Lesson 32
Source Case

Source Case

[VP CP–S CP–O CP–Mann
CP–Instr CP–Assoc
CP–Goal CP–Source]

–de

Suffix (noun phrase): Source Case

The Source Case identifies a case phrase as the origin or beginning-point of an action. To mark a Case Phrase as a Source, use the ending “–de.” If the word ends in a consonant, you’ll need to insert “e” to separate the consonants, of course.

Along with the Source Case, we get the conjunction “údehú” (whence; a fairly-archaic English term for “from where”). Not a question word, “údehú” introduces a clause that acts as the Source in its sentence; it translates as the “whence” in an English sentence such as “I know whence the birds fly.”

Examples

Bíi sháad behid wa. •<

He comes/goes.

Báa sháad behid bebáade? •<

Whence (from where) does he come/go?

Bíi sháad behid déelade wa. •<

He comes/goes from a garden.

Bíi sháad behid Méri bede wa. •<

He comes/goes from Mary.

Bíi sháad behid déela Méri bethode wa. •<

He comes/goes from Mary’s garden.

By this time it should be routine to note that personal names do not take suffixes, as in the fourth and fifth examples above, and that the Case ending will move to the end of the Possessive case phrase, as in the fifth.

You may not recognize the rather archaic form “whence.” It is Source Case in English and means “from where” (“bebáade” in Láadan). There are a few other English Source Case forms: “hence” means “from here” (“nude” in Láadan); “thence” means “from there” (“núude” in Láadan); “nowhence” means “from nowhere” (“rade” in Láadan).

Bíi medibíi bezh údehú sháad behid wa. •<

They (few) declare whence he comes/goes.

Bíi mesháad bezh nude wa. •<

They (few) come hence (from here).

Bíi mesháad bezh núude wa. •<

They come/go thence (from there).

English is persnickety about needing to know whether someone or something is “coming” or “going.” In reality, this is a distinction without a difference. Láadan doesn’t make the distinction and works just fine, as a language, without it. Linguists have a name for this type of ambiguity: deixis; it discusses an action for which there are two words, depending upon the point of view of the speaker. In the first example above, the English need to have the ambiguity resolved is satisfied. Because “they” are coming/going “from here” (“here” being, by definition, where the speaker is located), the verb can be clarified to “go” rather than “come.”

Bíi mesháad bezh hide wa. •<

They (few) come/go from this/that (place/person/thing).

Bíi mesháad bezh zhede wa. •<

They come/go from the same (place/person/thing).

Bíi mesháad bezh beyede wa. •<

They come/go somewhence (from somewhere).

Bíi mesháad bezh rade wa. •<

They come/go nowhence (from nowhere).

Bíi mesháad bezh déela rade wa. •<

They come/go anywhence but from a garden.

Bíi mesháad bezh hizh hizhede wa. •<

They come/go from each other.

Notice the pair of examples using “rade” [ra– (NON) + –de (GOAL)]. The first of these is a straightforward statement that there is nothing to which the Source Case applies. The second, on the other hand, states that the case does apply, but that the noun it would be applied to absolutely does not. In effect, this example excludes this noun from the Source Case function.

“Nedaba”

[In response to Elfquest Chaoist’s question, “It seems that question words don’t have any way to indicate whether they’re asking about a person or an object or a location, although some questions will be obvious,” Suzette Haden Elgin wrote:]

EC is correct; the third person pronoun is ambiguous in questions, so that “Báa eril yod bebáa thilith?” could be either “Who ate the fish?” or “What ate the fish?” and “Báa eril sháad ne bebáade?” could be either “Where did you come from?” or “What did you come from?” This sort of ambiguity is typical of human languages—the classic example for English is sentences like “Visiting relatives can be difficult”—but is a problem only for isolated examples. In actual discourse, spoken or written, ambiguity is very rare, and the language has plenty of resources for fixing it if it happens.

Nevertheless, EC’s question makes it clear that it would be useful for Láadan to have a “which” question word. Let’s add one—“nedaba,” roughly “Only + Q”—and set it up like this.

Báa eril yod bebáa thilith? •<

Báa

eril

PAST

yod

Eat

bebáa

Qprn1 + SUBJ

thilith?

Fish + OBJ

Who/what ate the fish?

To disambiguate:

Báa eril yod bebáa thilith? With nedaba? •< Báa with nedaba? •<

Báa

eril

PAST

yod

Eat

bebáa

Qprn1 + SUBJ

thilith?

Fish + OBJ

(Báa)

(Q)

with

Person

nedaba?

Which

Who ate the fish?

Báa eril yod bebáa thilith? Mid nedaba? •< Báa mid nedaba? •<

Báa

eril

PAST

yod

Eat

bebáa

Qprn1 + SUBJ

thilith?

Fish + OBJ

(Báa)

(Q)

mid

Creature

nedaba?

Which

What ate the fish?

NOTE: The parentheses around the “Báa” before “nedaba” means that it’s optional; it can be used or left out, as the speaker/writer wishes. And you could of course specify “wild animal” or “domestic animal” instead of the generic “creature” if the context required it.

Báa eril sháad ne bebáade? •<

Báa

eril

PAST

sháad

ComeGo

You1

bebáade?

Qprn1 + SRC

Where/What did you come from?

To disambiguate, follow the sentence with either “(Báa •<) hoth nedaba?” •< (which place) or “(Báa •<) dal nedaba?” •< (which thing).

NOTE: This doesn’t mean that the Láadan word “which” should be used the way the English one is; “nedaba” is intended only as a question word. You wouldn’t use it to translate “I know which child ate the fish.” How that would be done is a separate issue, and this is enough for now.

Vocabulary

áatham

church [áath (door) + tham (circle)]

ábedun

shepherd’s or farmer’s field [ábed (farm) + dun (field)] {SH}

bod

dish

bóodan

to rescue

hatham

center [tham (circle)]

hibo

hill [híya (small) + bo (mountain)]

rabo

plain [ra– (NON) + bo (mountain)]

sheni

intersection

thed

to be far

wehe

store (market)

Exercises

Translate the following into English.

Báa aril nasháad woshel wolamithá honedim áathamede? •<

Bé eril thel woyide woyodá wohowa wodehenith bod lethode wa. •<

Bíi wil láad imá oyunan údehú aril mebel hena letha baleth wa. •<

Báa eril mewida edin netha thesheth bebáade? Dunede nedaba? •<

Bíi rilrili eb hoshemid halátha wohéthe womazheth Ána bede wa. •<

Bée aril néde doth wolodo wohomid dená nethoth hibodim hatham ábedunethude wáa. •<

In #2, did you have any trouble with the word “yodá” (diner; eater) [yod (eat) + –á (DOER)]?

Notice in #3, that we cannot yet disambiguate the deixis on “bel” (to bring; to take) as to whether my siblings will “take” or “bring” bread. However, it must also be noted that the disambiguation is for English purposes only; Láadan has no need for it.

In #6, did the word “lodo” (be brave/courageous; be strong of mind/will; be firm of intention; etc) [lo– (INT) + do (be strong)] give you any trouble? We have seen the prefix “lo–” in “lohil” (pay attention internally) and “loláad” (perceive internally), but never previously called it out as a productive morpheme (linguist-speak: a unit of meaning that can be used to form new words through regular processes).

Incorporate the second noun phrase as a Source; translate into English before and after.

Bíi aril medumina héena letho mewoshane woromideth wáa. •<

ábed

Bíi eríli shumáad wonée wodathimá nudim wáa. •<

woleyi wohash

Bée aril duhoób néehá wa. •<

wohu wodem belidethu ehátho

Bé eril ilisháad sherídan ehashátha eshenan meladim wáa. •<

woyom woréele

Báa aril medom melalom meworabalin woduthahá? •<

urahu déelathu

Bóo ril meyime nin shoná ralóolonal róomathedim. •<

worahowahel woholin

In #10, did you notice the construction “ilisháad … eshenan”? Literally, it means “to swim using a boat,” but idiomatically it means “to sail.” It makes sense when one considers that “ilisháad” [ili (water) + sháad (to go; to come)] means, at core, “to come/go in/on water;” a person can “swim” and a boat can “sail;” both fit that definition.