'Ehatt Kurak
Heyaay 'iikwich kurak 'ehin tewaa; 'ehatt kurak nyehattches. 'Iikwichvech wamp tewaa, tewaa, tewaa; nyehattvech emiy wamps. Nyehattvech 'emiiwannch apesiiw; 'iikwichvu nyii wetukh umaaw. 'Ehattvech 'uuchuch nyawiinyem, wemirrch apesiiw: mansaan, kumyulk wemirr. Kupilly 'ehin 'iikwichvech nyehattvu nnemiis. 'Ehattvech eyay wellich. 'Iikwichvech nyehattvu wiis: "Aawinn ki'! Memaawvek, menyewaa kepuwk kaam!" Kupilly 'ehin 'ehattvech aawinn wiih umaaw; nyaapum 'iikwichvech nyewaam uuchuttm waam. |
Notes
Heyaay: "Long ago" Adverb of time, comes at the beginning of the sentence.
'iikwich kurak: "An old man" Although "kurak" means "old man" by itself, it is the nominal form of "rak, to be an old man". Thus, this somewhat redundant construction is acceptable, meaning literally, "a man who was old".
'iikwich kurak 'ehin tewaa: "There was an old man." Since the verb is intransitive and there is only one noun in the sentence, the author did not see a need to add the -ch nominative suffix.
'ehatt kurak: "An old horse" Here you can see that "kurak" can be used to describe animals as well, so long as they are male (female equivalent is kunykuuy).
'ehatt kurak nyehattches: "An old horse was his horse" This in isolation could also translate to, "a horse was the old man (kurak)'s horse", but since the subject "'iikwich kurak" was mentioned just before, it is more likely that this "kurak" describes the horse, and is not the possessor of "nyehatt".
nyehattches: The suffix -ches helps mark the end of the sentence, so we don't think "nyehatt" is a subject or object of a new clause, or anything like that.
'Iikwichvech: "The man" Since this is the same man as the one previously mentioned, the definite article -vech "the" is used. Notice how it was not used in the first sentence: if the story had started as, "long ago the man…", the audience would be confused and wonder, what man?
wamp tewaa, tewaa, tewaa: The repetition of the auxiliary verb "tewaa" can mean many things. Literally, you can see it as the progressive tense: "he was walking, and walking, and walking." It can also mean he walked or was walking "for a long time". Here, I think it feels more like, "he walked, and walked, and walked," or, "he would walk a whole lot". The book actually translates it as, "he walked everywhere."
nyehattvech emiy wamps: "His horse walked with him." emiy by itself means "together with him/her". Notice how it comes after the noun, nyehattvech, which is also the subject of the clause, as you can tell from the suffix -ch. Note how 'Iipay Aa uses both nye- "his" and -vech "the" on the same noun. Though we would not say "the his horse" in English, we would in 'Iipay Aa. "nyehattch", with no definite article, is also acceptable, but it can mean "a horse of his" rather than specifically, "his horse".
Nyehattvech 'emiiwannch apesiiw: "His horse was very lazy." Literally, "his-horse-the lazy-ch very".
Like umaaw, "not", the "modifying" verb apesiiw "very" comes after the main verb 'emiiwann "lazy". However, with apesiiw, the main verb takes the -ch ending, signifying that the subject of the two verbs is the same. Both 'emiiwann and apesiiw are conjugated for 3rd person singular.
'iikwichvu nyii wetukh umaaw: "He didn't even carry the man." We know that 'iikwichvu "the man" is the object because it has the accusative ending "-vu". Since "nyehattvech" was just mentioned, it is still the subject in this clause. Nyii "even", used in negative constructions, comes before the main verb.
'Ehattvech 'uuchuch nyawinnyem: "The horse, when they gave him things…" The first thing to note is that 'ehattvech is the subject of a verb as you can tell from the nominative ending -ch. Next, 'uuchuch is likely an object because it is unmarked (despite ending in -ch).
nyawinnyem: This is from the verb winy, "he gives", in the plural form "winny". Before the verb is the nya- prefix, meaning "when". After it is the -m/em suffix, indicating that the following verb has a different subject.
Kupilly 'ehin: "One day…" According to this, no case marking or suffix is needed to say this.
'Iikwichvech nyehattvu nnemiis: "The man got angry at his horse." This clearly demonstrates that "nnemii" takes an accusative direct object (-vu).
eyay wellich: Lit. "his heart was bad", meaning he felt bad or sad.
'Iikwichvech nyehattvu wiis: "The man said to his horse." The word "wii" takes an accusative object as the audience of the saying.
Aawinn ki'!: For compound verbs with "wii", the conjugation, including the imperative formation, only applies to the "wii" part.
Memaawvek…: "Umaaw" is conjugated for second person. The -vek ending means "if". This is followed up, interestingly, by imperatives.
menyewaa kepuwk kaam! It appears that "puwk" can take an accusative direct object that does not need a postposition such as -m. Notice how there are two imperative verbs instead of one: "Go back and go away!" Is this for emphasis or out of grammatical/semantic necessity?
nyaapum: Works more as a "so" here than a "then", introducing a result.
'iikwichvech nyewaam uuchuttm waam. "The man ordered him to go home." Here the word order appears to be shuffled for style. In more straightforward order, it might be: "iikwichvech nyehattvu uuchuttm nyewaam waam." Literally, "the man(nominative) his horse(accusative) ordered(-m, different subject marker), and to his house he went away." First comes the ordering, then the action that was taken as a result of the order. The two clauses are connected by -m on the first verb, meaning that the second verb has a different subject.
Heyaay: "Long ago" Adverb of time, comes at the beginning of the sentence.
'iikwich kurak: "An old man" Although "kurak" means "old man" by itself, it is the nominal form of "rak, to be an old man". Thus, this somewhat redundant construction is acceptable, meaning literally, "a man who was old".
'iikwich kurak 'ehin tewaa: "There was an old man." Since the verb is intransitive and there is only one noun in the sentence, the author did not see a need to add the -ch nominative suffix.
'ehatt kurak: "An old horse" Here you can see that "kurak" can be used to describe animals as well, so long as they are male (female equivalent is kunykuuy).
'ehatt kurak nyehattches: "An old horse was his horse" This in isolation could also translate to, "a horse was the old man (kurak)'s horse", but since the subject "'iikwich kurak" was mentioned just before, it is more likely that this "kurak" describes the horse, and is not the possessor of "nyehatt".
nyehattches: The suffix -ches helps mark the end of the sentence, so we don't think "nyehatt" is a subject or object of a new clause, or anything like that.
'Iikwichvech: "The man" Since this is the same man as the one previously mentioned, the definite article -vech "the" is used. Notice how it was not used in the first sentence: if the story had started as, "long ago the man…", the audience would be confused and wonder, what man?
wamp tewaa, tewaa, tewaa: The repetition of the auxiliary verb "tewaa" can mean many things. Literally, you can see it as the progressive tense: "he was walking, and walking, and walking." It can also mean he walked or was walking "for a long time". Here, I think it feels more like, "he walked, and walked, and walked," or, "he would walk a whole lot". The book actually translates it as, "he walked everywhere."
nyehattvech emiy wamps: "His horse walked with him." emiy by itself means "together with him/her". Notice how it comes after the noun, nyehattvech, which is also the subject of the clause, as you can tell from the suffix -ch. Note how 'Iipay Aa uses both nye- "his" and -vech "the" on the same noun. Though we would not say "the his horse" in English, we would in 'Iipay Aa. "nyehattch", with no definite article, is also acceptable, but it can mean "a horse of his" rather than specifically, "his horse".
Nyehattvech 'emiiwannch apesiiw: "His horse was very lazy." Literally, "his-horse-the lazy-ch very".
Like umaaw, "not", the "modifying" verb apesiiw "very" comes after the main verb 'emiiwann "lazy". However, with apesiiw, the main verb takes the -ch ending, signifying that the subject of the two verbs is the same. Both 'emiiwann and apesiiw are conjugated for 3rd person singular.
'iikwichvu nyii wetukh umaaw: "He didn't even carry the man." We know that 'iikwichvu "the man" is the object because it has the accusative ending "-vu". Since "nyehattvech" was just mentioned, it is still the subject in this clause. Nyii "even", used in negative constructions, comes before the main verb.
'Ehattvech 'uuchuch nyawinnyem: "The horse, when they gave him things…" The first thing to note is that 'ehattvech is the subject of a verb as you can tell from the nominative ending -ch. Next, 'uuchuch is likely an object because it is unmarked (despite ending in -ch).
nyawinnyem: This is from the verb winy, "he gives", in the plural form "winny". Before the verb is the nya- prefix, meaning "when". After it is the -m/em suffix, indicating that the following verb has a different subject.
Kupilly 'ehin: "One day…" According to this, no case marking or suffix is needed to say this.
'Iikwichvech nyehattvu nnemiis: "The man got angry at his horse." This clearly demonstrates that "nnemii" takes an accusative direct object (-vu).
eyay wellich: Lit. "his heart was bad", meaning he felt bad or sad.
'Iikwichvech nyehattvu wiis: "The man said to his horse." The word "wii" takes an accusative object as the audience of the saying.
Aawinn ki'!: For compound verbs with "wii", the conjugation, including the imperative formation, only applies to the "wii" part.
Memaawvek…: "Umaaw" is conjugated for second person. The -vek ending means "if". This is followed up, interestingly, by imperatives.
menyewaa kepuwk kaam! It appears that "puwk" can take an accusative direct object that does not need a postposition such as -m. Notice how there are two imperative verbs instead of one: "Go back and go away!" Is this for emphasis or out of grammatical/semantic necessity?
nyaapum: Works more as a "so" here than a "then", introducing a result.
'iikwichvech nyewaam uuchuttm waam. "The man ordered him to go home." Here the word order appears to be shuffled for style. In more straightforward order, it might be: "iikwichvech nyehattvu uuchuttm nyewaam waam." Literally, "the man(nominative) his horse(accusative) ordered(-m, different subject marker), and to his house he went away." First comes the ordering, then the action that was taken as a result of the order. The two clauses are connected by -m on the first verb, meaning that the second verb has a different subject.
Vocabulary
aawinn wii
apesiiw 'ehatt 'ehin 'emiiwann emiy eyay eyay wellich heyaay 'iikwich kumyulk kupilly kurak mansaan menyewaa nnemii nyaapum nyehatt nyii…umaaw puwk tewaa umaaw 'uuchuch uuchutt waam wamp wellich wemirr wetuk wii wiiny |
behaves
is very much horse, dog, domesticated animal one or is one is lazy is together, along with heart, soul feels bad, sad long ago man, male sweets, from meyulk, "is sweet" day that is old, from "rak", is old apples your house, from 'ewaa get angry at then, so his/her animal not even, not at all comes back, returns was, helping verb not things order, send goes away, leaves walks is bad likes carries on back says, tells pl. of winy, gives |