Ælis/Topicalisation

Ælis has a high rate of topicalisation, also called topic marking or in this case function marking. What this means is that each word in a sentence is preceded by a root word which denotes the word's semantical function in the sentence. In essence, the function marking system in Ælis is equivalent to languages that use a case system, where every syntactical argument informs about its function through morphological marking. The paradigm in Ælis is thoroughly applied to every single word, so that it allows not only elliptic omission of any word without the syntax crumbling, but also any word order (with exception of the free functions, explained below). There are 8 functions in Ælis, divided into three categories. Fasten your seatbelt and assume brace position.

Primary functions
Primary functions divide sentences into the equivalent of constituents (noun phrase, verb phrase, adverbial phrase, etc.). It is important to note that since words can theoretically have infinite length, the primary function markers serve as a means of determining where one word ends and the next one begins. So, the definition of a 'word' in Ælis is: the cluster of root words that accompanies one and the same function. In other words, wherever there is a primary function marker, all of the following root words are part of the same word until the next primary function marker. Keep this in mind when reading this text. Ælis has 4 primary functions.

Topic

 * → Corresponding morpheme: hA [ha].

The topic describes an action or state. In full sentences, it will often be translated with a verb, though the topic itself has no form of conjugation, tense or mood. In essence, the topic is always essive. This means that the topic should be interpreted as a noun phrase that starts with 'there is', 'there are'. E.g.:

[ ha doe]
 * hA dOE
 * (TOPfire)
 * => to burn / there is (a) fire.

Patient

 * → Corresponding morpheme: iA [ia].

The patient is the syntactical object that is affected by the topic. It has no active participation in the process expressed by the topic. It will generally translate to an (in)direct object or prepositional object whenever the topic expresses an action, or the subject if the topic describes a (passive) state. E.g.:

[ ia 'anoæara hadoe]
 * iA aNoW0rAhAdOE
 * (PAThouse TOPfire)
 * => the house burns / the house is on fire.

Agent

 * → Corresponding morpheme: lA [la].

The agent is the syntactical object that initiates the topic. The appearance of an agent usually turns sentences into (transitive) actions. E.g.: [ la æma ia'anoæara hadoe]
 * lA 1mAiAaNoW0rAhAdOE
 * (AGme PAThouse TOPfire)
 * => I set fire to the house.

Modifier

 * → Corresponding morpheme: iR [ir].

A modifier adds information to a sentence which cannot be covered by one of the previous functions. It is safe to say that a modifier corresponds to an adverbial constituent: time, place, manner, cause, etc. It is important to know that modifiers harbour the key to expressing time tenses, since this cannot be done through verb conjugation. E.g.:

[ ir asdaira laæma ia'anoæara hadoe]
 * iR aSdA3rAlA1mAiAaNoW0rAhAdOE
 * (MODfuture AGme PAThouse TOPfire)
 * => I will set fire to the house.

Subordinate functions
Subordinate functions do not mark different phrases, but instead provide additional information to one specific argument. Therefore, the subordinate function markers are always directly preceded by a primary function marker. There are 2 subordinate functions.

Characteristic

 * → Corresponding morpheme: eM [em].

A characteristic provides additional information of a specific syntactical argument. It is in some way comparable to a modifier. But, as mentioned before, a characteristic is related to a specific argument in the sentence, not the sentence as a whole. A characteristic will generally translate to an adjective component, which can contain information about size, shape, age, a visual feature, or much more. E.g.: [irasdaira laæma ia'anoæara iaem veora hadoe]
 * iRaSdA3rAlA1mAiAaNoW0rA iAeM vE4rAhAdOE
 * (MODfuture AGme PAThouse PAT-CHARpreciousness TOPfire)
 * "In the future I initiate the fire that is happening to the house which is precious"
 * => I will set fire to the precious house.

Referent

 * → Corresponding morpheme: vW [væ].

The referent is a syntactical element that places an argument in a semantical relation to something else. The referent is possibly the least plausible function for Western learners, as it corresponds to seemingly irrelevant structures. Therefore, it is easiest to analytically translate it as "when compared to X". The referent can express a comparative or superlative structure (e.g.: I am big, when compared to you --> "I am bigger than you"); it can express a relative indication in time or space (e.g.: in the front, when compared to me --> "in front of me"); but it can also simply express a possessive pronoun (when compared to me, the father --> "my father"). E.g.:

[irasdaira laæma ia'anoæara iaemveora iavæ ema hadoe]
 * iRaSdA3rAlA1mAiAaNoW0rAiAeMvE4rA iAvW 2mAhAdOE
 * (MODfuture AGme PAThouse PAT-CHARpreciousness PAT-REFyou TOPfire)
 * "In the future I initiate the fire that is happening to, when compared to you, the house, which is precious"
 * => I will set fire to that precious house of yours.

Free functions
The free functions aren't a part of the hieratic relationship between the primary and subordinate functions. They are free (hence the name). There are 2 free functions.

Sentence bracket

 * → Corresponding morphemes: lW [læ] + iW [iæ].

The sentence bracket is a set of two morphemes that allow subordinate clauses to be constructed within the main clause. The opening bracket 'læ' is comparable to the relative pronouns 'that' and 'which', and the closing bracket 'iæ' is used to mark the end of the subclause. The entire sentence bracket will be subordinate to the root word to which it is suffixed, and (since otherwise it would become superfluous), the sentence bracket will in turn contain primary and/or subordinate functions itself. This is the only function that governs and is governed at the same time. E.g.: [irasdaira laæma ia'anoæara iaemveora iavæ'ema iaem læ la'ema haeleanaora iæ hadoe]
 * iRaSdA3rAlA1mAiAaNoW4rAiAeMvE4rAiAvW2mAiAem lW lA2mAhAeLeAnA4rA iW hAdOE

The subordinate sentence translates to "you love". It is a characteristic of the patient, the 'house'. Therefore: 'the house that you love':


 * (MODfuture AGme PAThouse PAT-CHARpreciousness PAT-CHAR- BRACKET.OPEN(AGyou TOPmuch-love BRACKET.CLOSE) TOPfire)
 * "In the future I initiate the fire that is happening to, when compared to you, the house that you love, which is precious"
 * ==> I will set fire to the precious house of yours that you care for so deeply.

Sentence breaker

 * → Corresponding morpheme: tA [ta].

The final function is the sentence breaker. Is is a fairly important function that makes up for both the absence of punctuation, and the language's asyndetic tendency (which is a fancy way of saying that there is no word for the conjunction and). The sentence breaker morpheme can be placed between two sentences with the same effect as a comma or full stop, but it can also appear within sentences to create the following effect: [laæma haen laSem haer]
 * lA1mAhAeNlAksEMKhAeR
 * (AG me TOPvision AGSam TOPhearing)
 * => Sam and I are looking and listening.

[laæma haen  ta laSem haer]
 * lA1mAhAeN tA lAksEMKhAeR
 * (AG me TOPvision (sent.br.) AGSam TOPhearing)
 * => I am looking and Sam is listening.

Conciseness
While the function marking system allows unambiguous sentences to be created, it also produces large and heavy sentences. Therefore, discourse always aims to be as concise as possible.

Omission of functions
While SVO languages usually do not allow the subject or verb to be omitted, Ælis' active-stative morphosyntactic alignment in combination with the function marking system allow omission of any function, without the syntax crumbling. If in a conversation the same things are discussed over a span of several sentences, addressees may assume that omitted words/functions remain the same as in the previous sentence(s) unless otherwise specified. Elliptical omission of this type can strongly cut the length and weight of sentences. A clarifying example:


 * Person A: iRaSdA1rAlA1mAiAaNoW0rAiAvW2tE
 * [irasda'æra laæma ianoæara iavæ'ete]
 * (MODpast AGme PAThouse PAT-REFyou)

This sentence doesn't contain a topic, so it doesn't explicitly express an action.
 * ==> "I (did something) to your house."


 * Person B: hAnE
 * [hane]
 * (TOPquestion)

Person B asks A to specify a topic.
 * ==> "What (did you do to it)?"


 * Person A: hAdOE
 * [hadoe]
 * (TOPfire)

Person A specifies a topic.
 * ==> "I set fire to it."


 * Person B: iRaRnE
 * [irarne]
 * (MODreason-question)

Person B asks A to specify a modifier of causality.
 * ==> "Why (did you do that)?"


 * Person A: iRaReleAnA0rA
 * [irareleana'ara]
 * (MODreason-hate)

''Person A specifies a modifier of causality. He doesn't specify who hates whom, but the context provides a plausible option.''
 * ==> "(I did it) because I hate you."

Note that A's first reply ([hadoe]) is the exact same formulation as the very first example sentence of this page, which meant "There is a fire". Only now, the implied meaning is completely altered by the context.

If a speaker wishes to start talking about something completely different, and the other speaker has a reason to falsely suppose a coherence between the two sentences, in spite of the eventual use of a sentence breaker [ta], they can use the formula iRrW2rA [irræ'era], which would literally mean "irrelevantly", or something along the lines of by the way or on a side-related note.

Omission of function markers
There are some cases where the function markers themselves may be omitted completely. This is the case with short, generic formulations such as thanks or you're welcome, as such utterances appear frequent and are generally unambiguous. For example: while the sentence hAgI4rAlA1tEiA2tE [hagiora laæte iaete] (for you there is total gratitude on my behalf) would be the formal way of thanking someone, colloquial speech will generally abbreviate this to simply gI3rA [gi'ira] (a lot of gratitude) or gI4rA [giora] (total gratitude). Similar expressions without function markers include:
 * nWnA4rA [nænaora] or nA4rA [naora] (Hello/Goodbye)
 * nWnE [næne] (What's up?)
 * dI3rA [di'ira] (You're welcome)
 * iSnE [isne] (What's next?)
 * rEAnE [reane] (What's (your) name?)
 * kmERIK [rea'meri] ((My name is) Mary)

Smart function attribution
The power of the function marking system is vested in its flexibility. Although each function plays a delineated role in syntax, many situations allow various attributions of function markers while still expressing the same thing. For example, the sentence "There are men here" can be translated with up to five different function combinations:

A possible trap for Ælis learners is thinking that certain word classes (nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) always have the same corresponding function marker. As the table above illustrates, this is clearly not the case. Whenever more than one possible translation presents itself, discourse will prefer the most concise formulation over a longer one. Consider the following sentences:
 * hArEAKhAvW1nIhAeMkaNAK [hareahavæ'ænihaem'ana'] (lit.: There is a name, which, when compared to me(♀), is Anna --> "My name is Anna"
 * hArEAkaNAKiA1nI [harea'ana'ia'æni] (lit.: The name Anna is for me(♀) --> "My name is Anna"

While both sentences are grammatically correct, preference is given to the latter utterance as it contains about 30% less root words.