Verbal predications

YOU HAVE JAVASCRIPT DEACTIVATED!
You will only see the English translation of examples (and not the Qohenje script, translitteration, nor glosses, which is a shame... Turn Javascript on!)

In a “verbal” role (clause-level relation), A Qohenje lexeme carries the usual aspect distinctions, as well as being marked for one of two moods:

Realis [REAL]: indicating an actual (real / spatio-temporally instantiated) process or relation.
Irrealis [IRR]: indicating a non-actual (imagined / abstractly instantiated) process or relation.

These moods are marked through the obligatory use of distinct auxiliaries, which specify not only the mood distinction, but also vary for animacy and tense.

The auxiliaries are themselves relations on a finer level of structure: they take a lexeme as their trajector (the verbal), and the REAL/IRR conceptual domain as a covert landmark. For this reason, auxiliaries stand before their verbs, observing the strict Qohenje (LM-)RELATION-TR order.

Auxiliaries

The (present tense, see Tenses) auxiliaries are:

	REALIS			IRREALIS
	AN	IN	AB	AN	IN	AB
PRS

The persistence of animacy marking results from the fact that the auxiliaries need not agree with their head lexeme for animacy. Different combinations of animacy specification entail varying senses, shown in the following table. (These variations are stable across all moods.)


ANIMATE LEXEME	AN AUX	Equational TR is (an) X (X is animate)
	IN AUX	Equational TR is a representation of (an) X
	AB AUX	Behavioral TR behaves like (an) X
INANIMATE LEXEME	IN AUX	Equational TR is (an) X (X is inanimate)
INANIMATE LEXEME	AB AUX	Resemblance TR resembles (an) X (X is inanimate)

ABSTRACT LEXEME	AN AUX	Equational TR is an X-ing one / an X-er
	IN AUX	Equational TR is an X-ing thing / an X-er
	AB AUX	Processual TR X-es (verb)

The semantics of the auxiliaries is complex, comprising processual instantiation in time, relation to actuality as well as animacy. It should be clear therefore why the auxiliaries are obligatory: they define the verbal function of the lexeme. Without an auxiliary, the lexeme is nominal.

Concrete auxiliaries

With concrete (AN/IN) auxiliaries, there is, along with the entailments described above, concretisation, or objectification of the concept contained in the lexeme. When this concept is itself already concrete, the entailments are simply equational, with the only permissible cross-match (AN lexeme with an IN auxiliary) indicating the notion of “representation”, e.g.

Inanimate lexemes cannot take animate auxiliaries.

Concrete auxiliaries on abstract lexemes profile the schematic trajector of the process expressed in the lexeme (in other words, the person or thing performing the action), and equate the overt trajector with it. As constructions like this are commonly used to express permanent, descriptive states, the lexeme in such combinations is most often expressed in the AOR aspect, as the process itself — and moreover its evolutionary state — is not in profile.

AOR TR are not the only possibility, however: the TR may equally be equated with the schematic TR of a process with some other aspectual specification:

Abstract auxiliaries

Abstract auxiliaries, conversely, have the opposite effect — de-concretising concrete lexemes to produce, in the case of AN lexemes, a process which has the characteristics of the lexeme, i.e. a resemblance or more commonly a behaviour, and in the case of inanimates, a process with the characteristics of an object, i.e. a physical resemblance:

In the case of abstract lexemes, an abstract auxiliary produces a process with the characteristics of an abstract concept, which is simply a process,

The Perfective/Imperfective contrast

It should be apparent that all cases of a concrete (AN/IN) auxiliary are necessarily imperfective, as they are predicating states of being. Also, as they simply represent comparisons, and do not profile the energetic involvement of the trajector to its relation, the overt trajectors of such verbs are invariably in the AX case. The energetic relationship between the LM and the relation, however, may still be profiled, and hence is free to occur in whatever case is appropriate.

Abstract (AB) auxiliaries, conversely, predicate processes. When the lexeme is inherently concrete, the processual part of the meaning is inherent in the auxiliary itself, ad so the aspect of the lexeme does not affect the entailment of a present imperfective process (unless otherwise specified - see Tenses).

Despite the PRO aspect on , this is nevertheless a present imperfective predication: “He is an about-to-fight-one”. This entailment is in fact the same for AB lexemes, but is a little harder to appreciate. The processual element of meaning is still inherent in the auxiliary (rather than the lexeme),

Even though this is best translated into English using a present perfect (a simple past translation would also be possible), in Qohenje, this is a present imperfective predication: something like “I am in a state of having-read”.

In fact, there are no perfective verbal structures in Qohenje. All Qohenje expression are states of being (hence imperfective). Where in English we say “I saw him”, using a perfective verb that predicates a discretely bounded event in the past, the usual Qohenje formation would be , literally “I am (now) in a state of [finished-seeing] him”, referring expressly to a present imperfective state. Formations in English such as “I am going (soon)” (the immediate future) are close to the Qohenje logic, and are naturally rendered in Qohenje as “I am in a state of [about-to-go]”.

Past or future imperfectives are expressed in Qohenje using tensed auxiliaries (see Tense).

Orientation

The section on Verbal use of lexemes contains the following sections, which can be browsed in any order

Mood: Qohenje has two moods: Realis and Irrealis...
Tense: Qohenje has four tenses: future, present, past and distant past. (Note: tense is not to be confused with Aspect)
Voice: In this section, the Qohejne Circumstantial Voice is presented, as well as the Qohenje "notional passive", which is not a voice modification as such, but which serves the same function.
Cross-referencing: Qohenje pronouns are not anaphoric. Verbals show a system of cross-referencing marks for argument tracking.
Modality: Epistemic and deontic modality are represented in two quite distinct structres in the language, although the lexemes/syntagms involved are clearly related.
Verbal modification (preverbs): Verbals can take a modifier between the auxiliary and the verbal lexeme.