Qári Drabble: the dead barbarian

Dábu ikótye x’ayeqa já. Só páqeyi ipa yejitxe ma daksa, gehixu qe yepu. Só yá kadu ajá éqi: 

“Yata já, tafá é pé gálir uqa xe yeqxit já?”

Já’m ut áqu ayeqar só, kipa já lutleyó nakni iqaya. Já kangqit qitná éqi: 

“Té Dábu, gálir uqa ut rón xe yeqxit. At txumat xe yeqxit rá ut iqé tle gálir, só hó yéyé ritsá xe qár. Pin xe sityar só hó riná tyama. Txumat-indu iqé tlirá, Té Dábu.”

Gyámo dábu sendita netqi. Já tlehali luseti nédir éqi: 

“Nédir! makura Té Dábu fé ésiyatxe xeli! Só inápér he gálir!”


My father sat down opposite me. He raised a cup of beer to his lips, nodded and drained it. 

“My son, why is there a dead barbarian in my bed?” he asked me, carefully. 

I could not look him in the eyes, instead I toyed with the edge of my mat. 

“Honoured father,” I began hesitantly. “There is no dead barbarian in your bed. The man in your bed is not a barbarian, he was born here in the city. He died in his sleep last night. He is you, honoured father.”

The ghost of my father smiled at me and disappeared. I called to my slave: 

“Slave! Wrap my father in a different shroud! He looks like a barbarian!” 


With interlinear glosses and some commentary:

Dábu ikót-ye x’ayeqa já. Só páqeyi ipa yejitxe ma daksa, gehixu qe yepu.
father sit-asp loc=eye 1sg || 3sg raise cup beer all mouth | nod and swallow
My father sat down opposite me. He raised a cup of beer to his lips, nodded and drained it.

The verb ‘to sit’ is ikópér, derived from ikó ‘session’ and –pér, a suffix deriving stative verbs. This suffix is itself derived from a now-obsolete verb pér ‘to exist’, which had a highly irregular animate aspectual form tye. The suffix is productive enough that this has not been lost to analogy.

Só yá kadu ajá éqi: “Yata já, tafá é pé gálir uqa xe yeqxit já?”
3sg put ask all.1sg quot || son 1sg | why sr exist barbarian dead loc bed 1sg
“My son, why is there a dead barbarian in my bed?” he asked me carefully.

Two things of note here: direct speech is introduced with the invariant quotative particle éqi. It derives, unsurprisingly, from the Old Qári *ɨkʷtṇ ‘it is said’.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned this before, the interrogative tafá ‘why’ is always followed by a subordinate clause, introduced with the subordinator é.

Já’m ut áqu ayeqa-r só, kipa já lutle-yó nakni iqaya.
1sg=appl neg see eye-pl 3sg | but 1sg fondle-asp edge cushion
I could not look him in the eyes, instead I began to fiddle with the edge of my mat.

A cultural note: the Qáritu believe that it is incredibly unlucky to look into a dead person’s eyes. This is the first hint that all is not as it seems.

Já kangqit qitná éqi: “Té Dábu, gálir uqa ut rón xe yeqxit. At txumat xe yeqxit rá ut iqé tle gálir, só hó yéyé ritsá xe qár. Pin xe sityar só hó riná tyama. Txumat=indu iqé tlirá, Té Dábu.”
1sg hesitate say quot || hon father | barbarian dead neg lie_down loc bed || def man loc bed 2sg neg be eqt barbarian | 3sg pass pst~pst bear loc city ||yesterday loc night 3sg pass sleep die || man=that be eqt.2sg | hon father
“Honoured father,” I began hesitantly. “There is no dead barbarian in your bed. The man in your bed is not a barbarian, he was born here in the city. He died in his sleep last night. He is you, honoured father.”

Note that Qári is not overly generous with possessives. We’ve established that the bed belongs to the narrator’s father, there’s no need to keep on referring to yeqxit rá ‘your bed’.

Again, culturally, it would be unusual for most Qáritu to refer to one’s own father with the honorific prefix unless you were offering him ancestral prayers. Among upper-class Qáritu, however, this would be entirely normal speech.

Gyámo dábu sendita netqi. Já tlehali luseti nédir éqi:
soul father smile disappear || 1sg summon order slave quot
The ghost of my father smiled and disappeared. I called to my slave and ordered him:

“Nédir! makura Té Dábu fé ésiyatxe xeli! Só inápér he gálir!”
slave || dress hon father inst kilt new || 3sg resemble perl barbarian
“Slave! Wrap my father in a different shroud! He looks like a barbarian!”

The verb inápér ‘to resemble’ has an unusual case frame, with the thing resembled taking the perlative preposition he where the equative tle would be logically expected. I offer no explanation for this beyond it being weird.

Rethinking telicity and aspect in Qári

Recently, I’ve been reading the second edition of Semantics by Kate Kearns. I recall skimming through the first edition while still at university, but I’ll confess that not much stuck back in 2008. Chapters 8 and 9, on Aktionsarten and tense and aspect respctively, have made me reconsider what I’ve been doing with aspect and telicity marking in Qári.

I’ve been uneasy about this for a while, and this unease has grown as I’ve created more and more sample sentences for my Lexember entries (a post summarising Lexember 2020 is forthcoming!) – up until now, I’ve been using the telic markers –ye and – with verbs to indicate that the telos or endpoint has been reached (almost like a perfective marker, to be honest).  Essentially, I have been morphologically marking what is semantically the least marked property. This is dumb.

So, taking some inspiration from “inverse number marking”, I’ve come up with a system which I feel is at once more realistic and more elegant. Commentary, as always, is highly welcome.

Continue reading

Relative clauses in Qári

Why yes, I did spend NYE conlanging, why do you ask? Here’s some details on an aspect of Qári clausal syntax which was not covered in the previous post, and which I thought would be more complex than it actually was.

Qári only permits the subject of a subclause to be relativised. That is to say, in a construction such as I whipped the boy₁ [the boy₁ kicked the dog], only the boy can be relativised, not the dog:

Já sokiksáye at sagya [i yeqajeye at qénó].
1sg whip:tel def boy [act kick:tel def dog]
I whipped the boy [who kicked the dog].

Note how the active voice marker i, optional in main clauses, is obligatory in subclauses.

As the attentive reader will no doubt recall, Qári is possessed of a wealth of strategies to promote arguments to the status of subjecthood. Thus, to express I whipped the dog whom the boy kicked, the verb in the subclause takes the passive voice:

Já sokiksáye at qénó [hó yeqajeye at sagya].
1sg whip:tel def dog [pass kick:del def boy]
I whipped the dog [who was kicked by the boy].

The same applies with ‘oblique’ arguments. Consider the sentence He conquered the city₁ [you sent the army to the city₁] – here the city is promoted to the subject of the relative clause by means of the applicative voice:

Só jalaye at qár [á geduye at kitsánára ná].
3sg conquer:tel def city [appl send:tel def army 2sg]
He conquered the city [to which you sent the army].
(Note here also the resurfacing of VOS word order.)

Note, however, that only core oblique arguments can be promoted to subject: adjuncts cannot. Thus I burnt down the house in which the boy kicked the dog cannot be expressed in Qári by means of a relative clause. Rather a coordinate clause must be used (note also the use of the anterior tense marker ):

Já áxeyó at áda, qeyindu at sagya yé yeqajeye at qénó.
1sg burn:tel def house | and_there def boy ant kick:tel def dog
I burnt down the house, and there the boy had kicked the dog.

So far, we have only looked at relative clauses which qualify a noun phrase in the main clause which is not a subject. When relative clauses qualify main-clause subjects, the constructions are broadly the same, with the only difference being that the voice marker is preceded by the relative marker é:

At kitsánu [é i jalaye qár] pálebuye at txumatu.
def warriors [rel act conquer:tel city] castrate:tel def men
The warriors [who conquered the city] castrated the men.

At txumatu [é hó pálebuye at kitsánu] kyá qár.
def men [rel pass castrate:tel def warriors] inhabit city
The men [whom the warriors castrated] inhabited the city.