true love. I’m not leaving, and I don’t care if you do come to visit.
Fhermáta,
If you want to make yourself useful copy down these notes. I’m going back to working on my grammar. And I won’t be leaving Puey for any reason.


KHLEJAQÚFHAYÒMPAN XHRIR KHLÌJHA
Seisáreqhe’ eixhrejor
xhmir Saiqíren Puîyus tlhangaîngta’ Íngìkhmar Sweqhàngqu
Stamórexha Stélar Éfhelìnye
The Compleate Babel Grammar
The Starflower Princess Éfhelìnye
Wrote it for Crown Prince Puîyus, the Son of Íngìkhmar of the Clan Sweqhàngqu.


Babel Grammar Part Three:Morphology: Suffixes

Now, let’s get to work.

Before we can begin our discussion on the rich system of suffixes which Babel employs, my beloved Puey, first we must discuss the actual participle itself, or the root as I shall call it in order to distinguish it from all of the affixes about it. The roots itself is subject either to reduplication or emphasis by being placed in the construct case. Please remember that in the epistlesthat follow the clauses shall be in the presumptive mode and comment mood unless I indicate it or at least until I’ve taught you fully how the other modes and moods work. You already have an hint of the irrealis mood and injunctive mood, but I think it important to keep everything simple for now.
Babel, the language that I expressed for my love of you, employs reduplication to indicate emphasis, repetition, or for a superlative sense. Different parts of speech reduplicate in different ways. For particles, if inflections are used, the lrànkhus prefixes are only set upon the first particple, and suffixes only lie upon the second one. Relative pronouns simply reduplicate the full form, but they carry a different meaning, for instance xhyus? who? becomes xhyus xhyus? whoever? Personal pronouns reduplicate the full form and also change their meaning. Pú is I but pú pú means my souls. For the purpose of this epistle we shall focus upon particples.

Qiêl qiêlutakh xhthènte twílayùlrukh.
‘Tis verily unto Þe hills Þe blue birds go.

Qiêlutakh xhthènte xhthènte twílayùlrukh.
Þe blue birds keep going to Þe hills.

Qiêlutakh xhthènte twíla twílayùlrukh.
‘Tis Þe blue birds verily who go to Þe hills.

Xhmir ijótlha ijótlha’ í’ okháxei ker úxha.
‘Twas verily to Þe whispering mountains that Þe blue birds go.
‘Twas unto the many whispering mountains that the blue birds go.

Xhmir ijótlha’ í’ okháxei’ okháxei ker úxha.
Many birds go to Þe whispering mountains.

Xhmir ijótlha’ í’ okháxei ker úxha’ úxha.
Þe very blue birds go to Þe whhhispering mountains.

Újar újar stélar xhroe Puîyus.
Puiyus kept thinking about Þe princess.
Puiyus can’t stop thinking about Þe princess.

Khníjur khníjur xhrir íxhi’ íxhi ker khnujóloi qúra.
The viceroy kings were constantly singing about the very yellow things that were jewels.
Khníjur khníjur xhrir khnujóloi’ íxhi ker íxhi qúra.
Þe viceroy kings were constantly singing about the the yellow, yellow jewels.

Qìr toâ’ Uîtlhu’ Uîtlhu.
Þe Darksome, Darksome One is here.

Reduplication can also mean How! What! To such a degree! One sometimes has to twist about the translation of the language of beasts to reach this connotation.

Qiêl qiêl
What hills!
Xhthènteqhe xhthènteqhe kú!
How he came!
Áxha’ áxha qírenat!
Þe Emperor is so red!

Reduplication may be used with the seven Cases: Vocative, Experiencer, Locative, Construct, Ingeminate, Absolutive, and Ergative, and is only found in the presumptive mode.

Xá’ ijótlha’ ijótlha!
Oh great whispering mountains!
What whispering mountains!
Oh many whispering mountains!

Jaê jaê stélàrejikh pú.
I verily see Þe princess.
How I see Þe princess!
What a viewer of Þe princess I eam!
I see Þe princess to what a degree!

Khniêr stélar stélàrejikh púsa!
Verily I kiß Þe princess!
I kiß Þe many princesses!
How I kiß Þe princesses!
What a kißer of Þe princesses I eam!
I kiß Þe princess to what a degree!

Khniêr stélàrejikhh khelènatha khelènatha kae púsa!
I kiß Þe very red princess!
How red is Þe princess Þæt I kiß!
What a red princess is Þe one I kiß!

Xhthèntheqhe lwánol lwánòlutakh púsa.
I verily go towards Þe castlen.
I go to such great castlen!

Khniêr stélar stélarùpwar púyan!
Verilly it is the princess I kiss on purpose!
How I kiss that very princess on purpose!
How kissed is the princess I kissed on purpose!
Unto what a degree is the princess kissed on purpose by me!

Khniêr stélarùpwar Puîye Puîyeyan!
Verilly Puey kisses the princess on purpose!
How Puey kisses the princess on purpose!
What a kisser on purpose is Puey to the princess!
Unto what a degree Puey kisses the princess on purpose!

Reduplication is also used to form a very particular type of question in the presumptive mode, in the comment mode. One reduplicates the predicate of the question, but the first predicate takes unto it the negative suffix –axúng. The predicate therefore takes the form of X-axúng X. These emphatic questions may be translated in a variety of ways, such as Is it true that? Or Does it do this indeed? Or Does it do this or not? or Does it do this or what?

Xhthenteqhèyaxúng xhthènteqhe lwánòlutakh púsa?
Is it true that I go untowards the castles?
Do I go untowards the castles indeed?
Do I go untowards the castles or not?
Do I go untowards the castles or what?

Khniêraxúng khniêr stélarùpwar púyan?
Is it true that I kiss the princess on purpose?
Do I kiss the princess on purpose indeed?
Do I kiss the princess on purpose or not?
Do I kiss the princess on purpose or what?

The superlative sense of a participle can also be expressed in the construct case. This usage is so common to our mode of speech that we are barely aware that it is a form of reduplication.

Qúra qúràyejikh
Viceroy king of Viceroy kings; Þe Greatest Viceroy king; Þe Kingliest Viceroy king.
Khaûntu khaûnejikh
Lord of Lords; Lord of all Lords; Þe Greatest Lord of owll
Qiêl qielùlkha
Þe greatest hill; Þe father of hills
Lwánoll lwánolàxhmikh.
Þe largest castlen of them all.
Tlhóxing tlhóxùxhwi xhroe.
Lord of Lords; Lord of all Lords; Þe Greatest Lord of all.
Ijótlha’ ijótlha xhroe
Þe greatest mountain; Þe father of whispering mountains

XhajhyaPuiyusaipoitàpreis qéyejakheîlwai tiPuîye Puiyeyejikheîlwai taê tú.
Xhnujáxo Puîyus xhroe xul quja pó póning Puîye quja Puîye xhroe taê tú.
I myself gnow many Puîyuses, but you are Þe Pueyest Puey of them all.

Khaûn, khaûntu is a word for Lords, Powers, Æons and Tlhó are lords, nobles, those who are high while xhnujáxo signifieth persons who know someone or something.

When the construct case is used on a particple which denotes an abstract idea or a quality, sometimes it it best to think of it as a descriptor. This is the same as our regular adjectival constructions which I shall introduce later.

Ó fhoê xhroe qir lwánol koa qúra.
Þe viceroy king in yon castle is a man of power.
Þe viceroy king in yon castle is a powerful man.

Khrèjhar óxhrèjorul fhá xhroe xhnoipe fhoâ xhroe fhoâ xhnir Puîyus.
Puîyus can kill many men of strength and power;

Fhoâ means ability or power and as a modal fhoâ xhnir means having the capability with, being able or can

The last example, therefore could be restated as:
Khrèjhar óxhrèjorul fhá xhroe xhnoipe fhoâ fhoâ xhnir Puîyus.
Puîyus can kill many strong ond powerful men.

Ó xhmoe’ eîqu xhroe kó xhmoe xhmeûxujo xhroe.
Yon person of the intenciouns of hope is a man of gnoweliche.
Yon person of hopeful intenciouns is a gnowledgababel man.

Kei’ áxoi xhroe khnujóloi poa’ axhúxha.
Thise purple jewels are natural things.

In the above examples I have used áxoi nature, those who are alive, eîqu the meaning of something, gnoweliche, and fhá strength and fhoâ you met before as capability, ability, power and fhoê is power and xhmeûxujo means hope.

Participles that denote colors often find themselves in the construct case when modifying another participle. Sometmes one can translate them as a superlative, but other times one does not need to according to the sense..

Jaê xhajhyayúqei’ úxha pfhu púxhli.
Jaê xhajhyayúqei’ úxhayùlkha púxhli.
I see many blue books.

Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxha pfho Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s blue eyen.
Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayòlkha Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s very blue eyen.

Conjunctive particles that are level fifteen suffixes such as -aiqhor, +xhnoe, +aqhus, +xhnoipe, –ontet and +fheil can absorb cases right before them. Hence
Qir ijótlha xhnoe qir úqei = qir ijótlha xhnoe úqeiIn the presence of whispering mountains and books
Úqei’ úxha xhroe xhnoe’ áxha xhroe = úqei’ úxha xhroe xhnoe’ áxha.
books blue and red

In these examples I shall play with the level fifteen suffixes and use a color term in the construct case, and you will see that újar is also in the construct case and so has a similar meaning unto it.

Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayolkhayaîqhor újar Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s very blue and eyen that think also.

Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayòlkha xhnoe’ újar Puîye púxhli.
Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayòlkha’ aqhus újar Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s very blue and thinking eyen.

Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayòlkha xhnoipe’ újar Puîye púxhli.
Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayolkhayòntet újar Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s eyen both very blue and thinking.

Usyórimm tneufhtayòjhwa’ uxhayòlkha fheil újar Puîye púxhli.
I chance to like Puey’s eyen which are either very blue or thinking.

A few particples which mean for ever when reduplicated have the sense of for evermore, and the participle which means never has the meaning of for nevermore. Tnìnge means those who are e'er, at any time while tnìnge tnìnge means those who are at e'er, at any time at all, while sèma means those who are outside of time sèma sèma means those who are for evermore and tùntha, tùnthar means those who are eternal and tùntha tùntha means in sæcula sæculōrum while Aikhtèrnem means those who are eternal and Aikhtèrnem aikhtèrnem means those who are forevermore and áqhíter signifies those who last forever and áqhíter áqhíter is those who are for evermore and qìfhis means those who never happen or are, yA, gavart but qìfhis qìfhis means those who are for nevermore.

Kakaûpa sèma sèma stélarùpwar.
Þe Princess sings for evermore.

Qìfhis qìfhis khyéja Jhàsqewa.
Quoth Þe Raven, Nevermore.

One may compare these time particles and their reduplication to the level either suffix –ingpen always and –ingpeningpen e'er.

Kakaupayìngpen stélarùpwar.
The princess always sings.
Kakaupayingpenìngpen stélarùpwar.
The princess e'er sings.

The particples xhré and pé and xhmé when used in the construct case have a slightly different meaning than usual. Xhréyùlkha and xhréyàxhmikh and xhré xhroe all mean former, of past time, preterite, of old, of yore, whilom and péyùlkha and péyàxhmikh and pé xhroe mean current, of the present, yi, tenu and xhméyùlkha and xhméyàxhmikh and xhmé xhroe mean intended, with intention.

Jaê qúrayèjikhing xhréyàxhmikh Puîyus.
Puîyus saw Þe former viceroy king.
Jaê qúrayèjikhing péyùlkha Puîyus.
Puîyus saw Þe current viceroy king.
Jaê qúrayèjikhing xhméyàxhmikh Puîyus.
Puîyus saw Þe intended viceroy king.

There are at least two other participles, however, which also carry the meaning of current and they are qhá, qhaêm those who are current, new, modern and xhekhéfha those who are current, now, already, yet.

Jaê qúrayèjikhing qhaêm kae Puîyus.
Jaê qúrayèjikhing xhekhéfha kae Puîyus.
Puîyus saw Þe current viceroy king.

Since reduplication has the sense of many or many times it can be seen as quite similar to the numerial affixes xhajhya- and –ul as well as the imperfect aspect -ojhwa, ojhwat, ojhwas, ojhwan or even the participle xhnípe when used with an intransitive or stative participle.

Jaê xhajhyajakhtàqta xhroe pú.
Jaê jakhtàqta xhroe xul pú.
Jaê jakhtàqta jakhtàqta xhroe pú.
I saw many warriors.

Jaeyòjhwat jakhtàqta xhroe pú.
Jaê jaê jakhtàqta xhroe pú.
I kept seeing warriors.

Xhnípe xhthenteqhèyejikh xhmir Jaràqtu pú.
Xhthènteqhe xhthènteqhe xhmir Jaràqtu pú.
I kept going to Jaràqtu.

Xhthènteqhe xhmir Jaràqtu xhnípe wtsatimùlkha pú.
Xhthènteqhe xhmir Jaràqtu wtsàtim wtsàtim pú.
I kept going to Jaràqta Þæt kept being green.

Xhnípe tqeufhlontheyejikh xhrir Puîye pejaqákhaiqhorapònya pú sakhòsyein jit wthá.
Tqeufhlònthe tqeufhlònthe xhrir Puîye pajeqákhaiqhorapònya pú sakhòsyein jit wthá.
I kept being stolen from Puey who only wants humble to kiss me on my lips.

This example uses the participles tqeûfhlo, tqeufhlònthe those who are stolen, stolen goods, stolen candies, loot, booty and qákh those who like or desire something. As in Xhmér Puiyèyatser pú pàjeqákh pú, To say with Puey is what I want. Xhmér means those who remain or stay behind. I want to stay. Is that quite well understood?

That’s all I wish for you to copy right now. And Fhermáta, I’m not leaving this room, so don’t even ask. And if anyone tries to come up with a scheme for me to leave, you can just tell him that I will leave Puey on one condition.
I wish to be married right now. Let’s just skip the entire betrothal ceremony, let’s forget about the war, I want to be Puey’s wife this very day. Then I shall return with you unto Jaràqtu, but no sooner.

Éfhelìnye

Epistle LXVIII: Please don’t be angry!

My dearest Sister by Marriage
Éfhelìnye

I have relayed your requestion for immediate marriage for yoking yourself unto my Brother, and Grandfather Pátifhar informs me that such a ritual just cannot ontologically be done at the moment. Until the war is won and fertility once again restored unto the land, there can be no marriage ceremonies, let alone betrothal rites. Grandfather also mentioned that he was thinking that you were not mature enough for marriage, and that this time before betrothal would be an excellent time for you to spend with your Sisters.
I do hope that you’re not cross with me. I have tried to make it up to you by bringing you pie, but your slaves keep assaulting me and licking me and the pie, but I’ve been able to give Great-Uncle Táto a few unlicked pieces of pie along with the note. I shall continue waiting on this side of the door until you let me enter your bedroom.
I do no wish for to be angry with me. So I have looked through some of your notes and copied out the Level One Suffixes that mark out Adpositions and such. I hope that by copying them down I can be of some help. Look, I shall even draw out a little box for you.

Suffixes
Level One Suffixes: Experiencer Case, Absolutive Case, Construct Case, Locative Case

·0 Experiencer case
·0 Absolutivë case
·an Ergativë case, voliciounal subject

·ejikh construct, sentient·animate (person)
·olkha construct, non·sentient animate (creature)
·axhmikh construct, non·sentient inanimate (thing, place)
·ulkha construct, non·sentient inanimate (thing, place)
·etyikh partitivë genitivë, sentient·animate (person)
·otya partitivë genitivë, non·sentient animate (creature)
·utya partitivë genitivë, non·sentient inanimate (thing, place)
·ujhwa from, out of, about, concerning, written by, sentient·animate (person)
·ekhmo from, out of, about, concerning, non·sentient animate (creature)
·epwo from, out of, about, concerning, inanimate (thing, place)

+ Xhroe construct
+ Xhroa construct (used after xhroe)

·aitlho on Þe surface of, on ptop of
·aloi in, into, inside; during
·alyoa throughout
·antar near, close, in Þe presence of
·aqlas in Þe middle of
·aswaor beneficiary, goal, dativë; have
·athyen outside, opposing
·athying in front of, before
·atlhui because of, due to
·atser in Þe context of; although, since, because, whhhen, whhhile, provided that, if, an
·eitlho about, concerning
·ejen because of, due to
·ejhwor below
·elwil without, lacking
·emlen katadown, below
·entir belongs to
·epakh instrument, through, by means of; non·voliciounal subject
·ethya like, as, just as, as if
·etwekh in relacioun to, in comparison to, then, at least for
·exhyeu allativë, locativë, in, at, on; purpueypose
·iengo behind, at Þe back of
·ieqya acroß, over
·oafhe owll roundly, around
·oaka after, behind
·oapa against
·oata beside
·oatlha above
·oatye off of, from
·ofhiet beyond, past
·okhno over, away from
·omlei for Þe sake of
·ufhar underneath, under, below
·ujhar upon, on, on ptop of
·uqei accompaniment, aßociated with; among, between
·utakh to, towards, heading to

+ So beneficiary, goal, dativë
+ Pae beneficiary, goal, dativë
+ Se allativë, locativë; in, at, on
+ Ser instrument, through, by means of; non·voliciounal subject
+ Sae instrument, through, by means of; non·voliciounal subject
+ Si from, out of
+ Khmo from, out of
+ Kae ingeminate, sentient·animate (person)
+ Pfho ingeminate, non·sentient animate (creature)
+ Pfhu ingeminate, inanimate (thing, place)
+ Qíreu imperativë/subjectivë of Have
+ Qíreu khyi would Þæt, oh Þæt, if only, how may utinam X have (strong optativë, irrealis mood of Have)

I just hope this helps you. Let me conclude with a line from the Holy Writ.

Qthòwo †Wthangoîxhu ser tnaqnàsta.
With Aigonz all things are poßibibble.

Qthówo means those who are possible, able to happen or to be done and †Wthangoîxhu is one of the names of the Heavenly Father, and tnaqnàsta means all things or all persons.

I love you, Éfhelìnye

Your loving Sister by marriage

Fhermáta

[scribbled on the bottom]

WE THE DEMANDING MORE PIE MORE PIE MORE PIE NOW!

YOUR LOVING SLAVES FHÓLUS AND AÎYA AND FHÓLUS

Notebook Entry: Nobody can make me go home

I’ve decided to let Fhermáta into my room, but I’ve thrown Great-Uncle Táto out. I just want to be alone, or at least alone with Puey. Fhermáta job is to make sure that Grandfather Pátifhar and my parents stay far away, plus she can be my new amanuensis. I don’t know where Puey is right now, but he left a flower outside my door, so I know he shall return to me as soon as he came.
Let’s begin with the level one suffixes. At once one can see that here lie many of the different endings of the cases, the ergative case, the absolutive case, the construct case, the ingeminate case, as well as the rest of the forms of the locative case. When no level sevel lrànkhus prefix or level one suffix is used upon a semantically non-restrictive sùkhpat participle, one must look at its useage in the clause or sentence to see whether it is absolutuve or experiencer case. For instance Puîye can be either absolutive or experiencer case all by itself, but in these two sentences it can only be absolutive case.

Jaê Puîye púxhli.
I see Puey.
Eûxi Puîye.
Puey dances about.

And in the next statement Puîye can only be ergative case.

Personal pronouns lack an absolutive case, so when one just sees pú, tú and kú and the like without any other affix it must be experiencer case. But otherwise absolutive case is used as the subject of an intransitive or stative clause and the object of a volitional and non-volitional clause, while the experiencer case is used for the predicate and unmarked relative pronouns and transitive or ditransitive subjects or subjects that are marked for aspect. Most clauses or sentences consist of two elements, participles or personal pronouns in the experiencer case, but it is important to be able to tell the difference among the cases.
However, as we shall learn below, the construct case can also remain unmarked when in the possessive construction. So, there I go, I can’t write a paragraph without mentioning that there is an exception. Oh.

Please note, oh my Prince, that several of these suffixes are marked for gender. For instance the non-sentient-animate series is used for personications for life such as éfhe a word for life and words for springingtide such as fhrúla But heavenly heavenly bodies such as Qwás and Eîl are considered sentient animate when they are viewed as Spirits, but Qwás and Eîl are considered non-sentient inanimate when considered part of the natural realm. I think it is worthwild to copy down again the gender affixes on particples insofar as they are relavant to the level one suffixes. I’m including the paje- series also since it is used in the possessive construction, as well as the gendered focus particles where the five-fold gender constrast in Babel is most easily heard and seen.

Gender Affixes
On Participles

Sentient·animate epicine
Sentient·animate masculine
Sentient·animate feminine
Non·sentient animate
Non·sentient inanimate
Translacioun
Paje·
Paje·
Paje·
Xhnalwa·
Teiqha·
His/hir/thair (5·p)
·ejikh
+ xhroe
+ xhroa
·ejikh
+ xhroe
+ xhroa
·ejikh
+ xhroe
+ xhroa
·olkha
+ xhroe
+ xhroa
·akhmikh/ulkha
+ xhroe
+ xhroa
Construct (1·s)
·etyikh
·etyikh
·etyikh
·otya
·utya
Partitivë genitive (1·s)
+ Kae
+ Kae
+ Kae
+ Pfho
+ Pfhu
Ingeminate (+ 1·s)
·ujhwa
·ujhwa
·ujhwa
·ekhmo
·epwo
From, out of (1·s)
·anwa
·axhwa
+ xhmoe
·enwe
·axhwa
+ xhmoe
·inwi
·axhwa
+ xhmoe
·ojhwo
·axhwa
+ xhmoe
·ujhwu
·axhwa
+ xhmoe
Focus (15·s)

Now it’s time for examples. We shall start with the construct case.

Fhermátàyejikh óqlayèlkham.
Those flowren are Fhermáta’s.

Kuxhayaônyass stélàrejikh Puîye.
Puey won’t stop kißing Þe Princess.

Jhkhuyéri qráyiingtàyejikh Fhermátàyejikh lrúnatser khornawtháyengit.
All of us loved Fhermáta’s mother.
All of us allegedly loved Fhermáta’s mother.

Ùsyor xhyúlayùlkha’ únèyengit.
We ourselves love to dance.
We love dancing.
Wee might love dancing.

And as we conclude this discussion on the basic usage of the construct case, I wish to point out that the participle pfhúràqta has by its very meaning a weak construct force unto it.

Jaê pfhúraqtàyejikh pú.
I see one of us. I see one of them.

Pfhúràqta means those who are n ative, autochthonous, one of us, one of them.

Ihink by now you understand the basic use of the Construct Case. It is used for objects in omnivolitional clauses as well as for simple possession, as well as to complete the meaning of certain participles. I think by now it’s time to use the Construct Case and show how it is used to form the Possessive Construction.

The Possessive Constructions

X Y-ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
X of Y
Fhlaê jhpaipasaraxìmejikh
The Iced Cream of the Ballerina Princess
Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha-X Y
Y’s X
Teiqhàfhlae jhpaipasàraxim
The Ballerina Princess’ Iced Cream
Paje/Xhnalwe/Teiqha- X Y-ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
X of Y, or
Y’s X
Teiqhàfhlae jhpaipasaraxìmejikh
The Iced Cream of the Ballerina Princess, or
The Ballerina Princess’ Iced Cream

Before this notebook entry is finished you will find too many instances of the possessive construction, so I won’t inundate you with them now. This will just be a very brief summary of this construction. Usually the possessive construction is not used in the predicate, but one does find sentences like this:

Koaselónge Puiyùsejikh Éfhelìnye.
Éfhelìnye loves Puîyus
Pajekoaselónge Puîyus Éfhelìnye.
Éfhelìnye is Puîyus’ loving person.
Pajekoaselónge Puiyùsejikh Éfhelìnye.
Éfhelìnye loves Puîyus, or
Éfhelìnye is Puîyus’ loving person.

Usyórim wtsátùlkha Fhermáta.
Fhermáta loves green things.
Xhnalwayusyórim wtsát Fhermáta.
Fhermáta is the green things’ loving person.
Xhnalwayusyórim wtsátùlkha Fhermáta.
Fhermáta loves green things, or
Fhermáta is the green things’ loving person.

Participles which have inbuilt possessive, which are participles which mostly name kinship terms and body parts, usually just take twho forms.

{3rd·person}· X Y
Y’s X
Tneûfhta Puîye
Puey’s eyes
(3rd·person}-X Y·ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
X of Y, or
Y’s X
Tneûfhta Puiyèyejikh
The eyen of Puey, or
Puey’s Eyen

Wtsát tneûfhta Fhermáta.
Wtsát tneûfhta Fhermátàyejikh.
Fhermáta’s eyen are green.

Usyórim óqlayòlkha qráyiîngta qúra.
Þe Viceroy kings’ mother likes flowren.

However, participles which have inbuilt possession sometimes do take inseperable possession prefixes for emphasis.

Wtsát teiwatneûfhta Fhermáta.
Fhermáta’s eyen are green.

Usyórim óqlayòlkha tlhiwaqráyiîngta qúra.
The viceroy kings’ mother likes flowers.

Impersonal possession prefixes can also be used in the possessive construction when one wishes to emphasise that the possessed is inalienable in some way.

Teîwaqiel Fhermáta.
Koe qiêl Fhermáta.
Fhermáta’s hill.

Ùtakhi teîqaqiel xhlir Fhermáta.
Fhermáta chanced to travel unto her very hill.

Lreixemat teiwayúqei xhroe Fhermáta kú.
He read Fhermáta’s book.

The poaqing+ series works in the same way with the possessive construction, although it can only be found in the third person:

Koaqing X Y
Koaqe X Y
Kekoaqing X Y
Kekoaqe X Y
In, at, on Y’s X
Koaqing talqantànthe jakhtàqta
Koaqe talqantànte jakhtàqta
Kekoaqing talqantànte jakhtàqta
Kekoaqe talqantànthe jakhtàqta
In the warrior’s air ship
In the warriors’ air ship
In that warrior’s air ship
In those warriors’ air ship
Koaqing Y·ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
Koaqe Y·ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
Kekoaqing Y·ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
Koaqe Y·ejikh/olkha/axhmikh/ulkha
In, at, on X of Y, or
In, at, on Y’s X
Koaqing talqantànthe jakhtaqtàyejikh
Koaqe talqantànte jakhtaqtàyejikh
Kekoaqing talqantànte jakhtaqtàyejikh
Kekoaqe talqantànthe jakhtaqtàyejikh
In the air ship of the warrior, in the warrior’s air ship
In the air ship of the warriors, in the warriors’ air ship
In the airship of that warrior, in that warrior’s air ship
In the airship of those warriors, in those warriors’ air ship

Xhthènte koaqing lwánol Fhermáta Puîye.
Puey wended into Fhermáta’s castle.

Tlhìjhweqhe koaqing wthárl khyèqhiir pú.
I fell in Þe dragon’s river.

The Possessive Construction can continue on indefinitely for as long as we can remember it

Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha-X Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha- Y Z
Z’s Y’s X
Teiqhayúqei xhnalwatwailíla stélaring
The princess’ bird’s book
Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha-X Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha- Y Paje/Xhnalwa/Teiqha-Z A
A’s Z’s Y’s X
Teiqhayúqei xhnalwatwailíla pajestélaring qúring.
The king’s princess’ bird’s book

Xhthènteqhe koaqing khnaôlyu koaqing lwánol Fhermáta pú.
I wended into Fhermáta’s castle’s locacioun.

The locative case may be used in the possessive contruction. However, adpositions are only added to the locative case which is being modified with the prefix paje/xhnalwa/teiqha-. This is done because the possessive is always considered in the construct case even though it may not be marked.

Xhthènteqhe teiqhaqiêlutakh Puîye pú.
Xhthènteqhe teiqhaqiêlutakh Puiyèyejikh pú.
I wended into Puey’s hill.
In both of the above sentences, Puîye and Puiyèyejikh is understood to be in the construct case, even though only the second one is overtly marked for that. This is very important for you to keep in mind, my beloved Puey, because later on you will see that the construct case must be modified with the ingeminate case, whether or not it is overtly marked.

Xhthènteqhe teiqha qir khnaôlyu teiqha qir lwánol Fhermáta pú.
I wended into Fhermáta’s castle’s locacioun.
In the above sentence Fhermáta is once again in the construct case even though it lacks the affix –ejikh or *xhroe._

Now, construct phrases occur in the pattern of X of Y except in cases when something indefinate can be understood for the possessive quality. For instance Éfhelinyèyejikh wtsát means Green things are Éfhelìnye’s or Éfhelìnye’s are the green things. Construct phrases are, furthermore, not able to be broken apart save for when the first one is modified with an unmarked relative clause, or when xhroe/xhroa can be broken apart, as I shall describe later.
Understood possessors tend to appear at the beginning of a clause or sentence.

Fhermátàyejikh óqlayèlkham.
Those flowren are Fhermáta’s.

This is sentence is an example of where the possessed is understood. If one had to supple the possessed one could say:

Khmérnt Fhermátàyejikh óqlayèlkham.
Those flowren are things of Fhermáta’s.

Yes, I am quite certain of it, the understood possessed is on wherein the clasue or xhméja sentence begins with the construct case and so means X is Y’s.

Qúràyejikhh khornalwánol .
All castlen are Þe Viceroy king’s.

In reference to days, when a personal name is used in the construct case or in the possessive construction, the day is translated as Starday as if the word were tlhàthni, tlhaîthni or khmòtatau.

Teiqhaxóla Puîye fhwa!
La Puey Day! La, Puey’s Starday!

Kheytayaîfhi koaqing xóla Puîye khrin.
We met for Þe first tyme on Puey Day!

Aîfhi is a participle which means those who meet someone or something for the first time.

This is a rather good summary of the Construct Case and the Possessive Construction, don’t you think, Fhérma?

Yes, Princess. I like it that you used my name in so many examples.

Resplendent! Is Puey here yet?

Not yet, little Sister.

Then I suppose we can move onto the ingeminate case. What’s that knocking outside?

[smears, sprawling in crayons]

WE WANT PIE WANT PIE WANT PIE WANT PIE!

[more smears]

Okay we’ve gotten rid of Fhólus and Aîya. Sometimes I wish I could be a little Traîkhiim and bounce about and prate, but then again who would be left for to create the Language of the Dreamtime.

I know I could not do it, Princess. If I created language it would be all about baking, flowers, and stars. At least you’re coming up with words for all things. You’re very smart.

Thank you, but I don’t think I’m smart at all. Were I, the War would already be won, and I would already be married to Puey.

You have to have patience. Do you want to write about the ingeminate case now? We have time.

Yes, the khleîxhme case. These are the forms.

Þe Ingeminate Case

+ Kae ingeminate, sentient·animate (person)
+ Pfho ingeminate, non·sentient animate (creature)
+ Pfhu ingeminate, inanimate (thing, place)


The ingeminate case is one of the easiest cases to form, and yet I think that sometimes children have a great deal of difficulty in wrapping their imagination about it. The other cases seem to have very simple syntactic functions. The vocative case is used to call out for someone. AîPuîye! Oh Puey! The Experiencer case is about doing or being something. Khniêr Someone is kissing. The Construct case is about possession or having something done unto one. Stélarèjikhing. Of the princess. The locative case is all about locations, going somewhere or from some place. Éfhelinyèyutakh untowards Éfhelìnye and Éfhelinyeyàswaor Éfhelìnye has. The Absolutive case is about something chancing to happen. Stélarùpwar. It happens to the princess. And the Ergative case is about setting out to do something. Puîyeyan Puey does it on purpose. But the ingeminate case does not quite have such a simple defmintion or meaning. Puîye kae by itself means something like being Puey. So why do we have the Ingeminate case?

I have no idea, Princess.

At its simplest, the khleîxhme ingeminate case is used to rename someone or something which is [smudges]

Could you say that a little slower, my Sister? I’m still learning how to paint at the speed of your talking.

I’m terrible sorry. At its simplest, the khleîxhme ingeminate case is used to rename someone or something which is being acted upon by the subject, but which is not itself the object in the construct case.

I’ve got it.

The ingeminate case has seven usages. Ah, seven, what a felicitous prime number. Would you like to draw a little box? I’m going to make a list.

Yes, little Sister.

The Ingeminate Case is used

I) For to modify someone or something being used in the construct case
II) For to modify the absolutive case when it is the object
III) For to mark the subject of the mediopassive voice, that is the subject or a relative clause beginning with –afham and -pejos
IV) For to mark the object of the thòfhrang antipassive voice
V) As the first word in a clause or sentence for to refer to the previous clause or sentence
VI) For to express the conjunction and/or that is X or Y or possibly both
VII) For to express the conjunction X andY among others.


There we go, seven usages, all of which somehow show that the ingeminate clause is a type of object without being the main object of the clause. Also it shows the consistency of the Hierarchy of Cases, and the mediopassive voice uses it as subject and the antipassive voice as an object.

The first usage of the ingeminate case, that of modifying the construct case, is by far its most common usage. Consider the following:

Qiêl wtsatìmutakh = to Þe green hill
Qielùlkha wtsàtim pfhu = of Þe green hill.

So what’s happening here? Why is the locative ending applied to the second element in the first example, but in the second example we have first a construct and then an ingeminate. How odd is that! When more than participle are being used in a locative phrases, the affix that marks the locative case is only affixed unto the beginning, if it is of the Qir+ series, or at the end if it is of the –utakh series.

Qir ijótlha
Ijótlhàyaloi
On Þe hill.
Qir ijótlha wtsàtim
Ijótlha wtsatìmaloi.
On Þe green hill.
Yes, that’s very simple, neh? In ijótlha wtsàtim, wtsàtim is considered to be an unmarked relative khyàtyikh clause because this phrase can mean both green hill and hill that is green. In ijótlha wtsatìmaloi the first element, ijótlha is considered to be an unmarked relative clause. The reasoning is less straightforward, but it is simply considered the counterpart of qir ijótlha wtsàtim.
However, the construct case may not take unmarked relative clauses e'er e'er e'er. Anything which would modify it must come after it and be in an ingeminate phrases.More than one participle or personal pronoun may be used in an ingeminate phrase, but only the last element takes the marking, just as all the other prefixes of swètwa suffixes.

Ijótlhayàxhmikh
Of Þe hills
Ijótlhayàxhmikh wtsàtim pfhu
Of Þe green hills
Ijótlhayàxhmikh wtsàtim axhúxha pfhu
Of Þe green, orange hills
Ijótlhayàxhmikhing wtsàtim axhúxha qí khnujóloi pfhu
Of Þe green, orange hills, that are present, that are jewels
Jit
Me
Jit wtsàtim kae
Mee, who am green

Even more examples:

Koaselónge Puiyùsejikh jijíxhe kae pú.
I love laughing Puîyus.
Eîtlhir Eîl xhroe íxhi pfhu pú.
I carry a yellow Sun.
Khrìxhmer Puiyùsejikh kùxha kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh jijíxhe kae pú.
I bring Puîyus, my friend, who kißes a laughing Éfhelìnye.

When the absolutive case is the object, it is also modified by the ingeminate case:

Koaselónge Puîyus jijíxhe kae púyan.
I love laughing Puîyus on purpose.
Eîtlhir Eilùpwar íxhi pfhu púyan.
I carry a yellow Sun on purpose.
Khrìxhmer Puiyusùpwar kùxha kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh jijíxhe kae púyan.
I set out and succeeded in bringing Puîyus, my friend, who kißes a laughing Éfhelìnye.

The ingeminate case itself can take another construct case and even more ingeminate cases, although it cannot itself take the absolutive case which is reserved for the main predicate when it needs the object of an omnivolitional clause or sentence.

Jaê stélarèjikhing jaê kae jin.
I see Þe Princess looking about.
Jaê stélarèjikhing jaê kae jit jin.
I see Þe Princess who sees me.
Jaê stélarèjikhing jaê kae qielùlkha wtsàtim pfhu qúra xhroe xing xhmárot kae jin.
I see Þe Princess who sees Þe mighty viceroy king’s green hill.

Fhermáta, is it alright with you if I digress for a moment?

Of course. Are we still supposed to be writing down what we say?

It’s become habit with us. It makes this grammar rather peculiar.

Please write about anything you wish, my little Sister.

The locative case only has to be marked at the beginning or the end of its phrases, but the construct case must be modified by the ingeminate case, as well as an object absolutive. The slightly irregular nature of this relationship has long been a source of debate among traditional Babel grammarians, but none of them been able to offer a reason. I, the Starflower Princess, Kàrijoi’s Daughter and Puey’s beloved, have come up with this theory: Were there no ingeminate case there would be a possibility of grave ambiguity for words coming after the construct phrases. Let’s suppose that the construct case just died today and let’s see what would happen.

Jaê stélarèjikhing pú.
I see the Princess.
This sentence works fine.
Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing pú.
Singing I see the Princess.
I see, while singing, the Princess.
This does not mean: I see the singing one who is a Princess. That would be Jaê kakaupèyejikh stélar kae pú.
Jaê stélarèjikhing kakaûpa pú.
The singing one that I am sees the Princess.
This does not mean I see the singing Princess. That would be Jaê stélarèjikhing kakaûpa kae pú.
Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing wtsàtim pú.
The green one that I am sees, while singing, the princess.
This does not mean I see, while singing, the green princess. That would be Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing wtsàtim kae pú.

In the sentence Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing pú, the word kakaûpa is an unmarked relative clause modifying jaê. It could be rewritten as kakaûpa per jaê and mean the same thing. It is clear that stélarèjikhing is the object of the predicate. In the sentence Jaê stélarèjikhing kakaûpa pú the word kakaûpa cannot be an unmarked relative clause after stélarèjikhing, for that could be expressed as stélarèjikhing ker kakaûpa or the like. It must be the subject and the personal pronoun pú is modifying it, albeit in a rather clumsy way, one would probably rewrite it as kakaûpa per pú or kakaupayìnwi per pú the singiner that I am. In the fourth example Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing wtsàtim pú we have a predicate with an unmarked relative clause as well as a subject also.
If the word order for the construct case were not inverted like in all the other level one suffixes, there would be some confusion as to which unmarked relative clause goeth with what. In our hypothetical world without the ingeminate case let’s say the following:

Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing pú.
This could be
Kakaûpa (jaê stélarèjikhing) pú.
Or
(Kakaûpa jaê) stélarèjikhing pú.

Jaê stélarèjikhing kakaûpa pú.
This must be
Jaê stélarèjikhing (kakaûpa pú).
Kakaûpa would have to go with pú.

Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing wtsàtim pú.

Without the ingeminate case it is again ambiguous as to whether kakaûpa modifies jaê or whether both jaê and stélarèjikhing is part of some construct phrase with stélarèjikhing and whether wtsàtim should be go with princess or I.

And so it is best that we have the ingeminate case and so the last two examples should be:

Jaê stélarèjikhing kakaûpa kae pú.
I see the singing princess.
Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing wtsàtim kae pú.
Singing I see the green princess.

Princess?

Yes, Fhermáta

So what happens if you switch around jaê and kakaûpa? Do the sentences still work?

Hmm. Good question. Jaê means those who see someone or something while kakaûpa is the one who sings. If one switched them around it could not mean seeing the princess because kakaûpa would be unmarked relative clause. The object almost always comes the predicate and is modified by it.


Jaê kakaûpa stélarèjikhing pú.
Looking around I sing the princess.
Jaê kakaûpa stélarèjikhing wtsàtim kae pú.
Looking around I sing the green princess.

What do mean by almost. This sounds like an exeption.

Okay Fhermáta what do these sentences mean?

Qìfhis khniêr stélarèjikhing Puîye.
Khniêr qìfhiss stélarèjikhing Puîye.

They both mean the same thing, Princess. Puey never kisses the princess. And by the way the truth value of that is zero, but that’s beside the point.

Well, then how can that be, Fhermáta? Stélarèjikhing must be the object of khniêr but in the second example we have an unmarked relative clause interrupting it. Why is that?

Um…

It’s just a matter of sense. Puey is a never-kisser of the princess practically means the same as Puey never kisses the princess. So we don’t fret about it. But Kakaûpa jaê stélarèjikhing Puîye Puey sings and sees the princess is slightly different to Jaê kakaûpa stélarèjikhing Puîye Puey looks about and sings the princess. I suppose it’s because both jaê and kaûpa are both transitive and ditransitive by their very nature.

Princess?

Yes?

Is there a way someone else could be the immanuensis? My head is spinning.

I don’t think anyone else is available. Fhólus and Aîya are running around outside, and Great-Uncle Táto is busy. Now the third usage of the ingeminate case is that it is used to show the subject of the mediopassive voice, that is after a relative clause after –afham or -pejos. The logic is quite clear. Since a relative clause is already being acted upon by something else, and –afham and –pejos are both construct in a way, then the next case down the hierarchy of cases must be the ingeminate case even though it is logically the subject. A few examples should make this clear.

What do you mean by clear, my Princess?

Jaê’ óxhrejor khmírafham Puîye kae púyinwi.
I, a female, see Þe one whom Puey loves.
Kùxha theupíyayèjikhing koaselónge xhyupejos pú kae Jhasqewayènwe.
Raven kißed Þe maiden loved by me.
Qyèkhen Khyeqhaîrejikh tuinamàtafham Pátifhar kae Qírenatàswaor púyaxhwa.
I killed Þe male Dragon which Pátifhar gave to Þe Emperor his friend.
Jaeyájhei wthaijhelónge keipejos tú kae tú xhmoe?
Do you see what you have done?

Wthaîjhe, wthaijhelónge is a fun sounding little particple that means those who do someone or something.

These are examples of the mediopassive voice. Notice that the head of the main clause, that is, the subject of the entire sentence must takea focus particle -axhwa/xhmoe/anwa/enwe/inwi/ojhwo/ujhwu. The mediopassive voice is considered a combination of the active, middle, passive, and antipassive voices, and so the above jhùfhra sentences could be translated in a number of ways.

Jaê’ óxhrejor khmírafham Puîye kae púyinwi.
I, a female, see Þe one whom Puey loves.
I, a female, see Þe one loved by Puey.
I, a female, see Þe one whom some Puey loves.
I, a female, see Þe one whom Puey loves for his own benefit.
I, a female, see Þe one whom Puey loves in general.
I, a female, see somewho ør other whom Puey loves.

Kùxha theupíyayèjikhing koaselónge xhyupejos pú kae Jhasqewayènwe.
Raven kißed Þe maiden whom I loved.
Raven kißed Þe maiden loved by me.
Raven kißed some maiden I love.
Raven kißed Þe maiden for his own benefit.
Raven kißed Þe maiden whom I love in general.
Raven kißed some maiden whom I love.

Qyekhen Khyeqhaîrejikh tuinamatafham Pátifhar kae Qírenatàswaor púyaxhwa.
I killed Þe male Dragon which Pátifhar gave to Þe Emperor his friend.
I killed Þe male Dragon which wæs given to Þe Emperor by Pátifhar his friend.
I killed some male Dragon which Pátifhar gave to Þe Emperor his friend.
I killed Þe male Dragon which Pátifhar gave to Þe Emperor his friend for his own benefit.
I killed Þe male Dragon which Pátifhar gave in general to Þe Emperor his friend.
I killed some male Dragon which wæs given to Þe Emperor his friend by Pátifhar.

Jaeyájhei wthaijhelónge keipejos tú kae tú xhmoe?
Do you see what you have done?
Do you see whatever ‘tis you have done?
Do you see what you have done for your own benefit?
Do you see what you have done in general?
Do you see whatever ‘tis that wæs done by you?

The fourth usage of the ingeminate case is to mark the object of the antipassive voice.

Jáxe’ untekhmàtejikh ú kae qúra.
Þe viceroy king governs one in general.
The regent king governs someone or other.
Jáxe’ usyórim xhroe óqla pfho Puîyus.
Puîyus likes flowren in general.
Puîyus likes some flowers or other.
Jáxe xhlárejikh sqánament pfhu Fhermáta.
Fhermáta eats a rock in general.
Fhermáta eats some rock or other.
Jáxe peyampumàtejikh twíla pfho Qlenólakh.
Qlenólakh hides birds in general.
Qlenólakh hides some birds or other.

With the antipassive voice one can once again see the hierarchy of cases. The object of an omnivolitional clause or sentence should be in the construct case, and so to demote the construct case one comes unto the ingeminate case. By the way, in order to express a volitional or a non-volitional clause in a construction when one cannot change the object, one just has to change the subject.

Jáxe’ untekhmàtejikh ú kae qúrayan.
Þe viceroy king governs one in general on purpose.
The regent king governs someone or other on purpose.
Jáxe’ usyórim xhroe óqla pfho Puîyusan.
Puîyus likes flowren in general on purpose.
Puîyus likes some flowers or other on purpose.
Jáxe xhlárejikh sqánament pfhu Fhermátayan.
Fhermáta eats a rock in general on purpose.
Fhermáta eats some rock or other on purpose.
Jáxe peyampumàtejikh twíla pfho Qlenólakhan.
Qlenólakh hides birds in general on purpose.
Qlenólakh hides some birds or other on purpose.

Jáxe’ untekhmàtejikh ú kae qúràyepakh.
Þe viceroy king governs one in general by accident.
The regent king governs someone or other by accident.
Jáxe’ usyórim xhroe óqla pfho Puiyùsepakh.
Puîyus likes flowren in general by accident.
Puîyus likes some flowers or other by accident.
Jáxe xhlárejikh sqánament pfhu Fhermátàyepakh.
Fhermáta eats a rock in general by accident.
Fhermáta eats some rock or other by accident.
Jáxe peyampumàtejikh twíla pfho Qlenólàkhepakh.
Qlenólakh hides birds in general by accident.
Qlenólakh hides some birds or other by accident.

Princess, why do I have to eat scurrying rocks in your example?

I don’t know, I’m just trying to come up with interesting examples. Oh look, Fhólus and Aîya have wriggled into the room. Their faces are smeared with pie. I just hope they stay away from my grammatical pages.

The fifth usage of the ingeminate case is when a clause or sentence begins with a third person pronoun. I shall describe it fuller on length when I write about personal pronouns, suffice it to say that the personal pronoun is considered an highly marked object of the predicate. In this usage the ingeminate case refers to the last sentence or clause and can be translated as that or it or what was just chanted. I shall give, however, just a few examples below.

Ei pfhu qrauyelónge kú.
That is Þe skill that he taught.
Pei pfhu lreîxemat Puîye.
That, just mentioned, is what Puey read.
Ei pfhu kakaûpa Fhermáta.
Those words just quod are what Fhermáta sang.

Ei pfhu qrauyelónge kúyan.
That is Þe skill that he set out to teach.
Pei pfhu lreîxemat Puîyeyan.
That, just mentioned, is what Puey read on purpose.
Ei pfhu kakaûpa Fhermátayan.
Those words just quod are what Fhermáta sang and meant to

Ei pfhu qrauyelónge kúxhli.
That is Þe skill that he taught by accident.
Pei pfhu lreîxemat xhlir Puîye.
That, just mentioned, is what Puey read by accident.
Ei pfhu kakaûpa xhlir Fhermáta.
Those words just quod are what Fhermáta sang by accident.

I we want to write for a time.

Okay Fhólus and Aîya. Write away. Have you seen Puey?

Who?

Do you have any comments on the ingeminate case?

What in pie’s name is ingeminate case?
It sound way boring.
Okay future Empress of the tomorrow the Gibberish the language have lost the geminate case. Perhaps one finding a verbalizing anaology to the ingeminate case. Final photonick ark. oilimamarkirya. Not entirely sure. Man kenum’a lumfh’or akh’osta who shall espy the wolcen clouds’ gathering menel akúna the heavens bending we the thinking that when the infinities of the predicate are used in sensations of touching and dreaming the infinities are circumfixed unto the participles not the subject not the subject.
So Empress we the thinking that in the sentence you need to change the ingeminate case.

How is that, Fhólus?

How you saying I see the Dragon kissing?.

Jaê khyeqhiirùpwar khniêr kae púxhli.
And khniêr kae is in the ingeminate case.

We the thinking it should be changed. Dragon should be ingemininininata. Should say

Jaê tsenakhyeqhiir kae khnierupwar púxhli.
I see the Dragon kissing.

See that way the Dragon ingeminate case the kissing is absolutivemomive.

I am not entirely sure that makes sense.

How do you say I see the clouds rising?

Jaê’ ojótlhayòjhwa tlhér pfhu púxhli.
And tlhér pfhu rising is in the ingeminate case. Tlhér means pegs, posts, boundary markers, goals, bouys, fulstroms, those who go upwards, rise.

No no no no no. It should be
Jaê pfhu’ ojótlhayòjhwa pfhu tlhér pfhu púxhli pfhu.
There see now every word is marked for the ingeminate case.

Wait, sentient animate subjects take +kae for the ingeminate case and you have clouds in both the absolutive and the ingeminate, and the subject in both locative and ingeminate case. Fhólus, you’re giving me an headache.

How you say I see the Dark Lord forging things?

Ah

Jaê’ Uîtlhu pfhìqelot kae púxhli.
And in this case pfhìqelot is in the ingeminate case, and pfhìqel, pfhìqelot means those who craft, forge, shape someone or something. So how would you change it?

Jaê jaê jaê kae’ Uîtlhu (sneeze sneeze) pfhìqelot kae pfho pfhu pú pú pú (LOUD SNEEZE)!

Fhólus! Aîya! Get out of here! Stop bothering the future Empress! And if either of you sneeze on her again, I’m just handing you o'er to the priests for blood sacrifice. Out! Now!

No, Fhérma, you don’t have to be so harsh with them. You didn’t have to kick them out.

Princess, you’re far too lenient with your slaves.

They’re not slaves anymore, Puey and I freed them.

It seems that you twain are the only ones who think that. They’re gone now. Here, l’m giving the book back to you. Go and write more about the ingeminate case.

And so, also, the khleîxhme ingeminate case is used for to express ond/or that is X or Y or possibly both.


For to express ‘and/or’ between substantive phrases:

A xhnoipe B B kae/pfho/pfhu

A –ontet B B kae/pfho/pfhu

A ond/or B
A or B or possibly both
(substantive 1) xhnoipe (substantive 2) (substantive 2) kae/pfho/pfhu
(substantive 1) –ontet (substantive 2) (substantive 2) kae/pfho/pfhu

For to express ‘and/or’ between predicate clauses:

A B C C kae/pfho/pfhu

B A’s and/or C’s
B is A or C or possibly both
(predicate 1) (subject) (predicate 2) (predicate 2) kae/pfho/pfhu

I suppose one can say that in this usage the ingeminate case is paired off with a form of reduplication.

Do you remember what I wrote before about Babel having very few conjunctions and how one has to use other means or context to get more meaning out of our genetic conjunctions?

No, Princess.

Ah … I’m really addressing Puey at this point. Sometimes in my notebooks, even when in theory I’m just writing to myself, I’m addressing him in a way. It’s a long habit of mine, plus he reads everything that I write, so it does serve some practical use.

Oh.

Well, many of our conjunctions are quite vague in meaning. For instance this sentence if translated into the language of beasts could mean many things.

Usyórim Fhermátayejikhòntet Éfhelìnye pú.
I like Fhermáta and Éfhelìnye.
I like both Fhermáta and Éfhelìnye.
I like Fhermáta, but also Éfhelìnye.

Now normally we don’t think about all of these possibilities. Consider this.

Usyórim Fhermátàyejikh púyepyer khmír Éfhelinyèyejikh Puîye.
I like Fhermáta, and Puey loves Éfhelìnye.
I both like Fhermáta, and Puey loves Éfhelìnye.
I like Fhermáta, but Puey loves Éfhelìnye.

One way that we have gaining extra meaning for conjunctions, at least across clauses is by using the switch reference pronominal prefixes.

Seiyusyórim qhiFhermáta púyeyper khyòkhmír khnuyÉfhelìnye Puîye.
I humbly like Fhermáta, but Puey bashfully loves Éfhelìnye.

In that example I’ve translated –epyer as but because the prefixes are disjointed, one refers to one and the other to another, and so the sense is better. With the ingeminate case one is able to turn –ontet and +xhnoipe into and/or. I’m only going to give a couple of examples now, because when we formally met the level fifteen suffixes I’ll give some exhaustive examples on how to use the conjunctions.

Eîtlhir úlaxhéyu xhroe yontet khlíjo khlíjo pfhu pú.
I carried Þe tree ør Þe stone ør possibly both.

Eîtlhir úlaxhéyu xhroe pú lreîxemat lreîxemat kae fhairotuyàxhmikh wtsùtyot pfhu.
I carry Þe tree ør read Þe great book ør possibly both.

Khniêr Fhermátayejikhòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae pú.
I kiss Fhermáta or Éfhelìnye or possibly both.
Khniêr Fhermátayòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae púyan.
I set out to kiss Fhermáta or Éfhelìnye or possibly both.
Khniêr Fhermátayòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae púxhli.
I chanced to kiss Fhermáta or Éfhelìnye or possibly both.

Usyórim Fhermátàyejikh pú khniêr khniêr kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh.
I like Fhermáta or I kiss Éfhelìnye or possibly both.
Usyórim Fhermáta púyan khniêr khniêr kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh.
I set out to like Fhermáta or kiss Éfhelìnye or possibly both.
Usyórim Fhermáta púxhli khniêr khniêr kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh.
I chanced to like Fhermáta or kiss Éfhelìnye or possibly both.

You will notice that in conjoining different clauses that there is actually no particle which corresponds to and/or, it’s the construction itself, the reduplication and ingeminate clause that carry that meaning.

One can of course logically continue the series of A xhnoipe/ontet B B kae/pfho/pfhu A and/or B indefinitely. And who would not wish to?

Khniêr Fhermátayejikhòntet Siethiyalòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae pú.
I kiss Fhermáta or Siêthiyal or Éfhelìnye or possibly all three.

Khniêr Fhermátayejikhòntet Siethiyalòntet Karulátayòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae pú.
I kiss Fhermáta or Siêthiyal or Karuláta or Éfhelìnye or possibly all four.

Khniêr Fhermátayejikhòntet Siethiyalòntet Karulátayòntet Fhólusòntet Aiyayòntet Éfhelìnye’ Éfhelìnye kae pú.
I kiss Fhermáta or Siêthiyal or Karuláta or Fhólus or Aîya or Éfhelìnye or possibly all of them.

However there is no way to continue the pattern of A B C C kae/pfho/pfhu B A’s and/or C’s that is there is no way to create an and/or disjunction between more then two predicates. One would just completely have reform the sentence. The only way that readily comes to my mind is by writing a normal or type of sentence and affixing the and/or part to the end.

Usyórim fheil Fhermátàyejikh pú lreîxemat fhairotuyùtya pú khniêr khniêr kae’ Éfhelinyèyejikh.
I either like Fhermáta or read of the book, or I kiss Éfhelìnye or possibly do both.
Presumably through the sentence above could be interpreted as Either it is the case that I like Fhermáta or read of the book, or it is the case that either I kiss Éfhelìnye and engage in both the liking of Fhermáta or the reading of the book. In other words the ingeminate disjoint still sets up a binary question, one or the other. There is no syntactical way to fix this. And perhaps there should not be. Language is after all the way that all men communicate, Qhíng and Qlùfhem, viceroy kings and priests and servants, princesses and heroes and not just the domain of the Scholars of Khrumaîna. If one needs to be exact and logic one can find a way to do it, but one will not find it exclusively in grammar itself.

Are you getting all this, Fhérma? Good. And finally the ingeminate case is used

Wait wait wait wait! We I wanting one more example. Okay. Okay. Okay. Wanting one more ingeminate sentence. Fhólus and I will discuss it and give it to you.

Then write away. I hope it’s a good example.

We’re thinking. Here we go. I we write it my the handwriting far better than his or hers.

No it’s not.

Here the sentence.

Xhùrnamat jetrayulkhayòntet qtainyayòntet jhyòru jhòru pfhu pú jhpàkhoar fharnátoyutyayòntet jhkhumuyòntet xhamàrnafhin xhamàrnafhint pfhu fheil pú tungèngeqhe qwaxeyatseròntet swanyalòntett tòtwoji tòtwoji pfhu fheil pú fhyoê fhyoê kae xhmeuswoyòlkha qlalaQwasiêla’ Éfhelìnyèyejikh.
And it mean
Either it is the case that I eat pies or gloves or hats or possibly all three, or it is the case that I slurp hot chocolate or syrup or pink lemonade or possibly all three or it is the case that I brew burgoo or yoghurt or mochi or all three, or it is the case that I lick the worshipped Moon Empress’ ears.
This a very good sentence for the divine Crown Prince to be learning, it have many good words for him to learn like qtaîna they gloves, mittens, socks, and mittens for game of Xhwongeîthe he like to play and jhyòru, jhyòruru is hats, caps and jhpàkhoar be those who suck slurp srkati something and fharnáto is hot chocolate and jhkhùmu is syrup and tùngenge, tungèngeqhe is those who brew something or make soups or xhmàrnafhin pink lemonade and qwàxe are soups, burgoos and swànyal is yoghurts and fhyoê is those who lick somebody and xhmeûswo meaneth his or her or their ear. Hurray.

Um, Princess, do you really want me to write that down?

Fhermáta it is a perfectly wellformed Babel sentence. Plus it does have a good feel unto it, you will notice that the first clause has objects in the construct case, the second clause has objects in the partitive genitive, and the third line uses the subordinate form of the locative case to express a similar function, plus we have three clauses in the conditional before leading unto the joint of the second main conclusion. It would actually be instructive to chart out the sentence a little:


Xhùrnamat jetrayulkhayòntet qtainyayòntet jhyòru jhòru pfhu pú
(I eat pies or gloves or hats or possibly all three)
jhpàkhor fharnátoyutyayòntet jhkhumuyòntet xhamàrnafhin xhamàrnafhint pfhu fheil pú
(I slurp hot chocolate or syrup or pink lemonade or all three)
tungèngeqhe qwaxeyatseròntet swanyalòntett tòtwoji tòtwoji pfhu fheil pú
(I brew burgo or yoghurt or mochi or all three)
fhyoê fhyoê kae xhmeuswoyòlkha qlalaQwasiêla’ Éfhelìnyèyejikh.
Either one or more of those last proprositions is true or (I lick the worshipped Moon Empress’ ears) or all those last propositions as well as (My licking the worshipped Moon Empress’ ears) must be true.

So yes, you Traîkhiim are quite correct, one can keep extending disjunctive clauses like this for all eternity. However, I do not think that Babel was meant to be as precise as all that. After all, Babel is the beginning and Language is the wellspring whence all music and mathemtics and art and story are born. It may ne possible to create a form of mathmatics far more logical and more precise than language is, but Language itself is not at fault for being the rainbow whence all colors form.

And finally the ingeminate case is used to express selective and as opposed to exhaustive and.

Exhaustive and what?

Are you telling a joke, Fhérma.

No. I would hardly dream of that.

Selective and is quite easily expressed, it simply consists of aqhus X kae/pfho/pfhu. That’s fairly easy to remember, right? It means and X among others or and the rest. A little like xhmérs et cetera I suppose.

Jiîxhe tyaqája’ aqhus tsenaqúra kae.
Þe slaves ond Þe viceroy king among othren laugh.
Jaê tyaqájàyejikh aqhus tsenaqúra kae púsa.
I see Þe slaves ond Þe viceroy king among othren.
Jaê tyaqájàyejikh aqhus tsenaqúra’ eûxi kae púsa.
I see Þe slaves ond Þe dancing viceroy kings among othren.
Xhthènteqhe qiêlutakh aqhus lwánol pfhu tsenajakhtàqta.
Þe warrior goeth towards Þe hills ond Þe castlen ond Þe rest.
Xá Fhermáta’ aqhus Akhlísa kae jaôkhmír xheit jin!
Oh Fhermáta ond Akhlísa ond owll Þe rest, I humbly love you!

Jaê Fhermátayejikhontetàxhwa tsenastélar stélar kae jakhtàqtaxing aqhus qúra kae xing khniêr khniêr kae’ ajhoqhot khelenathayeîlwai jijíxheyeîlwai kakaupayeîlwai.
Þe warrior, viceroy king, ond othren see Fhermáta ør Þe princess ør possibly see both of them, ør they kiß both of them, ør possibly both see ond kiß them, for Fhermáta is for her part red, ond she laughs, ond she sings.

Is that clear yet?

Did we e'er define clear, my Princess?

The ingeminate case is the only case which must be inflected for gender. The construct case can be inflected for gender, Puiyèyejikh of Puey and óqlayòlkha of flowers and qielùlkha or qielàxhmikh of hills, but one can also say Puîye xhroe and óqla xhroe and qiêl xhroe and not mark any gender at all. But the ingeminate case only has three forms and one of the three must be used, +kae for persons, male or female or epicine and pfho used for plantimals and body parts and pfhu for things and abstractions and places. This form must agree with the general sense of the participle of tòngqa personal pronoun.

Jaê stélarèjikhing theupíya kae pú.
I see Þe princess, a maiden.
Jaê’ óqlayòlkhaxing khelènatha pfho pú.
I see Þe red flower.
Jaê’ qielàxhmikhing xhmárot pfhu pú.
I see Þe mighty hill.

When a long string of particples is used after the contracted case as apposition relative clauses termininating in the something something something [smudge]

Princess, could you speak a little slower.

Certainly. When a long string of participles is used after the construct case as apposition relative clauses terminating in the ingeminate case, the fhwìpu gender of the final participle usually determines the form of the ingeminate case. Consider:


Jaê stélarèjikhing jijíxhe kakaûpa’ óqla qiêl theupíya kae pú.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a flower, being a hill, being a maiden.
Jaê stélarèjikhing jijíxhe kakaûpa theupíya qiêl óqla pfho pú.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a hill, being a flower.
Jaê stélarèjikhing jijíxhe kakaûpa theupíya’ óqla qiêl pfhu pú.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a flower, being a hill.

Sometimes the gender of the final participle agrees with that of the original referent. This, a very poëtick usage, is used to contrast meanings. Consider these translations:

Jaê stélarèjikhing jijíxhe kakaûpa theupíya qiêl óqla kae pú.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a hill, being a flower, though girl that she is.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a hill, being a flower, princess that she is.
Jaê stélarèjikhing jijíxhe kakaûpa theupíya’ óqla qiêl kae pú.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a flower, being a hill, though girl that she is.
I see Þe princess, laughing, singing, being a maiden, being a flower, being a hill, princess that she is.

I’m going to let Fhermáta rest for a time, because she is not quite used to being my scrivener. Next time let’s write about the partitive genitive form of the locative case. Maybe Puey will be returning unto us soon.