Sevvuferyn Semantics

Genitive vs Possessive

The following sentences:

"kilim ten s' amot." (I like the person's house)

and

"kiltel s' amot." (I like the person's house)

mean the same thing. Both are grammatically correct. Now, which one should be used? The right answer does not exist, as the genitive and possessive cases are almost always interchangeable. The two important thing to note is that, on one hand Sevvuferýkilý tend to prefer the genitive when introducing a concept involving possession, or when said concept is in the nominative case. Otherwise, they tend to prefer the possessive. However, the genitive here also makes the whole phrase take longer to say, as we need to specify that the house (su) is in the accusative, using the definite article "ten". This ambiguity is still there if we use the possessive, but less so, as the possessive makes it easier to treat the noun and modifier as a single concept.

HHi vs HHiju

Both of these words mean "what".

"HHi" is the more common version, and is what one is more likely to encounter in the wild. However, when someone is being very emphatic about it, they may say "hhiju" instead to draw your attention to it.

Compare the following:

"HH'ysers TÏII?"

(What did he say to her?)

and

"HHij'ysers TÏII?"

(What did he say to her?)

In each sentence, a different component is emphasised.

How to deal with elision

So, elision happens all the time, both in Sevvuferyn words and sentences, and is often used either for quicker speaking or to sound more poetic. The main issue, I suppose, is this: should it be shown in writing? And there is no correct answer. The simple justification for both sides is as follows: those who do not show the effects of elision in writing do not want to confuse readers who may be new to the language/unfamiliar with the specific lexicon that a given work of literature deals with. Those who do show the effects of elision in their writing do not want to waste time with expressions that are easy to figure out and/or most readers will already know.

For example, many Sevvuferyn writers will not include the "i" in the word "hhi(ju)", meaning "what", as it has become convenient to drop this syllable in speech. Thus, for example, the sentence "what did you do?" becomes "hh'ova?" from "hhi ova?". However, some writers may want to keep this in its uncontracted form. Similarly, consonants can get elided, as is shown by the sentence "can you do it?" in whose Sevvuferyn translation, "soå tejsow IN on?", it has become common to drop the initial "t" of "tejsow", because that makes the sentence easier to pronounce, and thus it becomes "soå'ejsow IN on?"

Where two or more letters are elided, it is also common to show this with multiple apostrophes, one for each letter. Thus, to give an extremer example, "HHi y izenda?" (What small thing was said?) could be reduced to "hh"izenda", where one apostrophe accounts for the elision of the "i", while the other accounts for the elision of the "y". This is not common, though, as it often comes with unnecessary ambiguity.

It is worth noting that in official texts and documents, the effects of elision are NOT to be applied under any circumstances.

Hy vs yyiz

Both of these words mean "a lot of/many" in theory, but in practice they are not used interchangeably. For starters, one word, "hy" is usually followed by the genitive of the noun it is describing, which is not the same for "yyiz", which takes the nominative.

From observations of its use, it is evident that "hy" is used for continuous groups of data and uncountable items (e.g weight of an object, emotions) whereas "yyiz" is used for discrete groups of data and countable items (e.g number of leaders in an army, number of elements in the periodic table)

Compare the following:

"Søn hy meltamim ë ∞ig dõkijý."

(There is a lot of worry among my friends)

And

"Søn yyiz dõkijý."

(There are many friends)

Saying, for example, "søn hy dõkijý" just does not sound right, and equally so if one were to say "søn yyiz meltam ë ∞ig dõkijý". This may stem from the grammatical differences between the words - after all, having much of something may be linked to something like sand, which one can pick up from a seemingly smooth, continuous pile, whereas simply having "many" may be linked to being able to point out each one of the "many". But this is mere speculation and Sevvuferyn scholars are still in disagreement as to where this semantic difference came from.

"Should" vs "Must" -"søn" + infinitive or "sibon" + infinitive?

Just as in English, there is a slight distinction between saying that something should/is supposed to be done and saying that it must be. However, the line dividing the two is sometimes differently shaped than in English.

Compare the following:

"Sø nok IN ÏII don!"

(You should bring it to me at once!)

And

"Sibont ÏII ovunk!"

(he has to come to me!)

Here, it seems pretty clear - one sentence needs "must/has to" and one needs "should/is supposed to". But again, this is not always the case.

Compare the following:

"Nek syn ËN nekar!"

(They must not kill me!)

And

"Nek sibotin ËN nekar!"

(They must not kill me!)

Both sentences are grammatically correct and carry the same meaning, yet it is not clear which one should be used in Sevvufery, even though in English it is obvious - "they're not supposed to kill me" carries a completely different meaning to "they have to not kill me". In fact, the Sevvuferyn translation would probably even add the word "divvog" (suitable, as in "they are not suitable to kill me" or "it is improper for them to kill me") to make the distinction clearer.

Søn + infinitive for the present tense works just fine, but what about past/future (e.g he was/will be supposed to). Should we adjust the tense of "si" or the infinitive that is paired with it?

The answer depends on the context. Take the following sentence, for example:

"He should have told me, so that I could save him!"

Here, it is probably better (and sounds better) to say

"Ses ËN ÿsi, wyl..."

than

"Søn ËN ÿse, wyl..."

Even though both sentences are grammatically correct. Perhaps this is linked to the imperfective vs perfective aspect. In other words, "ses ÿsi", implies that something was supposed to be set in motion (in this case by being told), whereas "søn ÿse" suggest that in the present, it is necessary for you to have done this, in the past. In other words, the latter form is, in some sense, comparable to a "Future Perfect Imperative". (e.g "have this done by tomorrow morning")

Take the following sentence, for example:

"You all are to have done this by the time of the performance!"

Here, one is much more likely to say

"sõ åen ovõ milúd..."

than

"sël åen on milúd..."

Although this is also a stricter restriction.

Ysi vs ÿsi: firstly, which to use? Secondly, accusative or dative?

This is a trickier question, although only in some circumstances. A good rule of thumb is this: use the dative for ysi (of the person you're speaking to) and the accusative for ÿsi (of the person you're speaking to)

Compare the following:

"ysýb ÏII IN!"

(say it to me!)

And

"ÿsýb ËN!"

(tell me!)

However, it is unclear what should be done with constructions involving "ÿsi" and two objects e.g "tell me the story" in English.

Some would argue for the use of a dative + accusative (as in "ÿsýb ÏII ten gelis", for example), but at that point one might as well use "ysi" instead.

Others do suggest a double accusative (as in "ÿsýb ËN ten gelis"), but, of course, this becomes ambiguous(not in this case, but for others), and it is far easier, mentally, to use a dative.

For clarity's sake, what exactly is the difference between "Yv" and "Wyl"? I know that one can mean "either...or" and the other means "whether...or" but the other distinctions are unclear. What's going on?

There are 3 aspects of the semantic difference that show the distinction clearly:

1. their meanings as "because"
2. their meanings as "in order to/so that"
3. as mentioned, "whether...or" vs "either...or"

But what these aspects all share in common is the different levels of certainty. That alone makes all the difference. let's focus on each aspect one by one and show this.

Because

Take a look at the following two sentences:

"TIN trefov yv kwov tel jeftam."

"I met up with him because I knew his sister."

And

"TIN trefov wyl TIN aköv."

"I met up with him because I recognised him."

Now, both sentences use the same word for "because" in english - after all, English does not use a different word just because someone doesn't know. But something weird is going on with the Sevvuferyn sentences: One uses "yv" and one uses "wyl". Why?

Well, the main distinction between "yv" and "wyl" is, as mentioned, level of certainty. Said level is greater in "yv" than in "wyl" - that is to say, if someone uses "yv", it is more likely that they are confident in their knowledge than if they use "wyl". We can see this if we look at the context of the two sentences above. It makes sense that someone would be confident in knowing someone's relatives and therefore agree to see them. However, in the second sentence, you can almost sense the untold "I thought" (as in "I met up with him because [I thought] I recognised him") - after all, you could be completely wrong and be meeting up with a complete stranger, so whoever says this sentence is unlikely to be confident that they were fully correct. That's the difference. In fact, sentence #2 is unlikely to appear in Sevvuferyn speech because one is more likely to use a subjunctive (or maybe historic conditional) instead. For example,

"TIN trefov wyl TIN akume"

"I met up with him because I may have recognised him"

In order to/so that

Similarly to the first aspect, when using "yv" or "wyl" for purpose clauses one should keep the certainty distinction in mind. Take a look at the following sentences:

"Nosen dõköwö wyl TIN sjosin"

"We contacted the king in order to save him"

And

"TIN vvivvöv yv dõsin"

"I got to know him in order to befriend him".

In the first case, it is unclear whether you will be successful, and one could say there is the element of hope: you hope that you will contact the king in time to save him. However, in the second example, your intentions are clear and you are certain of them and (probably) success. Certainty makes the difference

"whether...or" vs "either...or"

Would you look at that - the seemingly useless difference has transformed into something quite meaningful! Even if it is obvious that, when used this way "yv" and "wyl" are certainly distinct words, the reason why still is not. It comes, however, from a natural extension of the initial distinction. Take the "either...or" construct, for example. When used, there are generally not, from the speaker's point of view, any other choices besides the ones listed. In other words, there is some certainty that one of a given list of choices must be made. However, in a "whether...or" construct, the focus is shifted. It is no longer about the given list of choices, it is about the fact that the speaker does not know what will happen next; which choice will be chosen? There is uncertainty here.

Take the following two sentences, for example:

"Sibopol yv gezi ∞aii jeftam yv ÏII baral mixdon."

"You will either have to apologise to your sister or help me with the work."

And

"Nek govol wyl fif ses wyl nayyenda."

"We did not know whether she was angry or disappointed."

The second sentence kind of gives it away with "nek govol" (we did not know) - that is the whole point: one uses "wyl" when not knowing the outcome; one uses "yv" when one does know the outcome.