MEK

[johnbent]

MEK created by johnbent@gmail.com on 2017-01-22 13:58:50

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

This is a thread for everyone of course but I think especially we need input from our linguists.

We have a few example sentences using the word MEK:

Diak mek tanom er kau e moutekangel el okerdak? Can I request that you please drop me off?

Here's the explanation of this word in a different thread from Jelga:

I think "me" comes from "mei" and the "k" is the sound added to most words spoken by first person, sometimes added to the verb that follows, but at times it would be kind of weird to do so because it changes the verb. Ex: Mei ek sendii a bdelum versus Mei e ksendii a bdelum. Let me brush your hair. And it could also be: Mek sendii a bedlam.

Is this a proper Palauan word that should be added to the dictionary? If so, how? Perhaps as a contraction of 'mei k' or something? What part of speech is it?

[johnbent]

jimgeselbracht@yahoo.com replied,

I'm not a linquist, but here are my two cents:  me + ak = mek (and I ...) much like me + ng = meng (and it ... ), and le + ak = lek (because I ...) and le + ng = leng (because he ...) example usage:  Ng kaeri ra Asahi-maru mek bor Ngeaur = The ship Asahi-maru returns and I go to Ngeaur

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

Yeah except ME AK gets turned into MAK not MEK. So this must not be the full-fledged AK but rather just the single K used in hypothetical situations like:

Se el kbora Oreor. When I go to Koror.

Is this correct Josephs grammar/spelling? I think we discussed this before and I said that typically the K sound goes on the proceeding word so it sounds like:

Selk bora Oreor.

But Aleks reminded us that Josephs spells it by putting it onto the following word. Yes, Aleks?

So maybe even though it sounds like MEK SENGDII A BDELUM, according to Josephs, we should spell it ME KSENGDII....

And it's hypothetical because Lukes' sentences seems like questions so it's literally something like, "If you allow me, then I'll (hypothetically) comb your hair."

I'll bet this is actually what's going on. Thoughts?

John

[johnbent]

palau371@gmail.com replied,

if it's contraction of conjunction ME "and" and hypothetical prefix "K" we should have A inbetween... 

i'm sure that ME isn't from MEI - in this case BE should more correct. i think we need to listen how this MEK is pronounced. 

if it were: ME + AK so the verb should be SONGDII, if we have as verb SENGDII, we should have ME + A + K(-sengdii). 

the John's question isn't trivial, but really difficult to answer... I hope Justin can make it clear.

now i think that it's variant of MAK (me + ak) with vowel reduction both in contraction and in verb.

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

Hey guys,

Interesting one!  I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to an answer, but I agree with Aleks's points below:

(1) If this is an imperative, shouldn't it be BE K-SENGDII?  (Like BE MTUU)

(2) If MEK = ME + AK, then the verb should be SONGDII and not SENGDII, right?

(3) If MEK = ME + K and the verb is SENGDII, then depending on the larger context we should possibly see A between ME and KSENGDII.

My questions for the native Palauan speakers would be:

 - Is MEK SENGDII A BDELUM a complete sentence?

 - Is the sentence totally correct?  (If it's wrong, how would you fix it?)

 - What exactly does it mean (word by word)?

 - Is there any other way to express the same meaning (using a different kind of sentence)?  [That could help us unlock this one.]

-Justin

P.S. This is my first post here!  I apologize that I haven't had time to follow every thread, but I saw my name on this one and wanted to reply.  If you want to ask me anything, of course feel free to email me at kindofawesome@gmail.com to get my attention more quickly...  I'm happy to try to help if I can.

[johnbent]

jlukesemiwo@gmail.com replied,

Justin, it is a sentence used all the time. Or at least the word "mek" is commonly used. It's usually used by a person who is offering, requesting, asking, suggesting, demanding, etc, to do something and hence always followed by an action, such as "Mek sengdii." Then there are others:

Mek rellii - let me fix it Mek lechesii - let me write it Al chetim e beskak mek ngilmii - If you don't want it, give it to me and I'll drink it. A lak el sebechem e mouchais mek sikii a sebechel - If you can't, let me know and I'll find someone who does.

Notice, the conversation is between A and B. So I think it's the "k" that appears in words and sentences that are indicative of first person. Ex: (n) kelek - my food versus kelem-your food. And, mlik-mlim and so on. Then there are action words, or verbs: krurt - mrurt, kulekoi-molekoi and so on.

[johnbent]

mngiruchelbad@gmail.com replied,

Kau mei ek sengdii a bdelum.(written) Kamei mek sengdi a bdelum(verbal) (quick reference) Mek sengdii a bdelum.

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

Thanks to both of you -- this is really helpful.  Looking at the new sentences above, it looks like the "me" in MEK is indeed the same "me" that means "and" or "so" and that the verb that comes after it does not get one of its usual verbalizer prefixes/infixes (maybe because it's an irrealis form, or "hypothetical" in Josephs's terminology).  If so, do you also see forms like "MELE" in sentences like the one below?

"A lechetim e besa me lengilmii."  (using Josephs's orthography instead of MELE NGILMII to mean "If you don't like it, give it to him/her and he/she will drink it.")

If this is on the right track, the usage reminds me of the subjunctive in French used in sentences like: "Que tu sois capable!" (Literally "That you be capable!" but actually used to mean something like, "let's hope you're able (to do it).")

[johnbent]

jlukesemiwo@gmail.com replied,

Yes to "mele" if it's him/her and it would be "mede" if it's us.

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

Awesome -- I think that solves it then.  I agree now with the other users above that the ME in MEK is "me" meaning "and/so/so that" and not "me(i)" meaning "come."  And the K is the irrealis (again, "hypothetical" in Josephs's terms) subject prefix "k-" -- thanks guys!

I guess this construction doesn't require what I call a "verbalizer" (and Josephs calls the "verb marker") -o-/-u-/-m-, which Aleks expected to see in SONGDII (which if we understand correctly now is supposed to be SENGDII in this construction).  As far as I know, this is not discussed anywhere in the linguistics literature.  Cool stuff.  :)

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

Two points.

A. Justin, thank you for your kind offer that we can email you at your personal address if we have any questions! Except, I kindly request that if anyone has questions for Justin that they instead email our list (missing@tekinged.com) and just start the email with 'Hey Justin.' That way we can all benefit from the conversation and any lessons will make it to tekinged to benefit the masses. Justin, that ok with you?

A. So we solved it but what should I put in the dictionary?

Thx

John

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

Yeah no worries at all -- I just meant an email like: "Hey can you look at this thing on Debugle" is totally fine if I don't see or reply to a message; not that the exchange would have to be over email.  :)

I don't think you need to add anything to the dictionary because you have it already.  This is a construction formed with me "and" and then a subjunctive-like irrealis verb form, which begins with the irrealis subject agreement prefixes k-, le-, etc.  If anything, it deserves some mention in a grammar, but we don't have a grammar wiki or anything, do we?

[johnbent]

palau371@gmail.com replied,

Justin, don't you think that it looks like imperative (or propositive) for 1st person singular? some languages (e.g. Turkish) have that form:

geleyim mi? "should I come", or

alayim mi! "let me take!" etc. 

1. Imperative doesn't require any conjunction. 2. We have palauan propositive forms for 1.pl.incl. like:

dorael! let's go!

dekaingeseu! let's help each to other! etc. 

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

In terms of adding to dictionary, is the correct spelling 'mek sengdii' or 'me ksengdii'? Or, do we get to choose? If we get to choose, I propose we use 'mek sengdii' for three reasons:

1. It is how it sounds.

2. It is how the native speakers think of it.

3. It makes it easier to add as a word to the dictionary.

If the spelling is 'mek' then I definitely want to add it to the dictionary because I want people to be able to translate sentences that they find in text or in oral conversation. And we should add 'mele' and 'mede' too. If the spelling is 'me ksengdii' then I'd still be tempted to add it as a contraction of 'me k-'. What I don't know is what part of speech to label it as.

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

In terms of a grammar wiki, we don't have one. Maybe we should. Under the 'Dosuub' tab, we have a few pages that have a bit of grammar.

I sometimes like to imagine that one day I'll write a book called 'Palauan as a Second Language' which will basically be a grammar book for non-linguists as well as a collection of common phrases and some example dialogs. But realistically that day is many years away only after job slows down and kids are no longer willing to hang out with me no matter how hard I beg.

Any suggestions about how we could create a useful grammar wiki? Just have a wiki and allow anyone to edit whenever? Good idea except I doubt anyone will ever use it.

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

Jelga (and all),

So we have 'mek' and 'mele' and 'mede' so far. Is there also 'meki' and 'mete'? And 'meme' probably doesn't exist because it's really abstract like you're talking to someone about their clone or something and using 2nd person to refer to their clone.

[johnbent]

palau371@gmail.com replied,

Josephs' orthographic rules are officially adopted, so MEK is misspelling. why Josephs decided to write it separately (ME K-, ME LE- etc.)?

1) because K-, LE-, DE- etc. are prefixes of verbs and predicates in irrealis;

2) because conjunctions (as ME) may not accept suffixes, i.e. they are an uninflectable part of speech;

3) we can say those examples without ME, so will Palauans write K in these cases separately or attach it to verb?

John, if your desire to add MEK is very large, i propose to add it as contraction of ME (conj.) with pos "cont."

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

Oh, I thought that since Justin said that this is not yet described in the linguistic literature that it meant it is a new grammatical construction and that therefore we have leeway to define it however we want. But now I see that Justin also said it should be 'A lechetim e besa me lengilmii.'

So I guess this ends up being close to what I originally said which is that this is very similar to:

• se el kbo er a Oreor which might sound more like:
• selk bora Oreor.

So I guess now I'm thinking we shouldn't add it but I feel bad for poor unfortunate souls who encounter this word and can't find it in tekinged. Heck, I'm the one who started this dictionary in the first place and I couldn't figure out 'ngoisechii' today....

[johnbent]

palau371@gmail.com replied,

we can add as a CONT (contraction) and mark that it's not correct but often used spelling. 

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

My view: It depends on whether you want to recognize the work people have already put in to try to standardize the written form of the language (I think Palauan and Chamorro are the two languages in the Micronesia that have the most impressive body of work done on standardization over the last few decades), or whether you want to set that work aside and try to do it a different way.

Everyone knows that no standard in any language is going to be (or has ever been) totally perfect, but when people can agree on an imperfect standard then it makes communication/comprehension much easier.  Since the Palauan government has recognized the Josephs orthography as the standard---and any government recognizing any standard is a terrific step towards language preservation--- I think it can only help future generations to try to stick to that as much as possible rather than deviating from it.

In this particular case, I think that recognizing mek as a "standardized" word will only cause confusion for people in the future (as it did for us yesterday) since this is really just a pronunciation issue (contraction) to optimize syllable formation.  [That being said, a note like Aleks suggested which lists it as a contraction so people can recognize it in speech is no problem of course.]

By the way, Palauan is not alone in dealing with these types of issues...  Other languages have the same types of issues where pronunciation doesn't always indicate word boundaries: in French you pronounce "lay Zalps" but write les alpes to mean "the alps" because the Z sound is really a part of the plural agreement on the article les and not the noun alpes.  Similarly here, the k- in MEK has nothing to do with the word me, but is rather the subject agreement marker for the following verb.  So I'd vote to stick with Josephs on this one.  ;)

[johnbent]

misc@leitmotiv.org replied,

Re: Aleks on the Turkish correlates, I wasn't familiar with that construction, but yeah, it looks kind of similar as well!

[johnbent]

johnbent@gmail.com replied,

Absolutely agree that we shouldn't deviate from the standard. I just thought (incorrectly) that this was a new case not yet defined by the standard thereby allowing us freedom.