A few notes on Kangrim

[Ares Land]

Kangrim is the oldest attested written language in my Middle Sea setting; it is the language of scripture, magic and theology. The existing corpus is big on religious myth and bronze-age city-states accounting.

Kangrim is a member of the Tarandim language family, and is also known as hieratic Tarandim. The native name is ṭaḥandim ṭakaŋri priestly, hieratic Tarandim or just kaŋrim, priestly, hieratic.

A sample sentence:
Ḥoqen šaʾkoŋbona ḥeʾAwaw ʾAqran ʾamondim, mor šaʾkeŋerbenen.
ḥo-qen šaʾ-koŋbon-a ḥeʾAwaw ʾAqran ʾa-mondim/ mor šaʾkeŋ<er>ben-en.
red-king 3p.P-decree-PRF DEF-source- ʾAqran 3p.POSS-wisdom / human 3p-<JUSS>decree[PL]-3p.A
The Source-ʾAqran, in His wisdom, appointed Red Kings to rule mankind.

This sentence provides examples of some of the key characteristic of the language:

• It's active-stative
• OVS word order is fairly common - more accurently, the unmarked order is patient-verb-agent
• It is head-marking; note the patient šaʾ- and agent -an markers on šaʾkeŋerbenan, or the posessive marker ʾa on ʾamondim, His wisdom.
• It makes use of both vowel-alternation: koŋbon, he decrees > keŋbenen, they decree (with every back vowel changing to e) and infixing: keŋbenen, they decree > keŋerbenen, let them decree.

Verbs.

Stative verbs

Some verbs are inherently stative, that is intransitive and marked with patient markers:

raramo šaʾsono bo
monster 3p.P-sleep-HAB past.
The monsters were sleeping then.

This class includes, but is not limited to, adjectives:
samoḥ
1s.A-great
I am great.

Active verbs

Active verbs are ambitransitive, and marked for agent and (if present) patient:

ḥdakwan
1s.AGT-judge<HAB>
I judge; I am a judge.

Taqse ʾaqeri šaʾḥdakwan
Taqse 3s.POSS-people 3p.P-1s.A-judge[HAB]
I judge the people of Taqse.

In the singular, the agent is marked with a prefix:
ḥ-qo
1s.A-eat
I eat
aš-qo
2s.A-eat
you eat

The 3rd person singular agent is usually unmarked:
šaʾdakan
šaʾ-∅-dakan
3p.PAT-3s.AGT-judge
He judges them.

The 3rd person singular prefix wa- marks a break in the animacy hierarchy:

Wo leŋse ṭɔbqolanim šaʾwadeqekon ḥowo.
And time-this cattle-eat<HAB>-3p-REL 3p-3s-judge<PREDIC> DEF-cow.
And in those days the cows will judge those who ate them.

Plural forms that include the listener are marked with a prefix too:
waʾ-qo
1p.A-eat
we eat
šaʾ-qo
2p.A-eat
you eat

But exclusive plural (exclusive 'we', 'they') is marked with a prefix (for first person only), vowel alteration and a suffix.

waʾ-qel-en
1p.A-eat[PL]-PL
qelen
eat[PL]-PL.

I call this kind of vowel alteration e-gradation. The rule is fairly simple, every back vowel changes to e-:
qol > qelen
eat > eat[PL]-3p.A
wonaḥ > wenaḥen
study > study[PL]-3p.A
koŋbon > koŋbonen
decree > decree[PL]-3p.A

Some classes of verbs are immune to this change and mark exclusive plural with a suffix alone:
koŋri > koŋrilen
hallow > hallow-3p.A


Patient marking
The patient is also marked with a prefix:

sason
1s.P-sleep
I'm sleeping

There's no inclusive/exclusive distinction in the plural:
waʾson
1p.P-sleep
we sleep
raʾson
2p.P-sleep
you(pl) sleep.

ʾason
3s.P-sleep
he sleeps

Third person inanimates patients must be marked with the appropriate classifier (out of about twenty):
ḥeʾawe loŋṭara, ḥeteren dowasa
DEF-day TIME-count-PERF / the-wall BODY-build-PERF
The days are counted / the walls are built

Aspect
Simple forms, are neither perfective nor imperfective:
weṭaḥ
write
he writes, he’s writing.

The perfect is marked with -a:
weṭaḥa
weṭa-ḥa
write-PRF
, he has written or -ḥa:
qoḥa
qo-ḥa
write-PRF
he has eaten.

The meaning is experiential or resultative:
ḥweṭaḥa ŋ-ašwornaḥ
1s-write-PRF therefore-2s.study<JUSS>
I have written (it) so that you study (it) / I have written so study (it)
raleša.
father-PERF.
He has children.

Ṭlemmo newerna, wo šaʾqen šaʾkoŋrilena ḥeʾAwawʾAqran ʾade.
Tlemmo inside-3p.A-PRF / and 3p-king 3p-make.holy-3p-PRF DEF-source-Aqran 3s-give.
They had entered Ṭlemmo, and they sanctified their king in the eyes of the Source-Aqran.

The perfect of stative verbs is a bit more difficult; but to put it shortly, it implies that the described state is the result of a previous action:
Wo ḥoŋammu dowiḥa dolema
and DEF-palace BODY-blue-PERF body-gold-PERF
And the palace was (painted) blue and (its walls were plated with) gold.

The habitual is marked by vowel alternation. Time back vowels are changed to o or ɔ, which I call o-gradation
ḥweṭaḥ > ḥwɔṭaḥ
1s.A-write > 1s.A-write<HAB>
I write > I am a scribe

Some classes of verbs mark the habitual with a suffix -o in the singular
qom > qomo
take > take-HAB
he takes, he always takes

But o-gradation is used in the plural:
qemen > qoman
take[PL]-3p.A > take[HAB]-3p.A

Monosyllabic verbs ending in a vowel use a suffix -ṭo instead:
qoṭo šondem
eat-HAB noon-ADV
He always eats at noon.

But, again, in the exclusive plural vowel gradation is used instead:
qelen šondem > qolan šondem.
eat[PL]-3p.A noon-ADV > eat[HABIT]-3p noon-ADV

The stative habitual conveys the implicature that the described state is essential, not episodic:
dolem > dolom
BODY-gold > BODY-gold[HAB]
it’s (plated with) gold > it’s made of gold.
ʾaṭame > ʾaṭamo
3s.P-quiet > 3s.P-quiet[HAB]
he’s quiet > he’s a quiet one.

Mood

The intensive mood is marked by reduplication.
For monosyllabic roots, the first consonant is reduplicated:
qo > eqqo
eat > <INTENS>eat
was > ewwas
Build > <INTENS>eat

In both cases, an epenthetic e- is added to break an illegal cluster, which disappears once prefixes are added:
ḥaqo > ḥaqqo
ḥawas > ḥawwas.

But, when the verb root is polysyllabic, the second consonant is doubled instead
weṭaḥ > weṭṭaḥ
An epenthetic -e- is added as needed:
koŋri > koŋerri

Usage differs sharply between active and stative verbs.
The active intensive works as an imperfective:

weṭṭaḥ
<INTENS>write
I'm writing

But the stative intensive is a comparative or superlative:

ʾamoḥ > ʾammoḥ
great > greatest
Ṭlemmo don Taqse ʾallem
Ṭlemmo BODY-hit Taqse 3s-<INTENS>gold
There is more gold in Taqse than in Ṭlemmo.

The hypothetical is formed by inserting -m, following the same formula, before the first or the second consonant:

emqo
<HYP>eat
aybe he eats
wemṭaḥ
<HYP>write
maybe he writes

qaŋemlom
CUP-<HYP>gold[HAB]
maybe it’s a golden cup.

The future follows the same formula with an infix -q-:
weqṭaḥ
<FUT>write
he shall write

The jussive uses the infix -r-.
It's used for commands, curses, and wishes:
tosoš doʔarrem
2s.POSS-house BODY-<JUSS>burn<JUSS>
May your house burn down.

samwor saromerbaḥ
1s-<HYP>wrong 1s.P-<JUSS>dead
May I die if I am unfaithful

ḥonrowun aʾašerror
DEF-adulterer 3s.P-2s.A-<JUSS>kill
Thou shall kill the adulterer

loŋeršun
TIME-<JUSS>pleasant.
Have a nice day.

[mèþru]

So is this supposed to be some Fantasy Counterpart Culture to Ancient Egypt?

[Ares Land]

It's more like the equivalent of Mesopotamia in that setting. Or Israel/Judah for the religious overtones.

Tarande was more like Mespotomia or Greece than Egypt: that is, a set of city states / kingdoms sometimes united into an empire; whereas Egypt remained more or less monolithic after the initial unification.

As for the language itself, it has always remained in use, at least for scripture or prayer; so it would be sort of counterpart to Hebrew, or Aramaic.

I did borrow the hieratic/demotic distinction from Egypt, though!

[Vardelm]

it is the language of scripture, magic and theology.

This is as far as I've gotten, and you have me already.

I have a final project for spring semester due Thursday. I definitely want to take a closer look at this when there's a chance.

(P.S. - I did skim a little farther!)

[Ares Land]

Thank you! The topic is about two years old, and the language has changed a great deal already (there are a few glimpses of it in the Middle Seas thread)

[sasasha]

The perfect of stative verbs is a bit more difficult; but to put it shortly, it implies that the described state is the result of a previous action:
Wo ḥoŋammu dowiḥa dolema
and DEF-palace BODY-blue-PERF body-gold-PERF
And the palace was (painted) blue and (its walls were plated with) gold.

I really like this idea. Is this inspired by any natlangs? Very elegant, either way.

I find this atmospheric and thoughtful work and I am interested to see more.

[Zju]

The perfect of stative verbs is a bit more difficult; but to put it shortly, it implies that the described state is the result of a previous action:
Wo ḥoŋammu dowiḥa dolema
and DEF-palace BODY-blue-PERF body-gold-PERF
And the palace was (painted) blue and (its walls were plated with) gold.

What's the difference between BODY and body in the gloss? Given that walls and plated are implied, is this a set expression or something?

[Ares Land]

The perfect of stative verbs is a bit more difficult; but to put it shortly, it implies that the described state is the result of a previous action:
Wo ḥoŋammu dowiḥa dolema
and DEF-palace BODY-blue-PERF body-gold-PERF
And the palace was (painted) blue and (its walls were plated with) gold.

I really like this idea. Is this inspired by any natlangs? Very elegant, either way.

I find this atmospheric and thoughtful work and I am interested to see more.

Thanks! The funny thing is, that post was revived almost at the minute when I was working out a writing system for it...
I believe I got the idea from some English forms, like blue > blued, or gold > golden (I know the -en isn't etymologically a participle ending, but what if it was?)

What's the difference between BODY and body in the gloss? Given that walls and plated are implied, is this a set expression or something?

There's no difference -- that was an error... In both case it's a nouns class agreement marker ('palace' is in the BODY class).

Hmm. I should put up a grammatical sketch. That version is awfully out of date. The new version is in flux at the moment, but that sample sentence is now more like this:

we he ŋammoťɔr ťɔšɔwera ťɔðaŋa
and DEF palace-BODY BODY-blue-PERF BODY-gold-PERF

I've called the language 'Old Hieratic' in the Middle Seas thread; I believe the native name is now Ušim Quaŋeram.

[sasasha]

I really like this idea. Is this inspired by any natlangs? Very elegant, either way.

I find this atmospheric and thoughtful work and I am interested to see more.

Thanks! The funny thing is, that post was revived almost at the minute when I was working out a writing system for it...
I believe I got the idea from some English forms, like blue > blued, or gold > golden (I know the -en isn't etymologically a participle ending, but what if it was?)

Oh yeah. D'oh. I think you said the other day (or was it Ser?) how easy it is to miss features of your own native language.

[Kuchigakatai]

I believe I got the idea from some English forms, like blue > blued, or gold > golden (I know the -en isn't etymologically a participle ending, but what if it was?)

Hey, the use of the past participle ending is attested in Latin and Romance! Even if it's true it often loses the resultative meaning (Spanish anaranjado/a simply means 'orange [thing]' to me, not 'turned into sth like an orange'). French doré(e) 'tanned', or idiomatically 'golden', is a participle of dorer 'to tan', historically derived from dē aurō 'made of gold' in an unusual path (people derived doro dorare from d'oro...). Latin has aurātus 'covered/burnished with gold, gilded', and note the word is derived straight from the noun, there's no verb like *aurō (*aurāre). In Greek there's the verb χρῡσόω 'to gild', and the entry for it in the Liddell-Scott-Jones dictionary (url=http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi- ... :1:989.LSJ) mentions the passive participles χρῡσούμενος (present TAM) and κεχρῡσωμένος (perfect TAM), which are adjectives.

Oh yeah. D'oh. I think you said the other day (or was it Ser?) how easy it is to miss features of your own native language.

My observation (or complaint...) is a bit larger. It was that conlangers sometimes only pay attention to things when they receive a name and are explicitly talked about. They read that English and Spanish handle complement clauses differently depending on the verb, with the uses being classifiable into semantic categories, and think nothing of it ("I want you to smile", "I think (that) you'll smile", "I don't recommend that you smile"). They read that in many instances English uses zero-derivation to form idiomatic transitives ("she fired her", "she smokes cigarettes", "she's smoking the meat [to preserve it]"), and that otherwise the literal meaning is handled with syntactic constructions ("she put her on fire, set her on fire", "she put the smoke under the meat, exposed the meat to the smoke"), and think nothing of it.

The right approach IMO would be to ask yourself how these things could be narrowed or expanded in conlangs, or treated philosophically with interesting/funny/weird distinctions.