Comunleng

Before approaching the conjugation, let us look at initially the personal pronouns.

(personal = prone case, the accusative = direct object, dative = complement of indirect, substantive object: mine, the tien…)

This table seems first of all too large if one compares it with French. That one can answer that:

• It introduces people who do not exist in French: neutral animated ( el , plural els') and inanimate ( it , plural its ), singular use of the vous ( U ) and plural ( Custom ) distinct from second person plural, possessive different masculines and female.

• It is very regular: the accusative is characterized by I , the dative by E , the genitive by have and zer , the sustantif one by Ain and Zen , plural by S , the masculine by O and the female one by has .
• By distinguishing all the cases (or almost) it raises all ambig U ité. It is the interest of an “apparent” grammar.
• One could expect to have the forms noes , voes , ui and uis in the naked place of , seen , oi and ois , slightly easier to pronounce. They was the forms of origins; they are obviously always allowed (and are known as “pure” or “antiquated”).
• and if is the reflexive pronouns.

Conjugation

Now let us see the conjugation, or rather the conjugations.

When one traverses Europe of the South towards North, one passes gradually from a conjugation which rests entirely on the termination of the verbs (which can do without the personal pronouns) to a conjugation which depends exclusively on the pronoun (the verb is invariable). Between these two extremes, languages like French and German are who use both at the same time, which is redundant since the person is indicated twice (in “we see”: the us and the - ons has the same direction). However the repetition is not accepted. The two extremes were thus preserved: a conjugation known as “Latin” and known as “a Scandinavian”.

The Scandinavian conjugation thus uses the personal pronouns already presented, with the personal case, with an invariable verb. For example the verb “being” at the present indicative gives:

· I, you are, el are, our are, your are, els are.

The Latin conjugation of the verb “to have” at the same time:

· cut, cut, hav, havem, havet, haven.

The terminations are thus: E, S, -, m, T, N, and this in fact at all times and modes. The third nobody of the singular is voluntarily not marked (it takes part at the same time in the two conjugations) and merges with infinitive, here hav . It is a E euphonic which one finds in cut , havem , havet and haven , it appears as soon as infinitive ends in a consonant which meets that of the termination, and which it is not pronounceable.

The past is obtained while interposing has between the root and the termination: havam (we A), esae (I was) stole (he, she… wanted).

The future is obtained with a O in the same place, the requirement with a I and the subjunctive with a U .

Made up times always use the auxiliary to have. The last participle ends in ED , and the participle present by end .

What precedes is a quite summary description of the conjugation, because it is still necessary to specify the use of each mode and time, and to detail the sequence of tenses. The French language on this subject comprises an anomaly which leave perplexed our European neighbors: The use of the code in a conditional sentence. Indeed, in “if I had known, I would not have come” the verb expressing the condition (thus the assumption) is with the code, mode which is not supposed hypothetical being. The so frequent error “if I would have known…” confirms that our language deviates from the intuition, and besides other languages: Compare with: Italian: “Avessi saputo, not sarei venuto” (subjunctive follow-up of conditional) Spanish: “if sabido will hubiera, No habría venido” (idem) German: “hätte ich das gewisst, wäre ich nicht gekommen” (the two verbs are with the subjunctive)

In addition the example of German shows that the distinction between subjunctive and conditional is not necessary. French knows this configuration in hypothetical sentences as “the eussè I known that I had not come” (two imperfect of subjontif) - rather rare with the oral examination it is true (or: “you had believed it that you were risée of all”) even the more improbable, let us concede it.

In comunleng, there is thus no conditional (it merges with the subjunctive) and the subjunctive mode (also called “unreal”) is essential under the condition and the consequence (as soon as there is a doubt, an assumption). In addition the unreal mode admits three times: passed (in - ua-), present (in - U) and future (in - uo-).

Another distinction with French, and in fact with the European languages in general, is the generalization of the requirement to all the people. The motivation is the same one as for the indefinite number: to benefit from all the latent possibilities of the system, not to leave empty boxes. That does not cost anything. It remains however to give direction to the new forms:
The sentence “That they from go away! ” the direction of a requirement, carried out has well by diverting a subjunctive. It will thus be returned advantageously by a true requirement with third person plural: “goin! ” or “goin vei! ” (“go”: to go, “vei”: way; “go vei”: from to go away, cf Italian (andare via), German (weg gehen), Dutch ( weg gaan) and English (to go away)).
Same manner “ It will be returned by “ver Here the conjugation of the verb “manj” ( to eat , inspired of French and Italian), in its two forms, Latin and Scandinavian (poyr the latter, one wrote only one person, since the verb is invariant):

Sequence of tenses

Once accepted the use of the subjunctive, the agreement is summarized to express the anteriority of the cause on the consequence, which results in the choice of the time of the verbs in the principal one and the subordinate clause.

Examples:

COp arivuas has tem, esum ja in tren : If you had arrived in time, we would be already in the train (which we thus missed and we await the next one). The cause is with the past, the consequence at the present.

Uen one obten 6, respil : When 6 are obtained, one rejoue. Here the present indicative is essential, because it is about the statement of a rule, essentially timeless, of or the present, and nonconditional (always true) of or the code. The personal pronoun is not repeated.

COp uinue Al loteri, haltu ver< : If I gain with the lottery I stop working. The condition being so improbable, the subjunctive is essential obviously. It is also a timeless sentence, it is not registered in a precise context, therefore it is at the present.

“Your : “You could finish the examination, if you had revised well the course”, said the professor to his high. Control is completed in one hour. (from where future).

The opposition perfective/imperfectif (completed action/action in progress), which one finds in the preterit couple/imperfect can result in the opposition between the past and the “continuous past” (gerund):

Ela esa lezend in jarden uen will hora a : It read reading in the garden when it intended a child to cry hot tears. Gerund is also used at the present and the future, with a same aim of making play the opposition perfective/imperfectif.

Word order