I've been struggling with coming up with a good case system for my nouns for a few years now. I'm just not good at coming up with morphemes. I'll often make a lot of headway into pushing through this problem but then some other aspect of the language gets in my way.
A lot of the trouble I have is that I'm just never sufficiently imaginative with sound changes. I know enough to make some interesting quirks, but not enough to create an language family (or family of dialects) or PIE-level deep morphological history. I really wish I could organically generate a case system from scratch but it's just beyond my current knowledge and capabilities, so I just stick to generating ex nihilo and working backwards really shallowly. Then the other issue is i'll get paranoid that my morphemes are too random to mesh well or too patterning (e.g. avoiding certain vowels or consonants in affixes because they're used by other affixes) or transparent.
Anyways, I've been looking at a variety of languages for inspiration for the aesthetic I'm looking for ("ancient sophisticated language spoken by desert-dwelling people of a vast empire"), namely Old Persian, Akkadian, Hittite, Hurrian, and Kassite.
Lately I've felt a sudden burst of inspiration and I have been coming up with a noun system I'm rather satisfied with. However, there are still grammatical categories/affixes that I'm having troubles coming up with that fit elegantly with what I have while also aligning with my goals, so I am asking for help/consultation with my noun system to really make it satisfying.
TL; DR I need help/people to bounce ideas off of because my own mind is working against me
What I have
So my current iteration of Vrkhazhian makes a major distinction between syntactic (or adverbal) cases and attributive (or adnominal) cases. Nouns declined in syntactic cases do not modify other nouns and they relate to the verb. Nouns in attributive cases modify nouns or verbs and nouns modified by them must be placed in the construct state (e.g. aggar tālaḫ "gate-CONS city-GEN"). Vrkhazhians do not have adjectives and thus the only way to describe things or actions is with nouns in attributive cases or verbs taking a special form that indicates a relative clause (e.g. rābim maḫḫatti "a man who rules; a ruling man" vs rābim yāsas maḫdatti "a man rules the land"). Ideally syntactic cases should be older and more opaque (i.e. more irregular or syncretic) than attributive cases.
The Cases are as follows:
Syntactic Cases
Nominative (Subject of the verb)
Vocative (Direct adressee, considered a special form of the nominative)
Accusative (Primary object of the verb)
Instrumental (Secondary object of the verb)
Regarding the accusative and instrumental, Vrkhazhian is a secundative language)
Attributive Cases
Genitive (Expresses inalienable possession and composition)
Ablative (Expresses alienable possession and origin, I took this idea of using the ablative to express alienable possession from a sentence example of Kayardild about a raft)
Equalitive (Expresses likeness to another noun, e.g. like X, X-like, X-ly)
Ornative (Expresses the possession of a quality denoted by the noun, e.g. X-ful, X-having)
Privative (Expresses the lack of a quality denoted by a noun, e.g X-less)
Another thing is that Vrkhazhian has a mora-based syllable weight structure and this weight determines the stress that nouns receive. Light syllables are CV, heavy syllables are CVV or CVC, and heavy syllables are CVVC. Stress always falls on the heaviest non-final syllable, unless the final syllable is super heavy, in which case stress will fall on that syllable.
Relatedly, Vrkhazhian prefers alternating stress patterns/rhythms (that is, words are preferably either iambic or trochaic) and roots and morphemes will try to change to accommodate this, such as shortening or lengthening a vowel or consonant. An example of this is the word igras "gate" whose construct state form is aggar which resulted from an earlier form ágar (stress wanted to stay on the first syllable, so the medial consonant geminated to "support its weight"). Stress-based lengthening is also evident in nouns like kabbum "queen" (< kábum) and nārum 'mother" (< nárum).
I like what I have come up with regards to this, however, I sometimes feel like it limits me sometimes when coming up with morphemes or when dealing with superheavy syllables which I always feel to be highly unstable, especially next to light syllables or word-finally. Oh and the other limitation is that weak consonants like /j w h/ elide in almost all environments, resulting in a lot of vowel coalescence and lengthening of preceding syllables (a phenomenon I call "moraic preservation").
Table of Cases
FEM = feminine, MASC = masculine, NAN = neuter animate, NIN = neuter inanimate
Code: Select all
|===================== Status Rectus ===================|
| FEM | MASC | NAN | NIN |
|NOM: -um / -āwa | -im / -āya | -am / -aḫ | -aš / -āša |
|VOC: -ū / -āwa | -ī / -āya | -am / -aḫ | -aš / -āša |
|ACC: -uš / -ūša | -iš / -īša | -aš / -āša | -aš / -āša |
|INS: -un / -ūna | -in / -īna | -an / -āna | -an / -āna |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|GEN: | | -aḫ / -āḫa | -aḫ / -āḫa |
|ABL: | | -ar / -āra | -ar / -āra |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|EQU: | | | |
|ORN: | | | |
|PRV: | | | |
Code: Select all
|================== Status Constructus =================|
| FEM | MASC | NAN | NIN |
|DIR: -u / -ū | -i / -ī | -a / -ā | -a / -ā |
|OBL: -u / -ū | -i / -ī | -a / -ā | -a / -ā |
|=======================================================|
Anyways, as you can see I'm still struggling to come up with endings for the genitive and ablative for masculine and feminine nouns, as well as the equative, ornative, and privative cases for all nouns (though I might make them prefixes). Sure, I could just do -i-ḫ and -u-ḫ and -i-r and -u-r like the neuter cases, but I'm already concerned that my case system is too formulaic and regular since most of my morphemes already just boil down to -vC and -v̄Ca. That's the other thing, I'm also too concerned about the stability of the singular/plural distinction since they're simply a distinction in length without any additional featural differences such as quality or tone. And I have most of the affixes ending in -a for the similar concern over stability in closed syllables.
Anyways, if you read this far I thank you and for any help you may offer.