Grammatical Sketch for Classical Sitr

[k1234567890y]

Classical Sitr, also Old Sitr, is a language of the Sitr language family, which is a minor language family consisting few members.

Classical Sitr has an SOV word order, it is mainly dependent-marking and shows split ergativity where an ergative alignment is used on nouns and nominative alignment on verbal agreements.

Phonology
Consonants
Below are the consonants and their roman transcriptions:

Nasals: /m n/<m n>
Plosives: /p b t d k g kʷ gʷ/<p b t d k g qu gu>
fricatives: /f θ s ʃ x xʷ/<f th s sh h wh>
affricates: /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/<ch j>
sonorants: /w r l j/<w r l y>

Vowels
short: /a e i o u ə/<a e i o u v>
long: /a: e: i: o: u:/<aa eh ee oh oo>

Phonotactics

- Syllable structure: (C)V(C).
- The primary stress falls on the penultimate syllable, vowel length has no effect on the place of stress.
- /s/ becomes [t͡s] after after nasals.
- Consonants might be geminated.
- There are no final devoicing in Classical Sitr

Syntax

Word Order
- Basic Word Order: SOV
- Adpositions are postpositions
- Adjectives, Demonstratives, Numerals, Relative Clauses precede the noun they modify.
- Conjunctions are at the end of a sentence.
- Negation follows the very negated.

Possession

The possessor precedes the possessee and the possessor is marked with the genitive case, alienability is not distinguished in Classical Sitr. For example:

- saamsi kal - person.SG-GEN hand - the person's hand
- saamsi haar - person.SG-GEN house- the house of the person

When the possessor is a personal pronoun, it is the same:
- kisi kal - 1.SG-GEN hand - my hand
- kisi haar - 1.SG-GEN house- my house

Definiteness

There are no definite articles, but there is an archaic definite suffix. The definite suffix is not productive and has become archaic by the time of Classical Sitr and is only seen in some set phrases or some earliest records(i.e. literature from pre-classical Sitr times).

In Classical Sitr, definiteness is usually decided by the context, or by the use of demonstratives.

Negation
The aux verb maa, which literally means "be not", is used to form sentential negations. The main verb negated is in the adverbial form. For example:

- lvkaqueegsi thitar sitak - Sitr language speak-PRES-1.SG.NOM - I speak the Sitr language
- lvkaqueegsi thitar sitna mak - Sitr language speak-ADV NEG-PRES-1.SG.NOM - I don't speak the Sitr language
- maninchi lvkaqueegsi thitar sitaa - boy-ERG Sitr language speak-PRES-3.SG.NOM - the boy speaks the Sitr language
- maninchi lvkaqueegsi thitar sitna maa - boy-ERG Sitr language speak-ADV NEG-PRES-3.SG.NOM - the boy does not speak the Sitr language

Progressive
The aux verb yaa, which literally means "be", is used to form sentential negations. The main verb negated is in the adverbial form. For example:

- maninchi panin thakna yaa - boy-ERG girl.ABS.SG look-ADV be-PRES.3.SG.NOM - the boy is looking at the girl

Split Ergativity
Classical Sitr is an ergative language when it comes to nouns, but it follows the nominative pattern when it comes to verbal agreements. That is, verbs agree with the subject of the transitive verb and the intransitive verb. For example:

- baddakam - run-PST-1.PL.NOM - we ran
- haar hardakam - house-ABS build-PST-1.PL.NOM - we built the house
- saamchi haar harda - person.SG-ERG house.SG-ABS build-PST.3.SG - the person built the house
- saamchi haaram harda - person.SG-ERG house-PL.ABS build-PST.3.SG - the person built the houses
- saamdachi haar hardam - person-PL.OBL-ERG house-SG.ABS build-PST-3.PL - the people built the house
- saamdachi haaram hardam - person-PL.OBL-ERG house-PL.ABS build-PST.3.PL - the people built the houses

Relative Clauses
To form relative clauses, one place the relative clause directly before the noun the relative clause modify, like Japanese. The subject, object and obliques of a sentence can be relativized.

For example:
- saktakam saam - see-PST-1.PL person - the person we saw.
- kim sakta saam - 1.PRON-ABS.PL see-PST.3.SG person - the person that saw us.

Adjectives
Adjectives are like stative verbs in Classical Sitr, and attributive adjectives are formed in a way similar to relative clauses. For example:
- maandi haar - big-PRES.3.SG house - a big house
- maandim haaram - big-PRES-3.PL house-PL.ABS - big houses

As adjectives are themselves verbs, there are no copulae needed when adjectives are used predicatively. For example:

- haar maandi - house big-PRES.3.SG - the house is big
- haaram maandim - house-PL.ABS big-PRES-3.PL - the houses are big

In comparative structures, the form of the adjectives don't change, and the standard of comparison is in the ablative case. For example:
- panin maninla dami - girl.SG boy.SG-ABS tall-PRES.3.SG - the girl is taller than the boy.

Verbal phrase
In Classical Sitr, the basic word order is SOV, and all sentences end in a finite verb.

In Classical Sitr, like in most SOV languages, the aux verb follows the main verb. The main verb, or infinite verbs, are in the adverbial form. For example:

- maninchi lvkaqueegsi thitar sitna yuwaa - boy-ERG Sitr language speak-ADV be.able-PRES.3.SG.NOM - the boy can speak the Sitr language
- maninchi lvkaqueegsi thitar sitna kalpaa - boy-ERG Sitr language speak-ADV should-PRES.3.SG.NOM - the boy should the Sitr language
- lvkaqueegsi thitar sitna kalpad - Sitr language speak-ADV should-PRES-2.SG.NOM - you should speak the Sitr language

Morphology
Nouns

Nouns decline according to case and number, they are formed by suffixes. There are no different classes for noun declinations, all nouns follow the basic same rule of declinations.

There are two forms for nominal plural, one is for the absolutive case the other is for all other cases. the plural form for the absolutive case is called the absolutive plural; the form for all other cases is called the oblique plural.

plural suffixes prcede case suffixes.

Below are the case suffixes for nouns:
- Absolutive: -Ø
- Ergative-Instrumental: -chi
- Genitive: -si
- Dative-Locative: -ni
- Ablative: -la

Below are the number suffixes:
- singular: -Ø
- plural:
-- absolutive plural: -m(after words ending in vowels)/-am(after words ending in consonants)
-- oblique plural: -ta(after voiceless obstruents)/-da(otherwise)

Taking account of both of the case and number suffixes, the forms are listed below:

singular:
- Absolutive: -Ø
- Ergative-Instrumental: -chi
- Genitive: -si
- Dative-Locative: -ni
- Ablative: -la

plural:
- Absolutive: -m/-am
- Ergative-Instrumental: -da-chi/-ta-chi
- Genitive: -da-si/-ta-si
- Dative-Locative: -da-ni/-ta-ni
- Ablative: -da-la/-ta-la

Below is the declination of panin "girl":

singular:
- Absolutive: panin
- Ergative-Instrumental: paninchi
- Genitive: paninsi
- Dative-Locative: paninni
- Ablative: paninla

plural:
- Absolutive: paninam
- Ergative-Instrumental: panindachi
- Genitive: panindasi
- Dative-Locative: panindani
- Ablative: panindala

Below is the declination of haar "house":

singular:
- Absolutive: haar
- Ergative-Instrumental: haarchi
- Genitive: haarsi
- Dative-Locative: haarni
- Ablative: haarla

plural:
- Absolutive: haaram
- Ergative-Instrumental: haardachi
- Genitive: haardasi
- Dative-Locative: haardani
- Ablative: haardala

Verbs
Verbs conjugate according to TAM and person. TAM suffixes precede person suffixes. The personal agreements follow the nominative alignment. The 3rd singular present form of a verb is the dictionary form.

Below are the TAM suffixes:

- present: -aa(for 3rd singular)/-a(otherwise)
- past: -ta(after voiceless obstruents)/-da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che/-ache
- conditional: -ka/-aka
- adverbial: -na/-ana

for verbs ending in -yaa in the dictionary form, the TAM suffixes are like below:
- present: -yaa(for 3rd singular)/-ya(otherwise)
- past: -da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che
- conditional: -ka
- adverbial: -na

for verbs ending in -waa in the dictionary form, the TAM suffixes are like below:
- present: -waa(for 3rd singular)/-wa(otherwise)
- past: -da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che
- conditional: -ka
- adverbial: -na

Below are the personal suffixes:
- 1st sg: -k
- 2nd sg: -d
- 3rd sg: -Ø
- 1st pl: -kam
- 2nd pl: -dem
- 3rd pl: -m

There are no independent future tense, the present tense is used with adverbial phrases(i.e. ) to indicate that something happens in the future.

Verbal conjugation of sakaa "to see":
- present:
-- 1st sg: sakak
-- 2nd sg: sakad
-- 3rd sg: sakaa
-- 1st pl: sakakam
-- 2nd pl: sakadem
-- 3rd pl: sakam
- past:
-- 1st sg: saktak
-- 2nd sg: saktad
-- 3rd sg: sakta
-- 1st pl: saktakam
-- 2nd pl: saktadem
-- 3rd pl: saktam
- desiderative:
-- 1st sg: sakchek
-- 2nd sg: sakched
-- 3rd sg: sakche
-- 1st pl: sakchekam
-- 2nd pl: sakchedem
-- 3rd pl: sakchem
- conditional:
-- 1st sg: sakkak
-- 2nd sg: sakkad
-- 3rd sg: sakka
-- 1st pl: sakkakam
-- 2nd pl: sakkadem
-- 3rd pl: sakkam
- adverbial: sakna

Verbal conjugation of guamaa "to seem":
- present:
-- 1st sg: guamak
-- 2nd sg: guamad
-- 3rd sg: guamaa
-- 1st pl: guamakam
-- 2nd pl: guamadem
-- 3rd pl: guamam
- past:
-- 1st sg: guamdak
-- 2nd sg: guamdad
-- 3rd sg: guamda
-- 1st pl: guamdakam
-- 2nd pl: guamdadem
-- 3rd pl: guamdam
- desiderative:
-- 1st sg: guamchek
-- 2nd sg: guamched
-- 3rd sg: guamche
-- 1st pl: guamchekam
-- 2nd pl: guamchedem
-- 3rd pl: guamchem
- conditional:
-- 1st sg: guamkak
-- 2nd sg: guamkad
-- 3rd sg: guamka
-- 1st pl: guamkakam
-- 2nd pl: guamkadem
-- 3rd pl: guamkam
- adverbial: guamna

Verbal conjugation of naayaa "to know":
- present:
-- 1st sg: naayak
-- 2nd sg: naayad
-- 3rd sg: naayaa
-- 1st pl: naayakam
-- 2nd pl: naayadem
-- 3rd pl: naayam
- past:
-- 1st sg: naadak
-- 2nd sg: naadad
-- 3rd sg: naada
-- 1st pl: naadakam
-- 2nd pl: naadadem
-- 3rd pl: naadam
- desiderative:
-- 1st sg: naachek
-- 2nd sg: naached
-- 3rd sg: naache
-- 1st pl: naachekam
-- 2nd pl: naachedem
-- 3rd pl: naachem
- conditional:
-- 1st sg: naakak
-- 2nd sg: naakad
-- 3rd sg: naaka
-- 1st pl: naakakam
-- 2nd pl: naakadem
-- 3rd pl: naakam
- adverbial: naana

Verbal conjugation of situwaa "to announce":
- present:
-- 1st sg: situwak
-- 2nd sg: situwad
-- 3rd sg: situwaa
-- 1st pl: situwakam
-- 2nd pl: situwadem
-- 3rd pl: situwam
- past:
-- 1st sg: situdak
-- 2nd sg: situdad
-- 3rd sg: situda
-- 1st pl: situdakam
-- 2nd pl: situdadem
-- 3rd pl: situdam
- desiderative:
-- 1st sg: situchek
-- 2nd sg: situched
-- 3rd sg: situche
-- 1st pl: situchekam
-- 2nd pl: situchedem
-- 3rd pl: situchem
- conditional:
-- 1st sg: situkak
-- 2nd sg: situkad
-- 3rd sg: situka
-- 1st pl: situkakam
-- 2nd pl: situkadem
-- 3rd pl: situkam
- adverbial: situna

Adjectives

Adjectives are seen as stative verbs and conjugate according to TAM and person. TAM suffixes precede person suffixes.


Below are the TAM suffixes for adjectives. Note that adjectives don't have desiderative and conditional forms:

- present: -i
- past: -eh(for 3rd singular)/-e(otherwise)
- adverbial: -ana

Below are the personal suffixes:
- 1st sg: -k
- 2nd sg: -d
- 3rd sg: -Ø
- 1st pl: -kam
- 2nd pl: -dem
- 3rd pl: -m

Below is the conjugation of maandi "be big":
- present:
-- 1st sg: maandik
-- 2nd sg: maandid
-- 3rd sg: maandi
-- 1st pl: maandikam
-- 2nd pl: maandidem
-- 3rd pl: maandim
- past:
-- 1st sg: maandek
-- 2nd sg: maanded
-- 3rd sg: maandeh
-- 1st pl: maandekam
-- 2nd pl: maandedem
-- 3rd pl: maandem
- adverbial: maandana

Writing System

Classical Sitr has its own writing system. The Sitr script is written horizontally from left-to-right, and is an abugida without inherent vowels.

Below is the Sitr script:

[akam chinjir]

Looking good!

A minor thing: people don't normally describe it as split ergativity when a language has erg/abs case-marking but subject (nominative) agreement.

Why do you call that verb form adverbial? Syntactically, so far, it looks nonfinite (no TAM or agreement) and it occurs as the complement to auxiliary verbs. I guess it also shows up in adverbial clauses?

I'm curious how you're thinking about the difference in conjugation between adjectives and (other) verbs. Is the difference here between stative and nonstative verbs? (How does a verb meaning something like "like" conjugate?) Is there a way to get a desiderative or conditional form for an adjective? (Maybe using yaa or some other auxiliary?)

[k1234567890y]

Looking good!

A minor thing: people don't normally describe it as split ergativity when a language has erg/abs case-marking but subject (nominative) agreement.

thanks ><

as for the wording, I used the name split ergativity as I saw Wikipedia listing it as so, but thanks for reminding.

Why do you call that verb form adverbial? Syntactically, so far, it looks nonfinite (no TAM or agreement) and it occurs as the complement to auxiliary verbs. I guess it also shows up in adverbial clauses?

The adverbial form is also used to indicate the manner of a verb, or sometimes two consecutive actions. For example:

- naksaani badna gamdak - school.SG-DAT.LOC run-ADV go-PST-1.SG - I ran to school/I went to school by running.
- saamchi waga kadna tu sakta - person.SG-ERG pipe use-ADV mountain see-PST.3.SG - he saw the mountain with a pipe/he used a pipe to see the mountain.

I'm curious how you're thinking about the difference in conjugation between adjectives and (other) verbs. Is the difference here between stative and nonstative verbs? (How does a verb meaning something like "like" conjugate?) Is there a way to get a desiderative or conditional form for an adjective? (Maybe using yaa or some other auxiliary?)

yes, they do use aux verbs to get a desiderative or conditional form for an adjective. In this case, the aux verb used is yuwaa "to become", the aux verb yuwaa is also used to turn an adjective into dynamic in general. For example:

saansi - be.good-PRES.3.SG - it's good
saansana yuwaa - be.good-ADV become-PRES.3.SG - he becomes good.
saansana yuche - be.good-ADV become-DESD.3.SG - he wants to be good.

[KathTheDragon]

A minor thing: people don't normally describe it as split ergativity when a language has erg/abs case-marking but subject (nominative) agreement.

It can be seen as split-ergativity since what we have is accusative alignment in argument indexing but ergative alignment in argument flagging.

[Pedant]

Nicely done!

The one thing I might recommend to you is possibly adjusting the script a little bit so that the glyphs don’t resemble one another as much. I tried writing out a few sentences with it, and it was a little monotonous after a while--not to mention that for anyone with any kind of dyslexia it would be impossible to read. Maybe take a few more basic shapes for the forms, then apply the left-to-right transformations (moving between place) in place of the up-to-down transformations (moving between manner)? You might find it lends itself to a more distinctive style.

[k1234567890y]

Nicely done!

The one thing I might recommend to you is possibly adjusting the script a little bit so that the glyphs don’t resemble one another as much. I tried writing out a few sentences with it, and it was a little monotonous after a while--not to mention that for anyone with any kind of dyslexia it would be impossible to read. Maybe take a few more basic shapes for the forms, then apply the left-to-right transformations (moving between place) in place of the up-to-down transformations (moving between manner)? You might find it lends itself to a more distinctive style.

uncertain with this...how would you "reform" it though?

[bradrn]

The one thing I might recommend to you is possibly adjusting the script a little bit so that the glyphs don’t resemble one another as much. I tried writing out a few sentences with it, and it was a little monotonous after a while--not to mention that for anyone with any kind of dyslexia it would be impossible to read. Maybe take a few more basic shapes for the forms, then apply the left-to-right transformations (moving between place) in place of the up-to-down transformations (moving between manner)? You might find it lends itself to a more distinctive style.

Honestly, I’ve always been a bit uneasy about this advice. There’s plenty of natlang scripts with lots of repetition; e.g. Cherokee, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, Lisu, Lao (to some extent), Lontara, Ranjana…

EDIT: Looking back over the above paragraph, it’s looking more and more like a non sequitur — I think I must have misread your comment. Feel free to ignore it.

That being said, I do think the rigid left/right/line above/hook below alternation in the current Sitr script is unnaturalistic.

[k1234567890y]

That being said, I do think the rigid left/right/line above/hook below alternation in the current Sitr script is unnaturalistic.

so what should I do?

[bradrn]

That being said, I do think the rigid left/right/line above/hook below alternation in the current Sitr script is unnaturalistic.

so what should I do?

I suggest completely replacing most of the letters. At the moment, the graphemes are based on either an Ɛ shape, an ſ shape, or a C shape; almost every letter consists of one of these shapes either duplicated, reversed, with a line over it, or a hook under it. This is an astounding degree of regularity to an extent almost never seen in natural scripts. By replacing most of the letters, you introduce a much wider range of forms.

Another way of doing this could be to simulate the natural evolution of scripts by writing each letter a lot of types. Once you do this you’ll start to merge parts of letters into something more easily written; as different letters will evolve differently, this will get rid of the homogeneity. e.g. the letter corresponding to x could evolve into something like ⟨S⟩, while g could evolve into something like ⟨↊⟩. This is a good way of introducing a lot of variety while keeping some of the resemblances between letters and not requiring too much extra work.

On the other hand, if you really do like the current system, it can be justified by it was deliberately invented as a script for Old Sitr. There are precedents: Hangul (which is the natlang script most similar to this one) was invented by King Sejong, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics were created by a missionary (James Evans), and Pahawh Hmong and Cherokee were created by illiterate members of their tribes under the influence of other writing systems.

[bradrn]

That being said, I do think the rigid left/right/line above/hook below alternation in the current Sitr script is unnaturalistic.

so what should I do?

I suggest completely replacing most of the letters. At the moment, the graphemes are based on either an Ɛ shape, an ſ shape, or a C shape; almost every letter consists of one of these shapes either duplicated, reversed, with a line over it, or a hook under it. This is an astounding degree of regularity to an extent almost never seen in natural scripts. By replacing most of the letters, you introduce a much wider range of forms.

Another way of doing this could be to simulate the natural evolution of scripts by writing each letter a lot of types. Once you do this you’ll start to merge parts of letters into something more easily written; as different letters will evolve differently, this will get rid of the homogeneity. e.g. the letter corresponding to x could evolve into something like ⟨S⟩, while g could evolve into something like ⟨↊⟩. This is a good way of introducing a lot of variety while keeping some of the resemblances between letters and not requiring too much extra work.

On the other hand, if you really do like the current system, it can be justified by it was deliberately invented as a script for Old Sitr. There are precedents: Hangul (which is the natlang script most similar to this one) was invented by King Sejong, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics were created by a missionary (James Evans), and Pahawh Hmong and Cherokee were created by illiterate members of their tribes under the influence of other writing systems.

[k1234567890y]

On the other hand, if you really do like the current system, it can be justified by it was deliberately invented as a script for Old Sitr. There are precedents: Hangul (which is the natlang script most similar to this one) was invented by King Sejong, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics were created by a missionary (James Evans), and Pahawh Hmong and Cherokee were created by illiterate members of their tribes under the influence of other writing systems.

well, this is probably how it arose in my thoughts.

[bradrn]

On the other hand, if you really do like the current system, it can be justified by it was deliberately invented as a script for Old Sitr. There are precedents: Hangul (which is the natlang script most similar to this one) was invented by King Sejong, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics were created by a missionary (James Evans), and Pahawh Hmong and Cherokee were created by illiterate members of their tribes under the influence of other writing systems.

well, this is probably how it arose in my thoughts.

In that case, just use that justification. Your precedent is the Hangul script (for Korean), which is only slightly less repetitive than your Old Sitr script. (Refer to the Wikipedia table for a reference.) To quote from another Wikipedia page about Hangul:

Before the creation of the new Korean alphabet, Koreans primarily wrote using Classical Chinese alongside native phonetic writing systems that predate the modern Korean alphabet by hundreds of years, including Idu script, Hyangchal, Gugyeol and Gakpil [scripts using Chinese characters to represent Korean phonetically]. However, due to fundamental differences between the Korean and Chinese languages, and the large number of characters, many lower class Koreans were illiterate. To promote literacy among the common people, [...] [t]he Korean alphabet was designed so that people with little education could learn to read and write.

[k1234567890y]

On the other hand, if you really do like the current system, it can be justified by it was deliberately invented as a script for Old Sitr. There are precedents: Hangul (which is the natlang script most similar to this one) was invented by King Sejong, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics were created by a missionary (James Evans), and Pahawh Hmong and Cherokee were created by illiterate members of their tribes under the influence of other writing systems.

well, this is probably how it arose in my thoughts.

In that case, just use that justification. Your precedent is the Hangul script (for Korean), which is only slightly less repetitive than your Old Sitr script. (Refer to the Wikipedia table for a reference.) To quote from another Wikipedia page about Hangul:

Before the creation of the new Korean alphabet, Koreans primarily wrote using Classical Chinese alongside native phonetic writing systems that predate the modern Korean alphabet by hundreds of years, including Idu script, Hyangchal, Gugyeol and Gakpil [scripts using Chinese characters to represent Korean phonetically]. However, due to fundamental differences between the Korean and Chinese languages, and the large number of characters, many lower class Koreans were illiterate. To promote literacy among the common people, [...] [t]he Korean alphabet was designed so that people with little education could learn to read and write.

ok thanks for suggestions (:

[Pedant]

Nicely done!

The one thing I might recommend to you is possibly adjusting the script a little bit so that the glyphs don’t resemble one another as much. I tried writing out a few sentences with it, and it was a little monotonous after a while--not to mention that for anyone with any kind of dyslexia it would be impossible to read. Maybe take a few more basic shapes for the forms, then apply the left-to-right transformations (moving between place) in place of the up-to-down transformations (moving between manner)? You might find it lends itself to a more distinctive style.

uncertain with this...how would you "reform" it though?

Well, to start with, here's an example I whipped up last night:



And here's your example sentence:


See, the base glyphs are different, but the transformations applied to them are regular and understandable, in a manner (like bradrn says) approaching Hangul.
Just something to think about...

P.S. I clean forgot to put Independent A on that chart. Just imagine it as a vertical bar or something...
EDIT: aaaand please think of <z> as <r>, another mistake on my part. Apologies...

[bradrn]

Well, to start with, here's an example I whipped up last night:

I have to say, that’s a very pretty script!

See, the base glyphs are different, but the transformations applied to them are regular and understandable, in a manner (like bradrn says) approaching Hangul.

I actually would disagree with this. I can definitely see the relationship between velars and labiovelars, and between voiceless fricatives and voiced plosives, but I can’t figure out any of the other relationships.

[Pedant]

I have to say, that’s a very pretty script!

Hey, many thanks!

I actually would disagree with this. I can definitely see the relationship between velars and labiovelars, and between voiceless fricatives and voiced plosives, but I can’t figure out any of the other relationships.

Admittedly it's a little unclear, but permit me to elucidate:

• The half-circle represents the labial consonants (two lips), two lines at an angle the coronal (upper teeth), and a full circle the dorsal (back of the mouth). The difference between <t> and <ch> is one of angle, nothing more.
• The voiceless plosives represent the base form. The voiced plosives are the same form but with an added line through the centre; this has been altered by time and tide to provide somewhat irregular shapes (the ones in <b> and <j> have joined the main form, while the ones in <d> and <g> have become more elaborate). The fricatives, originally aspirates, double the voiceless plosives horizontally; the nasals double them vertically. (<x> would have originally looked like the infinity symbol.)
• The line atop the labiovelar consonants was originally a symbol not unlike <w>, which in turn is also a modification of <m>. <y> represents the movement of the tongue during pronunciation, from the top downwards.
• <r> is based on the earlier character <z>, which in turn is just <s> with a voicing bar.
• <a> represents the base of the mouth, <i> the front (with raised tongue), and <u> the back (with the uvula). <e> and <o> represent movement from the front and from the back respectively.

Hope that clears it up!

[bradrn]

I actually would disagree with this. I can definitely see the relationship between velars and labiovelars, and between voiceless fricatives and voiced plosives, but I can’t figure out any of the other relationships.

Admittedly it's a little unclear, but permit me to elucidate:

• The half-circle represents the labial consonants (two lips), two lines at an angle the coronal (upper teeth), and a full circle the dorsal (back of the mouth). The difference between <t> and <ch> is one of angle, nothing more.
• The voiceless plosives represent the base form. The voiced plosives are the same form but with an added line through the centre; this has been altered by time and tide to provide somewhat irregular shapes (the ones in <b> and <j> have joined the main form, while the ones in <d> and <g> have become more elaborate). The fricatives, originally aspirates, double the voiceless plosives horizontally; the nasals double them vertically. (<x> would have originally looked like the infinity symbol.)
• The line atop the labiovelar consonants was originally a symbol not unlike <w>, which in turn is also a modification of <m>. <y> represents the movement of the tongue during pronunciation, from the top downwards.
• <r> is based on the earlier character <z>, which in turn is just <s> with a voicing bar.
• <a> represents the base of the mouth, <i> the front (with raised tongue), and <u> the back (with the uvula). <e> and <o> represent movement from the front and from the back respectively.

Hope that clears it up!

That does make a lot more sense now — thanks!

[Pedant]

That does make a lot more sense now — thanks!

Hey, no worries!

So, k1234567890y, what do you yourself think?

[k1234567890y]

That does make a lot more sense now — thanks!

Hey, no worries!

So, k1234567890y, what do you yourself think?

uncertain if I will use your version >< but nicely done

[Xwtek]

- Syllable structure: (C)V(C).

Any possible medial cluster restriction?

There are no definite articles, but there is an archaic definite suffix. The definite suffix is not productive and has become archaic by the time of Classical Sitr and is only seen in some set phrases or some earliest records(i.e. literature from pre-classical Sitr times).

This is optional, but probably you may instead generalize definite suffix into a noun marker instead of dropping it. It occurs in some Oceanic languages.

Relative Clauses
To form relative clauses, one place the relative clause directly before the noun the relative clause modify, like Japanese. The subject, object and obliques of a sentence can be relativized.

For example:
- saktakam saam - see-PST-1.PL person - the person we saw.
- kim sakta saam - 1.PRON-ABS.PL see-PST.3.SG person - the person that saw us.

More detail, please. Which obliques can be relativized? Is noun marked as ablative case and genitive case relativizable?

Verbs
Verbs conjugate according to TAM and person. TAM suffixes precede person suffixes. The personal agreements follow the nominative alignment. The 3rd singular present form of a verb is the dictionary form.

Below are the TAM suffixes:

- present: -aa(for 3rd singular)/-a(otherwise)
- past: -ta(after voiceless obstruents)/-da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che/-ache
- conditional: -ka/-aka
- adverbial: -na/-ana

for verbs ending in -yaa in the dictionary form, the TAM suffixes are like below:
- present: -yaa(for 3rd singular)/-ya(otherwise)
- past: -da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che
- conditional: -ka
- adverbial: -na

for verbs ending in -waa in the dictionary form, the TAM suffixes are like below:
- present: -waa(for 3rd singular)/-wa(otherwise)
- past: -da(otherwise)
- desiderative: -che
- conditional: -ka
- adverbial: -na

You can just say that -w/y is dropped in some circumstances. Also, when do you use -che or -ache?