ʔSudánjhuh - Basics

[zelda]

Cuz I'm lazy.

So you know what's more fun than making a PIE daughter language? Making a lateral derivative and then trying to derive languages from that! So I present the ʔSudánjhuh ta, or, "The Good Language." This language will serve as a copy to do a secondary derivation: a grand simplification into Daj

How does ʔSudánjhuh differ from Proto-Indo-European?

ʔSudánjhuh takes PIE and reduces complexity, increases predictability, and regularizes the structure. It makes a few vast assumptions that some might not agree with. It assumes that laryngeals, for instance, are non-sibilant fricatives (h1 > [ʔ], h2 > [ç], [x], h3 > [xʷ]). I also drop the distinction between e/o, and simply use a for all instances, even for unstressed vowels that are somehow retained or epenthic in purpose. Beyond that, the phonology and orthography shouldn't be too hard to discern, but if there are any issues or questions, I'll be more than happy to delve further in. Where assumptions can't be made, systems are expanded into a sensible scale so that they do start making sense.

Ablaut is reanalyzed as a system of morphologically significant stress. Vowel deletion is secondary (and sometimes skipped) when the stress is shifted.

Nominals

Nominals are classified as either neuter or non-neuter (with a subcategory of "feminine" versus "masculine"). The distinction between neuter and non-neuter is close to arbitrary.

Neuter nouns express 3-4 cases (absolutive, locative, directive and genitive) in two numbers (singular & collective). Non-neuter nouns express five cases (absolutive, ergative, locative, directive and genitive) across through numbers (singular, dual and plural.) The dative, ablative and instrumental are solely expressed through postpositive particles, and not through grammatical suffixes. Neuter nouns are inactive entities; insects; stationary or static; tools; abstracts of labor, commerce. Non-neuter nouns are active entities; parts of active entities; living or breathing; abstracts of human experience.

First things first, ablaut. There are only three ablaut patterns: Static, mobile neuter, and mobile non-neuter.

Code: Select all

NEUTER SINGULAR
        STATIC          MOBILE
ABS-S   CáC   -C        CáC   -C     
LOC-S   CáC   -C        CC    -áC   -i
GEN-S   CáC   -C  -s    CC    -áC   -s

NON-NEUTER SINGULAR
        STATIC          MOBILE
ABS-S   CáC   -C        CáC   -C
DIR-S   CáC   -C   -m   CC    -áC   -m
LOC-S   CáC   -C        CC    -áC   -i
GEN-S   CáC   -C   -s   CC    -C    -ás

The structure of a noun is stem+theme+(case+number). The theme is not always present and nouns tend to be athematic more than thematic.

Code: Select all

NUMBER
Singular    -ø
Dual        -iʔ
Plural      -s
Collective  -h

CASE
ABSOLUTE         NEUTER      NON-NEUTER     PP
   Absolutive    -ø          -ø
   Ergative                  -s
DIRECT
   Locative*     -ø, -i      -ø, -i         su
   Directive     -d          -m
Oblique
   Genitive      -s, -am     -s, -am        sam
   Dative                                   mas
   Ablative                                 ias
   Instrumental                             bhi
   
* Locatives take a null-ending in static nouns, -i in mobile nouns.

Nouns are fairly predictable and reasonable to work with; as long as you know if a noun has a static or mobile root, you're good to go.

Examples:

• Uádr̩, udáns water (-r/n stem, neuter static): abs/loc uádr̩(h), dir udand(ah), gen udáns(ah)
• Nákwt, nákwtas night (-t stem, non-neuter static): abs nákwt(iʔ, -as), erg nákwts(iʔ, -as), nákwti(iʔ, -s), nákwtm̩(iʔ, -ams), nákwtas(iʔ, -sas/-am)
• Hwángwn̩, hwángwans butter (-n stem, neuter mobile): abs hwángwn̩(h), loc hwn̩gwáni(h), dir hwn̩gwánd(ah), gen hwn̩gwáns(ah)
• Mánti, mn̩tás mind (-ti stem, non-neuter mobile): abs manti(iʔ, -ias), erg mantis(iʔ, -ias), loc mnáti(iʔ, -is), dir mnátim(iʔ, -s), gen mn̩táis(iʔ, -isas/-iam)
• Gwánh, gwn̩hás woman (-h stem non-neuter mobile): abs gwánh(iʔ, -s), erg gwánhs(iʔ, -s), loc gwnáhi(iʔ, -s), dir gwnáhm(iʔ, -s), gen gwn̩hás(iʔ, -asas/-am)
• Uárjam, uárjas work (thematic): abs uárjam (uárjah), loc uárjai(h), dir uárjad(ah), gen uárjas(ah)
• Hantía, hantías[/i] forehead, abs hantía(iʔ, -as), erg hantías(iʔ, -as), loc hantíai(iʔ, ais), dir hantíam(iʔ, -ams), gen hantías(-ʔ, -sas, -am)

And so on and so forth. It's not all that difficult. The worst part is figuring where the epenthic vowels go.

Adjectives are an easier breeze: Adjectives, when preceding the noun, are completely unmarked. When proceeding the noun, they exhibit Suffixaufnahme.

Pronominals

There's plenty. And they work a little differently than nouns. There are six personal pronoun roots, coupled with a numerical stem, plus the pronominal intensifier in -ma-/-ua-, plus case endings (inverted from the nominals above). Unlike nominals, -i is used for plural instead of -s.

• ʔm-, first person singular: abs/erg áj, dir mamá (ma), loc/dat ʔmái (mai), gen ʔmám (mas), instr ʔmíʔ.
• u-, first person inclusive dual: abs/erg uáʔ, dir uʔuá (uʔ), loc/dat uʔuái (uʔ), gen uʔuám (uʔ), instr uʔuíʔ; plural: abs/erg uái, dir usmá (us), loc/dat usmái (us), gen usmám (us), instr usmíʔ.
• n-, first person exclusive dual: abs/erg náʔ, dir n̩ʔuá (naʔ), loc/dat n̩ʔuái (naʔ), gen n̩ʔuám (naʔ), instr n̩ʔuíʔ; plural: abs/erg nái, dir n̩smá (nas), loc/dat n̩smái (nas), gen nasmám (nas), instr n̩smíʔ.
• tu-, second person singular: abs/erg tuʔ, dir tuá (taʔ), loc/dat tuái (tai), gen tuám (tas), instr tuíʔ
• dh- for familiar second person singular masculine: abs/erg ádh, dir dhasmá, loc dhasmái, gen dhasmám; feminine: abs dháh, erg dháhs, dir dháhm̩, loc dháhi, gen dháhas.
• iu-, second person dual: abs/erg iúʔ, dir iuʔuá (iuʔ), loc/dat iuʔuái (iuʔ), gen iuʔuám (iuʔ), instr iuʔuíʔ; plural: abs/erg iúh, dir iusmá (ius), loc/dat iusmái (ius), gen iusmám (ius), instr iusmíʔ.
• dh- for familial second person dual masculine: abs/erg dháʔ, dir dhaʔmá, loc/dat dhaʔmái, gen dhaʔmám; plural masculine: abs/erg dhái, dir dhaimá, loc/dat dhaimái, gen dhaimám; dual feminine: abs dháhiʔ, erg dháhiʔs, dir dháhmiʔ, loc/dat dháhīʔ, gen dháhasiʔ; plural feminine: abs/erg dháhs, dir dháhms, loc dháhis, gen dháham.

Terribly formatted and difficult to read? That's okay! Later on, I'll move onto demonstrative pronouns (which are built somewhat like ádh above) and then verbs, since those'll take a lot of space as there's a lot more going on than regular, humdrum PIE. To give a slight example of what's to come: Verbs are divided into eventive/stative & imperfective/perfective. Eventive subjective verbs agree with personal, definite and indefinite arguments (with an optional finite participial derivative), while eventive objective wraps the subjective endings along with objective (first, second, third person). This creates a predictable, but larger paradigm. But it's easier to tease out.

[WeepingElf]

A nice and interesting project, I have something similar going, Hesperic.

[zelda]

Alright. So the board ate my post. Let's try this again.

Looking over the nouns, I wanted to start with a few design notes. I pared down the cases from eight to five. This was an intentional design, since the IE languages have a troubling pattern of analogizing the case structure across multiple patterns in repeated succession. This creates a lot of variation, and I dislike the irregularity between separate singular/plural. So the ones that didn't match easily were cast aside (with the exception of genitive, which has variations in the plural as -am, without a numerical marker. We'll just assume that's a recent innovation).

The dual number is a byproduct of the pronominal instrumental; consider, ʔmáiʔ túh, you with me. When analogized, it creates such ideas as ácuaiʔ ácuas, a horse with a horse (two horses.) As such, the instrumental was reanalyzed as a case marker, and analyzed as a numerical marker, which coordinates with other cases (and I dropped the instrumental in nominals, which would have led to a dual instrumental of -iʔiʔ.) The collective itself is used as a quasi-reverential form, creating distance from the actual person. This was applied to women, creating a "feminine" gender as an innovation. This also explains why neuter/non-neuter nouns have no distinct gender marker, yet "feminine" nouns do. The reverentiality isn't all lost, since the second person singular plural features the collective marker: túh.

The second person familiar, ádh, is similar to áj, and is the source of the verb endings that feature -dh-. Like áj, ádh can echo the verb ending (-am, -ah, etc.) Unlike áj, ádh has been reanalyzed with case endings, and matches the personal demonstrative sá, sáh (which follows nominal patterns, not demonstratives.)

Demonstratives themselves are overwhelmingly easy. Combine the roots (obviative t-, proximal c-, anaphoric i- & ʔa-, relative hi- and interrogative kw-) with the number-stem (singular sm-, dual -ʔm- or plural -im-, plus the case endings (abs/erg -ø/-d, dir -má/-d, loc/dat -ái, gen -ám, instr -íʔ), with the abs/erg with stress on the root, and all other cases with stress on the ending. The personal demonstratives (s-) is identical, except no instrumental, and the feminine is lifted from the nominal paradigm, not the pronominal (owing to its recent innovation).

Now, verbs!

Verbs

Verbs are aligned in eventive/stative and imperfective/perfective. This is a neat little 2x2 matrix. However, it's still not as simple as I'd prefer. Eventives are split into subjective (not expressing a object) and objective (expressing an objective.) Subjective forms take the absolute as their subject, and objective takes the ergative as their subject and the absolute as their object (or in some verbs, the directive, because there's some wacky split-ergativity going on.) There's also the indicative, imperative and subjunctive moods, with the synthetic moods of desiderative and optative.

Now, time to jump into the endings. Which requires a brief explanation of what the hell is going on. Subjective endings aren't aligned by person, but definiteness. The subjective ending agrees with the definiteness of the subject, either as personal (I, you, someone), definite or indefinite. The plurals of these latter aren't split across definiteness, but by animacy (so there's a collective and plural). Objective does not express number, but does express first, second and third person.

Subjective endings are: per -m -u- in plural, def -s, indef -t (from the pronominal stem, personal demonstrative, and obviative demonstrative). There's also a participial ending, -ant, which is used when simplicity is in order (it is also the only plural marker in objective-thematic verbs, which we'll get into in a moment.)

Objective endings are -m-, -dh-, and -a- (from the first person, second person now familiar, and anaphoric pronoun, respectively.)

The plural is tied into the aspect marker, somehow. In the imperfective subjective, -i is used to marked "present tense" but also singular, and in the plural -as, collective -ah. These are identical in the objective, except the personal is in -h. The perfective is same as the subject markers, no -i or plural/collective marker.

This gives us:

• Imperfective subjective: -mi, -si, -ti, -uás, -tás, -táh, -ánti
• Imperfective objective personal: -m̩h, -dhah, -ah, -muás, -dhuás, -auás
• Imperfective objective definite: -m̩si, -dhsi, -asi, -mtás, -dhtás, -atás
• Imperfective objective indefinite: -m̩ti, -dhti, -ati, -mtáh, -dhtáh, -atáh
• Imperfective objective participial: -mánti, -dhánti, -ā́nti (aa = ā, not a long vowel, just a representation of two vowels in succession).
• Perfective subjective: -m, -s, -d, -uá, -tá, -nd
• Perfective objective personal: -m̩m, -dham, -am, -muá, -dhuá, -auá
• Perfective objective definite: -m̩s, -dhs, -as, -mtá, -dhtá, -atá
• Perfective objective indefinite: -m̩d, -dhd, -ad, -mtá, -dhtá, -atá
• Perfective objective participial: -mánd, -dhánd, -ā́nd

The imperfective stem of a verb + the perfective endings == imperfective past, like all other good IE languages. There might also be an augment.

Objective-thematic verbs follow the same pattern above. You'll recognize them as thematic verbs, except there's a few key distinctions: objective-thematic verbs do not have a perfective (but they do have a simple past), a distinct subjunctive, and no plural, relying only the participial forms for plural agreement. I'm about ready to ax the subjective forms too.

Stative endings are distinct. Native root statives do not express person, only number. Derivative statives agree with first, second and third person along singular and plural. Native statives are verbs who are lexically stative (uáida, or verbs with the stative -áʔ stem). Derivative for the eventive verbs.

• Native stative imperfective: -a, -ár/-rá (depending on phonological structure)
• Native stative perfective: -ø, -r̩
• Derivative stative imperfective: -ça, -dha, -a, çá, -dhá, -ár/-rá
• Derivative stative perfective: -ç, -dh, -ø, -uá, -á, -r̩

As evidenced, the perfectives are the strangest and least regularized derived of the bunch. I'm wondering if I shouldn't drop them in favor of just using the native statives throughout the whole paradigm. You can also tell the statives lacks object marking. That's because statives are lexically passive if the imperfective is a transitive verb (linákwm̩si, he leaves me/us behind; laláikwa, he is abandoned.) Frequently the stative generates a lexical change.

The imperative mood is generated by zero-grade, final stress and a special set of subject(ive) endings: -dhí, -táu, tád, -uá, -tá, -ántu. A bare root may also be substituted instead of the personal. These combined with the object markers, but I'm not going to list them all out.

The subjunctive requires modal -a-, showing that the subjunctive is a branch of the third person object forms. This modal is also what's (technically) represented in objective-thematic, and in the stems of the desiderative. The subjective subjunctive uses the objective subject -h, not -m.

The desiderative is root-stressed, with the stem -sa-, and is a modal, so it also takes -h instead of -m. The desiderative root can either be reduplicated with a zero-grade in the root (preferred in the imperfective), or the root itself. Stress is static, as per the subjunctive.

The optative uses the stem -iáʔ/-iʔ-, and takes the perfective endings.

Both the eventive and the stative express imperative, subjunctive, desiderative, and optative.

Ablaut in all verbs (except objective-thematic) are dependent on number marking: Singular has root stress, plural has ending stress, and universally, participles have stem stress (as per the rules of derivation). So a verb like ʔs-, "to be", has a singular in ʔásti, plural in ʔstás, and participle in ʔsánd. Speaking of participles, you can guess by the participial verb ending that the eventive imperfective ending is -ánt-. eventive perfective is -wás-, the stative imperfective is -mán-, and the stative perfective is -át-.

The split between eventive imperfective and perfective is recent, so there's a little variation between root-imperfective and root-perfective verbs. Unlike PIE, there are fewer classes of imperfectives. There are only four or five ways to form imperfectives: Root athematic, objective-thematic (root or stem in -i-), reduplicated root, nasal infix, and nasal suffix. The inchoative -scá- and so forth are subaspect derivatives of the imperfective, and are not truly productive for creating novel imperfectives. Nasal infix and nasal suffix both use -ná-, and probably related. Nasal infix requires a verb that has a stop or non-sibilant fricative (laryngeal) in the coda, and a semivowel (sibilant, i, u, m, n, r, l) in a non-initial position. Nasal suffix takes -ná- and adds -u for -náu-/-nu-.

The perfectives are either root athematic or s-perfective. There are only a handful of perfective objective-thematic verbs, are more a peculiarity. S-perfectives have static stress.

Stative verbs do not show any split between imperfective and perfective. Rather, there are native/-áʔ-, and derivative. Derivatives are formed with reduplication.

You'll notice I haven't touched on the middle voice. That's because it doesn't exist in ʔSudánjhuh, not in the way we think of it in PIE. Rather, the middle is effectively invoked by inversing the obj+subj:

Now, remember how I said this was not a formal system? Which means there's plenty of variation? What kind of variation could there be? There's the possibility of marking objective verbs with no subject marker (very informal), or reversal of obj+subj. Consider, nái dikdhuás-ta, we point you out; if you raise the object (-ta, atonic form of tuá), you inverse the endings: tuá dikuásdh nái; "It is you who is pointed out, you are pointed out by us." If the subject/object are effectively the same, this creates a reciprocal meaning: nái adikmuám-nas, "We pointed ourselves out" ~ n̩smá adikuásm̩ nái, "we were making ourselves evident, known" or with a subordinate clause, "it is evident to us that..." Coordinating this with the exclusive pronoun leads to tuá adikuásdh (uái) hiám..., "it is evident to you that..."

Keep in mind this system is intended to riff off itself. Variation is plausible and potential (desideratives with an optative? You can do it. In the stative, even). The only issue is that there are a myriad of verb forms, but more regularly defined than irregularly.

[zelda]

A nice and interesting project, I have something similar going, Hesperic.

Oooh, interesting. I'll have to delve into that ! I'm delving laterally through this whole process, so Dáj will simplify ʔSudánjhuh by a great degree, instead of being a hypothetical daughter.

[Ares Land]

I'll follow this with interest. To a moderately informed layman such as myself, the ruthless simplification is pretty satisfying. What I mean is that, as opposed to reconstructions, it looks like something that could actually have been used as a living language.

Have you given any thought to where and by whom it would have been spoken?

[zelda]

Thank you! That was part of this driving motion to make PIE into a usable language, which required some kind of horizontal or lateral derivation to make it work. And by the time I finished, it should be intuitive, flexible and predictable, though to a realistic scale. Dáj, on the other hand, will be doubly so.

To the nature of the speakers: I have given some thought to this. ʔSudánjhuh will act as a meta-framework for my projects where languages are called for. I'm writing a sci-fi story where the future is filled with pseudo-IALs (an Esperanto-derivative dubbed Spaceperanto), a Semitic-derivative (Spacitic), and a variation of ʔSudánjhuh (called Spaceskrit), perhaps to a level close to Dáj but not entirely. Another project, Rodah & the Infamy, will have multiple branches, but all descendent from ʔSudánjhuh as natural languages (so it would reflect this cut of PIE rather than PIE proper.)

[zelda]

Phonology

I wanted to jump into this before I get back into verbs and discuss the basics of syntax. Expectations are important, and there are some phonology notes in the language I want to cover. But first off, the phonology.

• Obstruent (voiceless): [p t c k kʷ ʔ] p t c k kw ʔ
• Obstruent (voiced): [b d ɟ g gʷ] b d j g gw
• Obstruent (aspirated): [bʱ dʱ ɟʱ gʱ gʱʷ] bh dh jh gh ghw
• Sibilant: [s] s
• Fricative: [ç h hʷ] ç h hw
• Semivowel (nasal): [m n] m n
• Semivowel (continuant): [l j w] l i u
• Semivowel (flap): [r] r

As you can tell, the language has a balanced stop system spread across five POAs (labial, coronal, and the three dorsals: palatals, velars, and labiovelars.) Simply put, I rendered the palatoveolars as proper palatals (this assumes then a non-uvular phonology.) It looks balanced, but it's not entirely: b is almost absent, since older *b destabilized into m or w depending on phonological conditions (see the pronouns, as above.)

Voiced fricatives have the allophonic variants [β ð ʝ ɣ ɣʷ] intervocalically. If one doesn't enjoy these, I'm allowing a one-time deal to treat all stops as lenis, fricative and fortis. The palatals c j ç may also be pronounced [ʧ ʤ ʃ] for nerds who don't like palatals.

The fricative series is dorsal-based, and are reflexes of PIE's laryngeals (h2 corresponds to [ç, x], and h3 corresponds to [xʷ]; h1 corresponds to [ʔ]. There was minimal debate if h1 should correspond to [ç] instead, but I instead left it as is based on current theories.)

The so-called semivowel systems have syllabic equivalents (as per PIE). I usually represent these with an vertical underbar (which this board hates.)

There is only one phonemic vowel: [a]. But that's a lie. There's [ə], which is an allophonic variant in multiple conditions. Primarily, [ə] is present when [a] is unstressed (so á is always [a]). [ə] is also a phonological variation. But there's also /i u/, syllabic variants of /j w/. But ablaut rears its head: when there's a stressed syllable, á is more than likely going to be shoved in there somehow. Vowels do not contrast in length, but a long vowel is possible as a result of synaeresis. That means, ā, ī, ū represent [a.a i.i u.u], not [a: i: u:] (and really, ī, ū are /ej ow/). Allophonically, au /o/ and ai /e/. Nothing else follows on that matter.

The fricative set does act as semivowels in that they "color" an unstressed vowel (in a zero-grade syllable featuring a fricative, an epenthic vowel is inserted): In the condition C_C, (a)ç > [ɛ], (a)h > [a], (a)hw > ɔ. So, a word like phtári is [ˈpəh ˈtá ri] ~ [pa ˈtá ri].

Phonotactics are based on the same statistical model in PIE: The higher the sonority, the closer it is the nucleus. The sonority scale ranks (from high to low): Non-labial semivowels (R - l r i n), labial semivowels (M - u, m), obstruents (C), which includes plosives (P), sibilants (s) and fricatives (H), giving the root shape a possible CMRáRMC. H frequently metathesizes closer to the nucleus.

I'm still working on Sandhi, but there are a few rules that are observed. Some existing rules are observed:, Szemerényi's law dicates that a the sequence of -VR(s, ç, h) > V:R, but this is not written: dáms = [ˈda:m]. ʔSudánjhuh attempts to delete (most) geminates in morphology. The rules are simple: geminates are tolerated in derivation, but not morphology. For instance, definite -si + the root for to be, ʔas- creates ʔási, but the desiderative verb ending -sa- does not trigger this deletion: ʔássasi (since the desiderative and subjunctive are derivational in nature). But there are (as there will be) exceptions. For instance, perfective eventive, personal subject & first person object -m̩m.

Sandhi is a bit fun. For instance, nasal syllabics become [ə̃], but "hold" the nasal for the correct condition (and when the conditions are met, this virtual nasal vowel is deleted): n̩páhtar [ə̃ ˈpáx tar], fatherless, but súhnu n̩páhtar [ˈsux num ˈpax tar]. This also applies to suffixes: gwnáhm̩ [ˈgʷnax ə̃], but áj gwnáhm̩ dhadháʔāh [ˈaɟ ˈgʷnax ndhə ˈdha ʔə əx]. I'm still fleshing sandhi out, so please expect changes.

Ablaut & a-Retention

To best understand ablaut, sometimes it's more helpful to get an unintuitive explanation. The intuitive one is that a stressed syllable receives an a, while unstressed syllables do not. This means the difference between static and mobile accent is that the accent shifts, not that the vowel appears in different syllables. It might also be (un)helpful to think that all syllables have an a, but are deleted when unstressed.

But there are conditions where this a isn't deleted. It may be featured orthographically to represent an epenthic vowel, for instance (like, the 2+PER -dh+m = -dham). In such cases, it's used to represent that above sandhi rule is not in effect (the m is not syllabic, does not become [ə̃] or a held nasal.)

The primary example of a-retention is non-neuter derivation. For instance, the root bhrájh- means "high", with the stem -mn-, we get bhrájhm̩n, "set upon high, sacred." It's a neuter noun with a mobile accent: gen bhr̩jhmáns. When the oblique stem is reanalyzed as a directive stem it becomes non-neuter, but the -a- in the stem is retained in all other stems: abs bhrájhman, dir bhr̩jhmánm̩, gen bhr̩jhmanás, priest. (Of course, -mn- is also a participial ending, in the form of -mán. Noting the endings in addition to the ablaut helps differentiate bhr̩jhmáns (neuter), bhr̩jhmánm̩ (non-neuter), and bhr̩jhmán (adjective). Easy, right?

Vebs, cont.

So there isn't a lot to say about verbs as of yet, since I practically explained the system. I'll get into what all the aspects represent when I describe syntax, because much like cases, it's a bit of a broad brush. A few general notes:

The subjective endings in the eventive system don't always align the way you want. The difference between singular/plural/collective is that singular is definitively singular, but plural/collective may not always represent a grammatically plural/collective object, and the participial form is frequently used without respect to number. Plural/collective don't translate to definite/indefinite either, as the collective is frequently used to express reverence (tuh linkwtáh, you are being left.)

Objective-thematic verbs, as they do not express eventive/stative or imperfective/perfective even, are more tense-bound than their non-objective-thematic verbs: bhárāh, abhárām, and bhárasāh are more akin to "I carry, I carry, I will carry" (while the strong verbs themselves don't have as strong correlation to tense, but past always being "anterior" to the current reference of time, and desiderative having a stronger "want to" rather than "will" vibe to it.) Additionally, objective-thematic verbs take the directive as their object, not the absolutive, which gives them an nom-acc alignment (which is why the subjective may have to go.)

This segues into...

Verbal Alignment & Some Syntax Scraps

You can briefly call ʔSudánjhuh an SVO language, but it's a gross simplification. It's better to describe it as a spectrum of prioritization, where the subject has the highest priority (first in the sense), to the lowest (following the verb). Since syntactical function is represented on most nouns, we can move the verb around in the sentence. So it's better to describe the syntax as low-rank patient syntax.

As described, the verbal system is split-ergativity, not based on aspect but by derivation. Objective-thematic verbs are virtually always nominative-accusative, while athematic verbs are erg-abs.

Let's talk about athematic (ergative-absolutive) verbs in the eventive system first. In the subjective, the subject ending coordinates with the absolutive: hánr̩ alinákws, the man was being left behind: The definite -s agrees with the definite patient in this case. A subjective verb may still accept an indirect object, which demotes the patient to post-verb: ʔmamá adhadháʔd íd, it was set down for me.

Objective verbs express or imply a direct object. The subject ending coordinates with the ergative object, the object ending coordinates with the absolutive object. In certain cases, the directive will be used to indicate who receives or benefits the object: hánr̩s alinákwas cuán, the man is leaving the dog, where the ending -s coordinates with a definite agent (in the ergative) and the -a- agrees with the patient (third person, represented by the absolutive). With nominals (and the personal demonstrative sá, sáh) indirect objects are handled by the directive case: kwí sáhm̩ dhadháhati mádhu, who's setting down the honey for her? Pronouns will naturally use the loc/dat for this function (so swap sáhm̩ with any other dative pronoun, like ʔmái).

Thematic-objective verbs are nominative-accusative aligned. This means the subject morphemes represent the agent in the ergative case (as a nominative function), and the object morpheme represents the patient in the directive case (as an accusative function): áj abháriadham-ta, I was carrying you. The subjective forms (if I decide to keep them) only express an intransitive case where the object is not stated (similar to how the whole subjunctive system got started...)

Indirect objects can expressed in the thematic-objects with the dative particle mas or loc/dat pronouns: ájamga gwánh tá masas abháriadham hwn̩gwánd, I was carrying the butter for those women. (And yes, I embellished a lot in this one: First person singular+duplicated verb ending+intensifer -ga, and the postpositive participle is carrying the plural marker.)

In summary, the eventive system looks like this:

Code: Select all

Athematic (Eventive)

Subjective:
     S          V+s
     absolutive verb
         ^
      patient

	 IO        V+s  S
     directive verb absolutive
         ^              ^
      indirect       patient
        object

Objective:
     S        V+os O
     ergative verb absolutive
         ^              ^
       agent         patient
	 
     S        IO        V+os O
     ergative directive verb absolutive
         ^        ^              ^
       agent   indirect        patient
                 object
				 
Objective-Thematic:
     S        IO       V+os O
     ergative (dative) verb (directive)
         ^        ^            ^
      subject  indirect     (object)
                 object

The eventives are naturally intransitive, so we'll see the absolutive as the subject: gwánh uáida, she knows. However, eventives are capable of expressing agent based on the syntactical category of the noun.

The agent is expressed with non-neuter nouns and the personal pronoun sá, sáh with the morphological genitive case (preferred), while neuter nouns want to use the instrumental postpositive particle bhi, and pronouns the instrumental case (it's intended function). When this happens, the agent goes before the verb, the subject follows, but the verb continues to agree with the subject: hn̩rás tá laláikwça áj, I'm abandoned by that man/you abandoned me.

Code: Select all

Eventive
     S          V+s
     absolutive verb
         ^
       patient

     A            V+s  S
     instrumental verb absolutive
	    /genitive          ^
          ^              patient
        agent

This looks funny, but the entire system of low-rank patient syntax seems fun to play around with, as it's a constant demotion of the patient to the clause-last position. We'll explore what happens with patient-raising (middle voice) and probably NPs later (because you're probably wondering why demonstratives are only following, but not agreeing, with their constituent noun.)

[zelda]

It's been over a month since I last worked on ʔSudánjhuh, and I'm not sure where to go from here with it. I should provide information on adjectives & noun phrases, perhaps. But that'll wait. Just bumping this thread up until I can get my focus back.

[zelda]

The Adjective

I made a brief mention that adjectives are similar to the nominal system. Lol, nope. This is gonna be a complicated ride, and perhaps the most complicated system in the language thus far because I chose to describe it wrong!

See, we're working with a split system. Unlike Indo-European languages, ʔSudánjhuh adjectives are not so substantive. Using the term "adjective" is to describe it in IE terms, so I'm having to cram two separate systems together under one umbrella term. Neek, you are terrible at typology. But this is your fault for not doing your research properly.

See, I was trying to figure out the Caland system, and I stumbled across this research paper. Most of my supporting theories for ʔSudánjhuh is from factual research, and me not just pulling crap out of my ass. That part is making the disparate theories work together.

So, let's get started. We'll split the adjectival system into two systems: Strong and Weak.

Strong adjectives are verb-like: They are intransitive, existing as root perfectives or statives; strong verbs are in a verbal form in the predicative, but in a participial form in the attributive: ʔácuas ta ʔrudhrá, "the horses are red," versus ʔrudhrát ʔácuas ta. The perfective is used to describe the transformation of a state ("became red"), while the stative is used to describe the state of the verb: ʔácuas ta ʔráwdhd, "the horses became red (it didn't start red, but it sure ended red.)"

Weak adjectives are nominal-like. Sort of. They are generally root, unmarked (as per the absolutive, or strong adjective participles), or in the predicative, achieving Suffixaufnahme. (The research I read suggested that -eh2- stative verbs were originally instrumental cases, but I discarded the instrumental in favor of a postpositive.)

This change triggers a few things (for me, at the very least). The loss of "derivational" statives, in favor of impersonal -a, -rá/-ár (since I can't reasonably reason that the derivational stative is aspectually stative, but became imperfective over time: Rather, the imperfective "stative" was a coping mechanism to the solidification of a nominal-type adjective). This may also let me break down the verbal/nominal divide to close the gap a little bit more, by de-segregating the multiple systems (by having a bridge point with strong adjectives.)

Now, how do adjectives compare against each other? There are four degrees of comparison: positive, contrastive, comparative, and superlative. These equate to the sense "red, more red (than the other), redder, and reddest." Negative comparisons are either done by word choice or through the derivational wonders of n̩-, but this can have lexical constraints (n̩káka means "not shitty," but it doesn't mean "good." (This isn't Esperanto where the negative prefix means "opposite of".)

For strong adjectives, contrastives are expressed with tá/tár (for plural or singular). This modifies the noun phrase (and replaces the article) when the adjective is in the predicative: ʔácu tá ʔrudhrá, horse-abs.pl CONTRA red-stat.pl, "This horse is more red (than another horse.)"

The comparative is expressed with ias. Unlike tar, this behaves independently and has more lexical flexibility, since it is an adverb: ʔácu ta ias ʔrudhrá, "the horses is very red, more red (than other horses.)"

The object being contrasted is usually given in the genitive: ʔácuas tar ʔmámam ʔrudhd, "the horse is become more red than I." Periphrastic comparatives is coordinated with -ua, "or, than," which is preferred when there's two statements being contrasted (in this case, coordinated by tá(r) ... -ua: hánr̩ tá gwráha ája-ua ʔlángha, "That man is heavier than I am skinny." Oftentimes ua stands at the head of the clause with the pronoun a, áua.

The superlative is represented by the plural genitive of the noun form in the subject position: hnrám gwrhár, man-gen.pl heavy-stat.pl, "of the men (he) is heavy," he is the heaviest of all men. In fact, any coordination of gen.pl + noun + stative verb == superlative.

In the attributive, the same rules applies with a few complications. The contrastive/comparative replaces the participial ending and is treated more as a derivational suffix than a particle, preserving even the participle's stress. This is also how weak adjectives in either the attributive/predicative position coordinate themselves.

Sorry about there being so many horses...