Aitenji scratchpad

[aporaporimos]

There's no cultural or fictional background to this one (yet), just experimenting with ideas I like. It's an agglutinative, suffixing language with very free word order and a simple phonology. Without further ado...

Phonology

Vowels: /a e i o u/, written as in the IPA.

Consonants (transcription matches IPA unless noted):

	Labial	Alveolar	Palatal	Velar	Glottal
Stop/Affr.	p	t	j /tʃ/	k
Fricative		s	ś /ʃ/		h
Nasal	m	n		g /ŋ/
Liquid	w /ʋ/	r /ɾ/	y /j/

Voicing is not contrastive for obstruents, and they are usually voiced between voiced sounds.

The consonants j and ś occur primarily before i, but occasionally before other vowels. On the other hand, k s h g cannot occur before i.

The syllable structure is (C)V(n). The one exception is that the sequence pś sometimes occurs before i and u.

Final n assimilates to the place of articulation of a following consonant, and is transcribed as m when realized as such; it is deleted before a syllable beginning in one of h w r y.

Sequences of two vowels in hiatus, whether different or identical in quality, are permitted and common; the only limitation is that /ei/ and /ee/ do not contrast, nor do /ou/ and /oo/. Those sequences are written ei and ou, regardless of what the underlying sequence might be.

I haven't decided yet anything about stress or prosody; for now I'm putting some stress on the first syllable of each word and every other syllable thereafter, except the last syllable (counting each vowel as a separate syllable even when they occur consecutively).

Morphophonology: palatalizing suffixes

A number of suffixes cause palatalization of the last syllable of the stem to which they are added. I note this with an asterisk, as in -*ji. This has two kinds of effects. First, if the vowel of that syllable is a or o, it becomes e: eoko + -*ji = eokeji. Second, if the vowel of that syllable is u, the vowel itself remains the same, but the consonant before it is changed:

Original:	p	k	s	h	g
Palatalized:	pś	j	ś	ś	y

So ahu + -*ji = aśuji. If the consonant that would be affected doesn't appear in the first row of the table, then nothing happens.

Nouns

Each noun belongs to one of four classes. Each class has a different 3rd person pronoun (which is also used as an article) and set of demonstratives. For ease of glossing, I name the classes by roman numerals: class I (pronoun a-), class II (pronoun na-), class III (pronoun wi), and class IV (pronoun kono-). Classes I and II are grouped together as animate, and classes III and IV as inanimate, which will matter shortly for case-marking (and mostly matches the semantics). To indicate class concisely, I will cite nouns followed by a form of the appropriate pronoun: aru for class I, naru for class II, wiru for class III, and konoru for class IV. (The suffix -ru marks a 2s-possessor; it's only here because the pronouns can't be used without a suffix of some sort.)

Nouns inflect for case, number, and the person and number of their possessor. The structure of an inflected noun is stem-(possessor suffix)-(plural suffix)-(case suffix). For examples I will use the animate noun ahu aru "brother" and the inanimate noun eoko wiru "shell." Animate and inanimate nouns mark case differently, but have an unmarked case that doesn't add any suffix, so I'll ignore case marking momentarily while I go over possessor and number marking.

There are just four possessor suffixes:

	Suffix
1s	-*ji
1pl	-*śi
2	-ru
3	-u

The plural suffix is -mo and marks that either the base noun or the possessor is plural (or both). For the 1s suffix -*ji, the possessor is never plural (though -mo is still added if the base noun is plural). A 1pl possessor is of course always plural, but the 1pl possessor suffix -śi is also used as a polite form for 2nd person singular possession. Here are all the possessor/number forms of eoko with their possible glosses:

Form	Gloss
eoko	shell
eokomo	shells
eokeji	my shell
eokejimo	my shells
eokeśi	(polite) your (sng) shell
eokeśimo	our shell; our shells; (polite) your (sng) shells
eokoru	your (sng) shell
eokorumo	your (pl) shell; your (pl) shells; your (sng) shells
eokou	his/her/its shell
eokoumo	their shell; their shells; his/her/its shells

Finally, case marking. I haven't decided on the full list of cases or what their endings are yet, but the important ones are nominative and accusative for animate nouns, and ergative and absolutive for inanimate nouns. Nouns in the nominative and absolutive do not add any suffix (so all the forms of eoko given above are absolutive). This unmarked form is the citation form of the noun. (When we get to verbs we'll see that the overall alignment of the syntax is nominative-accusative; it's just case marking on inanimate nouns that follows an erg-abs pattern.)

Accusative animate nouns add -*ne to the stem, following the number and possessor suffixes. So nominative ahu "brother", accusative aśune. The plural suffix -mo, incidentally, is immune to palatalization: nominative ahumo "brothers", accusative ahumone.

Similarly, ergative inanimate nouns add -to: eokoto "shell (erg)", eokejimoto "my shells (erg)", etc.

[Vilike]

Final n assimilates to the place of articulation of a following consonant, and is transcribed as m when realized as such

So /aŋka/ is written amka?

Nouns inflect for case, number, and the person and number of their possessor. The structure of an inflected noun is stem-(possessor suffix)-(plural suffix)-(case suffix). For examples I will use the animate noun ahu aru "brother" and the inanimate noun eoko wiru "shell." Animate and inanimate nouns mark case differently, but have an unmarked case that doesn't add any suffix, so I'll ignore case marking momentarily while I go over possessor and number marking.

Here it is the pronoun/article thingy which carries the possessor suffix. Can it also carry other inflections while the noun remains bare, like ahu arumone 'your brothers (acc.)'?

[aporaporimos]

Final n assimilates to the place of articulation of a following consonant, and is transcribed as m when realized as such

So /aŋka/ is written amka?

No, sorry, I phrased this poorly. /aNpa/, /aNta/, /aNka/ are written ampa, anta, anka. It's logically inconsistent, I guess, but I'm not a fan of how *agka would look,

Nouns inflect for case, number, and the person and number of their possessor. The structure of an inflected noun is stem-(possessor suffix)-(plural suffix)-(case suffix). For examples I will use the animate noun ahu aru "brother" and the inanimate noun eoko wiru "shell." Animate and inanimate nouns mark case differently, but have an unmarked case that doesn't add any suffix, so I'll ignore case marking momentarily while I go over possessor and number marking.

Here it is the pronoun/article thingy which carries the possessor suffix. Can it also carry other inflections while the noun remains bare, like ahu arumone 'your brothers (acc.)'?

Yep, that'll be the subject of the next post!

[aporaporimos]

The 3rd person pronouns (morphology)

The four 3rd person pronouns (one for each of the four noun classes) inflect much the same as nouns, but with a differences:

• In addition to nominal suffixes, there's a subordinating suffix -ni which comes last. When it follows accusative -ne they fuse as -nei.
• They have to bear at least one of the possessor, case, or subordinating suffixes. Forms with no suffix or no suffix besides plural -mo do not exist.
• They have some irregular forms.

The following forms are sufficient to fully inflect the pronouns:

	I	II	III	IV
stem + ru	aru	naru	wiru	konoru
stem + ji	eji	neji	wiji	koneji
stem + u	au	nau	ou	konou
stem + ni	ani	eni	oni	koni

The first two rows give the regular stem and its palatalized form, to which the other possessor/number/case suffixes can be added; the second two rows have all the irregular combinations.

The pronouns as determiners (syntax)

These pronouns can also act as a determiners, similarly to a definite article. What it means to be a determiner in this language is that it can bear the inflection for a noun, which is left completely unmarked:

ahu

brother

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

The noun and its determiner don't have to be adjacent in the sentence. It's completely normal to have a sentence like this:

ahu

brother

reusasumo

see-1sSBJ-3plOBJ

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

meaning "I see your brothers."

[Vilike]

• In addition to nominal suffixes, there's a subordinating suffix -ni which comes last. When it follows accusative -ne they fuse as -nei.
• They have to bear at least one of the possessor, case, or subordinating suffixes. Forms with no suffix or no suffix besides plural -mo do not exist.
• They have some irregular forms.

What are examples of use of this subordinating suffix? Is it to distinguish restrictive I saw the house that you bought (I have to distinguish it from other houses e.g. that you rented) vs nonrestrictive I saw the house which you bought (you happen to have bought that house, that's no essential info)? Is it for the head of all relative clauses? For the phrase-final element of the relative clause itself? Am I reaching too much?

If bare articles are not possible, how are non-possessed nominative/absolutive nouns determined, as in The man is standing here? Are the semantics a bit less like English than I assumed based on the moniker "article"?

So far I like that. Your descriptions are always clear while allowing for further questions.

[bradrn]

• In addition to nominal suffixes, there's a subordinating suffix -ni which comes last. When it follows accusative -ne they fuse as -nei.
• They have to bear at least one of the possessor, case, or subordinating suffixes. Forms with no suffix or no suffix besides plural -mo do not exist.
• They have some irregular forms.

What are examples of use of this subordinating suffix? Is it to distinguish restrictive I saw the house that you bought (I have to distinguish it from other houses e.g. that you rented) vs nonrestrictive I saw the house which you bought (you happen to have bought that house, that's no essential info)?

I’m pretty sure those are both restrictive… nonrestrictive would be I saw the house, which you bought.

[Torco]

ahu

brother

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

The noun and its determiner don't have to be adjacent in the sentence. It's completely normal to have a sentence like this:

ahu

brother

reusasumo

see-1sSBJ-3plOBJ

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

meaning "I see your brothers."

Oooooh, I like that! I think I'll steal it.

[Vardelm]

Oooooh, I like that! I think I'll steal it.

It's "creatively borrow"!!!!

[aporaporimos]

• In addition to nominal suffixes, there's a subordinating suffix -ni which comes last. When it follows accusative -ne they fuse as -nei.
• They have to bear at least one of the possessor, case, or subordinating suffixes. Forms with no suffix or no suffix besides plural -mo do not exist.
• They have some irregular forms.

What are examples of use of this subordinating suffix? Is it to distinguish restrictive I saw the house that you bought (I have to distinguish it from other houses e.g. that you rented) vs nonrestrictive I saw the house which you bought (you happen to have bought that house, that's no essential info)? Is it for the head of all relative clauses? For the phrase-final element of the relative clause itself? Am I reaching too much?

Right now I have two constructions using the -ni suffix. The first is a relative clause:

gaatu

person

ani

3s.I-SUBORD

reusasuu.

see.1sSBJ-3sOBJ

The guy who I see.

The grammatical role of the antecedent in the relative clause is inferred from context. In this case it's pretty clear as the verb only has one third-person argument. (I'll explain the verb conjugation in the next post, by the way, so you have to take it on faith only a little longer.) The phrase ani reusasuu is a fixed unit: it can't be reordered or divided by a word that doesn't belong the relative clause. (I'll probably lighten this restriction as I flesh out the syntax more, but that's the rule for now.) But the antecedent gaatu can have any position vis-a-vis the relative clause, just like the simple case when the pronoun is used as a determiner. You can also omit the explicit antecedent and just say ani reusasuu, meaning "the one who I saw." As this gloss suggests, relative clauses formed using a pronoun + -ni are usually to be interpreted as restrictive (whether or not there is an explicit antecedent).

The second construction is possessive:

ahu

brother

auni

3s.I-3sPOSS-SUBORD

Aośi

Aośi

Aośi's brother.

The pronoun is marked with the appropriate possessor suffix, and the possessor follows it in the unmarked case (nominative/absolutive). Most of what I said about relative clauses applies here too: the words auni Aośi are a fixed unit but can appear anywhere relative to the antecedent, which can also be omitted.

If bare articles are not possible, how are non-possessed nominative/absolutive nouns determined, as in The man is standing here? Are the semantics a bit less like English than I assumed based on the moniker "article"?

So far I like that. Your descriptions are always clear while allowing for further questions.

Yeah, the semantics are different, but I haven't worked out the details yet. It's good for me that you're asking questions and making me think things through! The use of the pronoun as a determiner marks definiteness in a similar way to the English definite article, but in the grammatical contexts where it can't be used, definiteness simply isn't marked one way or the other (at least, not morphologically; word order may be able to help, but I haven't worked out how word order works either).

ahu

brother

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

The noun and its determiner don't have to be adjacent in the sentence. It's completely normal to have a sentence like this:

ahu

brother

reusasumo

see-1sSBJ-3plOBJ

arumone

3s.I-2sPOSS-PL-ACC

meaning "I see your brothers."

Oooooh, I like that! I think I'll steal it.

Be my guest!

[aporaporimos]

Verb conjugation

Verbs agree with with their subject and object in person and number. They inflect for tense/aspect and some kind of voice, but my notes on all that are rather messy... so for now, while I work on straightening all that out, we'll stick with forms unmarked for tense/aspect. The meaning of this form is actually most often past perfective, so I'll be rendering it with the English simple past.

The object agreement suffixes are identical to the possessive markers on nouns (with one extra one, as we'll see). The subject agreement suffixes are different and partly unrelated:

	Sbj.	Obj.
1s	-su	-ji
2s	-u	-ru, -śi
3s	-*mi, -*n-	-u
1pl	-ośi	-śimo
2pl	-oru	-rumo
3pl	-*mei	-umo

As with the possessive suffixes, singular -śi is a more polite 2s reference than -ru.

The subject suffixes are followed by the object suffixes; there's a bit of fusion with the 3rd person suffixes, but nothing that exciting. The last vowel of the root is generally deleted before those suffixes that begin in a vowel. Here's a conjugation of the transitive verb reusa "see" (condensing the forms that differ only by plural -mo):

More: show

subject/object[	1s	2s/pl	3s	2s/1pl	3pl
1s	–	reusasuru(mo)	reusasuu	reusasuśi(mo)	reusasumo
2s	reusuji	–	reusuu	reusuśi(mo)	reusumo
3s	reusenji	reuseru(mo)	reusemu	reusenśi(mo)	reusemmo
1pl	–	reusośiru(mo)	reusośu	–	reusośumo
2s	reusoruji	–	reusoruu	reusoruśimo	reusorumo
3s	reusemeiji	reusemeiru(mo)	reusemeu	reusemeiśi(mo)	reusemeumo

Ditransitive verbs such as aita "give" can agree with two objects: the direct object, which is marked first, and the indirect object, which is marked second. Plural -mo is omitted after the first object. For these verbs, there is a secondary 3rd person object marker, -ku. The two object suffixes have to fall in the following order:
u < śi < ji < ru < ku
So we have forms like aitasuuru "I gave it to you," aitasuuku "I gave it to him/her," aitujiku "you give me to him/her."