Posted On Sunday 4 December 2011 by Murray Colpman (Muzer)

We've sort of decided to make prepositions as verby as possible, albeit still keeping their identity in the form of the peve prefix. However, this is not 100% agreed yet, so take with a pinch of salt; it may quickly change.

So, gone is the differentiation between usage in clause-applying and noun-applying forms:

peveinafeht /!France!/ eateht hat~s ei

= "In France, I'm eating pasta"

But then, you may ask, what does changing the tense mean? Well, this:

peveinafoht /!France!/ eateht hat~s ei

...would mean something like "In a place that was France, I'm eating pasta"

Adding of tenses solves the problem that, if:

peveaseht ceveand torixi efiferogqj eatelem setuh ei

...means "I eat in an effective and complex manner", then how do you say "I eat in a manner that WAS effective and complex"? The answer is simply now changing the tense on the preposition:

peveasoht ceveand torixi efiferogqj eatelem setuh ei

This increased verb-like-ness also means that relative clause markers are used when appropriate. There are two main categories of its use:

* In the form when a preposition applies to a noun. With no exceptions.
* In the form when a preposition applies to a clause, when the clause is effectively acting as a relative clause that happens to have a preposition.

An example of the first is easy to come up with, and to see the merit: Not only can you say "I'm eating pasta which is in France" as before:

eateht relapeveinafeht /!France!/ hat~s ei

...but you can also say "I'm eating France, in which there is pasta" simply by changing one character:

eateht relopeveinafeht /!France!/ hat~s ei

An example of the second is as follows:

eateht relapeveinafeht /!France!/ relakadamoht ei rek ei

(note the double use of the relative there, to bring the human (rek) two layers out): "I am eating the person who burnt me, and the burning occurred in the place that is France"