Print

Print


On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:25:24 -0500, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Okay, so I've finally got a working idea of ONE aspect of Gravgaln verbs --
>Aspect. I'm going to attempt to paste in a table here.  I don't know if it
>will play nice with the email.

The table got linearized (in the CONLANG archives at least). The sample conjugations look suitably Gravgalnish (possibly not visible in the quoted text) and would make an interesting poem.

>  Indicative
>
>Imperative
>
>Conditional
>
>Contrafactual
>
>Completed
>
>-v(HF)-
>
>0
>
>-vm(MB)-
>
>-ghv(LC)-
>
>Progressive
>
>-s(HB)-
>
>0
>
>-zn(MF)-
>
>-sh(LB)-
>
>Iterative
>
>-kh(HF)-
>
>0
>
>-bv(MC)-
>
>-tl(HB)-
>
>Punctal
>
>-ch(LF)-
>
>0
>
>-ch񨍃)-
>
>-ch(MC)-
>
>Inceptive
>
>-thk(HC)-
>
>0
>
>-ng(HC)-
>
>-shkh(MC)-
>
>Gnomic
>
>-hh(LC)-
>
>0
>
>-ng(LC)-
>
>-hh(LC)-
>
>
>And here is a sample "conjugation" of the verb q?>
>fq??m󱴺 ghvaq?
>sq??n鵱?hq?
>khq??fq?luq?
>cheuq??h񴱴z ch?
>
>thq??g?shkh?
>hhaq??gaq?haq?
>
>Gravgaln has rounding harmony for the vowels inserted to break
>unpronounceable clusters, and voicing harmony for consonant clusters, so
>that explains most of the variations in forms.  I'm not quite happy with
>some of the forms as yet, but I though I'd post this and solicit responses.
>
>
>Adam