Zanec Grammar Sketch
Foreword
Introduction
Phonology
The Consonants
The Vowels
Stress
Syllabification
Vowel Gradation
Nouns
Gender
Articles
Declensions
Cases
Pronouns
Adjectives
Unmarked Form
Gender Agreement, Number and Definicy
Verbs
Overview
Conjugations
Probabilitative: Present Tense - Aorist - Preterite - Future Tense - Imperfect, Perfect and Pluperfect - Using the Probabilitative
Indicative: Present Tense - Aorist - Preterite - Imperfect, Perfect and Pluperfect - Using the Indicative
Potential: Present Tense - Future Tense - Past Tense - Using the Potential
Desirative: Using the Desirative
Subjunctive: Present/Future Tense - Past Tense - Using the Subjunctive - Conditional Clauses
Tense Usage: Present Tense and Aorist - Past Tenses
Case Usage and Syntax
Word Order
Basic Syntax
Sentences with Personal Pronouns
The Case of the Object: Accusative - Partitive
Case Usage: Ergative - Absolutive - Nominative - Accusative - Partitive - Instrumental - Genitive - Possessive
First, I must note that unless you understand something about linguistics you probably won't be able to read this grammar. But then, I'd assume that if you're actually interested in reading this grammar, you also know something about linguistics. So...
Zanec is my first real conlang; I guess I started it somewhere in autumn 1999. However, I knew virtually nothing about linguistics back then, so I've had to revise the language many times. The grammar especially has changed a lot. I haven't been forced to change the vocabulary much, but, of course, it has expanded a lot. Some vocabulary items are probably the oldest elements in the language; actually, certain words date back further than 1999. The word blazad ("sword"), for example, occurs already on my first conworld map, which I drew in 1997 (it's actually in the form vlazad on that map, but since I realized that it was the only Zanec word beginning with vl-, I changed it to blazad in order to fit the phonology).
And speaking of the phonology, it's probably the most interesting part of the language, at least to me. It's still mostly like it was back in 1999, but it has been regularized (added rules for phonological constraints etc.) and a couple of new sounds have been introduced during the years. Unlike my other languages, I had no specific plan or model for the phonology; it just pretty much developed on its own. Thus, I think Zanec has a kind of special, "personal" feel.
Anyway, there still are some features in the language that may seem a bit amateurish, certain oddities in the orthography at least bother me slightly. However, mostly I've become too used to things to change them, and I think I've managed to eliminate the worst problems.
The fact that the way things are presented in this grammar may sometimes seem a bit amateurish, too, is, however, more or less a conscious choice. The main purpose of the grammar is, anyway, to act as a kind of digital notebook for me, not to provide entertainment for some poor devil with nothing better to do. :) And frankly, I really don't like the way traditional "professional" grammars present things; information on one verb form may be sprinkled in three or more different chapters. So I tried to find a better way, and failed miserably. The information is still sprinkled here and there, only in a different way. In my defense, though, I must note that I didn't just invent this system off the top of my head; I have some "amateur-level" grammars of various languages in my bookshelf, and I used them as models. But since Zanec has features none of these languages has, I inevitably ran into some problems. At the moment, the way things are presented in this grammar is little more than a draft; I may and probably will change it, if I manage to think of something better. Suggestions are welcome, but will be ignored, as always.
Now that was a long bit of un-information. I'm getting pretty good at this.
The history of the Zanec language can be divided into three main periods. The oldest form of the language, archaic Zanec, was spoken in the darkest times of the Age of Chaos, and little is known of it or its speakers. There are a few written samples of it, carved in stone in the old runic script, on ancient burial sites and other holy places, and all knowledge of it is based mainly on these inscriptions. Zanec seems to be an isolate (ie. apart from its daughters, no known languages appear to be related to it), so it's hard to reconstruct the archaic form.
Perhaps the most important period in the history of the language was the classical one. Classical Zanec was spoken in the great Zanec Empire, which was founded ca. in the year -700 and lasted for more than five hundred years. During that time, the Empire expanded so that at its largest it covered most of the continent of Karyen east of the Great Forest. As the Empire expanded, so did the language, as it replaced many of the original languages of the area. Even later, after the collapse of the Empire, classical Zanec has retained the position of a lingua franca and a language of religion and lore.
Even before the collapse of the Empire, there had been a major divide between the southern and northen dialects of classical Zanec. The northern dialects had been greatly influenced by the original languages of the north, while the southern ones were closer to archaic Zanec. After, and perhaps even slightly before, the collapse, the dialects drifted apart so much that they could be called separate languages. The northern one later spawned the modern tongues of Nevde and Andera, plus some smaller languages, while the southern dialects mostly became what is now called modern Zanec.
In this grammar, I will focus mainly on classical Zanec. It is an inflecting language, in many ways rather similar to many European languages of our world. Nouns have eight cases, and verbs inflect for person, number, mood and tense. The written language is based mostly on the northern dialects, so so will this grammar be, but I'll note some things about the southern ones as well.
| Bilabial | Labiodental | Dental | Alveolar | Palatal | Uvular | Glottal | |
| Stops | p ph b | t th dh | d | c ch g | k kh | ||
| Nasals | m | n | ñ | nq | |||
| Fricatives | f v | (th) | s sh z | x | h | ||
| Approximants | (u) | l r | i |
The unvoiced stops p, t, c and k are unaspirated. The digraphs in h represent their aspirated equivalents, except syllable-finally, where th is a dental fricative (close to the sound in English think). Sh is the aspirated equivalent of s, a sound that only occurs word-initially and is by far the rarest phoneme in the language, especially if we count the labiovelar approximant - English w, Zanec u before a vowel - as an allophone of the vowel u. The digraphs bh, dh and gh originally represented voiced fricatives. However, in the north these became fortified into stops. In some dialects the fortification of dh into a voiced dental stop pushed d back to the alveolar position, and this distinction also made its way into official language, which was fond of such "posh" little quirks, but mostly these two sounds simply merged.
L is always clear as in English "let", never dark as in "tell", and r is a trill or a tap (depending on dialect; the former pronunciation seems to have been more common, and was also considered official).
It may be noted that the basic articulation of c is palatal, not velar as in English. This means that the point of closure is a bit closer to the front of the mouth, resulting in a somewhat "sharper" sound. The English k is palatal before front vowels, but in Zanec c is palatal pretty much everywhere. It does tend to become velar before o and u, though.
Ch and g are the aspirated and voiced equivalents of c, respectively, so the same rules apply. Ñ is a palatal nasal (often becoming velar before back vowels, though), as in Spanish, and i, when before a vowel, has the sound of English you.
Officially, the letter x has the sound of the German ich-laut. However, this pronunciation was probably rare in actual spoken Zanec; a sound close to the English sh seems to have been a lot more common (and is still often used, although, of course, no native speakers of classical Zanec exist).
| Front | Central | Back | |
| High | i y | u | |
| Mid | e | o | |
| Low | ä | a |
The exact pronunciation of the vowels varied by dialect - sometimes greatly - but I'll concentrate on the official language here.
All vowels can be either tense or lax. When tense, i, y, u, e, o and a can be pronounced as their IPA equivalents, and ä is the frontal equivalent of a (more or less as in English cat).
The lax vowels are more, well, lax, and pronounced closer to the center of the vowel space. Especially in stressed syllables, tense and lax vowels differ also in length, as tense vowels tend to be prolonged a bit. In addition, lax a tends to be drawn back in closed syllables (in some dialects also in open ones); a typical pronunciation is as in English cut. Lax e and o are rather close to X-SAMPA [E] and [O], respectively, although the former tends to be reduced almost to a schwa in unstressed position. Lax e and ä sound rather similar (and often merge), but the distinction is rarely phonemic, as ä is a rare sound in Zanec.
Due to certain historical reasons, vowels are always tense in the following positions:
In situations where both tense and lax vowels are possible, I (in html) mark tense ä with â, and the other tense vowels with an acute accent: á, é, í, ó, ú, ý. So, if a vowel is not in any of the positions mentioned above, and is not marked with any of the mentioned diacritics, it is lax. You don't need to know the positions in which vowels are always lax. But for those that are interested in such details, here they are:
Diphthongs and Triphthongs:
Zanec has eleven diphthongs: äi, ei, oi; ou, ey; ae; and ya, yo, yu, ye, yä. In the last five, y is pronounced as a semivocalic i; they are rising diphthongs (the main stress on the second element), while the other diphthongs are falling (I guess you know or can figure out what that means).
Tense/lax contrasts only apply to the stressed element of the diphthong, the unstressed element is always lax. Also, notice that the stressed element of a diphthong ending in i may be tense even before a voiced stop and word-finally. Otherwise, diphthongs follow normal rules in this respect, ie. the stressed element of a diphthong is tense wherever a monophthong would be tense, and lax wherever a monophthong would be lax.
There are also two triphthongs: yei and yäi. The main stress is on the second element; otherwise the rules for these are pretty much the same as for diphthongs.
In addition, the combinations ea, oa, eo and (rarely) ai and ao (any of the vowels may be either tense or lax) may occur, but these are not diphthongal.
If the final syllable of the word has a tense vowel or ends in a consonant cluster, and the vowel in the penultimate syllable is lax, the final syllable is stressed. Otherwise, the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.
In words of three or more syllables that are stressed on the final syllable, the first syllable receives secondary stress.
Monosyllabic words can either be stressed on their only syllable or be fully unstressed. The latter applies to many particles and prepositions; other monosyllabic words are always stressed.
The boundary between two syllables isIn archaic Zanec, stress sometimes functioned morphologically. Certain verb and noun forms were formed simply by moving the stress to the final syllable of the word. Later, certain vowel shifts occured in the syllable immdediately preceding stressed one. Thus, although the stress system of classical Zanec is rather different, the effects of the old system can still be seen in the form of the phenomenon I call vowel gradation (for lack of a better term). In practice, this means that, in certain verb and noun forms, one vowel in the word (usually the one in the penultimate syllable) changes. In most cases, the shift is from the strong grade to the weak.
In the following table, there are the strong and weak grades of the vowels in a closed syllable:
| Strong: | u | i | y | o | e | a | ä | oi | ei | äi | ae | ou | ey | yu | yo | ye | ya | yä | yei | yäi | |||
| Weak: | o | e | e | a | i | e | i | ae | i | ei | ye | o | e | yo | ya | ei | ei | ei | ye | ye |
In addition, tense vowels turn lax in syllables that end in -t or -th.
In an open syllable, vowel gradation works exactly as in a closed one, when a tense/lax contrast is not possible (see The vowels), or the vowel is lax in the strong grade. Otherwise, the strong and weak grades are simply tense and lax, respectively. Notice that weak vowels are always lax, where possible, but strong vowels may be tense or lax.
Zanec has three genders, animate (a), inanimate (i) and abstract (b). A noun's gender can't usually be identified from its form, although abstract nouns always end in -in, -ydh or -am in the ergative (other nouns can end in these, too).
Luckily, the genders are pretty logical. For example, the words tséi, "human" and élas, "tree", are animate, while uncezab, "book" and káxelt, "rock" are inanimate. However, a few words belong to the "wrong" gender, eg. mahor, "sun" is animate, although the sun in reality is not a living being. Also, notice that words that mean body parts are always inanimate, even when the body part is attached to a living creature; for example sóa, "hand", olubh, "head".
The abstract gender consists of, naturally, all kinds of abstractions, but also some words that the average English speaker might guess to be inanimate. The common denominator is uncountability; words in this gender have no plural. For example, khoilimin, "darkness", ydh, "hatred", zakam, "knowledge".
In many cases, there are two nouns that are very close to each other in both form and meaning, the main difference being that one of the nouns is uncountable (abstract) and the other countable (usually inanimate, sometimes animate). Compare:
landram (b) = "hope" - landra (i) = "wish"
respin (b) = "magic" - respir (i) = "spell"
télydh (b) = "faith" - telda (i) = "belief"
ázam (b) = "fire" - azar (a) = "fire" (a fire; the blaze of a campfire, fireplace, torch, etc.)
In practice, the gender of a noun affects which articles can be used with it, which form adjectives that modify it are in, and, to a certain degree, how it is inflected. Also, verbs often agree with the gender of either the subject or object.
Zanec doesn't inflect nouns for number or definicy. Instead, these are expressed with articles (or alternatively adjectival forms; see Adjectives). All nouns have two levels of definicy, definite and indefinite. Abstract nouns only have one number; other nouns have two numbers, singular and plural. Thus, animate and inanimate nouns have four different articles, singular indefinite, singular definite, plural indefinite and plural definite. There is a separate set of articles for both genders, so these two genders have a total of eight different articles.
The abstract gender only has one article, the definite article y. Indefinicy is expressed by a total lack of any articles (or by an adjective in the unmarked form).
The articles of the animate and inanimate genders are shown in the table below:
| Animate | Inanimate | |
| Singular indefinite: | elt | ag |
| Singular definite: | ha | ro |
| Plural indefinite: | im | am |
| Plural definite: | hem | ram |
And another table, with examples and English translations (note that an article must always immediately precede the noun it modifies):
| Animate | Inanimate | |
| Singular indefinite: | elt tséi = a human | ag káxelt = a rock |
| Singular definite: | ha tséi = the human | ro káxelt = the rock |
| Plural indefinite: | im tséi = humans | am káxelt = rocks |
| Plural definite: | hem tséi = the humans | ram káxelt = the rocks |
A noun (not including proper names) in Zanec has to be preceded by something that gives information on its number and definicy, that is, usually an article, almost always. One notable exception to this rule is a situation where a noun is used to collectively refer to all things of one kind:
Kasmim tofyéi promin. = Worms eat dirt.
Hyuzan kazyel im tsei. = Wars kill people.
Note that when the verb in this kind of sentence is záred, "to be", both the subject and the predicate are without an article:
Tséi zarít lipäl. = People are idiots.
Zanec nouns fall into six different declensions. To determine which declension a noun belongs to, you need to know its gender and/or ergative form.
Note that there are a couple of slightly irregular nouns, for example, tséi, "human" and ydh, "hatred" don't quite follow normal rules.
Zanec has eight cases. Their usage is explained in Case Usage and Syntax, the forms are in the table below:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Ergative: | mahor | káxelt | kasmi | byus-a | khoilim-in | áz-am |
| Absolutive: | mehór-on | kaxelt-on | kasmi-m | byus-on | khoilim-yon | áz-on |
| Nominative: | mahar | káxilt | kasmi | byus-a | khoilim-en | áz-um |
| Accusative: | mehor | kaxelt | cesmi* | byos-a | khoilem-in | az-im |
| Partitive: | mahor | káxelt-i | kasmi | byus | khoilim-in | áz-um |
| Instrumental: | mahór-íth | káxelt-id | kasmi-d | byus-id | khoilim-íth | áz-itsum |
| Genitive: | mahór-ir | káxelt-ir | kasmi-r | byus-ir | khoilim-iña | áz-iña |
| Possessive: | mahór-yan | káxelt-yanq | kasmi-n | byus-anq | khoilim-yan | áz-in |
* There is a phonological rule that changes k to c before front vowels.
Some notes:
* Monosyllables are an exception: there is no vowel change (and thus, the nominative is identical with the ergative).
At the moment, this section only covers personal pronouns. I'll add more information once I have time.
The personal pronoun system of Zanec is rather simple, and in many ways, it resembles that of English (just notice that Zanec has different pronouns for singular and plural "you"). Pronouns also have case forms, at least sort of, but not quite the same cases as nouns. The different forms of all of Zanec personal pronouns are shown in the table below, and after that, their usage is explained briefly. Some more information may be found in Case Usage and Syntax.
| I | you (sg) | he/she | we | you (pl) | they | |
| Subject Form | chil | xe | zer | had | rab | zam |
| Object Form | chit | xyd | zerd | had | rad | zan |
| Dative | chi | xei | zei | hai | rai | zai |
| Possessive (sg) | chir | xyr | zen | hard | rou | zou |
| Possessive (pl) | chyem | xym | zem | hadram | roum | zoum |
| Instrumental | chea | xea | zea | hid | rid | zid |
Subject Form:
Used whenever the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, and as a standalone form. May often be omitted (see Verbs).
Chil xedh. = I see.
Object Form:
Used whenever the pronoun is the object of the sentence.
Chil xedh xyd. = I see you.
Dative:
Often used when the pronoun is the indirect object of the sentence; usually indicates that the person is recepient of something.
Chil epséth iaro uncizab xei. = I'm giving you this book.
Possessive:
Works like the possessive pronouns "my", "your", "his/her" etc. in English. Notice that in Zanec, the possessive pronouns show the number of the "possessed" noun.
Chir uncezab = My book.
Chyem uncezab = My books.
Instrumental:
Works like the instrumental case of nouns.
Zanec adjectives may be divided into two different groups, the m-group and the s-group. If the unmarked form of an adjective has the ending -m, the adjective belongs to the m-group (eg. áenyum, "white"). If the ending is a sibilant (-s, -z, or -x - irrespective of whether or not x is actually pronounced as a sibilant), the adjective belongs to the s-group (eg. cifus, "red").
The unmarked form is used mainly whenever the adjective is used as a predicate (combined with verbs like "to be", "to turn"). Notice that the gender etc. of the subject have no effect (unlike in many European languages):
Ha azar zar cifus. = The fire is red.
Ram móal zar cifus. = The houses are red.
Ha azar samyét áenyum. = The fire is turning white.
It is also used as the indefinite form with abstract nouns (see below).
Gender Agreement, Number and Definicy
In Zanec, when a noun is preceded by an adjective (adjectives normally precede the nouns they modify, BTW), articles are replaced with different forms of the adjective. That is, adjectives have different forms that give information on the noun's number and definicy. In addition, they must agree with the noun's gender. Thus, for every article, except the abstract definite article y, there is a respective adjective form (see Articles). Abstract nouns are preceded by an adjective in the unmarked form (see above) when they are indefinite; they take the same adjective form as inanimate nouns when definite.
The different forms are shown in the tables below. In the table on the left there is an example of the m-group, on the right the s-group.
|
|
Notice that the endings are the same in both the singular and the plural, but the vowel in the final syllable of the adjective is weakened in the plural. If the unmarked form ends in -z, it is identical with the inanimate singular indefinite. Ditto for the ending -x and the inanimate singular definite.
The verbal morphology of Zanec is probably the most complex aspect of the language. In many ways, it resembles a system common in European languages. The main categories of inflection are person, number, mood and tense.
Where English would use a personal pronoun, Zanec often simply uses a form of the verb that gives the same information (personal pronouns may, however, be used for emphasis). There are six personal forms:
| First person | Second person | Third person | |
| Singular: | I | you (singular) | he/she |
| Plural: | we | you (plural) | they |
It must be noticed that Zanec may use a personal form of the verb only in a situation where English would use the respective personal pronoun. This applies especially to third person forms; they can only be used where English would use "he", "she" or "they". If the subject is something else, the verb isn't inflected for person and number. Instead, the verb agrees with the gender of whichever noun is in the ergative or nominative (animate, inanimate or abstract; the latter two have the same verb form).
In addition, there is also a special "zero-person" form for clauses which don't have either a personal pronoun subject or a noun in the ergative or nominative; often there is no subject at all (English would usually use the word "it" as a formal subject in such a situation). For example, druni = "it rains" (drunedh = "to rain").
The zero-person form can also be used to form clauses that translate into English in the passive voice, often in the sense of expressing a possibility of something: Xyd satoro = "You are heard", "You can be heard" (xyd = you (object form); satóred = "to hear"). See also Sentences with Personal Pronouns under Case Usage and Syntax.
To illustrate things, here are the present tense indicative forms of the verb tyed, "to see" (the verb is irregular; it's not here to be an example of how verbs are inflected, but as an example of what different forms mean):
| First person | Second person | Third person | |
| Singular: | xedh = I see | xéi = you see | xéth = he/she sees |
| Plural: | xost = we see | xor = you see | xodh = they see |
Animate: Ha tséi xét. = The human sees.
Inanimate: Ro káxelt xe dym. = The rock does not see. *
Zero-person: Xyd xéo. = You can be seen.
* Negation in Zanec is done simply by slipping in the particle dym; the verb form is the same in both negative and positive clauses.
From now on, I will use the following abbreviations: s = singular, p = plural; 1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person; a = animate, i = inanimate/abstract; z = zero-person.
Zanec has seven tenses (actually, these forms also express aspect to a certain degree, but for the sake of simplicity, I call them just tenses):
The tenses are described in more detail in the section Tense usage.
There are also five moods. Their chief purpose is expressing degree of probability:
The moods are described in more detail in their respective sections below.
If somebody has made some mental calculations at this point and come to the conclusion that Zanec has 9*7*5=315 different verb forms, be comforted: there aren't really that many. Not all moods have all tenses, and in the imperfect, perfect and pluperfect tenses, there are no personal forms.
Zanec verbs fall into four different conjugations. To determine which conjugation a verb belongs to, you only need to know its infinitive form.
In addition, there are certain verbs that belong to none of the conjugations (irregular verbs). These often look like first conjugation verbs in the infinitive.
The probabilitative may be considered the "basic" mood of Zanec verbs. It's perhaps the simplest in form, and also very common in written language at least, as it was considered good style to avoid the indicative in order to not sound too sure of oneself. In actual speech, however, many dialects seem to have preferred the indicative.
The probabilitative is the only mood to have all seven tenses. The present, aorist and preterite tenses mostly have the same endings, only with a different vowel (theme vowel). For example, the singular first person endings for present tense, aorist and preterite in the second conjugation are -edh, -idh and -adh, respectively.
Note that verbs of the first conjugation do not have personal forms in the probabilitative; when the subject is a personal pronoun, they are inflected only for number (otherwise they have the same forms as other verbs). This, of course, means that personal pronouns cannot be omitted with these verbs.
Present Tense:
The theme vowel of the present tense is e. It occurs in all singular personal forms and in the animate and inanimate forms, but not elsewhere. Note that conjugations II and IV are inflected identically in all except the inanimate and zero-person forms. Conjugation III differs from these two only in that the vowel y (pronounced /i/ here) is inserted before the ending (and that the digraph -dh is replaced with just -d, since it can't occur after a diphthong).
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-es | acól-edh | dém-yed | duc-edh |
| s2 | khár-es | acól-erth | dém-yerth | duc-erth |
| s3 | khár-es | acól-éth | dém-yéth | duc-éth |
| p1 | khár-om | acól-ost | dém-yost | duc-ost |
| p2 | khár-om | acól-or | dém-yor | duc-or |
| p3 | khár-om | acól-odh | dém-yod | duc-odh |
| a | khár-ét | acól-ét | dém-yét | duc-ét |
| i | khár-éi | acól-éi | dém-yéi | duc-e |
| z | khár-ael | acól-ael | dém-yel | duc-oil* |
* If the infinitive ending of the verb is -ad instead of -od, this form has the ending -äil. Verbs with an infinitive in -id have -eil.
Aorist:
The theme vowel is i. Except for the plural personal form of the first conjugation, it occurs in all forms (though in some, it's inserted before a vowel and thus written y). Once again, conjugations II and IV are almost identical, differing only in the zero-person form. Conjugation III also has the same basic endings, but with the vowel e inserted before them in some forms. Note that the plural personal forms of the III conjugation are the same in both the present tense and aorist.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-is | acól-idh | dém-eid | duc-idh |
| s2 | khár-is | acól-irth | dém-eirth | duc-irth |
| s3 | khár-is | acól-íth | dém-éith | duc-íth |
| p1 | khár-um | acól-yost | dém-yost | duc-yost |
| p2 | khár-um | acól-yor | dém-yor | duc-yor |
| p3 | khár-um | acól-yod | dém-yod | duc-yod |
| a | khár-ít | acól-ít | dém-éit | duc-ít |
| i | khár-yéi | acól-yéi | dém-yéi | duc-yéi |
| z | khár-yel | acól-yel | dém-eil | duc-il |
Preterite:
The theme vowel is a. However, notice that the plural third person form in conjugations II and III is different from the present tense and aorist in more than just the vowel. Also, pay special attention to all the plural forms in
conjugation IV.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-as | acól-adh | dém-yad | duc-adh |
| s2 | khár-as | acól-arth | dém-yarth | duc-arth |
| s3 | khár-as | acól-áth | dém-yáth | duc-áth |
| p1 | khár-am | acól-ast | dém-yast | duc-us |
| p2 | khár-am | acól-ar | dém-yar | duc-os |
| p3 | khár-am | acól-am | dém-yam | duc-um |
| a | khár-át | acól-át | dém-yát | duc-át |
| i | khár-a | acól-a | dém-ya | duc-a |
| z | khár-alda | acól-alt | dém-elda | duc-olda* |
* The first vowel of the ending in this form is the same as the vowel in the infinitive ending; if the infinitive ending is -ad, this form has the ending -alda, and if -id, -ilda.
Future Tense:
In conjugation III, the future tense ending is -ez- + the respective aorist ending of the II conjugation (however, in the plural forms, the y from the aorist ending is dropped). In conjugation IV, the formula is the same, except that the first vowel of the ending is the same as in the infinitive (a, o, or i) instead of e. Conjugation I also shows some traces of this pattern, but the endings aren't from the aorist of II conjugation verbs. In conjugation II, the personal endings are the same as in the aorist, except that the theme vowel is y, there is no distinction between the singular and plural in the second person, and the singular first person ending is -ys instead of *-ydh. The non-personal forms have their own endings.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-ezíth | acól-ys | dém-ezídh | duc-ozídh |
| s2 | khár-ezíth | acól-yr | dém-ezirth | duc-ozirth |
| s3 | khár-ezíth | acól-ýth | dém-ezíth | duc-ozíth |
| p1 | khár-ezon | acól-yst | dém-ezost | duc-ozost |
| p2 | khár-ezon | acól-yr | dém-ezor | duc-ozor |
| p3 | khár-ezon | acól-ydh | dém-ezodh | duc-ozodh |
| a | khár-ezít | acól-ist | dém-ezít | duc-ozít |
| i | khár-éizi | acól-ist | dém-ezyéi | duc-ozyéi |
| z | khár-ezael | acól-ez | dém-ezyel | duc-ozyel |
Imperfect, Perfect and Pluperfect:
The imperfect, perfect and pluperfect tenses are rather easy, since each only has one form.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| Imperfect: | khár-éa | acól-eh | dém-yega | duc-éa |
| Perfect: | khár-inde | acól-ins | dém-yende | duc-ende |
| Pluperfect: | khár-agíth | acól-ag | dém-yagíth | duc-agíth |
Using the Probabilitative:
The probabilitative works pretty much like the English indicative, but usually indicates that the speaker doesn't know of the action with absolute certainty. As mentioned above, the probabilitative is very common in written language; it's used for almost everything the speaker doesn't have first-hand knowledge of. In spoken language, it seems to have been a bit less common, but as no native speakers of classical Zanec exist, it's hard to say anything with much certainty (some more information in Using the Indicative).
In the following examples, I've underlined the verb in the probabilitative, as well as its English translation:
Ízam lep ro zídi. = They (probably) arrived during the night.
Ha xotep xazórins. = The king has (or is said to have) died (but I haven't exactly seen his dead body personally*)
Zárys starda ondrath. = I'll be there tomorrow (unless something unexpected stops me from getting there).
Notice that when talking about the future, the probabilitative future tense is almost always used (the fact that the action hasn't happened yet is an uncertainty in itself).
* If we're talking about a king that lived seven hundred years ago, then the indicative could have been used in this sentence, whether or not the speaker has seen any earthly remains, since it is certain enough that, yes, he is dead by now.
The indicative has six tenses. It lacks the future tense, as the future is considered to be something about which there can be no absolutely certain knowledge. In all conjugations except conjugation I, the endings are mostly the same as in the probabilitative. The chief difference between these two moods is that in the indicative, the vowel of the last syllable of the stem of the verb, or the first vowel of the ending (in disyllabic endings), is in the weak grade (except for the zero-person forms of conjugations III and IV). The verb demedh is slightly irregular in this respect; it has the vowel change é -> i instead of the normal é -> e. However, it has perfectly regular endings.
The only forms in which verbs of these three conjugations have endings different from those of the probabilitative are the present tense singular second person and inanimate, plus most zero-person forms.
In addition to the vowel changing, the indicative may sometimes be identified also by the fact that the stress moves to the final syllable of the verb (because of the weak vowel in the penultimate syllable; see Stress).
In conjugation I, there are - unlike in the probabilitative - some traces of personal forms. However, some forms for different persons are identical, so personal pronouns must still be used.
Present Tense:
Notice the special vowel change in the zero-person form of conjugation II: regardless of what the vowel in the last syllable of the stem of the verb normally is, it changes to the diphthong yo here.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khar-éth | acol-edh | dim-yed | doc-edh |
| s2 | khar-éi | acol-éi | dim-yéi | doc-éi |
| s3 | khar-éth | acol-éth | dim-yéth | doc-éth |
| p1 | khar-om | acol-ost | dim-yost | doc-ost |
| p2 | khar-or | acol-or | dim-yor | doc-or |
| p3 | khar-óth | acol-odh | dim-yod | doc-odh |
| a | khar-ét | acol-ét | dim-yét | doc-ét |
| i | khar-e | acol-e | dim-i | doc-e |
| z | khar-o | acyol-e | dém-i | duc-i |
Aorist:
As in the probabilitative, the endings are mostly the same as in the present tense, only with i as the theme vowel - also in conjugation I. It may be noted that once again, the plural forms of conjugation III are the same in both the present tense and aorist. This applies also to the zero-person forms of conjugations III and IV.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khar-íth | acol-idh | dim-eid | doc-idh |
| s2 | khar-ir | acol-irth | dim-eirth | doc-irth |
| s3 | khar-íth | acol-íth | dim-éith | doc-íth |
| p1 | khar-yom | acol-yost | dim-yost | doc-yost |
| p2 | khar-yor | acol-yor | dim-yor | doc-yor |
| p3 | khar-yóth | acol-yod | dim-yod | doc-yod |
| a | khar-ít | acol-ít | dim-éit | doc-ít |
| i | khar-yéi | acol-yéi | dim-yéi | doc-yéi |
| z | khar-yel | acol-yel | dém-i | duc-i |
Preterite:
Here, it must be noticed that the zero-person endings have two syllables (actually, the one in conjugation II no longer does, but it used to), and the vowel gradation therefore applies to the first syllable of the ending, not to the last one of the stem. Also, in the plural forms of conjugation II the same vowel change as in the present tense zero-person occurs.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khar-áth | acol-adh | dim-yad | doc-adh |
| s2 | khar-ar | acol-arth | dim-yarth | doc-arth |
| s3 | khar-áth | acol-áth | dim-yáth | doc-áth |
| p1 | khar-am | acyol-ast | dim-yast | doc-us |
| p2 | khar-ar | acyol-ar | dim-yar | doc-os |
| p3 | khar-áth | acyol-am | dim-yam | doc-um |
| a | khar-át | acol-át | dim-yát | doc-át |
| i | khar-a | acol-a | dim-ya | doc-a |
| z | khár-elda | acól-elt | dém-ilda | duc-alda |
Imperfect, Perfect and Pluperfect:
The same observation as in the preterite must be made: the endings have or originally have had two syllables, and therefore, the vowel gradation applies to the ending, not the stem.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| Imperfect: | khár-ea | acól-ih | dém-eiga | duc-ea |
| Perfect: | khár-ende | acól-ens | dém-inde | duc-inde |
| Pluperfect: | khár-egíth | acól-eg | dém-yegíth | duc-egíth |
Using the Indicative:
The indicative works pretty much like the probabilitative, but implies more certainty. In practice, these moods appeared to be pretty much interchangeable, actually, and different speakers might probably use different moods in the same situation. Dialect also played a role here: in some northern dialects, the probabilitative apparently pretty much took over the uses of the indicative (this, of course, is an extreme example). But, as mentioned several times above, there are no native speakers left. In written language, at least, the indicative is mostly reserved for situations where the speaker has (or claims to have) absolute certainty concerning the action (cf. Using the Probabilitative).
In the following examples, I've underlined the verb in the indicative, as well as its English translation:
Zam lep ro zídi. = They arrived during the night. (Certain fact; the speaker saw them arrive or otherwise knows that they weren't here in the evening but were in the morning.)
Xarda druni. = It's raining here (and everybody without a serious visual handicap can see that).
Chedh* concired. = I can speak. (Well duh.)
* The verb chod, "to be able (to do smth)" is irregular; though the form chedh looks like the present tense of a regular verb, it's an aorist form.
The potential has three tenses: future, present, and past. The distinctions between present tense and aorist are not upheld, nor are the ones between the various past tenses. To make things even simpler, there is only one past tense form. In addition, conjugations I, III and IV are identical in all forms except the past tense, and conjugation II isn't too wildly different.
Vowel gradation is not present; the vowel in the last syllable of the stem of the verb is in the same grade as in the infinitive (usually strong).
Present Tense:
Most forms in the potential present tense have the marker -eid-. In conjugation II, it is replaced with -y- or, when the ending after it begins with i, -e-.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-eidith | acól-eith | dém-eidith | duc-eidith |
| s2 | khár-idhreth | acól-ird | dém-idhreth | duc-idhreth |
| s3 | khár-eides | acól-yes | dém-eides | duc-eides |
| p1 | khár-eidos | acól-yos | dém-eidos | duc-eidos |
| p2 | khár-eida | acól-ya | dém-eida | duc-eida |
| p3 | khár-eidon | acól-yon | dém-eidon | duc-eidon |
| a | khár-eidi | acól-ei | dém-eidi | duc-eidi |
| i | khár-eide | acól-ye | dém-eide | duc-eide |
| z | khár-eidael | acól-idael | dém-eidael | duc-eidael |
Future Tense:
In conjugations I, III and IV, all potential future tense forms except the singular second person may be derived from the present by replacing -eid with -izd. In conjugation II, the present and future tenses are identical.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khár-izdith | acól-eith | dém-izdith | duc-izdith |
| s2 | khár-izdas | acól-ird | dém-izdas | duc-izdas |
| s3 | khár-izdes | acól-yes | dém-izdes | duc-izdes |
| p1 | khár-izdos | acól-yos | dém-izdos | duc-izdos |
| p2 | khár-izda | acól-ya | dém-izda | duc-izda |
| p3 | khár-izdon | acól-yon | dém-izdon | duc-izdon |
| a | khár-izdi | acól-ei | dém-izdi | duc-izdi |
| i | khár-izde | acól-ye | dém-izde | duc-izde |
| z | khár-izdael | acól-idael | dém-izdael | duc-izdael |
Past Tense: Nothing special here...
| I | II | III | IV | |
| Past tense: | khár-endras | acól-endras | dém-indras | duc-indras |
Using the Potential:
The potential is used when the speaker has rather great doubts concerning the action in question. In English, the same effect is often achieved by inserting words such as "may", "maybe" or "might" into the sentence.
Note to Finnish speakers: the potential isn't quite the same thing in Finnish and Zanec; rather, the Finnish potential is somewhere between the Zanec potential and probabilitative.
In the following examples, I've underlined the verbs in the potential, as well as their English translations:
Zam zendras lep ro zídi. = They may have arrived during the night (but there really is no knowledge on whether or not they're even here).
Ha mahor pleicheidi. = The sun might be shining (but since I don't get out much, I don't really know).
Tyfíreith iaro uncizab. = Maybe I will read this book, (maybe not).
For a quick comparison, look at the following sentences (sorry for yet another irregular verb; I seem to have trouble making up examples without them):
Indicative: Zagidh xyäir concirerth = I know what you're talking about (with absolute certainty).
Probabilitative: Zagadh xyäir concirerth = (I think) I know what you're talking about.*
Potential: Zageidith xyäir concirerth = I might know what you're talking about.
* This is what should usually be said, as the indicative (officially) implies absolute certainty.
The potential is also used as a conditional (see Conditional clauses under Subjunctive).
Considering endings, the desirative mood is even simpler in form than the potential. There is only one tense, which may be interpreted as present or future, depending on context (to express wishes in the past tense, one must use circumlocutions). In addition, all conjugations have the same endings. However, the endings are attached straight to the infinitive of the verb, without (as in other moods) removing the infinitive ending. The digraph dh from the infinitive of verbs of conjugation III is replaced with just d.
The only little quirk is vowel gradation. Here, it applies always to the last syllable in the stem of the verb, regardless of how many syllables there are after it.
In most forms, the basic ending is the same as in the potential, but with the marker -ár- instead of -eid- or -izd-.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| s1 | khared-rith | acoled-rith | dimed-rith | docod-rith |
| s2 | khared-áras | acoled-áras | dimed-áras | docod-áras |
| s3 | khared-áres | acoled-áres | dimed-áres | docod-áres |
| p1 | khared-áros | acoled-áros | dimed-áros | docod-áros |
| p2 | khared-ára | acoled-ára | dimed-ára | docod-ára |
| p3 | khared-áron | acoled-áron | dimed-áron | docod-áron |
| a | khared-ári | acoled-ári | dimed-ári | docod-ári |
| i | khared-éira | acoled-éira | dimed-éira | docod-éira |
| z | khared-ar | acoled-ar | dimed-ar | docod-ar |
Using the Desirative:
Simply put, the desirative is used when the speaker is expressing a wish:
Mahor plikhadári ondrath. = I hope the sun shines tomorrow.
Im kasmid xyd tofedar. = May worms eat you.
The subjunctive has two tenses. One may be interpreted as present or future depending on context, the other is a past tense. There are no personal forms. In the present/future tense, the verb has gender forms and a zero-person form; in the past tense, there is only one form.
Present/future Tense: In conjugations I, II and IV, the subjunctive present tense inanimate is formed simply by removing the -d from the infinitive. When you add -t or -l to the end of this form, you get the animate and zero-person forms, respectively. Conjugation III follows the same principle, but instead of vanishing without a trace, the digraph dh is replaced with i, and the preceding e, where possible, stays tense.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| a: | khár-et | acól-et | dém-éit | duc-ot |
| i: | khár-e | acól-e | dém-éi | duc-o |
| z: | khár-el | acól-el | dém-eil | duc-ol |
Past Tense: The past tense is formed simply with the ending -a.
| I | II | III | IV | |
| Past tense: | khár-a | acól-a | dém-a | duc-a |
Using the Subjunctive:
The subjunctive is perhaps the trickiest of Zanec's verbal moods. It's sometimes translated in to English as an indicative, sometimes as a conditional. There is no one simple rule on when to use the subjunctive. In this grammar, I haven't even tried to provide an exhaustive list of situations where it is used, just some main rules and a few examples.
There is one clear rule on when not to use the subjunctive: in main clauses. That said, it's only used in subordinate clauses. As a rule of thumb, when the main clause or the conjunction that begins the subordinate clause implies that there is something somehow uncertain or unreal about the action in question, the verb is in the subjunctive. Here are some examples of such conjunctions:
Chil epséth ro uncizab xei bela xe tyfíret tard. = I'm giving you the book so that you'd read it.
Chi dym íred ag eríxäst iforth craialéil im eréi. = You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
Tyezýth xyd imníth záret hyälam. = He'll see you unless he's blind.
Shar cázinta va drúnel, had nitsezon tuióled hyrda. = In case it rains, we'll have to stay indoors.
Sinyost xyd demedh myudaríth xe ízet dym craíth. = We'll let you go on the condition that you won't come back.
In a clause beginning with the conjunction va, "that", the subjunctive is used if the main clause contains a verb that indicates some kind of uncertainty. Again, a few examples:
Xe landres va xyr avad chot ñýled zord ram sóhon phýranq. = You're wishing that the hands of doom could take your mind away.
Spenzedh va zam ízet vedh. = I think that they've arrived already.
Teladh va tor zára bálo. = I believed that it was true.
Chil satórens va ha xotep xázet. = I heard the king has died.
Certain expressions have the same effect, although the verb itself doesn't trigger the subjunctive:
Zag chomnos va ro pamdanq záre ultim. = It's possible that the gate is open.
Acoladh ag tifec va cha vâirad. = I dreamed I could fly. (Literally: I watched a dream that I could fly.)
Notice that just like the English "that", the conjunction va may sometimes be omitted. However, in (formal) Zanec this may only be done when the verb in the subordinate clause is in the subjunctive:
Teladh tor zára bálo. = I believed it was true.
Zagyad va tor zyonya bálo. = I knew (that) it was true.
Conditional Clauses:
A special case within the field of usage of the subjunctive is conditional clauses. When the main clause has a verb in the potential and the subordinate clause begins with the conjunction ña, "if", and has a verb in the subjunctive, the sentence is interpreted as a conditional expression:
Zaret bhea xabantos, ña iáreidith iaro zígil. = He would be very powerful if he had this ring.
Ña iardet néveis, tyfíreidith ag uncizab. = If I had time, I'd write a book.
Ña zára tydim, zer respältendras dym ens ro gerenq. = If he had been wise, he wouldn't have spat at the dragon.
Notice that Zanec has, in addition to ña, another conjunction which also translates as "if": un. The difference is that the former is used in conditional expressions, the latter otherwise. Where a ña-clause would use the subjunctive, an un-clause will normally use the potential (or occasionally probabilitative; however, never the indicative). Compare:
Ña zára starda, zagidhreth xyäir conciredh. = If you had been there, you'd know what I'm talking about.
Un zárendras starda, zagidhreth xyäir conciredh. = If you were/have been there, you might know what I'm talking about.
The subjunctive may occasionally be translated with the conditional even when it's not in a ña-clause, as I've already done in, for instance, the example sentence "You're wishing that the hands of doom could take your mind away". This is typical in va-clauses when the main clause has a verb that expresses wishing or wanting (usually landred). If we wanted a sentence that would translate into "You're wishing that the hands of doom can take your mind away" (same but with an indicative), we would need to use the potential instead of the subjunctive. In other words, the subjunctive in this kind of sentence implies that the action described by the verb is not reality; the potential indicates that the it may or may not be. For example:
Chil lendris va iare záret ag téfec. = I wish this were* a dream (but clearly it isn't).
Chil lendris va iare záreide ag téfec. = I wish this is a dream (and I'm not sure if it is or not).
* "Were" isn't exactly a conditional form (I'm not sure, but I think I've seen it described as, well damn, a subjunctive), but the meaning is the same.
I'm too lazy to explain what the future tense is for; it should be self-explanatory enough. However, the other tenses may require a bit of explanation.
Present Tense and Aorist First of all, notice that the aorist is not the same thing in Zanec and ancient Greek. I've had this tense from a very early stage in Zanec, but for a long time, I could find no good name for it. Then I discovered Helge Fauskanger's Ardalambion (a site that concentrates on languages invented by J.R.R. Tolkien), and found out that what in Quenya is called the aorist is close enough to this particular Zanec tense. So I stole the term.
As its Quenya equivalent, the Zanec aorist is usually translated with the English present tense, and is used for things that, as Fauskanger puts it, "transcend time and place", ie. general truths, actions without a clear beginning and/or end, (relatively) unchanging qualities. In the following examples, I've underlined the verb in the aorist, as well as its English translation:
Chedh concíred. = I can speak.
Zarít hílix. = He is tall.
Kasmi tofít promin. = Worms eat dirt.
Xarda druni uóla. = It often rains here.
The present tense, on the other hand, emphasizes that the action is happening right now. It is often translated with the English "to be + ...ing" construction.
Conciredh. = I'm speaking.
Ha kasmi tofét promin. = The worm is eating dirt.
Where English uses this construction, Zanec almost universally uses the present tense. Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work the other way: the simple present tense in English isn't a certain guarantee of the aorist in Zanec. As a rough guideline it does work (using the aorist where English would use the simple present tense, that is), but pay special attention to "sense verbs" (to see, to hear, etc.), and verbs like "to know" and "to understand". English often seems to avoid constructions like "I am knowing where he is", using "I know where he is", but since this is an action that clearly takes place right now (and probably won't bee too relevant for very long, as "he" might be somewhere totally else an hour from now), Zanec uses the present tense: Zagadh xirda xeth. Similarly:
Chil vyéihes xyäi ducerth. = I understand what you're saying.
Satóredh xyd fenq xedh dym xyd. = I hear you, but I don't see you.
Actually, the last sentence is a bit ambiguious in English; it could also be interpreted as the general state of things (because, say, the speaker is blind but not deaf). In such a situation, Zanec would of course use the aorist: Satóridh xyd fenq xidh dym xyd. There is, however, one verb that has this ambiguity also in Zanec: chod, "to be able (to do smth)". It's present tense and aorist are identical. The sentence "Chedh satóred xyd fenq chedh dym tyed xyd" translates into "I can see you but I can't hear you", and it may mean the state of things either right now or generally.
This is a rather complicated matter, and I can't really discuss it fully in this kind of short grammar sketch (nor would anybody have the time or interest to read all of it). But basically, use the present tense when you want to emphasize that the action is happening right now, and the aorist when the exact time or duration of the action isn't all that relevant - bearing in mind that it must translate into English as the present tense - and you won't go too far wrong.
Past Tenses In moods that only have one past tense, using it is pretty simple: use it whenever the action has happened in the past. However, the probabilitative and indicative both have four past tenses, and that may cause some trouble - especially since I've used familiar terminology in a weird way :p. Only the pluperfect (or past anterior, as it may also be called) works like it does in European languages: it is used when talking about the past and referring to something that had happened even earlier. It is rather safe to use it simply wherever English would use the pluperfect.
Ia zádh starith, hem smonq zordegíth vedh. = When I came there, the others had left already.
Záregíth khoilinq zídi, fenq ast ha mahor plikha. = It had been a dark night, but now the sun was shining.
No such promises can be made concerning the perfect, and especially not the imperfect. The latter is pretty much always translated with the English perfect, not the imperfect. It is used for continuous or habitual actions that have started happening and are still in progress:
Ha mahor pleichea shoi uarath. = The sun has been shining all day (and still is).
Had concírih curathir. = We have talked about things (and probably will continue to do so in the future).
The Zanec perfect tense, of course, can never be used in this kind of sentence. It is used to express that the action has happened, period.
Had concírens curathir. = We have talked about things (no comments on when or how many times that happened, or whether or not it will happen again).
It may also be used to express that something has been completed:
Chil concírens. = I have spoken.
Ha pamdanq béñens ia. = The gate has been closed.
However, it's important to notice that the perfect may only be used when the specific time of the action is not mentioned. In that respect, it resembles the aorist (and indeed, from what little I know of ancient Greek, it seems that the Zanec perfect tense is, in some ways at least, rather close to the ancient Greek aorist).
If the time and/or duration of the action is considered relevant, the preterite must be used.
Ha pamdanq beña ia ag pheys unis. = The gate was closed an hour ago.
Ha mahor plikha shoi uarath. = The sun shone all day.
The relation between the preterite and perfect is rather similar to the one between the present tense and aorist, respectively: use the former when you consider the specific time/duration of the action important, the latter otherwise. Another guideline may be that where English uses the perfect, so does Zanec (except for the cases where the imperfect must be used; see above), and where English uses past tense, Zanec uses the preterite. This isn't quite as foolproof, though.
The preterite, anyway, is perhaps the "basic" past tense of Zanec. It is used, as mentioned above, when the time and/or duration of the action is relevant, which is in practice pretty often. If there is any kind of adverb or other expression of time in the sentence (as in the examples above), the preterite must be used. It is also used as the "storytelling" form; it answers the question "What happened (next)?"
Shanq creitod shar stomsid fupát elt hobit. = In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.*
Fýros docát: "Zar cidit!" Fi zyonát cidit. = God said "Let there be light!". And there was light.
* In works of fiction, using the probabilitative as the mood of storytelling is considered good style; thus fupát instead of fopát.
The most common word orders are SVO and OVS. However, word order is relatively free, as long as the verb isn't the first element in a sentence. Of course, when the verb is in a personal form (see Verbs), the subject is "included" in the verb, and thus, SVO becomes just VO (ie. the verb can be the first element in a sentence if it's in a personal form).
Otherwise, verb-initial sentences have special meanings. The simplest of these is interrogative; when the verb in such a sentence is in the potential mood (underlined in the following examples), the sentence is interpreted as a question:
Bréyri, blisteide iaro smolt iot Rama? = Excuse me, does this road lead to Rome?
Záridael elt alkáien shar estid? = Is there a doctor in the hall?
Notice that in questions, verbs can never be in personal forms. Instead, if the subject is a personal pronoun, it is placed after the verb (it cannot be omitted), and the verb is in the animate form.
Concírei xe zanechi? = Do you speak Zanec?
This section, as the title suggests, covers the basics of Zanec syntax. There are numerous exceptions to the following rules, some (but not all) of which will be covered in following sections.
Zanec is, basically, an ergative/absolutive language, which means that the subject of an intransitive clause and the object of a transitive clause are in the same case, the ergative, while the subject of a transitive clause is in the absolutive (in the following examples, this color coding has been used for the nouns in Zanec and their English translations; in addition, the subject has been underlined):
Ha hyuzáin bét. = The soldier is watching.
Ha hyuzáinon be ro pamdanq. = The guard is watching the gate.
Notice that verbs agree with the noun in the ergative, regardless of whether the noun is the subject or the object. Another way to look at things is to interpret the noun in the ergative always as the subject of the sentence, and translate transitive clauses with the passive voice (however, the meaning is closer to the active):
Ha bainon be ro pamdanq. = The gate is being watched by the guard.
Sentences with Personal Pronouns
As described in their respective section, the personal pronouns of Zanec don't quite have the same cases as the nouns. Thus, one major exception to the erg./abs. system are sentences that have a personal pronoun as either the subject or the object.
When the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, it's either in the subject form or omitted and implied by the form of the verb. In any case, the verb is in the respective personal form. If the sentence is transitive, the object is in the accusative (or partitive; see The Case of the Object):
(Chil) xedh. = I see.
(Chil) xedh xazenq tsei. = I see dead people.
When the pronoun is the object, it's in the - surprise - object form. The verb is in the zero-person form, and the subject usually either in the absolutive or instrumental (the former was considered better style, but the latter was probably more common in actual speech in many dialects):
Im kasmim/kasmid xyd tofedar. = May worms eat you.
When both the subject and object are personal pronouns, matters are rather simple: the subject is in the subject form (or omitted), the verb agrees with the subject as normal, and the object is in the object form:
(Zam) tyezodh chit. = They'll see me.
The object of a sentence in Zanec may be in one of three different cases, namely ergative, accusative or partitive. The ergative and accusative have mostly been covered in previous sections already; the ergative is the "basic" case of the object, and the accusative is used when the subject is a personal pronoun.
Accusative:
The above is a bit of an oversimplification, as the verb of the sentence also plays a role in which case to choose. For example, there is a group of verbs that always cause the object to be in the accusative, regardless of what the subject is. The verb and subject are usually inflected like in sentences that have a personal pronoun as the object (see previous section). Verbs belonging to this group include kazed, "to kill" and rezeted, "to curse". In the following examples, the noun in the accusative has been underlined, as well as its English translation:
Hyuzan/hyuzid kazyel im tsei. = Wars kill people.
Rezetedh iaro ueráth. = I curse this day.
A few verbs that cause the object to be in the accusative also cause the subject to be in the nominative (color coding in the following example), and in such a case, Zanec works like a nom./acc. language, ie. the verb agrees with the subject. For example, bisted, "to love".
Hem fýros bistít hem ielva ia. = The gods love their children.
Partitive:
Another group of verbs causes the object to be in the partitive. These sentences work exactly like ones with an object in the ergative; the verb agrees with the object, and the subject is in the absolutive. Also when the subject is a personal pronoun, normal rules apply, but now the accusative is the case that's replaced by the partitive. For example, acóled, "to look, to watch" (the noun in the partitive has been underlined, as well as its English translation):
Ha rarthon acole ro káxelti. = The boy is watching the rock.
(Chil) acoledh ro káxelti. = I'm watching the rock.
Often, the subject may be in either the partitive or the ergative. In these cases, the partitive is used to show that the action described by the verb wasn't or will not be completed, ie. imperfective aspect. The ergative (or accusative) is used for, you guessed it, perfective aspect. Compare (the underlined Zanec noun is in whatever case is written in bold before the example):
Partitive: Ha rarthon tyfira ag uncezabi hagrath. = The boy was reading a book yesterday (but did not finish).
Ergative: Ha rarthon tyfira ag uncezab hagrath. = The boy read a book yesterday (and did finish).
As always, when the subject is a personal pronoun, the ergative is replaced by the accusative (but the partitive isn't):
Partitive: (Chil) tyfírys ag uncezabi ondrath. = I will be reading a book tomorrow (but won't finish).
Accusative: (Chil) tyfírys ag uncizab ondrath. = I will read a book tomorrow (and finish).
The ergative may also be replaced with the accusative to show the distinction better if the partitive and ergative are identical, as with the noun kasmi, "worm" (both the ergative and partitive forms being kasmi). In such situations, the rest of the sentence functions as if the object was a personal pronoun (see above):
Partitive: Elt kasmi tofát elt lapson. = A fish was eating a worm (but left some).
Accusative: Elt cesmi tufelda elt lapson/lapsid. = A fish ate (up) a (full) worm.
You may have noticed that I have only spoken of the past and future until now (and although I've only used the preterite when speaking of the past, rest assured that the same rules apply to the other past tenses as well; of course there are no separate personal forms or a zero-person form for the verb, but the subject and object function exactly as they do with other tenses). The contrast between ergative and partitive does not apply in the present tense or aorist; instead, the object is always in the partitive:
Tyfiredh ag uncezabi = I am reading a book.
What I have written here are the basics of using the partitive in Zanec, and by no means an exhaustive explanation. However, Finnish speakers at least should note that using the partitive in Zanec is more restricted than in Finnish. In Zanec, only a certain group of verbs ever causes the object to be in the partitive; many verbs that usually cause the object to be in the partitive in Finnish may cause it to be in the ergative or accusative in Zanec. However, it is not possible for me to provide a verb-by-verb listing at the moment (nor would anybody want to read such a thing).
Ergative:
The "basic" form of the noun. The subject of an intransitive clause and the object of a transitive one are usually in the ergative. For more information, see previous sections.
Absolutive:
The subject of a transitive clause is usually in the absolutive. See previous sections.
Nominative:
The nominative is used as the case of the subject with certain verbs that cause the object to be in the accusative; see Accusative under The Case of the Object. It may also be used as a vocative, or an emphatic form in places where the noun would normally be in the ergative. Also, a number of prepositions require the noun to be in the nominative; the most important is blo, which, when combined with the nominative, has a benefactive meaning (cf. Accusative below):
Parstei! Blo ha xatep! = Attack! For the king!
Accusative:
Used as the case of the object when the subject is a personal pronoun, and also with certain verbs (see previous sections). Also used with a number of prepositions, most importantly blo and iod. The blo + acc. construction is used for indirect objects (dative); iod + acc. indicates target (of movement etc.).
Ep xyr blazad blo ha bezin. = Give your sword to the guard.
Fi iot khoilemin tsóured zad. = And into darkness bind them.
Partitive:
See Partitive under The Case of the Object.
Instrumental:
As described above, the instrumental may sometimes be used as the case of the subject of a transitive clause. However, its main usage is indicating the, roughly put, "instrument" with which something is done (usually corresponds to the preposition "with" in English, however, not in the sense of "accompanied by"):
Chil kazáth ha gerenq chir blázadid. = I killed the dragon with my sword.
Mir thoimintid. = Handle with care.
The instrumental is also used with a number of prepositions, the most important being a, "with" (now in the sense of "accompanied by") and shanq, which has a locative meaning.
Izáth a er hyuzáiníth. = He came with two soldiers.
Shanq creitod shar stomsid fupát elt hobit. = In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
Genitive:
The genitive pretty closely corresponds to the English clitic "'s" and preposition "of":
Ha rarthir ha ochum = The boy's father
Ha xotepir ram est = The halls of the king
Notice that in Zanec, articles aren't omitted just because the noun is possessed by something. The "possessed" noun usually has the definite article, but the indefinite is also possible:
Ha xotepir ag est = A hall of the king's / One of the king's halls
There are certain limitations to using the genitive; see Possessive below.
In addition to its basic meaning, the genitive is also used with certain prepositions, the most important being ieg, "from".
Izáth ier Zanechir. = He/she came from Zanec.
Possessive:
In meaning, the possessive is identical to the Genitive, but in usage, they differ a bit. First of all, when using the genitive, the possessor is placed before the possessed (ha rarthir ha ochum), but with the possessive, vice versa (ha ochum ha rarthyan).
Another difference is where to use which case. The genitive was clearly the basic case of these two. However, it could never be used when the possessed noun was preceded by a preposition. Thus:
Iath est ha xotepyan = Into the halls of the king
In written language, it was also considered good style to use the possessive when the possessed was preceded by an adjective:
Zúner est ha xotepyan = The golden halls of the king
However, saying ha xotepir zúner est isn't wrong, either, and was probably the norm in colloquial speech.
Otherwise, the possessive mainly belongs to archaic style.