Can you complete this language puzzle?

Question

Given the following rules to this language:

andur- = to see (add endings directly to stem.)
maami - father (drop the "i" and then add endings)
Ianna - John (no changes to proper nouns before endings)
Word order is : VSO. (verb, subject, object)

Anduro maami Iannas.
Andurit maamat Ianna.
Anduro Ianna maams.
Andurit Iannat maami.

Can you translate these sentences and give a name to any grammatical cases which may be present?

Hint: Ergativity

Another hint: The two forms of the verb both represent simple tenses.

Hint 3: the suffix -o indicates simple present; the suffix -it indicates simple past.

Last hint: the first two sentences differ only in terms of tense as well as the last two. The second and fourth sentences have the same tense. One case is accusative, another is ergative.

Answer 1

1 Father sees John
2 John was seen by Father.
3 John sees Father.
4 Father was seen by John.

by 1,3 we see singular accusative/object case ending is 's' (by sentence order VSO),
and guess that 'o' is probably verb ending present tense for masculine singular subject.

I would have guessed '-it' was present passive voice ending, since 2,4 'O(bject)' have no change in ending from 1,2 'S(ubject)' and '-at' (or just -t before a) is ablative case, but since your hints said 'ergativity' (which I had to look up and still don't quite understand) and '-it = simple past tense' it doesn't make sense.

Answer 2

The argument holds because - as you communicate about - there is not any data for a *lot* of factors, yet that doesn't advise we ought to ask your self in the journey that they are real or not. have you ever heard of "Russell's Teapot", as proposed by using the logician Bertrand Russell? I quote: "If I were to point that between the Earth and Mars there's a china teapot revolving about the sunlight in an elliptical orbit, no one may be able to disprove my fact provided I were careful to operate that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by using our maximum effectual telescopes. yet when I were to bypass on to assert that, because that my fact won't be able to be disproved, that is an insupportable presumption on the element of human reason to doubt it, I ought to rightly be considered speaking nonsense. If, although, the existence of this variety of teapot were affirmed in historic books, taught because the sacred truth each and every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of kids at school, hesitation to remember on its existence may develop right into a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an beforehand time."

Answer 3

1. Father sees John. Father is "normal" (nominative); John accusitive
2. Father saw John. Father is ergative; John is "normal" (object).
3. John sees Father. John is "normal" (nominative); Father accusitive.
4. John saw Father. John is ergative; Father "normal" (object).

Answer 4

Yeah, i have no idea if i'm at all close but i'll give it a shot

See father Johns' ...
Sees father's John
See John fathers
Sees fathers' John

Answer 5

I need to upgrade my language translator.

Answer 6

Too much thinking required!!

Answer 7

If i had more time, yes... but not right now.

Answer 8

you first need to tell us what the epibrator is.

Answer 9

god it's nearly midnight and i dont know where my brain is

Answer 10

simple-nonsense